Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Re: The USA is lost in the ‘Corn’ of politics.

John,

This is by far the most convoluted paragraph I have yet seen from you. A budget is an estimation of upcoming expenses. As such, "within budget" could mean anything. Therefore, Congress could appropriate any amount of money for anything
just as they do now.

And just how is "at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of the GNP—home food and medicines excluded" a restriction on increased taxes?

On 04/26/2011 08:24 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
"The House shall author bills of appropriation within budget; in addition, the President shall have Line Item Veto power on all such bills, except if overruled by a 60% vote of the House.  12 years from the adoption of this New Constitution, and following a successful two year test in two or more states, taxation in the USA shall be changed to sales tax only—at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of the GNP—home food and medicines excluded.* " 

Re: The USA is lost in the ‘Corn’ of politics.

Einstein.... Finally... a decent post. Not that I agree with what you
said... it was finally said well, thank-you.

On Apr 26, 9:24 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> The supposed 'window of opportunity' for potential candidates to
> decide whether to run for President is getting smaller.  Donald Trump
> is now topping the polls with his give-'em-hell solutions to this
> country's pressing problems.  He's headed to New Hampshire to expound
> on those ideas.  Two weeks ago Michele Bachmann headed to… Iowa and
> got lost in the CORN by playing-up-to the people of that
> geographically central, but otherwise unexceptional, state.
> Intelligence should be one standard for judging the qualifications of
> anyone wishing to become President.  Even though it's a tradition of
> long standing… no person who accepts the archaic RITUAL of acting like
> impractical fools; jetting all over to USA; and wasting tens, if not
> hundreds of millions of dollars just to press-the-flesh with the
> maximum number of voters, isn't wise enough, nor practical enough, to
> be our President.
>
> As I regularly state, political parties—by whatever name—are
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  So to are the mindless, spaced-out, media-serving
> primaries.  Those automatically preclude from being President any non
> megalomaniac who would be a better choice for President simply by
> virtue of having a more sensible personality.  Within, say, a six-week
> period of well-thought-out candidate interviews and debates, every
> voter who has access to a TV should be able to pick the candidate who
> is most agreeable to him.  And the total campaign expenditure of any
> one candidate need not exceed five million dollars.
>
> Rep. Ron Paul, that derelict candidate from the 2008 election, is
> locked-in-on the RITUAL of brown-nosing the voters of Iowa.  Paul
> could easily have become our president in the last election if he had
> simply done what I urged him to do, and abandoned the Republican Party
> to run as an Independent.  Glenn Beck, to his credit, sees BOTH major
> parties as being out-of-touch.  The Tea Party movement, which isn't
> really a "party", is more agreeable to Beck, who has declined taking
> continued credit for the 9/12 project.  Beck will only go so far with
> anything, then he bails.
>
> On his flagging TV show, yesterday, Glenn Beck emotionally derided the
> declining moral values in this country—which he attributes to our
> being out-of-touch with God.  At a McDonald's restaurant, a
> transgender person got beaten-up badly enough to cause a seizure.
> Only one person in that restaurant attempted to stave-off the attack.
> Glenn Beck is most naïve; there is limited 'first aid' that can be
> done for anyone having a seizure, other than to put them on their side
> to reduce the chance of possible choking if they vomit.  That person
> was already on her side.  Beck chided the video camera operator for
> not rushing over to, essentially, do nothing.  In defense of those
> customers in the restaurant, they very likely didn't know "what
> infraction" had so angered the attackers.  Supposing that the victim
> was a "bad person", most just looked around, and seeing no others
> taking action, they took no action, themselves.  The psychology of why
> that same thing happens—most often in big, impersonal cities—has been
> studied extensively.  In rare cases, those not calling police, or
> calling down the attackers, have been found to be criminally negligent
> for not providing reasonably prudent assistance.
>
> As was the case with that video camera operator, Glenn Beck sees the
> "historically predictable" failures of our government, our economy,
> and of our society.  But he consistently does little or nothing.  His
> 56 Refounders—as of the Constitution—failed to expose the "Good
> Dirt" (a quote of J. R. from "Dallas") that would rally the American
> people to vote-in good candidates.  Prior to the 8/18 rally last year
> in Washington, that drew 3/4 million people, Beck vowed to keep on his
> "combat boots" until the corruption in Washington has been corrected.
> But about that same time, the Obama W. H. put out a directive saying
> that suspected terrorists (supposedly, including those proposing
> violence, as in a… revolution) could be shot without recourse.  That
> threat caused Beck to take off his combat boots, put on his bullet-
> proof vest, and to take-on the guise of being an evangelist deferring
> all solutions to Divine Providence.  He saw it as an act of God that a
> flock of curious and very 'ham' Canada Geese flew over the reflection
> pool.  And of course there was that "eight-year-old" (looked 14) red-
> headed kid who lucked up and got the last tickets to sit in a section
> close to the Lincoln Monument.  A father loving his son, oh how much
> of a God-send 'that' is…
>
> I could be flattered, but I'm not, that Glenn Beck has been reading my
> essays under "Wringing-the-neck of empty ritual."  For the first time
> ever, Beck is acknowledging that no groups—religions included—can make
> the needed changes in our government.  Following my lead, he is now
> charging INDIVIDUALS with that responsibility.  Surprisingly, Beck
> realizes that having anything other than a secular government would be
> wrong.  (Note: The latter is such a huge departure for Beck, that I
> suspect it is due to the world-threatening mess caused by Muslims
> believing that their religion should also control governments.)  The
> second proof that Beck is reading what I write is his overt… slap at
> me for saying that 'I repeatedly asked myself what James Madison would
> have thought about what each new thing I wrote in my New
> Constitution.'  Beck, almost angrily said: "James Madison isn't Jesus
> Christ!"
>
> Glenn Beck seems to be saying he would have preferred that I ask Jesus
> Christ what should be included in my New Constitution.  The reason I
> used Madison and the Founding Fathers as my standard was because I
> could sense the SPIRIT of the Constitution just from reading what they
> wrote.  Jesus never wrote a Constitution, but the Golden Rule, "Do
> unto others as you would have them do unto you." and "Love thy
> neighbor as thyself."  Would be pretty good constitutions, taken alone
> or together.  Beck is a cad if he supposes my motives are less high
> simply because I, unlike him, don't DROP the name Jesus or give…
> "credit" to God at every turn.  I'll guarantee you this: I wasn't
> inspired to spend fourteen years of my life writing my New
> Constitution to benefit most Americans, unless I was a highly moral
> person (who knows right from wrong).
>
> Charles Krauthammer is one of those political commentators who will
> lose his job once my New Constitution is ratified.  He flagrantly
> violates the provisions preventing celebrities in the media or in
> entertainment, etc., from having more influence on the outcome of
> elections than the man-on-the-street.  Though "conservatively"
> insightful, Krauthammer keeps including enough "jabs" at the right to
> keep the liberal publishers of his syndicated news columns happy.
> Unless he does that, he won't be making big bucks any more.
> Krauthammer has only one standard of right and wrong, and that is
> dollars and cents—just like most of those on the Fox News Channel,
> especially Brit Hume.
>
> Krauthammer erred big time when he called Donald Trump "a clown, with
> no chance of becoming President."  Sending out 'negative psychology'
> is a ploy used by both the left and the right that must be stopped, if
> we are to survive as a nation.  If a candidate says obvious untruths
> against another candidate he or she will be disqualified or jailed.
> All election-related commentary (but not COVERAGE) in the media shall
> stop!
>
> Pitiful Gov. Mike Huckabee is probably jealous that Glenn Beck has
> upstaged Huckabee's religious (insincere) sweetness.  Barack Obama
> hides his emotions behind a cool exterior.  Huckabee hides his
> insincerity behind a for-show, phony smile that may appeal to the
> religious right.  I knew Huckabee was two-faced when he interrupted a
> guest who was saying negative things about Obama, so that his audience
> wouldn't get to applaud their assent.  I call Huckabee a two-faced
> LIBERAL.  Beck calls him a Republican "progressive", which is a
> conflict of terms.
>
> Numbers of people are proposing that we should pass a balanced-budget
> amendment.  My New Constitution does that within the main body of the
> document:
>
> "The House shall author bills of appropriation within budget; in
> addition, the President shall have Line Item Veto power on all such
> bills, except if overruled by a 60% vote of the House.  12 years from
> the adoption of this New Constitution, and following a successful two
> year test in two or more states, taxation in the USA shall be changed
> to sales tax only—at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of
> the GNP—home food and medicines excluded.* "
>
> Thinking Americans—like I hope the majority of my readers are—should
> realize that merely passing a balanced budget amendment will still
> leave in place all of the corrupt Washington establishment that let
> the USA get into such sad shape to begin with.  The expression is: "If
> something is broken, FIX it!"  All of our piddling with government
> over the last century has left it still broken and unworkable.  ***
> The first step to correcting things is for any person with the
> public's ear to adamantly renounce our… two party system, which is and
> always has been, unconstitutional.  SCRAP the primaries and SCRAP the
> conventions!  Let the voters decide their favorite candidates via the
> magic of TV.  If we had had TV a century ago, the… "ritual" of
> campaigning in all of the states never would have gotten started.
> It's time we wring-the-neck of the empty ritual of primaries(!) as
> well as those of the other wasteful and hurtful things that we do in
> this country!  Instead of putting billions of dollars into the pockets
> of the media for campaigns lasting two or three years, put only a few
> million dollars into their pockets for campaigns lasting no more that
> THREE MONTHS!  Politics isn't a GAME, people; it is the bane of our
> existence!
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — John A. Armistead  —  Patriot
>
> AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics news group.
>
> Those who are interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest
> Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity," available at Amazon and Barnes
> and Noble.

