Re: Empire or Solvency?

the assassination of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces
----
the justice brought to OBL by US Special Forces

On May 6, 1:05 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Empire or Solvency?The choice before usbyJustin Raimondo, May 06, 2011
> You know something is up whenRepublicansstart taking the lead in questioning our decade-long war in Afghanistan, and, indeed, somethingisup: a propitious confluence of circumstances and events, the most dramatic of which is theassassinationofOsama bin Ladenby US Special Forces. In hearings held the other day, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) said hethinksthe Afghan occupation is no longer justified:"With al Qaeda largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, especially given current fiscal restraints."
> Now that the iconic leader of the jihadists has been put out of commission – and, perhaps just as significantly, a hugetreasure troveof material confiscated from his hideaway has been seized the pressure to fundamentally change our conception of this allegedly "generational" conflict is well nigh irresistible. Sen. Lugar is the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and has long been the GOP'spoint manon overseas matters: for him to make a near-unequivocal case for rapid withdrawal is a sign of the sea change that has occurred in conservative thinking on foreign policy, a shift that hasalready happenedat the grassroots level and is now percolating up through the ranks of the GOP congressional caucus. The death of bin Laden has triggered a turning pointing on the right.Here's Larry Kudlow – formerly areliable neocon, who nonetheless knowssomethingabout economics (unlike most ofhis comrades) – on why we need to get out:"With the killing of Osama, is the Afghan mission complete? The original post-9/11 goal was to kill bin Laden and wipe out al-Qaeda. Now that we've killed bin Laden and dismantled so much of al-Qaeda., do we really need to trudge through an even longer war in Afghanistan? …"I am no military or foreign-policy expert. But I do know the cost of supporting a corrupt regime like Hamid Karzai's in terms of blood and treasure. The cost issteep. I speak here as a hawk, not a dove. …"Thus far, nearly 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Afghanistan. To me, this is the most tragic part. Of course, I wholeheartedly support our troops. But is this blood really necessary? Are the projected future costs really necessary?"Again, I ask myself: All this to support Karzai? Isn't this the sort of nation-building that the late William F. Buckley Jr. opposed? Are American national-security interests really tied up in Afghanistan? Is now not the time to contemplate a much more rapid troop withdrawal from Afghanistan?"[Hat tip:Lewis McCrary]
> To answer Kudlow's last question: not if your military goal is only peripherally and incidentally concerned with fighting "terrorism," and is actually focused onsubduing and colonizing[.pdf] the Middle East. 
> It was, you'll recall, Team Bush that sunk us deep in the Middle Eastern mire, and Afghanistanwasn't their first target: Iraq borethe bruntof America's post-9/11 fury because the neoconservative agenda is focused not on defense but onconquestas the proper goal of US foreign policy: whatBill KristolandRobert Kagancharacterized as "benevolent global hegemony" in their famous foreign policy manifesto. If our own territory should be attacked in the course of this protracted war of conquest, well then, Rome, too, was besieged many times in the early years of the Empire, and them's the breaks on the road to glory. 
> Kudlow is an economist with some understanding of the fiscal crisis we face: he sees the choice between empire and solvency and the necessity of making it sooner rather than later. As this sense of urgency gains traction and spreads, from the libertarian and "paleoconservative" precincts in which it has previously flourished, the GOP establishment will be forced to deal with the rising insurgency in their own ranks. A recentCNN pollshows that of the declared Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul – ananti-interventionistof a sort who often makesmelook moderate – unveils the new political reality:"Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama."Paul appeals to both hardcore Tea Party typesandindependents who viscerally distrust the GOP, and this is in large part due to his emphasis – even when he's talking abouteconomic matters– on the foreign policy factor, what he calls "the Empire" with aquintessentially Americanhint of disdain for all things imperial. He has spentthe last decade or sotelling Americans we're a bankrupt empire, and now that the reality of this has dawned Paul is getting aStrange New Respect. The neocons and professional Paul-haters (or do Irepeat myself?) will no doubt focus on the Strangeness aspect of this, but they are living in the past. 
> It was easy to ignore Paul's jeremiads against the Empire in the heyday of thefinancial bubble, and the concomitant bubble of American supremacy. Now that the bubble has burst – asPaul said it would– Americans are comingface to facewith something they've so far assiduously evaded: reality. The economic and social reality of a bloated, over-extended colossus, an empirerottingat its metropolitan core andbesiegedon every far-flung frontier. 
> Thecapture and summary executionof bin Laden has ushered in a new awareness when it comes to foreign policy matters, one that will almost certainly doom the very policy the terrorist leader's executionerinsists on maintaining, virtually unchanged. With bin Laden's death, the rationale for the occupation of Afghanistan, and even theescalating warin Pakistan, has been pulled out from under this administration. Obama's wars have always beenwildly unpopular: now they will exact a political cost that may becom unsustainable.
> In spite of this, every suggestion that the Afghan conflict is yesterday's war, no longer relevant to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda and its allies, is met by the administration with thealleged threatof a takeover by the Taliban and/or bin Laden's forces. Yet the latter is in decline, if not outright defeated, and the former don't have the reach to pose an effective threat to US territory – as thecomplete failureof theTimes Square bomberto inflict any damage underscores. However, the war drags on, mired in the neo-neoconcounterinsurgency strategychampioned bynewly-appointedCIA chief Gen. David Petraeus – a nation-building campaign that, after ten years, we are being told is today "fragile and reversible." 
> Is this really supposed to be an argument infavorof staying? Anywhere else but in theBizarro Worldwe seem to inhabit, such a statement would indicate that – after ten years of failure – the strategy isn't working because itcannotwork. 
> One would think the Obama administration, which prides itself on its alleged "pragmatism," would learn the lesson of their great success, instead of justcapitalizing on itpolitically. And that lesson is this: targeted, al-Qaeda-specific military action – essentially highly militarized police work – is the only efficient method of going after those who want to see more 9/11 s. Invading an entire region, and transforming its political culture – precisely thetheoretical basisof the administration's current counterinsurgency strategy – is the road to failure, and national bankruptcy.
> As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the foreign policy legacy of that singularly significant event will be up for review. In retrospect, I don't think there can be any doubt that Americans overreacted – and, in the process, fell intobin Laden's trap. The founder of al-Qaedaopenly declaredhis strategy of luring us as deeply into the Middle East as possible, and gloated over America's impending bankruptcy. 
> As wehurtleintobankruptcy, that cackling you hear is Osama laughing at us from beyond the grave. Just as the Vietnam war drained American resources and led to aneconomic downturn, so America's post-9/11 rampage through the Middle East similarly depleted our reserves, and on a much grander scale.
> 9/11 radically distorted our foreign policy, andhanded it overtoa cabalofneoconservative ideologueswhose policies, however much they damaged America, are being faithfully carried out today under a Democratic administration. The war of conquest started in Iraq has been extended to Pakistan and taken onnew formsin Libya: the "multilateralist" NATO operation is John McCain's "concert of democracies" in action. No wonderthe old warmongeris over there cheering them on and posing for the cameras. 
> The debate over Afghanistan – and ourcontinued presencein Iraq, for that matter – is really about a larger issue: what kind of country are we? Are we a republic, where the power of government is constrained by a written Constitution, which fights only in self-defense and only against those who initiate coercion? Or are we an empire, the guarantor of peace and order in the world, the final arbiter and global hegemon whose "responsibility" and "destiny" is to establish a New Rome? 
> One reason Paul is doing so well so early in the polls is due to his well-knownviewsin favor of restoring our old republic, and dismantling an expensive and otherwise troublesome overseas domain. When will the other GOP hopefuls understand that the war question hits at the soft underbelly of the Obama administration – and how long before they decide to go for it?http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/05/05/empire-or-solvency/

