Last sentence is priceless -

In other words Pelosi is admitting that he initiative is increasing
the use of electricity and the hauling distance to the composting
facility and then the program can be reintroduced at a lower cost. How
is she intending to lower the cost - use cheaper electricity and find a
closer composting facility? No explanation offered as usual from her.

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/27/3355436/the-buzz-lungren-trashes-pelosis.html

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

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

Disney's EPCOT and the Dream of Freedom

Disney's EPCOT and the Dream of Freedom
Thursday, January 27, 2011
by Aaron Everitt

I recently took a trip to Orlando, Florida, for the International Home Builders' Show. After touring the floor and having my suspicions about the industry's issues of corruption and collusion verified, I decided I would invest some time in a different, more inspiring place -- Disney World. I love the Disney theme parks. They are creative, fun, and have some of the best-executed designs anywhere in the world.

At one point during the excursion in the theme parks, I had the chance to go to a new attraction that is a museum about Disney's Florida project. There is a fascinating video of Walt Disney speaking about the project one month before his death. It was a political video that had been used to persuade the Florida legislature to allow Disney to construct Disney World. It was also intended to persuade the state government that because of the size and scale of the project the company would need to receive some relief from code requirements and to establish the Reedy Creek District, an autonomous pseudo government that oversees the entire Disney property. The district gave Disney authority over its own property and relief from significant oversight by the state government in Florida.

In the video, Walt Disney spoke of his dreams for EPCOT (the Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow).

EPCOT will be an experimental prototype community of tomorrow that will take its cue from the new ideas and new technologies that are now emerging from the creative centers of American industry. It will be a community of tomorrow that will never be completed, but will always be introducing and testing and demonstrating new materials and systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise.

I thought that Walt's saying "EPCOT will always be a showcase … of American free enterprise" was a nice line, and given his propensity for being avuncular it came across as quite folksy; it harked back to a bygone era. It stirred in me a fondness for the past and a thought that there must have been an era sometime in America when people spoke openly of profit and free enterprise. I felt the urge to wonder if there was more to our history than the simple statement that "we've always been at war with the capitalists." Perhaps there was a time when we were freer, when it was copacetic for businesspeople to celebrate free enterprise.

Spending a few days in the Disney World parks and seeing the full expression of creativity, I began to wonder if, even though EPCOT was never implemented in the form that Walt Disney had envisioned, this place wasn't nonetheless accomplishing that altruistic goal of showcasing American free enterprise. Because of the early work that the Walt Disney Company did to establish their own pseudo-government entity, it appeared there was more flexibility in how they could work and design on the Florida property than in the heavily regulated field of commercial development within the confines of a city or town jurisdiction.

I thought for a moment about my travels to this showcase of free enterprise and wondered just how much of the free-enterprise system was left in America. I began to recall all of the elements of my travel and realized quite quickly that, while we may hold out the idea of being a free society, government and its regulators have their mitts on just about every facet of our lives.

I remembered that it had started with my Greek yogurt the morning I left -- I was able to see that what I was consuming had no fat and 20 grams of protein. This information had been nicely printed on the back label of the product, a label mandated and standardized by the FDA.

As I kissed my wife goodbye and put on my coat, I noticed that it had a mandatory materials label.

I locked the front door behind me, and even that was tested by an EPA-approved method that allowed me to receive my certificate of occupancy to live in the home -- because my home energy rating had been acceptable to the state in which I live.

I scraped the ice off my window to find a federally mandated vehicle identification number and emission sticker in the window. The government had required my car manufacturer to provide the label so that they could track my vehicle, license it, and potentially reveal my private information.

The emissions sticker was there to verify that the car had originally been built to CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards and that my emission levels were at a tolerable level for state licensing.

I sat down and put on my safety belt, a required part of the driving experience in my state.

I exited onto Interstate 25 on a federally-mandated exit radius and drove the state-mandated speed limit to the government-owned airport on a highway designed to federally-mandated standards.

Along the way, I stopped to purchase gasoline that had been sanctioned clean enough by the state, through a pump tested by the state, with a credit card that is subject to federal regulations that are ever on the rise.

I parked my car and headed inside to take my place in the TSA's Fourth Amendment-free zone. I was subjected to a warrantless search and seizure. I was treated as the common criminal I am not and asked to remove my shoes, belt, and any other item that would have been required for my entrance into any café in the airport ­ another state regulation from the health department, I might add.

I proceeded through the checkpoint and down to the terminal. The PA announcer reminded me that the Department of Homeland Security had raised the terror alert in 2006 to "orange."

Once on the plane I spent the first few minutes of the taxi being reminded of all the federal regulations I had the chance to violate in this sardine can in the air.

I was shown how to put on a seat belt in a safety demonstration required by the FAA. We were told about the federal violations of smoking a cigarette, tampering with a smoke detector, and sitting in an exit row if under the age of 16. I was also told of the mandate that I had to refrain from using my electronic devices for the first ten minutes of flight.

After we were finally in the air, I was reminded that gathering at the front of the airplane waiting for one of the two bathrooms allotted for 300 people was a federal offense against a federal regulation.

Once in Orlando, I was picked up by my traveling companions and whisked away to the hotel. I crossed the street intersection using a federally mandated ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) handicap ramp with federally standardized truncated domes, climbed onto the federally mandated, state-inspected elevator in the building, and went to our room. Once there, the strange layout of the bathroom left three of us to use one awkwardly located toilet, because our room was helping the building meet its compliance to ADA standards.

We traveled to one of our favorite and most inspiring hotels, Disney's Wilderness Lodge, and caught a bus there at the facility. It smoothly lowered to comply with the ADA and let us on.

Once in Disney World, I saw a crane that was working on Cinderella's castle in Fantasyland. I also saw several signs that Disney was adhering to the demands of OSHA (the Occupational Safety Hazard Administration). OSHA requires a construction fence, the wearing of mandated hard hats, and the use of awkward safety ropes -- none of which was contributing to the illusion of Fantasyland or actually making workers safer.

The silt fence that surrounded the construction site was mandated by the EPA to help keep the water (which Disney uses for recreation and to derive a premium on their properties) clean.

We made our way to Space Mountain, a high-speed roller coaster that is entirely in the dark. By "entirely" I mean with the exception of the government-mandated exit signs that distract from the overall theme and scene of a futuristic rocket in space. It struck me as odd that it would be required that I know where the exits were at all times as I was strapped into my harness, blazing past them at 20 miles per hour.

I needed a bathroom break and noticed that the toilet I used had a federally-mandated "gallons per flush" tattooed on the top of the porcelain. I thought it was interesting that Disney has no legal ability to make an analysis of the most efficient toilet and use a different kind if they choose. I am certain that they would be the best judge of what toilet makes their bottom line better. If more water makes toilets clog less, and their paid staff has to clean up the ultimate disaster less frequently, can't Disney be the judge of that efficiency? After all, I know through attending several Disney Institute business seminars that the company spends millions of dollars on efficiency studies and monitoring each year in order to save themselves millions in the future.