--
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.

Goodell Pleads to Save Bureaucracy

"Wow. It sounds like NFL players want to be treated like workers in most other professions. Goodell wants to treat them like government schoolteachers, where salaries are fixed by a union contract and primarily reward seniority."

Goodell Pleads to Save Bureaucracy
April 26, 2011 by S.M. Oliva

In response to yesterday's injunction, National Football Leader Praetor Commissioner Roger Goodell took the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal -- the people's newspaper! -- to complain that the ultimate result of all this nasty litigation will be a free market for NFL player services. And that would be bad:

In the union lawyers' world, every player would enter the league as an unrestricted free agent, an independent contractor free to sell his services to any team. Every player would again become an unrestricted free agent each time his contract expired. And each team would be free to spend as much or as little as it wanted on player payroll or on an individual player's compensation.

Wow. It sounds like NFL players want to be treated like workers in most other professions. Goodell wants to treat them like government schoolteachers, where salaries are fixed by a union contract and primarily reward seniority.

Goodell continues:

Under this vision, players and fans would have none of the protections or benefits that only a union (through a collective-bargaining agreement) can deliver. What are the potential ramifications for players, teams, and fans? Here are some examples:
• No draft. "Why should there even be a draft?" said player agent Brian Ayrault. "Players should be able to choose who they work for. Markets should determine the value of all contracts. Competitive balance is a fallacy."

Goodell never refutes this. He simply implies it's nonsense. But Ayrault was right on the key point: "Competitive balance" is a fallacy, at least with respect to the impact of the rules Goodell advocates below.

• No minimum team payroll. Some teams could have $200 million payrolls while others spend $50 million or less.
• No minimum player salary. Many players could earn substantially less than today's minimums.