--
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.

Empire or Solvency?

Empire or Solvency?
The choice before us
by Justin Raimondo, May 06, 2011

You know something is up when Republicans start taking the lead in questioning our decade-long war in Afghanistan, and, indeed, something is up: a propitious confluence of circumstances and events, the most dramatic of which is the assassination of Osama bin Laden by US Special Forces. In hearings held the other day, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) said he thinks the Afghan occupation is no longer justified:

"With al Qaeda largely displaced from the country, but franchised in other locations, Afghanistan does not carry a strategic value that justifies 100,000 American troops and a $100 billion per year cost, especially given current fiscal restraints."

Now that the iconic leader of the jihadists has been put out of commission – and, perhaps just as significantly, a huge treasure trove of material confiscated from his hideaway has been seized ­ the pressure to fundamentally change our conception of this allegedly " generational" conflict is well nigh irresistible. Sen. Lugar is the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and has long been the GOP's point man on overseas matters: for him to make a near-unequivocal case for rapid withdrawal is a sign of the sea change that has occurred in conservative thinking on foreign policy, a shift that has already happened at the grassroots level and is now percolating up through the ranks of the GOP congressional caucus. The death of bin Laden has triggered a turning pointing on the right. Here's Larry Kudlow – formerly a reliable neocon, who nonetheless knows something about economics (unlike most of his comrades) – on why we need to get out:

"With the killing of Osama, is the Afghan mission complete? The original post-9/11 goal was to kill bin Laden and wipe out al-Qaeda. Now that we've killed bin Laden and dismantled so much of al-Qaeda., do we really need to trudge through an even longer war in Afghanistan? …

"I am no military or foreign-policy expert. But I do know the cost of supporting a corrupt regime like Hamid Karzai's in terms of blood and treasure. The cost is steep. I speak here as a hawk, not a dove. …

"Thus far, nearly 1,600 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Afghanistan. To me, this is the most tragic part. Of course, I wholeheartedly support our troops. But is this blood really necessary? Are the projected future costs really necessary?

"Again, I ask myself: All this to support Karzai? Isn't this the sort of nation-building that the late William F. Buckley Jr. opposed? Are American national-security interests really tied up in Afghanistan? Is now not the time to contemplate a much more rapid troop withdrawal from Afghanistan?" [Hat tip: Lewis McCrary]

To answer Kudlow's last question: not if your military goal is only peripherally and incidentally concerned with fighting "terrorism," and is actually focused on subduing and colonizing [.pdf] the Middle East. 

It was, you'll recall, Team Bush that sunk us deep in the Middle Eastern mire, and Afghanistan wasn't their first target: Iraq bore the brunt of America's post-9/11 fury because the neoconservative agenda is focused not on defense but on conquest as the proper goal of US foreign policy: what Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan characterized as " benevolent global hegemony" in their famous foreign policy manifesto. If our own territory should be attacked in the course of this protracted war of conquest, well then, Rome, too, was besieged many times in the early years of the Empire, and them's the breaks on the road to glory. 

Kudlow is an economist with some understanding of the fiscal crisis we face: he sees the choice between empire and solvency and the necessity of making it sooner rather than later. As this sense of urgency gains traction and spreads, from the libertarian and " paleoconservative" precincts in which it has previously flourished, the GOP establishment will be forced to deal with the rising insurgency in their own ranks. A recent CNN poll shows that of the declared Republican candidates for President, Ron Paul – an anti-interventionist of a sort who often makes me look moderate – unveils the new political reality:

"Who does best against Obama? Paul. The congressman from Texas, who also ran as a libertarian candidate for president in 1988 and who is well liked by many in the tea party movement, trails the president by only seven points (52 to 45 percent) in a hypothetical general election showdown. Huckabee trails by eight points, with Romney down 11 points to Obama."

Paul appeals to both hardcore Tea Party types and independents who viscerally distrust the GOP, and this is in large part due to his emphasis – even when he's talking about economic matters – on the foreign policy factor, what he calls "the Empire" with a quintessentially American hint of disdain for all things imperial. He has spent the last decade or so telling Americans we're a bankrupt empire, and now that the reality of this has dawned Paul is getting a Strange New Respect. The neocons and professional Paul-haters (or do I repeat myself?) will no doubt focus on the Strangeness aspect of this, but they are living in the past. 