Finally it was time to retire to our hotel, and so we embarked on a trip on the monorail, a futuristic mode of transportation that Walt Disney helped create. When I was younger, I loved riding in the front car along with the pilot, as he explained the ins and outs of driving this sleek method of transport. This time again, the door to the cockpit was open, and we made our way to the front. We asked if we could ride with the pilot in the front car that was designed for passengers, and we were politely denied entrance.

When we probed further, we found that the federal government had reclassified the monorail from a theme-park attraction to a mode of transportation, and now it fell under the watchful eye of the TSA. It, like many other forms of transportation, was now subject to all the rules that were passed in a frenzy after the 9/11 tragedies. The TSA is now spending effort and energy monitoring the monorail at Disney World, the very safest method of transportation, which has had one fatal accident in over 50 years of service.

The sheer intellectual dishonesty of the state, which has concluded that Disney has no private interest in monitoring its own safety at as high a level as possible, indicates to me that the rules are not about keeping people safe. There are significant financial and aesthetic incentives for Disney to make sure that the water that surrounds its properties is clean and that the environment that it has billions of dollars invested in remains as pristine and wonderful as it can, so that Disney can continue to derive the highest possible dollar for its free-enterprise endeavor.

It is obvious that Disney has a high stake in seeing that the workers who work for them are safe and free of situations that might cause any litigious heartache. In the end, all this makes one aware that none of the current system of regulation is about the actual safety or benefit of the people. It becomes crystal clear that government's goal is maintaining as much power as possible over people and free enterprise.

If one thinks further about the confiscation of money through all of the additional taxes levied upon each of the events in my trip, the control over our lives by the bureaucrats is astounding. Walt Disney maintained his desire to see the free-enterprise system of America always promoted as the solution to issues that societies face. The unfortunate reality of the present is that Disney World is becoming more of a museum about a bygone era than a workable showcase for the future. The inventiveness and creativity has become invested in finding ways around the government codes the company is required to meet instead of ways to promote free enterprise.



Aaron Everitt is a home builder in Northern Colorado. He is active in libertarian politics.

http://mises.org/daily/4991

No U-Turns on the Road to Serfdom?

No U-Turns on the Road to Serfdom?
The "anti-terrorist" witch-hunt and the future of America
by Justin Raimondo, January 24, 2011

In a series of raids last year, the FBI raided the homes and offices of antiwar activists in Minneapolis, North Carolina, Chicago, and California. They seized boxes of materials, cell phones, documents, and other private property, and issued subpoenas to a number of individuals, 24 at last count, demanding their appearance before a federal grand jury. The focus of this fishing expedition is ostensibly the "solidarity work" engaged in by the Antiwar Committee of Minneapolis, and sympathizing organizations, in Palestine and Columbia, but the history of police repression against these groups and individuals goes back years, specifically involving their work in organizing a march on the Republican and Democratic national conventions: in the Twin Cities, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," which planned the protest, was of particular interest to the authorities. The local cops, working with the FBI, actively worked to recruit informants, and – using information gleaned from these infiltrators – conducted a weekend-long reign of terror in early September 2008, breaking down doors, manhandling protesters – including journalists – and rounding up dissidents in anticipation of violence they claim "might" have occurred had the authorities not acted.

In reality, of course, the RNC Welcoming Committee was engaged in perfectly legal activities protected by the First Amendment, and there was no evidence presented that violence was forthcoming – but, under the terms of the post-9/11 legislative assault on the Constitution that culminated in the "Patriot" Act and subsequent acts of Congress, the First Amendment is no longer operative in this country.

If you're an Influential Person, however, you can get away with almost anything. Let's say you're Michael Mukasey, Bush's former Attorney General, who recently traveled to Paris with Tom Ridge, former Homeland Security chieftain, Fran Townsend, President Bush's former chief adviser on Homeland Security and counter-terrorism, and former New York City mayor and spectacularly failed presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, to endorse the continuing effort by the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK), or People's Mujahideen, to get off the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.

MEK is an Iranian Marxist -turned- neocon Iranian exile group, with a weirdly cultish orientation, that has murdered US diplomatic personnel and was instrumental in the 1979 takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. They lost out in the power struggle following the overthrow of the Shah, and fled to Iraq, where they were succored by Saddam Hussein: MEK brigades fought on the Iraqi side during the Iraq-Iran war, and carried out terrorist acts against civilian targets – a strategy they would very much like to carry out with US assistance today.

Over one-hundred members of Congress, who recently signed an appeal to the State Department to take MEK off the terrorist list, are angling for this, and the prominence of the US delegation to the Paris confab is part of the continuing campaign by the War Party to legalize these somewhat nutty cultists – whose unquestioned leader, Maryam Rajavi, has already declared herself the "President" of Iran – and get the group funding. The idea is to use them, as the Bush team used the Iraqi National Congress, to get "intelligence" – of similar quality – to gin up another war, this time against Tehran.

Can you imagine the outcry in official Washington if the FBI invaded the offices of Mukasey, Giuliani, Ridge, and Townsend, searching for evidence of "material support" to a foreign terrorist organization – the same crime the Minneapolis defendants are potentially facing? Such laws, however, aren't written in order to target such people: it's only those without power who suffer such a fate. If you're in any way associated with WikiLeaks, government agents are quick to stop you at the airport, question you, and seize your laptop, but if you're Rudy the Lout, on the way back from a tête-à-tête with terrorists – the good kind, rest assured – you're escorted to the VIP line and whisked through security.

Civil libertarians may cavil that this disparate treatment is evidence of selective prosecution, but selectivity is what the post-9/11 assault on the Bill of Rights is all about. Of course the government has the legal "right," these days, to read everyone's email, break into our private property, and collect information about our constitutionally protected activities – but you can bet they're not intercepting Senor Mukasey's email. Unless some political figure is being set up for blackmail, the Washington insiders and their friends are exempt from the depredations of the surveillance state. When it comes to the Antiwar Committee of Minneapolis, however – well, that's a horse of a different color, as they say in the land of Oz.

In the wake of 9/11, the neocons were strategically enough placed to launch a two-front war: one at home, and one abroad. The post-9/11 coup, in which a handful of neocons seized control of the machinery of the state and lied us into war, also involved waging a war on the home front –against the Constitution. And while the Iraq campaign ended in failure, an outcome currently being replicated in Afghanistan, their domestic campaign to destroy the legacy of the Founders and create the basis for a police state was much more successful. Indeed, I would venture to call it a near total victory.