This is the core fallacy. Goodell equates "competitive balance" with keeping every team's payroll at or around the same level. But the NFL has fixed its payroll levels for years ­ and yet there's still a clear disparity between good teams and bad teams. Yes, bad teams occassionally have good seasons, but that speaks to the real cause of the NFL's apparent competitive balance: the short schedule. If Major League Baseball only played 16 regular season games a year, the higher payrolls of the Yankees and Red Sox wouldn't be quite the advantage it is under the present 162-game schedule.

(Tellingly, the schedule is the one thing Goodell wanted to tamper with earlier in the labor negotiations, expanding the regular season to 18 games; that would do far more to reduce "competitive balance" than eliminating salary minimums.)

• No standard guarantee to compensate players who suffer season- or career-ending injuries.Players would instead negotiate whatever compensation they could.

• No league-wide agreements on benefits. The generous benefit programs now available to players throughout the league would become a matter of individual club choice and individual player negotiation.
• No limits on free agency. Players and agents would team up to direct top players to a handful of elite teams. Other teams, perpetually out of the running for the playoffs, would serve essentially as farm teams for the elites.
• No league-wide rule limiting the length of training camp or required off-season workout obligations. Each club would have its own policies.
• No league-wide testing program for drugs of abuse or performance enhancing substances.Each club could have its own program­or not.

Over and over, Goodell repeats, with an obvious sneer, "each club would have its own policies" in the absence of a monopoly-union labor agreement. He argues that some players would end up worse off left to their own devices. How does he know? Until the league tries a decentralized labor system, it's impossible to know who would be better or worse off.

Goodell ends with a flourish of economic illiteracy:

Is this the NFL that players want? A league where elite players attract enormous compensation and benefits while other players­those lacking the glamour and bargaining power of the stars­play for less money, fewer benefits and shorter careers than they have today? A league where the competitive ability of teams in smaller communities (Buffalo, New Orleans, Green Bay and others) is forever cast into doubt by blind adherence to free-market principles that favor teams in larger, better-situated markets?

Nobody ever accused the NFL -- one of the largest recipients of government welfare via stadium subsidies -- of "blind adherence to free-market principles," and it's obvious Goodell doesn't even understand what those principles are. On the one hand, Goodell raises the antitrust problem: the league can't maintain many of its current rules without the support of a union, because to do so would invite antitrust lawsuits like the one that led to yesterday's injunction. Goodell seemingly endorses the notion that antitrust promotes free markets, but his league must be allowed to violate those principles in order to survive. That is yet another fallacy.

In truth, there's nothing anti-free market about a group of private businesses adopting rules they believe will advance their economic self-interest. The problem here is that Goodell seems more intent on maintaining the league's bureaucracy then adopting sensible business policies. Goodell is the chief bureaucrat, so his stance is understandable, albeit not laudable.

As I've argued before, much of the league's spending on players is driven by the demands of the bureaucracy itself. This Thursday's NFL Draft is a prime example. Eliminating the draft would likely reduce overall spending on rookies and discourage individual clubs from paying a premium for unproven talent. The Draft creates an IP-like artificial scarcity that restricts the ability of club managers to negotiate the most favorable terms with prospective employees. This has nothing to do with so-called competitive balance; the league maintains the Draft because of tradition ­ or inertia ­ and because it values the additional marketing exposure during its offseason.

But there's an even more direct argument against Goodell's "we can't let the players be free agents" mantra: If a decentralized labor system is unacceptable when it comes to playing talent, why is it acceptable when it comes to managerial talent? After all, coaches, general managers, scouts, and all other non-player personnel aren't subject to the rigors of a government-sponsored union contract. Teams are generally free to hire and promote managerial talent as they see fit. Yet we don't hear any complaining from Goodell about out-of-control spending on general managers or offensive coordinators. Dan Snyder can hire five coaches in ten years -- often at record salaries -- but somehow it's inconceivable that a backup right tackle could negotiate his own contract without strictly adhering to a 300 page labor agreement negotiated by a union he may never have consented to join.

And that's really what Roger Goodell really cares about -- that labor agreement. He values rules and regulations more than anything else. It's what justified the existence of the commissioner's office in the first place. Clearly, Goodell contributes nothing to the product of professional football; all the evidence of Goodell's tenure suggests just the opposite. And as much as Goodell gripes about the players resorting to litigation over negotiation, the truth is that nobody benefits more from the government's involvement in the NFL -- be it through labor or antitrust law -- as the "commissioner of the National Football League." He holds a quasi-governmental title for a reason.

Economic Crimes in China and the U.S.


Monday, April 25, 2010
Economic Crimes in China and the U.S.
by Jacob G. Hornberger

The U.S. government is criticizing the Chinese government for one of the communist regime's favorite tactics: using "economic crimes" as a legal cover to prosecute, convict, and incarcerate people who are actually guilty of political crimes. The latest instance involves Chinese celebrity artist and social critic Ai Weiwei, who is being held on suspicion of violating "economic crimes."

As Ayn Rand pointed out in Atlas Shrugged, that's one of the primary purposes of economic crimes. Since economic regulations and tax regulations are so extensive and complicated, they provide government officials with the ability to prosecute businessmen whenever they want, which serves as a tremendous incentive for businessmen to keep silent and cooperative.

As the New York Times explained in a story about the Ai prosecution: "Such crimes can include prosaic failures to properly comply with regulations on business registration or taxation…. The government has convicted citizens of financial fraud before when trying to silence them."

Actually though, U.S. officials are, once again, being disingenuous and hypocritical in leveling their charges at Chinese officials. Ever since the advent of the regulated economy under President Franklin Roosevelt, U.S. officials have done the same thing that the Chinese communists are doing: use economic crimes to prosecute American businessmen who fail to tow the official line.

Consider Joe Nacchio, who served as chief executive officer of Qwest Communications. After the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush and his people approached various heads of U.S. telecommunications firms to solicit their participation in an illegal and unethical scheme in which the telecoms would turn over confidential information about their clients to the federal government.