It was easy to ignore Paul's jeremiads against the Empire in the heyday of the financial bubble, and the concomitant bubble of American supremacy. Now that the bubble has burst – as Paul said it would – Americans are coming face to face with something they've so far assiduously evaded: reality. The economic and social reality of a bloated, over-extended colossus, an empire rotting at its metropolitan core and besieged on every far-flung frontier. 

The capture and summary execution of bin Laden has ushered in a new awareness when it comes to foreign policy matters, one that will almost certainly doom the very policy the terrorist leader's executioner insists on maintaining, virtually unchanged. With bin Laden's death, the rationale for the occupation of Afghanistan, and even the escalating war in Pakistan, has been pulled out from under this administration. Obama's wars have always been wildly unpopular: now they will exact a political cost that may becom unsustainable.

In spite of this, every suggestion that the Afghan conflict is yesterday's war, no longer relevant to the goal of destroying al-Qaeda and its allies, is met by the administration with the alleged threat of a takeover by the Taliban and/or bin Laden's forces. Yet the latter is in decline, if not outright defeated, and the former don't have the reach to pose an effective threat to US territory – as the complete failure of the Times Square bomber to inflict any damage underscores. However, the war drags on, mired in the neo-neocon counterinsurgency strategy championed by newly-appointed CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus – a nation-building campaign that, after ten years, we are being told is today " fragile and reversible." 

Is this really supposed to be an argument in favor of staying? Anywhere else but in the Bizarro World we seem to inhabit, such a statement would indicate that – after ten years of failure – the strategy isn't working because it cannot work. 

One would think the Obama administration, which prides itself on its alleged "pragmatism," would learn the lesson of their great success, instead of just capitalizing on it politically. And that lesson is this: targeted, al-Qaeda-specific military action – essentially highly militarized police work – is the only efficient method of going after those who want to see more 9/11 s. Invading an entire region, and transforming its political culture – precisely the theoretical basis of the administration's current counterinsurgency strategy – is the road to failure, and national bankruptcy.

As we approach the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the foreign policy legacy of that singularly significant event will be up for review. In retrospect, I don't think there can be any doubt that Americans overreacted – and, in the process, fell into bin Laden's trap. The founder of al-Qaeda openly declared his strategy of luring us as deeply into the Middle East as possible, and gloated over America's impending bankruptcy. 

As we hurtle into bankruptcy, that cackling you hear is Osama laughing at us from beyond the grave. Just as the Vietnam war drained American resources and led to an economic downturn, so America's post-9/11 rampage through the Middle East similarly depleted our reserves, and on a much grander scale.

9/11 radically distorted our foreign policy, and handed it over to a cabal of neoconservative ideologues whose policies, however much they damaged America, are being faithfully carried out today under a Democratic administration. The war of conquest started in Iraq has been extended to Pakistan and taken on new forms in Libya: the "multilateralist" NATO operation is John McCain's " concert of democracies" in action. No wonder the old warmonger is over there cheering them on and posing for the cameras. 

The debate over Afghanistan – and our continued presence in Iraq, for that matter – is really about a larger issue: what kind of country are we? Are we a republic, where the power of government is constrained by a written Constitution, which fights only in self-defense ­ and only against those who initiate coercion? Or are we an empire, the guarantor of peace and order in the world, the final arbiter and global hegemon whose "responsibility" and "destiny" is to establish a New Rome? 

One reason Paul is doing so well so early in the polls is due to his well-known views in favor of restoring our old republic, and dismantling an expensive and otherwise troublesome overseas domain. When will the other GOP hopefuls understand that the war question hits at the soft underbelly of the Obama administration – and how long before they decide to go for it?

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/05/05/empire-or-solvency/

Re: US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics

*******One bright spot: Hispanic students, a growing proportion of the
> country's population and student body, narrowed the gap between their
> scores and those of non-Hispanic white students. On average, Hispanic
> eighth-graders scored 137 and non-Hispanic whites 160. That 23-point gap
> was down from 29 in 2006.*******

So a bright spot is that the Hispanics are only a little more stupid
than the white kids.... Yeah thats really a bright spot !!!!!!!!!!

We need more "Ebonics" teachers.

On May 6, 10:57 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> *US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics*
> May 05, 2011|By Sam Dillon, New York Times
>
> NEW YORK --- Fewer than half of US eighth-graders knew the purpose of
> the Bill of Rights on the most recent national civics exam, and one in
> 10 demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances between
> the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, according to test
> results released yesterday.
>
> Three-quarters of high school seniors who took the National Assessment
> of Educational Progress were unable to identify the effect of foreign
> policy on other nations or name a power granted to Congress.
>
> The results "confirm that we have a crisis on our hands when it comes to
> civics education,'' said Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court
> justice who last year founded icivics.org, a nonprofit group that
> teaches civics through Web-based games.
>
> The Department of Education administered the tests to 27,000 fourth-,
> eighth-, and 12th-grade students last year.
>
> Average fourth-grade scores on the test's 300-point scale rose slightly
> since the exam was last administered, in 2006, to 157 from 154. Average
> eighth-grade scores were virtually unchanged at 151. Scores of high
> school seniors --- who are either eligible to vote or about to be ---
> dropped to 148 from 151.
>
> "The results confirm an alarming and continuing trend that civics in
> America is in decline,'' said Charles N. Quigley, executive director of
> the nonprofit Center for Civic Education.
>
> One bright spot: Hispanic students, a growing proportion of the
> country's population and student body, narrowed the gap between their
> scores and those of non-Hispanic white students. On average, Hispanic
> eighth-graders scored 137 and non-Hispanic whites 160. That 23-point gap
> was down from 29 in 2006.
> --
>
>       Freedom is always illegal.

--
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 Death Of Osama Bin Laden

The Death Of Osama Bin Laden
by Michael Badnarik

Thomas Jefferson said, “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.” After watching the reaction of countless Americans to the news that Osama Bin Laden was successfully assassinated, I remain mildly nauseous. Not since the Carter administration have I been so embarrassed of my country. In spite of our technological superiority, we are nothing more than a third world country, filled with unsophisticated xenophobes.