With the support of both political parties, an extensive network of "anti-terrorist" " fusion centers" was created, in which local, state, and national law enforcement agencies cooperated in a "fused" effort to gather intelligence on and take action against targets deemed potential nodes of terrorist activity. Acting under a very broad mandate, and with billions of our tax dollars at their disposal, these agencies were also under considerable pressure to produce results. This led, according to the Office of the Inspector General [.pdf], to spying on perfectly legal and even pacifist organizations, whose only "crime" was to oppose the foreign and military policies pursued by Washington.

A key part of this gigantic intelligence-gathering operation is the infiltration and disruption of suspect groups, such as the "RNC Welcoming Committee," and the less publicized "welcoming committee" planned for the Democratic national conventioneers. I would note in passing that the unusual interest taken by law enforcement in these various "welcoming committees" is perfectly logical, albeit unconstitutional and intolerable in a free society, because the two "major" political parties are, after all, mere extensions of the State. With their legally privileged status, encoded in highly restrictive ballot access laws, and their regular receipt of government funds – the national conventions of both parties are given millions of taxpayer dollars to fund their partisan extravaganzas – the Democrats and Republicans are just as much wards of the government as are such "quasi-private" agencies as the National Endowment for Democracy, the Federal Reserve, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Any actions that challenge the power or legitimacy of these quasi-agencies are bound to be met by the State with brutal force. The fate of those who defy our two-headed official ruling party is no different from those who challenge the single-headed ruling parties that dominate what we call "totalitarian" or "authoritarian" states: hence the raids on the Minneapolis Antiwar group and their sympathizers nationally, and the subsequent grand jury fishing expedition.

In gathering evidence to justify these raids, and give what is simply an act of naked repression the color of "law," the feds in cooperation with the local cops sent in infiltrators, including one "Karen Sullivan," whose modus operandi is described here. After being recruited to the Antiwar Committee in 2008, Sullivan – whose lesbian orientation and hints of having been abused by a former husband made her a sympathetic figure to her fellow activists – proceeded to make herself indispensable. She joined the core group – the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (Fight Back), a Marxist group which came out of the radical movements of the 1960s – and acted as a public spokeswoman for them, making speeches, and even traveling to Israel with other members in order to make contact with a Palestinian women's organization.

This went on for two and a half years, as agent Sullivan collected information on the Freedom Roaders and reported it to her superiors – until the raids, in which the cops used a key provided no doubt by their snitch to break into the Antiwar Committee's Minneapolis office. Whereupon she disappeared as quickly and mysteriously as she had first come on the scene.

The implications for the antiwar movement, and for any group that dares oppose government policy, are ominous: what this means is that any and all such groups must assume the presence of infiltrators, and take measures to guard against it. That this has a chilling effect on the public expression of dissent is an understatement: such assumed surveillance is certain to have the effect of weakening and marginalizing the targets, making it impossible to engage in constitutionally protected political organizing.

The pursuit of the Freedom Road organization is not intended to stop "terrorism" – unless one defines "terrorism" as any and all opposition to our foreign policy of global intervention. What it is designed to do is make an example out of the targets, and send a message: anyone who challenges our rulers in any significant way is going to be brought down using the full powers of the State to crush them, and jail them, if they persist. The campaign starts with a small group of Marxists, with no influence and virtually no allies, and ends with – well, then, how does it end? Where does it end?

It ends with you.

If the government can criminalize the peaceful political activities of the Freedom Roaders, and give the enablers of the violent MEK cultists a pass, then it's open season on anyone and everyone. It isn't just left-wing groups that are in the government's crosshairs, either; if I were a Tea Party type – and I am – I'd be worried about the prospect of government infiltration and the potential trouble for the movement posed by agent provocateurs, especially in light of the Gifford shooting in Tucson. There was a nationally-coordinated campaign to blame the tea partiers before the smoke from that horrific incident had even cleared, and it isn't hard to imagine the Obama administration being very interested in having the "far right" infiltrated as well as the "far left."

What is happening in these United States that we are now saddled with a political police, which routinely spies on and intervenes in the peaceful, legal, and constitutionally protected activities of American citizens?

I'll tell you what's happening, and has already happened: we've reached a turning point, a bend in the road, and every day we go a little farther down it. To paraphrase Garet Garrett:

We have crossed the boundary that lies between liberty and dictatorship. If you ask when, the answer is that you cannot make a single stroke between day and night. The precise moment does not matter. There was no painted sign to say, "You now are entering Despotism." Yet it was a very old road and the voice of history was saying: "Whether you know it or not, the act of crossing may be irreversible." And now, not far ahead, is a sign that reads: "No U Turns."

Whether we will listen to the Voice of History – indeed, whether we're even capable of hearing it at this point – or else continue on our present course, deaf, dumb, and blind to what we must face at the inevitable end point of our journey, is not knowable. What I do know is this: if we don't raise our voices, we are lost. This country is rapidly approaching the point when such activities as we are engaged in on this web site, and beyond it, are the target of government harassment, disruption, and outright repression. Our task now is to fight this trend with all our might – and prepare for the day of its final triumph.

What we are facing is the prospect of a regime such as has not been seen since the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts, or the Palmer raids of World War I: a new era of repression enhanced by modern technology. What is needed is a broad coalition of those on the right as well as the left who see the danger and are ready to unite in defense of basic constitutional liberties. Unless and until we build such a movement, the war on the Constitution will end in the unconditional surrender of our liberties by those who had neither the heart nor the nerve to fight.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/01/23/no-u-turns-on-the-road-to-serfdom/

The Chiiiiiiiiiilllllllllldren

The Chiiiiiiiiiilllllllllldren
by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com

Maybe this bugs you, too?

There's a "school zone" ahead and – clearly, obviously – there are no kids about. But the DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! flashing lights are on anyhow – probably because they're on autopilot and set to go off at a certain time each day even if school is closed or it's the weekend.

And – boom! – the guy ahead of you slows to a crippled crawl. God knows, there might be a sainted child within a 5-mile orbit and he just might run into the road. Even though of course, there's not. The parking lot's empty and the school's as dead as Grant's Tomb.

No one uses judgment anymore.

For 99 percent of drivers, the mere mention of children is enough to throw their safety fetish into overdrive. The reflex is as conditioned as the drooling of Pavlov's dogs. No using their eyes (and brains) and deciding, okay, it's obvious school's closed. No kids around. It's probably okay to go faster than 15 MPH (assuming no cops are around).

But no.

The sign is there; the lights are flashing. And that triggers the response:

Submit. Obey.

Maybe I'm just a member of the last generation that didn't consider "the children" the central organizing principle of society – and the knee-jerk excuse for endless petty tyrannies, from mandatory seat belt laws to these over-the-top "school zone" crawl zones.

Faberge eggs are juggled by drunken clowns compared with the suffocating envelope of safety we envelope "the children" in – and also any unlucky adults who happen to be nearby.