Not surprisingly, most of the telecom heads acceded to the president's request. They were not dumb. They knew what the feds could do to them if they refused the president's request to become lawbreakers and sell out their customers.

To his everlasting credit, one telecom head said no to the president. That man was Joe Nacchio. He refused to compromise the interests of his customers. He refused to break the law.

And so they went after Nacchio. No, they didn't go after him for refusing the president's request to violate the law and sell out his clients. That would have been too flagrant. Instead, the feds did exactly what the Chinese communists do. They went after Nacchio for committing an "economic crime," to wit: violating the ridiculous insider-trading laws. For that economic crime, Nacchio got sentenced to six years in the federal penitentiary.

Or consider Mark Cuban, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He helped finance a movie named Loose Change, which posited that President Bush orchestrated the 9/11 attacks to justify his subsequent war on Iraq. That set off a man named Jeffrey B. Norris, an S.E.C. lawyer in Fort Worth, who accused Cuban of being unpatriotic for financing a "vicious and absurd documentary."

So, did the feds go after Cuban for accusing them of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks? Of course not. That would be violating his right to freedom of speech. Like the Chinese communists, they just figured out some economic crime that Cuban supposedly committed, and went after him for that. What was Cuban's economic crime? You guessed it -- insider trading. While they haven't indicted him for the crime, the SEC is going after him with a civil suit.

It's no different with the IRS Code. Every election cycle we hear promises by candidates for federal office to simplify the tax code. But they'll never do it because they know they'd lose one of the biggest hammers they have over people's heads. The tax code consists of countless complex rules and regulations. That ensures that they'll always be able to go after anyone they want because most everyone is guilty of violating at least one provision of the tax code. The scheme works especially well against businessmen in major companies, whose activity exposes them to many more tax regulations (and economic regulations) than other people.

What better way to ensure that wealthy and powerful businessmen remain in line, both in communist China and the United States? If they step out of line, federal officials can do precisely what their Chinese counterparts do -- go after the recalcitrant businessmen for tax crimes or economic crimes while claiming that the prosecution has nothing to do with the political positions being taken by the prosecuted person.

There really is only one solution to this problem, and it lies not with getting "better" people into public office, either in China or the United States. Instead, it lies with a total separation of the economy and the state, in the manner the Framers separated church and state. The solution lies in the embrace of the principles of economic liberty, as reflected in constitutional amendments along the following lines: "No law shall be enacted respecting the regulation of commerce or abridging the free exercise thereof" and "No tax shall be levied on income."

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-04-25.asp

The Budget Mess: A Crisis in Legitimacy


The Budget Mess: A Crisis in Legitimacy
by Sheldon Richman, April 26, 2011

Reality has finally caught up with the ruling elite, and its members inside and outside government are in a panic. They have freely spent the taxpayers' money for generations building a corporatist warfare-welfare state, and when that wasn't enough to finance their projects, they borrowed just as freely. For a long while it paid off handsomely in power and wealth, but now even they realize things can't go on as they have for so long.

This fiscal year the government will spend $3.8 trillion, more than 40 percent of which will be borrowed. In the last full year before the current administration came to power, outlays were just under $3 trillion. Earlier this year, the Office of Management and Budget estimated that under President Obama's budget, spending in 2016 will rise to $4.5 trillion. The FY 2008 deficit stood at less than half a trillion dollars -- an astounding amount in its day. It hit a record $1.88 trillion in 2009. According to administration estimates, the deficit won't fall below a trillion dollars until 2013, then will begin rising again 2016.

Deficit projections of course depend on assumptions about economic growth. When the public is clamoring for action on the deficit, officials have an incentive be unrealistically optimistic.

Also, budget discussions overflow with opportunities for deceit. As we saw with the recent compromise over the 2011 continuing resolution, in Orwellian Washington a spending cut is really an increase.

Deficit spending has had a deep structural effect on America's political economy. In mid April the national debt was $14.3 trillion, about 98 percent of GDP. Last year the administration's Mid-Session Budget Review projected the debt would hit 100 percent of GDP by 2012, and would double by 2020, exceeding 100 percent of GDP for the rest of the decade.

To see the yearly budget impact of that, in 2010 the U.S. government paid more than $400 billion in interest, a little less than the Medicare budget -- the fourth largest budget item. This year the government is on track to exceed that amount. It is estimated that in 2019 the government will pay $700 billion in interest.

Obama's profligate spending should not lead us to think he succeeded a budget hawk in office. On the contrary, the eight years of George W. Bush saw outlays go from $1.9 trillion to nearly $3 trillion and the debt go from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion.

Virtually everyone agrees that the current situation is unsustainable. It's easy to see why the ruling elite think so. They are concerned that if some control is not achieved over spending, by 2025 all revenues collected by the national government will be swallowed up by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on the debt. But then how will the politicians do all the other things they do: subsidizing pet projects (many of which are carried on by well-connected businesses); policing the globe for political and economic reasons (fighting overt and covert wars and channeling billions to the military-industrial complex); and generally centralizing power in Washington, D.C.?

The regime faces a double crisis. The first is fiscal: Unless it does something, it won't have the money to maintain the gravy train. The other is a crisis in legitimacy. People are catching on that the borrowing power hides the cost of government, imposing burdens on future generations. If politicians don't appear to fix things their careers are in jeopardy.

Hence, Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's House-backed meager "Path to Prosperity" and Obama's expression of support for modest budget cuts (plus tax increases on the wealthy). But both approaches, whatever their differences in detail and style, have one overriding feature in common: Both aim to preserve the corporatist warfare-welfare state. Neither represents a serious rethinking of the role of government. In the end, there will be little change, no matter who prevails.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1104n.asp

UPDATE!!! Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a “N*gger,” “Coon,” and “MotherF*cker”?(




UPDATE!!! Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a "N*gger," "Coon," and "MotherF*cker"?(

Just got an update to a story I posted entitled: "Wonder if the NAACP has seen this Video of Obama being called a "N*gger," "Coon," and "MotherF*cker"? The video showed a gathering of NAACP and like-minded folk using vulgar language and it was aimed at President Obama.