Sophistication: character, ideas, tastes, or ways as the result of education, worldly experience,

How many times have I watched people in foreign countries burning the American flag as they riot in the streets? I cautiously pity these people, consoled only by the fact that they remain thousands of miles away from where I live. They have little or no education, evidenced by the fact that they joyously celebrate the death or downfall of their enemies. How is that any different from the mobs of flag waving Americans, cheering and celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden? Many singing our national anthem so far off key, I doubt they could carry a tune if it was in a bucket. Before I realized why everyone was cheering, I wondered which sporting event I had missed. I knew that the World Series and Super Bowl were behind us, but my complete lack of interest in sports left me wondering which team was claiming a championship, and in which sport. I remain sick to my stomach knowing that this is how Americans respond to the death of an enemy.

Everyone knows my reputation regarding the Second Amendment, and nobody with an IQ over 50 would doubt my willingness to defend myself if the circumstances required it. What would the jury conclude if they saw a videotape of me whooping and hollering in celebration over the body of an intruder that I had “double tapped” a few moments before? (I was not impressed when Diane Sawyer used this term as if it were some highly advanced military technique.) How could I claim extreme duress, insisting that I was in fear of my life, as I stand over my conquest quipping, “No, don’t get up. I’ll call the ambulance,” as if I were in a Hollywood movie? War is hell. Death is permanent. No sane and rational person celebrates either one. I don’t deny that killing someone before they kill you is occasionally necessary, but expressing anything but regret that it was necessary is sick and twisted.

The United States used to be the pinnacle of education, historically number one in both math and science worldwide. We now outsource any job that requires the least bit of thinking. The people behind the cash register at fast food restaurants are unable to correctly calculate the cost of your food, or the amount of change you should get. As a nation we are obsessed with Michael Jackson, Dancing with the Stars, and the self-destruction of Brittany Spears and Lindsay Lohan. How many days am I going to have to watch the pageantry of the royal wedding which glorifies the upper echelon of a primitive class system? “All men are created equal” my ass!

Why did I waste my time doing homework, visiting museums, and going to college when most of the people I meet are not smart enough to engage in any conversation above the sixth grade level? Many high school seniors are functionally illiterate, using Crayolas to color inside the lines while I attempt to talk to them about civics and the Constitution. It makes me crazy when I am criticized by people who confuse THEN and THAN, or don’t know the difference between THERE, THEY’RE and THEIR.

I don’t know for sure that Bin Laden was responsible for the attack on September 11th. My only evidence comes from the government by way of the Lame Stream Media, which doesn’t come anywhere close to scientific proof in my book. I’m not one hundred percent convinced that Bin Laden is even dead. The only thing I’ve seen on television is a jittery video with something that looks like blood on the floor, and a report that his body has already been buried at sea. The only thing I am certain of is that America is in rapid decline, and that the empire built around it will soon collapse for the same reasons that the Roman and Greek empires no longer exist. They rotted away from the inside.

http://www.libertyforall.net/?p=5883

--

Freedom is always illegal.

Re: US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics

Civics, Basic Economics, Reading, Math, .....

Regard$,
--MJ

It is only from a special point of view that "education" is a failure. As to its own purposes, it is an unqualified success. One of its purposes is to serve as a massive tax-supported jobs program for legions of not especially able or talented people. As social programs go, it's a good one. The pay isn't high, but the risk is low, the standards are lenient, entry is easy, and job security is still pretty good....In fact, the system is perfect, except for one little detail. We must find a way to get the children out of it.
-- Richard Mitchell "The Leaning Tower of Babel"



At 12:57 PM 5/6/2011, you wrote:

US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics
May 05, 2011|By Sam Dillon, New York Times

NEW YORK ­ Fewer than half of US eighth-graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights on the most recent national civics exam, and one in 10 demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, according to test results released yesterday.

Three-quarters of high school seniors who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress were unable to identify the effect of foreign policy on other nations or name a power granted to Congress.

The results "confirm that we have a crisis on our hands when it comes to civics education,'' said Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice who last year founded icivics.org, a nonprofit group that teaches civics through Web-based games.

The Department of Education administered the tests to 27,000 fourth-, eighth-, and 12th-grade students last year.

Average fourth-grade scores on the test's 300-point scale rose slightly since the exam was last administered, in 2006, to 157 from 154. Average eighth-grade scores were virtually unchanged at 151. Scores of high school seniors ­ who are either eligible to vote or about to be ­ dropped to 148 from 151.

"The results confirm an alarming and continuing trend that civics in America is in decline,'' said Charles N. Quigley, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Civic Education.

One bright spot: Hispanic students, a growing proportion of the country's population and student body, narrowed the gap between their scores and those of non-Hispanic white students. On average, Hispanic eighth-graders scored 137 and non-Hispanic whites 160. That 23-point gap was down from 29 in 2006.
--

Freedom is always illegal.

--
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.

US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics

US Students Show Poor Grasp Of Civics Basics
May 05, 2011|By Sam Dillon, New York Times

NEW YORK — Fewer than half of US eighth-graders knew the purpose of the Bill of Rights on the most recent national civics exam, and one in 10 demonstrated acceptable knowledge of the checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, according to test results released yesterday.

Three-quarters of high school seniors who took the National Assessment of Educational Progress were unable to identify the effect of foreign policy on other nations or name a power granted to Congress.

The results “confirm that we have a crisis on our hands when it comes to civics education,’’ said Sandra Day O’Connor, a former Supreme Court justice who last year founded icivics.org, a nonprofit group that teaches civics through Web-based games.

The Department of Education administered the tests to 27,000 fourth-, eighth-, and 12th-grade students last year.

Average fourth-grade scores on the test’s 300-point scale rose slightly since the exam was last administered, in 2006, to 157 from 154. Average eighth-grade scores were virtually unchanged at 151. Scores of high school seniors — who are either eligible to vote or about to be — dropped to 148 from 151.

“The results confirm an alarming and continuing trend that civics in America is in decline,’’ said Charles N. Quigley, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Civic Education.