It's mostly because of "the children" that all of us now have to pay (according to most estimates) $500–$1,000 more for a new car, because new cars all have to have air bags – and air bags make cars "safer" for "the children."

It's mostly because of "the children" that we have these noxious "buckle-up" at gunpoint laws that have given the Polizei legal cause to harass you in your own car simply for not wearing your seat belt. It's not going to be long before they start making us eat our veggies, too.

It is a Major Event when a school bus picks up or drops off a sainted child. Many flashing lights – including, lately, strobe lights on the roof of the thing – plus a fold-out STOP! sign that (you guessed it) folds out most imposingly as the bus comes to a stop. At which point, all within a mile orbit of the yellow carriage must also come to a stop. It's almost as if the presidential motorcade had arrived and the Great One is about to step out for a wave at the masses.

All wait, hushed in awe.

Meanwhile, back in the Gen X days of the '70s, school busses were driven by salty old ladies who either smoked or drank (sometimes both). They were not especially enamored of us – the children – and neither were most adults. We did not call our parents' adult friends by their first names; we didn't monopolize the conversations, either. In fact, we were likely told to "go do something" and leave the adults the hell alone. We often actually walked – gasp! – unsupervised (gasp again!) from the bus stop to our house. Hovering pahrunts were not immediately and always there in a SmooooVeee to scoop us up and make sure we got home (safely) so that we could sit in front of some idiot Pixar droolfest for the next two hours. Instead we played some pick-up football, rooted around in the woods… or something – on our own initiative, no coaches or orchestrated uber-organization required.

And when we got picked up in the Vista Cruiser, we just hopped in the back and rode (or rolled around) unbuckled all the way home. Can you imagine it? None of this business of strapping eight and nine-year-olds into "safety seats" like pint-sized Hannibal Lecters. And somehow, we survived this (by modern standards) horrifically unsafe environment of neglect and indifference.

School zones existed but they weren't Sacred Zones, as they are today.

No metal detectors; no calling the cops because a 12-year-old pointed his fingers at another kid and said Bang!

What the hell happened? And can we throw this thing into reverse?

House votes to end subsidies for candidates

"This is PR. Out of $15T, they cut $617M. Big deal. It should go, but it's a drop in the bucket.: -- Kevin Gutzman

House votes to end subsidies for candidates
By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – Wed Jan 26, 4:17 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Eager to cut spending, the Republican-controlled House voted to end multimillion-dollar federal subsidies for presidential candidates and national political conventions on Wednesday, the first of what party leaders promised will be weekly, bite-sized bills to attack record deficits.

The 239-160 vote sent the measure ­ and the fate of the familiar $3 check-off box on income tax returns ­ to the Senate, which is controlled by the Democrats.

"Eliminating this program would save taxpayers $617 million over ten years, and would require candidates and political parties to rely on private contributions rather than tax dollars," said Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., "In times when government has no choice but to do more with less, voting to end the Presidential Election Campaign Fund should be a no brainer."

Democratic critics said it was anything but that, arguing the vote represented a step away from sweeping reforms enacted in response to the Watergate scandals of a generation ago.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said that in combination with a year-old Supreme Court ruling that loosened restrictions on donations by corporations and others, the legislation would result in "less transparency and less information for the voters" at a time when the public is seeking "clean, transparent and competitive elections and campaigns."

Republicans said less than 10 percent of taxpayers choose to contribute a few dollars of their income taxes to the presidential campaign fund, and they noted repeatedly that President Barack Obama became the first candidate in history to decline federal funding for the general election in 2008.

The Republicans brought the bill to the floor as the first fruit of their Internet "You Cut" program, launched during the election campaign last year to encourage the public to identify programs for pruning or eliminating.

By coincidence, the vote occurred a few hours after the Congressional Budget Office estimated the federal deficit would climb to almost $1.5 trillion for the current fiscal year, a record. The claimed 10-year savings of $617 million pales by comparison, but Republicans are just gearing up their attack on spending.

When the House returns on Feb. 8 from a one-week break, the Republicans will begin work on legislation to keep the government in operating funds ­ at reduced levels ­ through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

A debate over the size of those reductions is expected to prove contentious, both within the GOP rank and file and then once the Senate and White House become involved. The current supply of funds runs out on March 5, and Republican officials say they expect to pass a series of interim bills lasting a few days apiece to allow the government to remain in operation while a larger agreement is negotiated.

In addition to the savings claimed in Wednesday's bill, House passage demonstrated the ability of conservatives to control the flow of legislation after four years in the minority.

"I philosophically have always been opposed to taxpayer dollars being used for political advocacy of any kind," said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., the lead sponsor of the measure.

Under the law, presidential candidates qualify for matching funds from the government once they have met certain requirements during the primary elections. In accepting the subsidies, the White House hopefuls also must agree to certain restrictions.

Presidential nominees are eligible for funds after the party political conventions as long as they do no fundraising on their own during the general election campaign. Additionally, the conventions themselves are financed through the presidential fund.

The system was put into place a generation ago as part of reforms that followed the Watergate scandals of the 1970s ­ illegal activities sanctioned by President Richard Nixon's re-election committee and funded by unregulated donations slushing through his campaign treasury.

While Republicans referred to Obama's decision to opt out of the system two years ago, Democrats countered that a GOP hero had benefited.

Rep. David Price, D-N.C., said that in 1976, Ronald Reagan had less than $44,000 in his campaign treasury at the end of January 1976, a tiny fraction of the amount available to then-President Gerald R. Ford. Reagan benefited from $2.2 million in public funds that helped sustain his challenge all the way to the party convention, he said.

Price and other Democrats advanced an alternative to leave the current system in place but impose fresh reporting requirements on foreign countries, companies and individuals who contribute to campaigns. It was rejected, 228-173.

Moments later, ten Democrats voted with Republicans to pass the measure.

The White House issued a statement in advance opposing the legislation, but stopped short of threatening a veto.

Even so, the measure's prospects are clouded in the Senate. Jon Summers, a spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid, issued a statement siding with House Democrats on the issue. "Congress should focus on improving the system so that it protects our democracy, instead of giving more and more power to special interests," he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_campaign_finance

Lessons From the Moscow Bombing

"... there are consequences to occupying foreign peoples and their land. Despite what the mainstream media would have John Q. Public believe, suicide bombers are not motivated by religion, but by atrocities they and their people have suffered by an occupying military regime. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given the reason for al-Qaeda carrying out attacks against the Western world; the militaries of the West have occupied Muslim land in the East, bought, bribed and threatened Middle Eastern governments and engaged in unjustified wars that have killed millions. The people of Chechnya have continued to fight for independence from the Kremlin and have endured brutal, relentless campaigns of violence at the hands of the Russian military. Hopefully this goes without saying, but as Rudy Giuliani proved in the past, describing blowback is not blaming America. We must understand how foreign policy affects those who get a taste of it, up close and personal. Additionally, we should remember that American Colonists fought for their own freedom from a foreign government."