This hate-fest was put together by the NAACP's very own Rev. Curtis Gatewood. The original video was removed from YouTube but a reader of this blog sent me an email with an update.

watch?v=BUBumCjabjo&feature=player_embedded

David Stein reports, via CounterContempt:

Like a great many viewers, I watched MSNBC hack Martin Bashir's recent interview with Andrew Breitbart with a mixture of derision and disbelief. Bashir seemed hell-bent on portraying Breitbart as a "racist," and, lacking any…uh, what's the word for that stuff that proves other stuff…oh, right – "evidence," he engaged in a guilt-by-association attack that would have been hilarious had Bashir not been so deadly serious. Breitbart has expressed his admiration for Rush Limbaugh, who recently did an impression of the president of China. This, somehow, makes Breitbart "racist." A GOP nonentity in Orange County who Breitbart has no connection to or relationship with recently emailed some friends a stupid, photoshopped image of President Obama, and somehow Breitbart is responsible for the conduct of a human being whose existence on this earth was very likely completely unknown to him.

Watching Bashir struggle so mightily, and with such little success, to find a way to tar Breitbart as a racist, I was reminded of the fact that the "mainstream" media (MSM) has yet to cover a particular, ongoing story in which evidence of racism (real, tangible evidence, of the kind that you get when someone is actually, you know, a RACIST) has been uncovered at the venerable NAACP.

The MSM certainly considers the NAACP to be an important organization. I'd wager that the members of the MSM hold the NAACP in much higher regard than they do Breitbart (yes, I know that's an easy bet, but I've never been much of a gambler).

If it's so terribly, terribly important to "expose" the fact that Breitbart likes a radio host who once did a funny Chinese accent, why is it not equally important to confront the NAACP regarding the racist, anti-Semitic statements and actions of one of its high-ranking officials?

I first covered the words and deeds of Reverend Curtis Gatewood, the 2nd vice president of the NAACP's North Carolina Conference of Branches (he was also an official organizer of last year's AFL-CIO/NAACP "One Nation Working Together" rally), back in August 2010. I meticulously cataloged all of his statements attacking Jews, Israel, immigrants, black people with whom he disagrees, and America in general. It's too long a list to recap here, so I recommend visiting the original story (pack a lunch; it's not a quick read). Much of my exposé involved Reverend Gatewood's work as co-founder and co-organizer of the "Black is Back Coalition," a group founded on the principles of violent revolution, anti-Semitism, and support for the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Hamas, and all of America and Israel's foes.

I revealed fairly shocking video from the coalition's November 2009 rally in Washington DC, and, predictably (another safe wager), the footage (and the Gatewood story in general) was ignored by the MSM (even though the footage showed participants at the rally repeatedly calling Obama the "n word" and a "coon"). The NAACP also steadfastly refused to comment on the story (not for lack of trying on my part).

When the coalition held another rally in November 2010, and more unpleasant footage surfaced (this time, the footage showed the Black is Back Coalition leader making thinly-veiled threats against Obama), I was, at first, tempted to simply write another article about it, send it around the conservative blogoshpere, and watch once again as the MSM and the NAACP turn their collective, customary blind eye.

Speaking of the conservative blogosphere, there is one type of story that is such a staple of conservative blogsites, it might as well have its own category on standard WordPress templates. It's the "if a conservative said that, the left would be in an uproar" story. We all know the drill: A liberal (politician, journalist, author, activist, actor) says something (racist, bigoted, unintentionally stupid), the MSM doesn't cover it, and we sit back trading blog posts about how hypocritical the MSM is. "Harumph…if a CONSERVATIVE had said that, the press would be all over it."

It's a legitimate angle for a blog post, but damn, it gets tiring repeating the same point, again and again.

So when I saw the footage of the November 2010 Black is Back rally, I thought I'd have a little fun with it. I decided to see exactly how the NAACP would react if they read the words that were spoken at the rally without knowing that it was a far-left event that their own guy co-organized. How would the NAACP react if they were sent a transcript of the remarks under the guise that the event was a Tea Party rally?

Continue reading and see what the response was when David contacted the NAACP>>>

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

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.

California Human Relations Commission to give humanitarian award to anti-gay Muslim




California Human Relations Commission to give humanitarian award to anti-gay Muslim

Is that redundant? via IPT's post on Big Peace: Islamist To Be Given Award By California Human Relations Commission. He has wished for "the implementation of Sharia [Islamic law] in all areas" of society, said Muslims can never accept homosexuality and predicted God's wrath on America for its support of Israel. Now, Muzammil Siddiqi is [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

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.

"Royal Family you WILL pay!"

No telling what the muzzieshits will do. They know nothing but hate and death.


"Royal Family you WILL pay!"

barenakedislam | April 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM | Categories: Islamic Britain | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-t93

The Muslims who made this video calling Prince William a Nazi are the same Muslims threatening a terrorist attack on the Royal Wedding. So, why are they making videos instead of sitting in jail? In a recent report published by The Telegraph, disturbing admissions were once again leaked exposing prince William's yearning desire to commit [...]

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post


WordPress

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.

Re: Teen stabbed near National Zoo

Franklin Park Zoo, Boston MA - REAL bad neighborhood.

"I took my kids to Franklin Park to see the animals.

and THEN we went to the zoo!"

Got in some trouble on that one! :-)

On Apr 26, 11:42 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> do wolverines eat beavers?
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Has Maddow ever figured out what species it is?
>
> > On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>  Of course if you tell anyone this Rachel Madcow will smear you for
> >> Speciesism
>
> >>http://www.tbd.com/articles/2011/04/teen-stabbed-near-national-zoo-59...
>
> >> --
> >>  __._,_.___
>
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> >  --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

Re: Teen stabbed near National Zoo

do wolverines eat beavers?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 7:06 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:
Has Maddow ever figured out what species it is?