One bright spot: Hispanic students, a growing proportion of the country’s population and student body, narrowed the gap between their scores and those of non-Hispanic white students. On average, Hispanic eighth-graders scored 137 and non-Hispanic whites 160. That 23-point gap was down from 29 in 2006.

--

Freedom is always illegal.

Re: Fwd: OA: Daily digest

Oh I did NOT submit that question

I haven't looked to see what someone said yet

On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 10:19 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Bruce,

You have got to be kidding....

On May 6, 2:23 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   [image: Objectivist Answers] <http://objectivistanswers.com>
> ------------------------------

>
> Hello Bruce Majors,
>
> This is a brief summary of what's going on in the Objectivist Answers
> community since our last update.
>

> 1 new questions <http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/?sort=latest> were

> posted since our last update.
>
> We think you might be interested in these questions:
>
>    - Is rap/hip-hop one of the most "Objectivist" of today's musical

> genres?<http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/3060/is-raphip-hop-one-of-the...>

>
> Thanks,
> Objectivist Answers
>
> P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive

> here<http://objectivistanswers.com/users/151/bruce-majors/subscriptions/>.
>
> ------------------------------

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

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

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

Re: Fwd: OA: Daily digest

These [rap/hip hop] genres seem to be the ones that have the most
rhythm and melody, and to me the non-"let's have sex with girls" ones
generally have a good sense of life.

What do you guys think?
------------------------------

Melody and no sex in rap? I think he's on a Thorazine drip.

On May 6, 10:19 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> You have got to be kidding....
>
> On May 6, 2:23 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >   [image: Objectivist Answers] <http://objectivistanswers.com>
> > ------------------------------
>
> > Hello Bruce Majors,
>
> > This is a brief summary of what's going on in the Objectivist Answers
> > community since our last update.
>
> > 1 new questions <http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/?sort=latest> were
> > posted since our last update.
>
> > We think you might be interested in these questions:
>
> >    - Is rap/hip-hop one of the most "Objectivist" of today's musical
> > genres?<http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/3060/is-raphip-hop-one-of-the...>
>
> > Thanks,
> > Objectivist Answers
>
> > P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive
> > here<http://objectivistanswers.com/users/151/bruce-majors/subscriptions/>.
>
> > ------------------------------- 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: Fwd: OA: Daily digest

Bruce,

You have got to be kidding....

On May 6, 2:23 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>   [image: Objectivist Answers] <http://objectivistanswers.com>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hello Bruce Majors,
>
> This is a brief summary of what's going on in the Objectivist Answers
> community since our last update.
>
> 1 new questions <http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/?sort=latest> were
> posted since our last update.
>
> We think you might be interested in these questions:
>
>    - Is rap/hip-hop one of the most "Objectivist" of today's musical
> genres?<http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/3060/is-raphip-hop-one-of-the...>
>
> Thanks,
> Objectivist Answers
>
> P.S. You can always fine-tune which notifications you receive
> here<http://objectivistanswers.com/users/151/bruce-majors/subscriptions/>.
>
> ------------------------------

--
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: election debate tonight

Ban debates?

On May 5, 6:52 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> And the propagandizing begins!
>
> On 05/05/2011 03:12 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >   GOP Presidential Debate Watching Party
>
> > You are Attending
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/events/rsvp.php?eid=212176478812149&inli...> �
> > Share
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/share_dialog.php?s=7&appid=2344061033&p[]=212176478812149> �
> > Public Event
> > See All
> > <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=%2Fpages%2Fbrowser.php&h=f341f&cb=3&p...>
>
> >         Recommended Pages
>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages...>
>
> > I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 f...
> > <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages...>
>
> > Steve Law
> > <http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fprofi...> suggested
> > you check out his page.
> > Like
> > Create an Ad
> > <http://www.facebook.com/campaign/landing.php?placement=advf2&campaign...>
>
> >         Sponsored
>
> > Small Business Printing
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAR-yFpvNUK2iqG90Cdk_nJ...>
> > uprinting.com
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAR-yFpvNUK2iqG90Cdk_nJ...>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAR-yFpvNUK2iqG90Cdk_nJ...>
>
> > Uprinting provides high quality printing at the most affordable
> > prices.www.Uprinting.com
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAR-yFpvNUK2iqG90Cdk_nJ...>
> > Liberty Smith
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAfS_BDb-Us1sqZBZPR4HMk...>
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAfS_BDb-Us1sqZBZPR4HMk...>
>
> > Don't miss the world premiere musical Liberty Smith playing at Ford's
> > Theatre March 23-May 21!
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAfS_BDb-Us1sqZBZPR4HMk...>
> > RSVP
> > <http://www.facebook.com/ajax/emu/end.php?eid=AQAfS_BDb-Us1sqZBZPR4HMk...> �
> > 55 people are attending.
> > Get a $50 Credit Here
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

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

The Foundational Economic Myth of Our Era: "Government Cured the Great Depression"

The Foundational Economic Myth of Our Era: "Government Cured the Great Depression"
Gary North
May 6, 2011

Economist Thomas Sowell recently challenged the Great Myth of FDR and the Great Depression.

No economic downturn in all those years ever lasted as long as the Great Depression of the 1930s, when both the Federal Reserve and the administrations of Hoover and of FDR intervened.

The myth that has come down to us says that the government had to intervene when there was mass unemployment in the 1930s. But the hard data show that there was no mass unemployment until after the federal government intervened. Yet, once having intervened, it was politically impossible to stop and let the economy recover on its own. That was the fundamental problem then -- and now.  http://www.lewrockwell.com/sowell/sowell44.1.html

This myth was challenged by Murray Rothbard in America's Great Depression (1963). I read it a few months after it was published. I was one of the few people who did. The book was savagely attacked when it was reviewed at all. It undermined the Democrats' myth of FDR as savior and the Republicans' myth of Hoover as a victim of uncontrollable circumstances. FDR extended the worst of Hoover's policies, and the depression dragged on for another seven years.

Rothbard's book was ignored by academia. Two decades later, Paul Johnson used it in his great book, Modern Times (1983), to explain why the Great Depression accelerated under Hoover's policies of legalized price floors and tariffs (Smooth-Hawley).