Lessons From the Moscow Bombing
by Eli Cryderman

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." – George Santayana

"History never repeats itself, but it rhymes." – John Colombo (usually misattributed to Mark Twain)

At 4:32pm local time, a suspected suicide bomber detonated an explosive device equivalent to ~15lbs TNT in a crowded international arrival zone at Domodedovo airport, the busiest of Moscow's three airports. At least 35 people were killed instantly while reports of those injured have been reported as high as 168. No one has claimed responsibility for the attack, although it is suspected that a member of an Islamic group hailing from the war stricken Chechen Republic is to blame.

Concerning the horrible loss of innocent life in a Moscow airport yesterday, and with the aforementioned quotes in mind, what can we learn about this event? Sure, there will be plenty of news coverage over the next couple days reviewing the details of the bombing, what actually happened, how it happened, which extremist group is to blame, which talk radio host or political party encouraged it and so on and so forth. But, it's a new season of American Idol (with new judges!), The Oprah found out she has a half-sister, soon it will be the Super Bowl and this event, like everything else that happens outside of the United State will fade into the collective memory hole and we will miss an important opportunity to learn from history. Perhaps. However, I believe there is a growing Remnant of society which is increasingly rejecting the status quo, although they are outnumbered and with ideas outside the realm of today's accepted thoughts. They are tired of being spoon-fed their thoughts and are shaping a new consciousness of critical thinking Americans. For them I ask, what can we learn from this airport bombing?

First and foremost is that there are people in this world who want to kill other people. These people and their use of violence should be denounced at every possible opportunity. It is disgusting that after thousands of years of human history, people still haven't learned to settle disputes without murder.

Second, failsafe security is impossible. The details of how the suspected bomber was able to smuggle a bomb into the arrival area (most likely in a briefcase) and what, if any security measures were in place of the airport will be discussed ad nausea. What won't be discussed is that there is no possible way to deter a sufficiently motivated individual from killing large amounts of people in public places. Airport security (and the entire US intelligence apparatus) utterly failed on September 11, 2001. A few months later, Richard Reid tried to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 by detonating 10oz of C-4 hidden in his shoe. From then on, people were forced to take off their shoes during "security" screenings, but in December 2009, Umar Abdulmutallab tried to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear. The US government's response was to force people to undergo irradiating scanners and sexual assaults as a condition for flying. Hopefully our dear leaders don't find out about Abdulla Asieri, who tried to assassinate a Saudi prince by smuggling a bomb in his rectum; can you imagine what the TSA would require potential airline passengers to submit to before they could board a plane?

Third, they don't need to blow up airplanes anymore. It used to be that an airplane provided the necessary captive group of people for a terrorist to exact the greatest amount of casualties and psychological damage. But, as airport security has made attacking an airplane more difficult, it has also produced an unintended consequence. If you're ever in an airport during a busy travel period, where is the highest concentration of people located? Ticketing, baggage claim and ironically enough, the "security" screening area, all of which are not "secured." Why don't they require screenings as a condition for entering the airport? Then the lines trying to get into the airport becomes the target. Then make that area "secure." Which makes the adjacent area the bottleneck and thus, the target. You get the point. This doesn't even begin to consider all the sporting events, plays, concerts, fairs and other gatherings of people that would be targets, which are already primed to get the new porno-scanners.

Lastly, there are consequences to occupying foreign peoples and their land. Despite what the mainstream media would have John Q. Public believe, suicide bombers are not motivated by religion, but by atrocities they and their people have suffered by an occupying military regime. Osama bin Laden has repeatedly given the reason for al-Qaeda carrying out attacks against the Western world; the militaries of the West have occupied Muslim land in the East, bought, bribed and threatened Middle Eastern governments and engaged in unjustified wars that have killed millions. The people of Chechnya have continued to fight for independence from the Kremlin and have endured brutal, relentless campaigns of violence at the hands of the Russian military. Hopefully this goes without saying, but as Rudy Giuliani proved in the past, describing blowback is not blaming America. We must understand how foreign policy affects those who get a taste of it, up close and personal. Additionally, we should remember that American Colonists fought for their own freedom from a foreign government.

What to take away?

Evil people who would commit violence against others exist in this world and must be condemned at every chance possible. We will never be truly safe from these types of people, but we don't have to sacrifice our liberties to accommodate such insanity. The current airport security apparatus is dysfunctional to say the least, and it does not work. There needs to be a paradigm shift in thinking about how best to protect people and places. How should airport security or any other type be handled? I don't know, but free choice in the market has been shown throughout history to yield the best set of parameters and procedures for a given process, whether it's making widgets or organizing society. Finally, the public must realize that U.S., Russian or any other nation's foreign policy – specifically that of occupying other nations – has consequences, one of which is attacks on innocent civilians. Will people learn anything from this latest event? History will be the judge.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/cryderman1.1.1.html

Re: What a mean-spirited editorial from the Boston Globe

Guess who owns the Globe?
-------------------------------

that'd be the New York Times

On Jan 27, 9:38 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> All the news thats shit to print.  Guess who owns the Globe?
>
> Former Justice John Paul Stevens almost never went.  He said the court
> simply does not belong in the room.  And he's got a point!
>
> El Globo was always fine with that.  He's a liberal.
>
> Don't read Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor"
>
> On Jan 27, 4:29 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >      If I were on the SCOTUS I would have skipped this mess also.  Why
> > should they sit there as targets for whatever ruffled Junior's feelings
> > this time.  His speech was very missable in the first place and by
> > staying away they did not lose anything at all that was of any value.  
> > And why the Globe thought that their staying away brought politics to
> > the court when sitting there while Zero lied about the court decision
> > last year didn't bring politics to the court?  I think the Globe is
> > doing nothing but pushing their own agenda for no good reason at all.
>
> >http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articl...- 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.

Court Boots Rahm Emanuel From Chicago Mayoral Ballot

Court Boots Rahm Emanuel From Chicago Mayoral Ballot
by Wes Barrett | January 24, 2011

FILE - In this Jan. 4, 2011, file photo, Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel speaks at a news conference at the Better Boys Foundation in Chicago. On Monday, Jan. 24, 2011, the Illinois Appeals Court has ruled that Emanuel's name can't appear on the ballot for Chicago mayor because he didn't live in the city in the year before the election. (AP Photo/M. Spencer Green, File)

An appeals court in Chicago ruled Monday that Rahm Emanuel doesn't meet the residency requirements to run for mayor of Chicago and ordered his name be pulled off the ballot. The three judge panel voted 2-1 against Emanuel.

In a major blow to Emanuel's campaign, Monday's ruling overturned a Cook County Circuit Court ruling that upheld a Chicago Board of Elections decision to let Emanuel run in the February 22nd election.