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
Of course if you tell anyone this Rachel Madcow will smear you for Speciesism

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The USA is lost in the ‘Corn’ of politics.

The supposed 'window of opportunity' for potential candidates to
decide whether to run for President is getting smaller. Donald Trump
is now topping the polls with his give-'em-hell solutions to this
country's pressing problems. He's headed to New Hampshire to expound
on those ideas. Two weeks ago Michele Bachmann headed to… Iowa and
got lost in the CORN by playing-up-to the people of that
geographically central, but otherwise unexceptional, state.
Intelligence should be one standard for judging the qualifications of
anyone wishing to become President. Even though it's a tradition of
long standing… no person who accepts the archaic RITUAL of acting like
impractical fools; jetting all over to USA; and wasting tens, if not
hundreds of millions of dollars just to press-the-flesh with the
maximum number of voters, isn't wise enough, nor practical enough, to
be our President.

As I regularly state, political parties—by whatever name—are
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So to are the mindless, spaced-out, media-serving
primaries. Those automatically preclude from being President any non
megalomaniac who would be a better choice for President simply by
virtue of having a more sensible personality. Within, say, a six-week
period of well-thought-out candidate interviews and debates, every
voter who has access to a TV should be able to pick the candidate who
is most agreeable to him. And the total campaign expenditure of any
one candidate need not exceed five million dollars.

Rep. Ron Paul, that derelict candidate from the 2008 election, is
locked-in-on the RITUAL of brown-nosing the voters of Iowa. Paul
could easily have become our president in the last election if he had
simply done what I urged him to do, and abandoned the Republican Party
to run as an Independent. Glenn Beck, to his credit, sees BOTH major
parties as being out-of-touch. The Tea Party movement, which isn't
really a "party", is more agreeable to Beck, who has declined taking
continued credit for the 9/12 project. Beck will only go so far with
anything, then he bails.

On his flagging TV show, yesterday, Glenn Beck emotionally derided the
declining moral values in this country—which he attributes to our
being out-of-touch with God. At a McDonald's restaurant, a
transgender person got beaten-up badly enough to cause a seizure.
Only one person in that restaurant attempted to stave-off the attack.
Glenn Beck is most naïve; there is limited 'first aid' that can be
done for anyone having a seizure, other than to put them on their side
to reduce the chance of possible choking if they vomit. That person
was already on her side. Beck chided the video camera operator for
not rushing over to, essentially, do nothing. In defense of those
customers in the restaurant, they very likely didn't know "what
infraction" had so angered the attackers. Supposing that the victim
was a "bad person", most just looked around, and seeing no others
taking action, they took no action, themselves. The psychology of why
that same thing happens—most often in big, impersonal cities—has been
studied extensively. In rare cases, those not calling police, or
calling down the attackers, have been found to be criminally negligent
for not providing reasonably prudent assistance.

As was the case with that video camera operator, Glenn Beck sees the
"historically predictable" failures of our government, our economy,
and of our society. But he consistently does little or nothing. His
56 Refounders—as of the Constitution—failed to expose the "Good
Dirt" (a quote of J. R. from "Dallas") that would rally the American
people to vote-in good candidates. Prior to the 8/18 rally last year
in Washington, that drew 3/4 million people, Beck vowed to keep on his
"combat boots" until the corruption in Washington has been corrected.
But about that same time, the Obama W. H. put out a directive saying
that suspected terrorists (supposedly, including those proposing
violence, as in a… revolution) could be shot without recourse. That
threat caused Beck to take off his combat boots, put on his bullet-
proof vest, and to take-on the guise of being an evangelist deferring
all solutions to Divine Providence. He saw it as an act of God that a
flock of curious and very 'ham' Canada Geese flew over the reflection
pool. And of course there was that "eight-year-old" (looked 14) red-
headed kid who lucked up and got the last tickets to sit in a section
close to the Lincoln Monument. A father loving his son, oh how much
of a God-send 'that' is…

I could be flattered, but I'm not, that Glenn Beck has been reading my
essays under "Wringing-the-neck of empty ritual." For the first time
ever, Beck is acknowledging that no groups—religions included—can make
the needed changes in our government. Following my lead, he is now
charging INDIVIDUALS with that responsibility. Surprisingly, Beck
realizes that having anything other than a secular government would be
wrong. (Note: The latter is such a huge departure for Beck, that I
suspect it is due to the world-threatening mess caused by Muslims
believing that their religion should also control governments.) The
second proof that Beck is reading what I write is his overt… slap at
me for saying that 'I repeatedly asked myself what James Madison would
have thought about what each new thing I wrote in my New
Constitution.' Beck, almost angrily said: "James Madison isn't Jesus
Christ!"

Glenn Beck seems to be saying he would have preferred that I ask Jesus
Christ what should be included in my New Constitution. The reason I
used Madison and the Founding Fathers as my standard was because I
could sense the SPIRIT of the Constitution just from reading what they
wrote. Jesus never wrote a Constitution, but the Golden Rule, "Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you." and "Love thy
neighbor as thyself." Would be pretty good constitutions, taken alone
or together. Beck is a cad if he supposes my motives are less high
simply because I, unlike him, don't DROP the name Jesus or give…
"credit" to God at every turn. I'll guarantee you this: I wasn't
inspired to spend fourteen years of my life writing my New
Constitution to benefit most Americans, unless I was a highly moral
person (who knows right from wrong).

Charles Krauthammer is one of those political commentators who will
lose his job once my New Constitution is ratified. He flagrantly
violates the provisions preventing celebrities in the media or in
entertainment, etc., from having more influence on the outcome of
elections than the man-on-the-street. Though "conservatively"
insightful, Krauthammer keeps including enough "jabs" at the right to
keep the liberal publishers of his syndicated news columns happy.
Unless he does that, he won't be making big bucks any more.
Krauthammer has only one standard of right and wrong, and that is
dollars and cents—just like most of those on the Fox News Channel,
especially Brit Hume.