Hoover was doing what governments around the world were doing. Government policies turned the recession into the Great Depression.

Rothbard was able to draw on books published during the Great Depression. One was by Lionel Robbins, a disciple of Ludwig von Mises: The Great Depression (1934). It was published by Macmillan in Great Britain. He explained why government policies was prolonging the recovery. Another book was Banking and the Business Cycle (1937), which laid the blame on the Federal Reserve's policies in the 1920s. It was also published by Macmillan. Both are available as free downloads or for purchase.

But in 1936, Macmillan published Keynes's General Theory. That book won the ideological battle.

Yet the real problem stretched backward to World War I and the abandonment of the gold coin standard in Europe. This was explained after the War by economist Benjamin Anderson,. He carried the story through World War II. His articles were published through the era of the Great Depression by the Chase Bank. His book, Economics and the Public Welfare was published in 1949, the year of his death. It was universally ignored. The Keynesian takeover of academia was almost complete in 1949.

This story went down the memory hole at the time. It was never given serious consideration by the financial press. The arguments were out of synch with the desires of politicians to use deficit spending, taxation, and currency depreciation to stimulate a recover. All these measures failed until World War II allowed them to implement full-scale controls.

The official explanation has finally has boiled down to this: World War II ended the depression. This debate is reflected in Keynes vs Hayek: Round 2. The scene of Hayek holding a machine gun, with World War II images behind him, gets to the point. War is destructive. The scene (3:00) is only 60 seconds long. It deserves a book.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GTQnarzmTOc

I wrote an article on this in 2010. http://www.garynorth.com/public/6322.cfm

Until the myth of FDR as an economic savior is removed from the textbooks, we will not be close to winning the ideological war against Keynesianism. I have discussed this here This is why we need several competing American history home school and private day school curricula, all with the this message: the growth of Federal power has not often led to freedom and economic growth. It has retarded both.

We are a long way from this educational scenario.

http://www.garynorth.com/public/7978.cfm

Osama: 1, America: 0

Osama: 1, America: 0
written by Ilana Mercer on 05.05.11 @ 5:58 pm

What was/is a greater danger to the republic of blessed memory: the (now-dead) Osama bin Laden, or the state apparatus installed in his honor? You tell me.

In July of 2010, the Congressional Research Service estimated that "the United States had spent more than $1 trillion on wars since the September 11, 2001." That was in 2010.

For all the din being made over the opportunity to cut back on so-called counter-terrorism efforts now that bin Laden is dead­you and I know that's never going to happen.

Since 9/11, our overlords who art in DC have doubled the defense budget, adding a Department of Homeland Security that took us from passing through a metal detector in our travels to genital manipulation and irradiation.

The police state perfected under the now fully rehabilitated "W," and perpetuated under Obama his successor, is considered a co-equal branch of government. Your Fourth Amendment rights come with multiplying exclusionary clauses, not least that an agent of the state has the right to treat those who still travel (I try not to) like meat in a meatpacking factory.

The budget allotted to the repugnant TSA agents comes to $6.3 billion annually. According to Randall Holcombe of the Independent Institute, "The damage al Qaeda's attack caused when it destroyed the World Trade Center was about $10 billion."

In her familiar smarmy style, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow waxed nostalgic about the pre-9/11 era. She managed some valid points: "Ten years ago, before 9/11, the U.S. defense budget was half the size that it is now.

Ten years ago, before 9/11, there was no Department of Homeland Security. Had someone suggested that there ought to be one, you probably would have teased them for using a weird word like homeland.

Ten years ago before 9/11, you walked through a metal detector to get through an airplane, sure, but this was the kind of thing you'd only do maybe on a third date. Sometimes on your flight, even the pilots would keep the cockpit door open and you could see them work and you could see the world fly by through their windshield if you peered down the aisle.

… Before 9/11, the U.S. legal history of torture was of our government prosecuting people for that. Wartime was no excuse. [Really?]

Before 9/11, the National Security Agency having access to everybody's emails and phone calls and texts and bank records and everything would have been a scandal.

Before 9/11, we did not have a new militarized intelligence bureaucracy that 'The Washington Post' described as an additional 1,271 government organizations, 1,931 private companies and an estimated 854,000 people holding top secret security clearances.

Before 9/11, no one in politics and private life talked about Article III Courts. Courted called for under the Constitution because those were just what courts were. We didn't have anything but Article III courts. Why would we?

Before 9/11, we didn't drop bombs using flying robots.

Before 9/11, we had not lost 3,000 people in Lower Manhattan and at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Before 9/11, we did not have 2.2 million Americans who are Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and we did not have the national promise to do right by them as a country in respecting their service.

Before 9/11, we had not lost more than 6,000 of those veterans in our post-9/11 wars before U.S. forces finally founder and killed Osama bin Laden.

If you were a kid when 9/11 happened, it may be hard to imagine our country without all of these things in place.

If you were an adult when 9/11 happened, you probably never could have believed this is how we would have chosen to spend the decade after."

http://barelyablog.com/?p=37601

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

noeinstein,

Of course I am safe from prosecution...I have not come close to breaking any law. It has NOTHING to do with my location. I can also NOT be fired. Periodically copying identical material from identical sources with near or identical comments is the very definition of SPAM. 

Your supposed "reason" for spamming is not relevant and is obviously more important to you than anyone else. 

I could care less if its your "new constitution" or a treatise on scratching your ass... spam is spam is spam.

As to people taking umbrage with what YOU and you ALONE alone call an attack... they have pills and psychiatrists for that... this is not the place..maybe a little inpatient care for a while....seek help.  

As to the rules governing this Forum.... repeated use of it and TROLLING just to keep the thread alive so it drives search engines to your personal blog through keywords is SPAMMING....

Keep it up and the thread you have been so careful to groom will disappear.

As to your unabashed advertising of your "Book".... that too, has been stopped. there is an area supplied on our "pages" section for such tripe.

Play by the rules.... no lobbyists allowed.... no unsolicited ads for personal gain... 