The court agreed with Emanuel's contention that he met Chicago's voter residency standard but added that wasn't enough to allow his run for mayor.

"...a candidate must meet not only the Election Code's voter residency standard, but also must have actually resided within the municipality for one year prior to the election, a qualification that the candidate unquestionably does not satisfy," the ruling stated.

And the ruling may well keep Emanuel's name off the ballot.

"We're going to press with one less candidate for mayor," said Langdon D. Neal, the chairman of the Board of Election Commissioners for the city of Chicago.

The residency questions stem from Emanuel's time spent living in Washington while he served as President Obama's chief of staff.  He resigned and moved back to Chicago in October of 2010 and almost immediately announced his candidacy for mayor.

Click here to read the ruling.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/01/24/court-boots-rahm-emanuel-chicago-mayoral-ballot#ixzz1CF9n8DTX

The Battle for Conservative Hearts and Minds

The Battle for Conservative Hearts and Minds
by Kelley B. Vlahos
January 25, 2011

News that a clear majority of conservatives want to reduce the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, plus reports of an emerging right-left coalition against the war, have served as hopeful signs in the heretofore quixotic pursuit to arrest the giant gears of the American war machine.

Indeed, the uber-establishment Afghanistan Study Group recently released a poll that found no less than 71 percent of conservatives are worried about the price tag of war operations, and 57 percent (including 55 percent of self described Tea Party voters) say reducing troop levels in Afghanistan could be accomplished "without putting America at risk" – a seeming 180-degree turn from most conservatives' previous point of view on war and defense spending (most readers here recall how difficult it has been to be a conservative-libertarian minded American in the era of George W. Bush).

Meanwhile, just as Justin Raimondo was asserting in his Jan. 12 column, that "the ideological tables are turning, and today it is on the right, not the left, where the action is, where the ferment is, where the challenge to the conventional wisdom dares raise its head," influential conservative operative Grover Norquist was talking about building a right-left coalition against further war spending, and invoking Ronald Reagan as the picture of restraint.

Nothing in Washington is exactly what it seems of course, and it would be wise to keep in mind that at the very beginning of the Iraq War, when Republicans were declaring "victory," and "shock and awe" was still being used as a serious tactical term, Norquist was gloating how antiwar Democrats, "were on the wrong side of the Civil War, the Cold War and now the Iraq War – their batting average on these things is right up there with France." In the spirit of keeping eyes wide open we should be aware of other telling signs that the war machine, i.e., the military industrial complex – including co-opted congressional leaders and hawks among the foreign policy elite – plans to wage a serious fight to maintain its sway not only over Washington's conservatives, but over the controlling Republican leadership, and the congressional purse strings too.

1. Tea Party vs. the In-Crowd. Perhaps the first shot across the bow was this month's CODEL (congressional delegation) to Afghanistan, led by Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. As I have said before, the infamous CODEL is akin to sending members of congress into the Stepford Men's Association – they never come out the same, invariably regurgitating Pentagon power-point presentations and robotically warning against "precipitous" withdrawals and "timelines."

The very best example of this was last year, shortly after the President ordered Surge II, an infusion of 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan under Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Believe it or not, there were vocal skeptics among the Democrats, including then-Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI). But after two whole days in Afghanistan (and one in Pakistan), Levin was suddenly a convert, saying things like, "We went to places away from Kabul today. We saw real partnering with Afghans … it's reassuring to see that happening … our counterinsurgency strategy may be taking hold … we are offering [the Afghans] terms of security better than the false security offered by the Taliban."

Levin's comments were echoed by Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) and a score of Republicans who traveled on other CODELs throughout January 2010. Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) probably took the award for the dopiest post-CODEL comment: "I came here with a healthy skepticism about sending more troops to Afghanistan," said Israel. "But after two days here, my comfort level with General McChrystal's plan has increased immeasurably."

Right. So when Sen. McConnell brought "a number of Tea Party senators" to Afghanistan last week, the mission was clear: get the budding skeptics before the Svengali-in-fatigues, Gen. David Petraeus, reminding them of their core responsibility to "national security," far away from the tedious Beltway court antics and into the testosterone-fueled war zone, where they are made to feel very small, but very necessary at the same time.

Leader McConnell needed no such converting of course – this is his fourth CODEL to Afghanistan (though combined, his days "in country" probably don't add up a fortnight). This time he came back with talking points that defied nearly every single account of reality on the ground in Afghanistan including, ironically, the Pentagon's own required assessment to Congress in November. He said the Taliban's "momentum" in Helmand province has been "completely reversed" by the U.S.-led counterinsurgency, and he thinks, "there's an overwhelming likelihood of success" in Afghanistan.

Antiwar.com's Jason Ditz noted that McConnell invited Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ron Johnson (-WI) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), "but did not invite two of the more staunchly Tea Party members, Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT)."

"This is because consummate hawk and status quo Republican McConnell is keen to drive a wedge between Senate Republicans with ties to the Tea Party, particularly as so many of them believed they were elected to change policy and rein in deficit spending," wrote Ditz.

If indeed this is the plan set into motion, it seems to have had a desired effect. Toomey, who beat back popular Democrat and war policy skeptic Rep. Joe Sestak in the November election, told reporters upon his return, "I do think we can achieve success in Afghanistan, but we'll have some presence on the ground here for quite some time."
Last year at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservatives were gushing that Tea Party favorite Rubio could someday run for president. After the CODEL, he came back speaking fluent Stepford, sounding no different from the aforementioned Democrats, or even President Barack Obama.

"Our goal is to leave a functional state, or to help the Afghan people create for themselves a functional state," he said in a conference call with reporters from Kabul. He added that he thinks the U.S. forces are moving in the right direction but, "there's a long ways to go, no way to overestimate how serious the challenge is." He said people in the region warned against a timeline for withdrawal: "There is a sense that the Taliban and even Al Qaeda is just waiting for us to leave before moving back in." One wonders how, in a weekend, Rubio got "a sense" of anything outside of the dog and pony show proscribed for him.

Now Rubio might very well be confronted with new conservative hostilities against the war in Afghanistan, but let's be frank, there is a huge military constituency in Florida – in fact, there are similar constituencies across the Tea Party's greatest strongholds. Republicans like McConnell have been superb at conflating patriotism and support for the war with support for the military, mostly because they know where their bread is buttered.

Now that support for the war may be cracking within their own ranks, and a presidential campaign looming in which Republicans will have define themselves against Obama as explicitly as possible, expect the heat to be turned up in this way even hotter.

2. Sarah Palin: "Tea Party Hawk." Ex-Alaska governor, reality TV star and king/queen maker Palin seems to get this. Aside from the fact she has surrounded herself with neoconservative hawks who have no intention of supporting deep cuts in the Pentagon's budget, much less shying away from the prospect of an indefinite stay in Afghanistan, drone attacks on Pakistan or extending the GWOT to Yemen and elsewhere, Palin's greatest asset is she knows what her audience instinctively wants, sometimes before they even know they want it. She knows what buttons to push to elicit the right emotional responses, and she knows that the perfected appeal to lizard-brained fear and unmediated patriotism drives the base to the polls every time.