Krauthammer erred big time when he called Donald Trump "a clown, with
no chance of becoming President." Sending out 'negative psychology'
is a ploy used by both the left and the right that must be stopped, if
we are to survive as a nation. If a candidate says obvious untruths
against another candidate he or she will be disqualified or jailed.
All election-related commentary (but not COVERAGE) in the media shall
stop!

Pitiful Gov. Mike Huckabee is probably jealous that Glenn Beck has
upstaged Huckabee's religious (insincere) sweetness. Barack Obama
hides his emotions behind a cool exterior. Huckabee hides his
insincerity behind a for-show, phony smile that may appeal to the
religious right. I knew Huckabee was two-faced when he interrupted a
guest who was saying negative things about Obama, so that his audience
wouldn't get to applaud their assent. I call Huckabee a two-faced
LIBERAL. Beck calls him a Republican "progressive", which is a
conflict of terms.

Numbers of people are proposing that we should pass a balanced-budget
amendment. My New Constitution does that within the main body of the
document:

"The House shall author bills of appropriation within budget; in
addition, the President shall have Line Item Veto power on all such
bills, except if overruled by a 60% vote of the House. 12 years from
the adoption of this New Constitution, and following a successful two
year test in two or more states, taxation in the USA shall be changed
to sales tax only—at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of
the GNP—home food and medicines excluded.* "

Thinking Americans—like I hope the majority of my readers are—should
realize that merely passing a balanced budget amendment will still
leave in place all of the corrupt Washington establishment that let
the USA get into such sad shape to begin with. The expression is: "If
something is broken, FIX it!" All of our piddling with government
over the last century has left it still broken and unworkable. ***
The first step to correcting things is for any person with the
public's ear to adamantly renounce our… two party system, which is and
always has been, unconstitutional. SCRAP the primaries and SCRAP the
conventions! Let the voters decide their favorite candidates via the
magic of TV. If we had had TV a century ago, the… "ritual" of
campaigning in all of the states never would have gotten started.
It's time we wring-the-neck of the empty ritual of primaries(!) as
well as those of the other wasteful and hurtful things that we do in
this country! Instead of putting billions of dollars into the pockets
of the media for campaigns lasting two or three years, put only a few
million dollars into their pockets for campaigns lasting no more that
THREE MONTHS! Politics isn't a GAME, people; it is the bane of our
existence!

Respectfully submitted,


— John A. Armistead — Patriot

AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics news group.

Those who are interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest
Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity," available at Amazon and Barnes
and Noble.

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

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

Fwd: Reminder: Dr. Doom vs. the Education Bubble: Peter Schiff at Temple University! is tomorrow.




Meetup Reminder
TRUTH, FREEDOM, PROSPERITY
Meetup
When: Where:  
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
5:00 PM
Temple University Gladfelter Hall Room 013
1115 W. Berks St.
Who's going:
6 Freedom Fighters
See all

This is a FREE event! You can't beat this!

Student Liberty Front will be helping to fund this event at Temple University and it is a big one! Peter Schiff is coming to town! This is an event that you CANNOT MISS!

Dr. Doom vs. the Education Bubble: The Rising Costs of Higher Education

Join the Temple Libertarians, along with many co-sponsors, on Wednesday, April 27th in welcoming New York Times best selling author, economist, and radio host Peter Schiff as he discusses budget cuts and why tuition is skyrocketing out of control (particularly concerning Temple University itself).

This is what Temple, your professors, and the government don't want you to know!

Learn why the education bubble and student loans are your worst enemy!

You'll never look at a college education the same way again!

Peter Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc.
He is the author five books, the most notable being Crash Proof 2.0, which appeared on both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller lists. Schiff received the nickname "Dr. Doom" after accurately predicting the housing bubble and mortgage crisis. The video "Peter Schiff Was Right" became a viral hit once Schiff's predictions came to fruition.
The video can be seen here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

You can read more about Peter Schiff at the following sites:
http://www.schiffradio.com/
http://peterschiffonline.com/
For information on Euro Pacific Capital:
http://www.europac.net/

Non-students are welcome too! Here is the location of the event:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&biw=1408&bih=737&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=gladfelter+hall&fb=1&gl=us&hq=gladfelter+hall&hnear=Philadelphia%2C+PA&cid=0%2C0%2C3707857143132798428&ei=ClasTZqtAa2N0QHey5n5CA&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=image&resnum=4&ved=0CCsQnwIwAw

Sponsored by Temple Libertarians, Drexel Student Liberty Front, the Commonwealth Foundation, Temple FMA, TUIA, and Temple CRs.

Learn more

Add info@meetup.com to your address book to receive all Meetup emails

To manage your email settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668

Meetup HQ in NYC is hiring! http://www.meetup.com/jobs/


--
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: A Voyage Into The Racial Code Words Used To Attack Obama’s Americanism

Did anyone notice that republicans beat democrats like rented mules
just a few months ago. I'm talking at EPIC, levels.

Assauge-o-rama.

Feel better after the cluster fuck, now?