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 7:46 PM, NoEinstein <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Dear Mark:  You may be "safe" from prosecution, but not safe from
being fired.  Most of the readers I'm attracting are conservatives in
the USA.  Few of those take kindly to your attacking me for
periodically copying parts of my precisely-worded New Constitution.
That document isn't something that can be paraphrased, repeatedly.
I'm sure you would enjoy discussing each little point.  But like I've
told J. Ashley, not one word of my document is in flux.  —  J. A. A. —

>
On May 4, 5:11 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Einstein,
>
> I fully comply with "Google, Costa Rica" and WTO rules and in no way am I
> subject to ANY part of your governments rules, regulations, or Constitution.
> Just how ignorant are you that you would think so >??
>
> I could care less that Google is a US Corporation... It is also a Costa
> Rican S.A. and those are the rules that cover me and those ONLY. Please read
> OUR constitution.
>
> All political points of view are accepted here.... we just do not accept
> SPAM regardless of how it is cloaked.
>
> Your civil rights are exactly what MY constitution says they are at MY ISP
> address. Welcome to the world!!!!!!
>
> If "wringing the neck" continues to be a source of ad nausea SPAM the thread
> will be shut down and removed.
>
> In short, you are on a WORLD forum.... NOT a USA forum..... get used to it.
>
> The posters here are not stupid nor are they ignorant.
> Constant repetition is a standard tool of the communist/socialist left and
> you, more than anyone else seem to be perfectly comfortable using it.... I
> wonder why.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:45 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Dear Mark:  It's one thing to enjoy reading different points of view.
> > It's another one, entirely, to use your unlimited response time to
> > attack, often by TONE, the ideas of others.  Though you are in Costa
> > Rica, you aren't above having to conform to the Free Speech
> > requirements of the US Constitution.  Google is, first and foremost, a
> > US corporation.  When you violate MY civil rights, Google becomes
> > responsible.  Political Forum bragged that all political points of
> > view are accepted.  When you cited me for rightfully demanding that
> > Barack Obama be made to account (hang by the neck until dead) for his
> > anti-America actions, you sided with the LEFT, socialist-communists.
> > You show yourself to have been using your... "moderator" job to
> > promote your personal political objectives.  I don't think... "that"
> > was part of your job description.  I highly recommend that you just
> > fade into the woodwork, like Keith has tended to do.  The readership
> > of "Wringing-the-neck... " isn't going up because you keep popping
> > in.  — J. A. Armistead —
>
> > On May 3, 10:58 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Einstein... here is your latest post.... it did not post when
> > > moderated. I have checked and there are indeed large portions of your
> > > former posts missing... our local moderators did NOT do that. If you
> > > check though you will find that each section of your constitution that
> > > was posted is still there at least ONCE. Gee, I warned you against
> > > spam... Talk to your buddies at Google...ONLY they can do that, and it
> > > is an auto response accomplished within the servers to save space.
>
> > > As to my "lowly" "job" here... I enjoy reading different points of
> > > view and am not so stupid that I need things CONSTANTLY repeated to
> > > me; neither are the other posters.
>
> > > Folks: One of the supposed "moderators" of Political Forum, 'The
> > > Annointed (sic) One', must be feeling the need to feel powerful.
> > > (Meaning that he isn't powerful.) He's from Costa Rica; has monkeys
> > > in his back yard; claims to be an attorney and an international peace
> > > negotiator; but for some reason he's stuck in the lowly job of trying
> > > to keep "spam" off of this group. I can virtually guarantee you that
> > > none of the 'other' readers consider my copying apt excerpts from my
> > > New Constitution—so that more and more people can understand what I
> > > have done on their behalf—to be "spam". If the only thing that
> > > 'powerful attorney' has to do is to read word-for-word what everyone
> > > on this groups writes, then it is understandable that he would tire
> > > of
> > > reading the same thing. However, I know that everyday there are
> > > first-
> > > time visitors who haven't seen even a small part of my New
> > > Constitution. When I reply to a particular point, I copy the adjunct
> > > block of text so people can sense how my document reads. There are
> > > many interesting things in those blocks, put there to make the lives
> > > of average Americans better.
>
> > > It seems to me that 'Mark', The Annointed (sic) One, has had a fall-
> > > from-grace in his profession. Moderating a Google news group isn't
> > > part of the career path of... "normal" attorneys. I am sympathetic to
> > > the computer storage problems associated with active posts. Several
> > > months ago, out-of-the-blue, MJ, Mark, Jonathan and Keith popped-in
> > > sounding negative to my efforts, as though in concert to defend...
> > > socialism and communism. The VOLUME of my writing went up, because
> > > those guys were skimming rather than reading-for-understanding what I
> > > was explaining. One of the best ways to reduce repetition would be
> > > for Mark, MJ and Jonathan to simply go away. However, they hang
> > > around because I have readers, and they like the exposure. Copied
> > > below is the email that 'Mark" sent to me directly. The "off" tone
> > > and exaggeration near the end hint of a troubled mind. *** As a
> > > Google stockholder, I will complain to the proper people in CA, if
> > > Mark interferes again, with THE most important post in the history of
> > > Political Forum.
>
> > > On May 1, 6:50 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Dear J. Ashley:  Since as little as one to four sentences are needed
> > > > to address the crucial issues, there are NO paragraphs in my New
> > > > Constitution!  If there were, the entire document would require fifty
> > > > plus pages, rather than just ten ledger-size pages to print.  In many
> > > > cases I have "highlighted" the answer to a specific comment by putting
> > > > *** ...  in front of the main point in the reply.  The reason I show
> > > > the entire BLOCK of text (but not a paragraph) is so that people can
> > > > read larger sections and get a feel for how things are organized.  The
> > > > 160 words you counted probably addressed 10 or more separate issues.
> > > > In some cases, my adding a single word modifier to an existing
> > > > sentence allows going in an entire new direction.  For example: In the
> > > > 1st Amendment, I added the word "peaceable" to "freedom of *
> > > > religion."  That is a protection against any religion that advocates
> > > > or condones violence as a means of fostering its objectives.  — J. A.
> > > > Armistead —
>
> > > > On Apr 25, 1:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > John,
>
> > > > > I accomplished the same outcome with 43 words of clarity that you did
> > > > > with your convoluted paragraph of more than 160 words.
>
> > > > > On 04/24/2011 05:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > J. Ashley:  How quickly YOU forget!  The following is from my New
> > > > > > Constitution:
>
> > > > > > "Section 9&  10:  Other than the President or his agents, no
> > person,
> > > > > > news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any lobby,
> > within
> > > > > > government or without, shall be allowed to contact representatives
> > > > > > while such are in Washington.  However, invited persons or groups
> > can
> > > > > > make scheduled depositions provided they don�t communicate with
> > the
> > > > > > representatives otherwise.  A representative�s constituents shall
> > be
> > > > > > allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing their votes
> > > > > > only while they are in their home states or districts.
> > > > > > Representatives shall regularly contact their district offices or
> > > > > > return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of their
> > > > > > constituents, and their constituents only, and shall be held
> > > > > > accountable for the representativeness of their votes.  The
> > > > > > solicitation of Citizen support is permitted, but the targeted
> > > > > > solicitation of representatives in any place, by any person,
> > > > > > organization, group, or lobby within government or without, is
> > > > > > prohibited.  Overt solicitation, feting, or laudatory ceremony, as
> > > > > > above, is a felony�defined as any crime requiring a minimum three
> > year
> > > > > > prison sentence, but time off for good behavior is allowed."  ï¿½
> > John
> > > > > > A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 22, 11:50 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> John,
>
> > > > > >> How quick you forget. Do you not remember when you challenged me
> > once
> > > > > >> before? I posted the following problem and solution:
>
> > > > > >>      (1) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on
> > behalf of
> > > > > >>      anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited.
>
> > > > > >>      (2) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the
> > Prohibitions of
> > > > > >>      this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years
> > and/or
> > > > > >>      deported;
>
> > > > > >> On 04/21/2011 06:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> J. Ashley:  You never did define a single problem with our
> > government
> > > > > >>> or society, and solve that problem in less than four sentences.
> >  I did
> > > > > >>> that for fourteen years!  Convoluted or not, my New Constitution
> > > > > >>> solves society's problems!  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > > > >>> On Apr 21, 12:06 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> John,
> > > > > >>>> How does your reply have anything to do with what I posted? It's
> > no
> > > > > >>>> wonder YOUR New Constitution is so convoluted.
> > > > > >>>> On 04/20/2011 08:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> Jonathan: "Polite" public figures can't go around calling
> > everyone
> > > > > >>>>> stupid.  There are contexts in which public health care makes
> > sense.
> > > > > >>>>> But FORCED Obama Care isn't that context!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > > > > >>>>> On Apr 20, 12:54 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> John,
> > > > > >>>>>> 1) Trump has no ideology!
> > > > > >>>>>> 2) The District of Criminals
>

> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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: 5 May

Its basically and end of school year excuse for college kids to get
hammered and sound cool, saying, "Cervesa", and pushed by Mexican beer
companies (quite effectively).

I'd bet you'd have a hard time find 3 out of 10 who know what Cinco de
Mayo is for.

On May 5, 7:55 pm, Daniel Seigler <danielseig...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ladies and Gentlemen:
>
>     I have heard on the news, over the past few years, about celebrations of the victory of the Mexican people over the Spanish to gain their independence.  These celebrations are happening not only Mexico, where they are rightfully joyous, but also within the Borders of Oregon.  Explain to me WHY.  The United States of America celebrates its independence from England on 4 July.  The United States of America does not hold huge celebrations on the day Canada gained its independence, and Canadians have more in common with the United States of America than Mexico does.  Mexico has a more recent history of attacking the United States of America than Canada does.  So, again, WHY are celebrations permitted within Oregon celebrating some other nation's independence?
>
> sign me
> daniel karl seigler, born in Fort Benning, Cussetta County, Georgia, son of
> Clarance Roland O'Neil Seigler, born in Ozark, Dale County, Alabama, son of
> Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born somewhere in Alabama

--
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: election debate tonight

Let the Hoo-Haw begin.

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually this debate, with one social conservative (Santorum), two libertarians (Paul and Johnson), and whatever Pawlenty and the 5th one are, will have more real debate and diversity thqan any GOP or Dem debate in years

On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:

And the propagandizing begins!

On 05/05/2011 03:12 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:

GOP Presidential Debate Watching Party

You are Attending · Share · Public Event

See All

Recommended Pages

I will vote for Ron Paul in 2012 f...

Steve Law suggested you check out his page.

Like

Create an Ad

Sponsored

Small Business Printing

uprinting.com

Uprinting provides high quality printing at the most affordable prices. www.Uprinting.com

Liberty Smith

Don't miss the world premiere musical Liberty Smith playing at Ford's Theatre March 23-May 21!

RSVP · 55 people are attending.

Get a $50 Credit Here

Shop Bonobos for great fit, ninja service, and free shipping all the time!

Homeland Security Degree

criminaljusticedepartment.org

You could work in Counter Terrorism, Cyber Security and more with your Homeland Security Degree! Finish in as little as 18 months!

Time	Thursday, May 5 · 8:00pm - 11:00pm
Location	Bailey' s Pub and Grille (Ballston Common Mall) 4238 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia
Created By	Young Americans for Liberty, Andrew Sharp
More Info	It's that time again...  The Presidential election season is about to kick off in full force with the first televised debate between the Republican candidates in South Carolina on Fox.  Come join your friends at Young Americans for Liberty for a watching party at Bailey's in Ballston! 8pm - Drinks, pool, ping pong, etc. (some light snack food will be provided) 9pm - Debate As always, feel to invite your friends! Hope to see you there!

--
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.

Find The Freshest Jobs In Your Area Get Your Perfect Job Today !
http://click.lavabit.com/bu5y9p5xhgjnrd5yrwuppd4dj3iy58xjewxmn4wjkyxznqhehdey/

--

Freedom is always illegal.

--
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.