Her speeches, from the National Tea Party Convention last February to the Freedom Fest in June to Glenn Beck's rally in September, have displayed an unmatched ability to suffuse national pride with waging war. She has said it's a mother's duty to send her sons off to war, and that soldiers are better people than the rest of us. More importantly, she has warned that scaling back war spending could "risk all that makes America great."

In other areas of foreign policy, her prescriptions are maddeningly over-simplified. In 2009, she told interview diva Barbara Walters that Israel should be able to expand Jewish settlements in disputed Palestinian territories "because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don't think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand."

In a rebuke of Secretary of Defense Bob Gates having the gall to suggest in May "new ways of thinking about the portfolio of weapons we buy," asking, "whether the nation can really afford a Navy that relies on $3 [billion] to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers," Palin retorted, "my answer is pretty simple: Yes we can and yes, we do, because we must."

Of course the neoconservatives love Palin and recognize her as the bulwark against growing war skepticism among conservatives. "She's really quite a crucial piece in this puzzle," said Tom Donnelly, defense fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in a July piece entitled "The Tea Party's Hawk," by Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy. "She's got both political and Tea Party/small government bona fides, but she also has a lot of credibility in advocating for military strength."

Meanwhile, former Commentary editor Norman "World War IV" Podhoretz wrote in her "defense" last year: "Her views are much closer to those of her conservative opponents than they are to the isolationists and protectionists on the 'paleoconservative' right or to the unrealistic 'realism' of the 'moderate' Republicans who inhabit the establishment center."

Now it could be pointed out that perhaps Palin's prospects for president might be fading – the Tucson shooting has apparently sent her approval ratings plummeting. But certainly, as of now, Palin is still the most visible, the most-talked about and oft-quoted Republican out there. Whether she is running for higher office or not, her influence on candidates within the Tea Party and among activists from coast-to-coast is undeniable. While Grover & Co. are still working out the semantics for supporting a withdrawal, she will have entire crowds draped in flags and demanding we not "let our soldiers down," and to stay in Afghanistan until we "get the job done." And she will have the help of savvy neoconservative pundits and courtiers to do it. She is the one to watch to see how this debate unfolds.

3. Neoconservatives at the Spear Point. Speaking of the pro-war hawks still inhabiting the Republican inner circle in Washington, its been made clear in recent weeks that the military will likely turn to the same surrogates in town to make their case for war. They will have to turn up the heat of course, in the face of building resistance, but considering the McConnell CODEL, it seems their work might not be as difficult as anticipated.

In this vein, neoconservatives Kim and Frederick Kagan are back with a new "defining success" report on Afghanistan. Unlike the Pentagon's sobering November report, but closer to the White House whitewash in December, this one seems to encapsulate all of the military's wishful thinking, with emphasis on a pseudo grasp of insider tribal knowledge, and the perfectly deceiving assertion that the Taliban's influence in Afghanistan has been arrested and reversed. In fact, the two actually accuse the intelligence community, which was right about Iraq and blatantly ignored by people like the Kagans in their rush to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003, of being "alarmist" about creeping Taliban control of heretofore non-Taliban areas in the north of the country. "The insurgency is not gaining strength in northern Afghanistan and is extremely unlikely to do so," the Kagans write. This, despite, steady reports from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like Refugees International, who specialize in neutral aid work on the ground, as well as other reports, including maps by the United Nations, showing clear Taliban control of these areas.

Calling it an "embarrassing mess," Central Asian expert Joshua Faust attacks the Kagans' recent "propaganda" project as an "unsourced assertion in support of logical fallacies and wishful thinking, but packaged as serious analysis," noting that there were "only seven footnotes, all of which link back to the Kagans' own work."

Of course one report does not indicate the direction of war policy in the conservative movement. But it does remind us that the Kagans, who despite all common sense to the contrary, are routinely tapped as advisers and hagiographers for Petraeus' inner circle, and still command a perverted level of influence and respect in the Washington foreign policy network. Their latest report is no mistake, it is a spear point for the looming fight over the hearts and minds of our policy makers and purse string holders on Capitol Hill, and just as important, the Republican presidential candidates waiting in the wings.

So, while attitudes continue to shift among formerly unreachable conservatives on the war, there are signs already that the status quo is going to be harder to budge as the stakes become higher in 2011 and 2012. Better to go into these challenging times with eyes wide open rather than eyes wide shut.

http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2011/01/24/the-battle-for-conservative-hearts-and-minds/

President Obama Rehashes Dubious Claims About Wars

President Obama Rehashes Dubious Claims About Wars
Foreign Policy Content Largely Culled From Past Speeches
by Jason Ditz, January 25, 2011

If you're wondering what President Barack Obama said about foreign policy in his State of the Union speech, there's an extremely good chance you already heard it, in many cases word for word, and with fewer pauses for laudatory applause from the peanut gallery.

He once again claimed combat was over in Iraq, despite the number of US troops who have died in combat since he last made that announcement. He cheered how sanctions were really sticking it to the Iranian economy, without mentioning last weekend's talks. He patted himself on the back for getting the New START Treaty through a lame duck Congress last month.

Beyond that, he lauded the Afghan War and the "enduring partnership" it was creating. Perhaps the only interesting thing, and I say this only for desperation to find something, is that he insisted troops would begin to withdraw from Afghanistan in July.

Of course, he announced the July drawdown in December, and the comments seem to be taken largely from that, but it seems that his speechwriters forget that he publicly disavowed the July 2011 drawdown date in June, and several more times since then.

Ultimately the speech was over an hour of vague references to the future and jokes about TSA patdowns, which were extremely funny to the Congressmen on hand, since they of course are exempt from those.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/01/25/president-obama-rehashes-dubious-claims-about-wars/

Radical Muzzie Cleric Caught Sneaking Over Mexican-American Border

Radical Muzzie Cleric Caught Sneaking Over Mexican-American Border doctorbulldog | 27 January, 2011 at 10:17 am | Categories: know your enemy | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6Rb

Don't you just love it when a Muzzie who was so radical in his beliefs that even the Canadians kicked him out of their country is labeled as merely "controversial" by the Lame Stream Media?  It's almost as if they have a suicidal death wish for America or something:

Controversial Muslim cleric is arrested while sneaking into the U.S.
Deported from Canada to Tunisia three years ago, Muslim cleric Said Jaziri was found hiding in the trunk of a BMW near the Mexican border.

LA Times - Reporting from San Diego — U.S. border authorities have arrested a controversial Muslim cleric who was deported from Canada to Tunisia three years ago and was caught earlier this month trying to sneak into California in the trunk of a BMW, according to court documents.