On Apr 26, 11:11 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: <ProudLiber...@aol.com>
> Date: Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:56 AM
> Subject: [DailyKos] A Voyage Into The Racial Code Words Used To Attack
> Obama's Americanism
> To: OpenDebateForum@googlegroups.com
>
>  A Voyage Into The Racial Code Words Used To Attack Obama's Americanism
> April 26, 2011
> By Rmuse <http://www.politicususa.com/en/author/rmuse>
>
> During last year's midterm campaign season, many pundits on the left were
> asking why Americans would vote against their own self-interests on issues
> like Social Security and Medicare privatization. Even with revelations that
> corporations and the oil industry are receiving tax cuts and subsidies while
> social safety nets for poor and elderly citizens are being eliminated, there
> are elderly and poor Americans defending the GOP and their rich corporate
> benefactors.
>
> Is it that conservatives are cognitively challenged and automatically
> support anything the Republican message machine tells them, or is there an
> underlying reason to vote for self-defeating policies? Since most Americans
> are literate enough to understand which policies are for their own good,
> there has to be another factor that drives intelligent people to vote
> against their own interests.
>
> When Fox News pundits were fighting health care reform, their favorite
> derogatory term describing President Obama's plan was that it was socialism,
> and they beat that drum unmercifully. Although opponents of the health law
> learned that police, fire, schools, and roads were socialistic, they still
> opposed anything Republicans called socialism; even if they benefited from
> it. Many of the Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections were
> straightforward in their promise to repeal the health care law as well as
> privatize Medicare and Social Security. So why did voters elect Republicans
> who promised to eliminate programs they depend on to exist? It is racism,
> pure and simple.
>
> The birther movement is not about whether President Obama was born in
> America, but that he is not American because he is Black. When the teabags
> preach returning to the Founding Fathers' intentions for the country, it is
> not because they are Constitutional ideologists, but because the Founders
> were white. There is a dysfunctional thought-process in many Americans that
> refuses to believe America is not a white Christian nation, and the thought
> of a Black man in the Oval Office is intolerable. Birther devotees are able
> to say Obama is not one of us because he is not American, but their real
> message is the he's not American because of his race, and Republicans are
> using that race-hatred to their political advantage.
>
> Donald Trump is riding the birther sentiment for all it's worth because
> although the man is a carnival freak show, he knows that racism is alive and
> well in America. Trump has demanded to see President Obama's birth
> certificate every time he opens his mouth regardless that it has been in the
> public record since before the 2008 elections. Trump's response as of late
> is that the president is hiding something as if he is a criminal. The
> implication that President Obama is illegitimate or an alien who is sitting
> in a place he doesn't belong is not lost on Americans who harbor racist
> sentiments, and Republicans are dancing around the birther issue to keep the
> racial divide intact.
>
> Whether or not Republicans in Congress are racists, they know that President
> Obama is an American but they are complicit in keeping the birther movement
> alive. If they were decent Americans, they would put the issue to rest once
> and for all, but they desperately need a wedge between Obama and voters with
> racist tendencies. If Republicans let voters make decisions on the merits of
> the president's policies, they would lose every battle. Most Americans need
> health care, but Republicans branded "Obamacare" as a foreign, socialist
> policy that originated from an alien man in the White House and they got the
> opposition they wanted. Republicans kept the issue alive for the midterm
> elections with promises to repeal the socialist takeover, and they won
> landslide victories. If a white president provided health care for 30 – 40
> million people he would be lauded as a hero and have his image enshrined on
> Mount Rushmore. But it was a Black man, an alien, an interloper who provided
> health care to millions and that is too much for half of America.
>
> President Obama is about as Centrist as any president could be, and he is a
> staunch defender of the military as well as business, and yet Republicans
> have made it their goal to limit him to one term. For two years Republicans
> obstructed and voted no to every proposal that benefited Americans and they
> still won big in the 2010 midterms. They campaigned on issues that would
> damage citizens and benefit big business and the wealthy, and voters
> supported them because Republicans opposed President Obama. There is no
> doubt that Republican supporters voted against their own self-interest
> because they were voting against Obama the Black president, and not his
> policies. However, it seems now that many Republican voters are looking past
> their racist tendencies at the real possibility that the candidates they
> supported are really going to steal their retirement and health care.
>
> There has been talk that Republicans have overreached by attempting to
> privatize Medicare, and based on the reactions they are getting at town hall
> meetings to sell the privatization scheme, that may be an understatement. It
> may be that inadvertently, Republicans have dealt a serious blow to racism
> in America in their attempt at robbing seniors to pay corporations and the
> wealthy. President Obama stated categorically that he opposed the
> privatization scheme because it was un-American, and thus far, Americans
> overwhelmingly concur. President Obama has always had the American peoples'
> interests at heart, and hopefully now the voters will see it for themselves;
> because a foreigner would never fight for the American people or their
> interests the way this president has.
>
> Republican voters are also getting a glimpse into the real agenda the GOP is
> promoting and it is not beneficial for Americans. The real un-Americans are
> Republicans who are waging war on the people, and they are predominately
> white and rich. Hopefully, America has reached a crossroads and the people
> will look at a president, a senator, or a neighbor based on his merit and
> not his race. If Americans judged a political party or race by its actions
> in the political arena, they would have abject hatred for white Republican
> males. However, Americans should follow the lead of our Black president and
> not promote hate, but look for common ground to work for the good of the
> country. It is what a good American would say; regardless of race.
>
> http://www.politicususa.com/en/obama-race-code
>
>  __._,_.___
>   Reply to sender<ProudLiber...@aol.com?subject=Re%3A%20A%20Voyage%20Into%20The%20Racial%20Code%20Words%20­Used%20To%20Attack%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20Americanism%20>|
> Reply
> to group<Daily...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20A%20Voyage%20Into%20The%20Racial%20Code%20­Words%20Used%20To%20Attack%20Obama%E2%80%99s%20Americanism%20>|
> Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyYXA5bmtoBF9T...>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmOWI1NTRrBF9T...>
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/message/40549;_ylc=X3oDMTM3ZzM...>(
> 1)
>  Recent Activity:
>
>  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmamFzN2k2BF9TAzk3M...>
>  [DailyKos]
> A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
> Group Email Addresses
> Post message:       Daily...@yahoogroups.com
> Subscribe:       DailyKos-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> Unsubscribe:       DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> List owner:       DailyKos-ow...@yahoogroups.com
>  [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjF1MHU2BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only<DailyKos-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<DailyKos-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe <DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>    .
>
> __,_._,___- 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.