Said Jaziri, the former imam of a Muslim congregation in Montreal, was hidden in a car driven by a San Diego-area man who was pulled over by U.S. Border Patrol agents near an Indian casino east of San Diego on Jan. 11. Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a "safe place anywhere in the U.S."

The arrest marks the unexpected resurfacing of the 43-year-old cleric, whose protracted legal battle to avoid deportation drew headlines in Canada. A Tunisian immigrant, Jaziri was deported for failing to disclose a criminal conviction in France while applying for refugee status in the mid-1990s.

But Jaziri's supporters said he was targeted for his fundamentalist views: He backed Sharia law for Canadian Muslims and led protests over the publication of the Prophet Mohammed cartoons in a Danish newspaper in 2006.

[...]

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

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.

Pro-Rationing Doctor, Donald Berwick, Renominated by Obama Regime

Pro-Rationing Doctor, Donald Berwick, Renominated by Obama Regime Scotty Starnes | January 27, 2011 at 11:20 AM | Tags: Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, Dr. Donald Berwick, Health and Human Services, HHS, Obama Administration, Obamacare, President Obama, pro-rationing health care system, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4g7

While everyone was busy talking about the lousy state of the union address, the Obama regime renominated pro-health care rationing Dr. Donald Berwick to lead The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Politico reports:

On Wednesday night, the White House renominated Dr. Don Berwick to head the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The nomination is likely to be yet another flashpoint in the contentious health-care repeal debate on Capitol Hill. Republicans strongly objected to Berwick's appointment last year, pointing to his previous comments in support of the British health system and rationing with "eyes open" or closed.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called the renomination "a disappointing decision."

"A day after the president committed to coming together to move our country forward, he's chosen to renominate one of his most contentious nominees to head an agency that impacts the lives of more than 100 million Americans," said Hatch, who is the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee.

"Given Dr. Berwick's controversial views, Republicans will expect a full hearing to understand how the administration is implementing the $2.6 trillion health law, its impact on the American people, and the consequences to future of Medicare and Medicaid."

He will face a hearing in the Finance Committee and confirmation by the full Senate.

Berwick is likely to face a difficult nomination. Many Republicans are still angry about his recess appointment and have significant questions about the agency he oversees.

The administration recess-appointed Berwick to the post in July, arguing that Republicans had signaled they would slow-walk or oppose his nomination proceedings. Republicans were likely to oppose the confirmation but welcomed a chance to grill him in a confirmation hearing. The White House made the recess appointment before a hearing was held.

Now why wouldn't the Obama regime want Berwick to be asked questions about his beliefs? It's because the hearing would be aired on television and Berwick would have to defend his pro-rationing of health care stance. Then Americans would question Obama for appointing a pro-rationing nut into such a powerful position. Notice Obama has a problem with insurance companies that ration health care but has no problem with Berwick?

As CMS administrator, Berwick has oversight of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. He was also recently given authority over the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight, which will implement much of the health care reform law. The agency was previously housed in a different part of HHS.

Continue reading>>>

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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.

Re: Hey he does have a skill besides teleprompter reading!

Has he learned how to change hands and gain a stroke yet?

On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

Obama opening this weekend for Joy Behar at the Atlantic City Laff Factory: "Two salmon walk into a bar..."

--
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.

How to Make America Exceptional Again

How to Make America Exceptional Again
by Jacob G. Hornberger

In his State of the Union address, President Obama raised the issue of tax cuts for the rich, one of the big battlegrounds between liberals and conservatives.

Yawn!

Conservatives: "Lower taxes for the rich! Make the cuts permanent!"

Liberals: "Raise taxes on the rich! Make the increases permanent!"

Do you see what I mean when I say that there isn't a dime's worth of difference between liberals and conservatives? They both believe that government should have the authority to determine how much money people should be permitted to keep out of their income. And they both believe that it's the job of government to take care of people.

Or to put it another way, they believe that everyone's income rightfully belongs to the government and that it is government's job to determine how much an allowance each person will be permitted to have. The government keeps the rest and takes care of people with it.

It's the paternalistic state in action. Sometimes our federal daddy needs more money to take care of people ­ here at home, or in Iraq or Afghanistan, or just some foreign dictator somewhere ­ and so the allowance he permits us to have is smaller. Sometimes our daddy doesn't need so much, and our allowance is larger.

Oh, and don't forget the fights waged between the adult-children over who gets a bigger share of the allowance money. The rich fight for a larger share. So do those in the middle class. The poor usually lack the resources to lobby Washington policymakers for a larger allowance.

It's all one big, crooked, corrupt, immoral process by which large numbers of people are trying to get into other people's pocketbooks, while doing their best to protect their own pocketbooks from being plundered.

Here's the libertarian position: abolish the income tax and leave people free to keep everything they earn. That was the way of life adopted by the Founding Fathers. Americans lived without income taxation for more than 100 years. That way of life brought into existence the massive savings and capital that produced the wealthiest society in history.

Who would fund the welfare-state and regulatory programs without income taxation? There would be no welfare-state and regulatory programs to fund. They would all be abolished. None of this socialist, interventionist junk can be reconciled with the principles of a free society, with the principles of morality, or with the principles of genuine charity. The welfare-state programs are legalized stealing. The regulatory programs impede people's ability to pursue happiness in their own way.

For more than 100 years, Americans lived under the concept of voluntary charity. People were free to use their own money the way they chose. No one was forced to help the poor. There was no Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, welfare, foreign aid, SBA loans, FDIC, education grants, farms subsidies, or any other such things.

And guess what: When people were free to keep everything they earned, the result was not only the most prosperous nation in history, it was also the most charitable nation in history. That was how America's churches, museums, and opera houses got built ­ voluntarily. That's what genuine charity is all about ­ voluntary choices, not IRS-coerced ones.

There was no federal drug war, OSHA, SEC, minimum wage laws, price controls, licensing, or other regulatory nonsense. Americans depended on the free market to serve as a natural regulator. When government didn't serve as people's daddy, such things as self-reliance, responsibility, and education were nurtured and developed.

There were no foreign military bases. No military-industrial complex. No CIA. No invasions and occupations. No wars of aggression. No standing army. No torture, secret prison camps, and kangaroo tribunals.

Obama wants to restore America's greatness ­ to prosperity, creativity, ingenuity, charity. The problem is that he wants the federal government to be in charge of the project. Like so many other statists around the world, Obama fails to realize that his philosophy ­ statism ­ precludes the achievement of his goal.

The only way to restore America's greatness is to restore economic liberty to our land, which means reining in the government and liberating the people. That necessarily entails taking the tax-cut, spending-cut debate to a higher level ­ to the repeal of the income tax and a dismantling of the welfare-warfare state way of life. Returning to America's founding principles is the way to make America exceptional once again.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-01-26.asp