Tuesday, May 17, 2011

ACLU Threatens High School over graduation at Christian-owned Auditorium - ACLU is looking ridiculous over this one

Quote
A New Jersey high school with a 70-year tradition of hosting graduation
ceremonies in a historic auditorium is standing firm against legal
threats from the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the event
violates the separation of church and state because of the
Christian-owned site's religious displays.

For generations, graduates of Neptune High School have walked down the
aisle of the Great Auditorium in Ocean Grove, where the impressive
6,500-seat venue dominates the landscape of one of the area's most
historic beach towns. Built in 1894, the auditorium is owned and
operated by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist group
that owns not just the building, but all of the land beneath every home
and structure in town.

The ACLU of New Jersey threatened legal action against the Neptune
school district after an attendee at last year's graduation ceremony
took offense to the building's religious symbols and Christian-based
references -- among them a 20-foot white cross above the auditorium's
entrance. The ACLU asked the school to remove or cover up the cross and
three other religious signs, arguing their visibility during a public
school event is a First Amendment violation.

School officials responded by agreeing to change the graduation program
to remove the student-led invocation and two hymns -- one titled "Onward
Christian Soldiers" -- to rid the ceremony of any religious references.

"The program was not of a religious nature -- it was more tradition than
anything else," said Neptune Public Schools Superintendent David Mooij.
"But we decided we would change the program and delete the things this
individual found offensive."

Removing or covering up the cross was another matter. The Camp
Association said it could not cover the cross, said to have been a gift
from movie director Woody Allen, who used the auditorium during shooting
for the 1980 film "Stardust Memories." Nor would they cover up the two
illuminated indoor signs – "Holiest to the Lord" and "So Be Ye Holy" –
which are said to be the oldest operating electric signs in America.

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/17/aclu-threatens-legal-action-nj-high-school-amendment-dispute/#ixzz1MdSA3sA4

--
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: The Screwed Generation

The Jews think that Obama has gone beyond a mere difference in policy
with Israel. They think a man who sat in the Chicago church of an anti-
America, anti-Semitic preacher of hate is letting Israel's enemies
know that he will do nothing to assist Israel if it finds itself under
attack again.
What matters now is what all Americans think because his actions have
consequences. Most surely, whatever President Obama says these days on
any issue cannot be trusted.
- Alan Caruba

On May 17, 6:47 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Screwed Generationby Alan Caruba
> Warning Signs
> June is famous for weddings and graduations. Both are filled with great expectations and both are subject to great disappointments.
> Today's college graduates are thoroughly screwed. According to Matthew Segal, the president of a non-profit membership organization called Our Time, "With 85% of college graduates moving back home and an average debt of $22,900 per student, thousands are staring at a bleak economic future." You think?
> Aren't these the eager, besotted youngsters who, at age 18, voted for Barack Hussein Obama as if he were the Second Coming? In the words of Herman Cain, a GOP presidential contender, how did that work out?
> "New college graduates," said Segal, "are entering an economy with an almost 17% unemployment rate for Americans under the age of 30." Despite that and other horrible statistics, Segal insists "We know there is still a bright future out there…" Oh, yeah? High unemployment. Having to move back home. Graduating with a huge debt. That's not my definition of a bright future.
> I graduated college in 1959. When I got out, what awaited all able-bodied young men was the Draft. Before I could think about utilizing my precious diploma, I had to get two years in the U.S. Army behind me and to my surprise it was some of the best post-graduate education one could imagine. And it was mandatory.
> My "career" didn't take off until I joined the staff of a weekly newspaper and, since the editor left within three months or so, I became the editor! Here again, the education I received was invaluable. All small towns and cities pretty much have to deal with the same political, educational, policing, and other issues.
> I "graduated" to a daily newspaper and, after a few years concluded that there was no real money to be made. In this respect, I was way ahead of my time as the Internet would decimate newspaper circulations, decimate editorial staffs, and affect the writing craft to the point that rendered it a very bad career choice.
> For those graduating from high school at age seventeen or eighteen this year, it means they were born in 1994 or 95. They were ten or eleven years old on September 11, 2001; old enough to know that something terrible had happened, killing thousands of Americans who probably thought they were not at war with militant Islam. Since then, this generation has not known a day of peace.
> For most young men, though, the option to avoid service – an all-volunteer military – had been made by Congress in 1973. So, Generation X, born 1965-1980, and Generation Y, born 1981 to 1995, and the current generation were largely spared serving in the military. You tend to pay closer attention to what is happening in the real world if it means you may have to fight a war. The miracle is that we have a million men and women in uniform who somehow absorbed the values of earlier generations.
> A subject of growing contention is the way the nation's educational system has been "dumbed down" since the 1960s or the growth of "political correctness" that thwarts addressing issues involving ethnicity, ancestry, religious faith, and gender. Nor is there much discussion of the way colleges and universities have become sausage factories squeezing parents and working students for every dollar, pushing them through, and conferring degrees that, with the exception of the professions, often have dubious value.
> This new generation is very "connected" in ways earlier ones could never imagine. Facebook, MySpace, and all manner of other Internet machinery have transformed how they perceive themselves and the world. It has not, however, significantly educated them in the traditional sense of the word.
> They will doff their caps and gowns and go home to mom and dad. A friend of mine graduated from Georgetown University in 1982 after working his way through. He recently calculated that it cost $232,000 to graduate today. What teenager could ever take on such a burden and why should their parents be expected to shell out the kind of money that could purchase a second home?
> Today's graduate is not likely to see any return on the money he or she pays into Social Security or Medicare. The dollars they earn will have diminished in value from those of my time or my friend's.
> It can be argued that it was no picnic for earlier generations, but they at least had a Constitution that wasn't being ignored and dismembered.
> They had, despite the occasional short-lived recession, a healthy economy, a rational national debt, and presidents who, with the exception of people like Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, didn't see their job as plundering the public treasury for so-called "social justice" and environmental programs based on liberal pipedreams.
> Welcome to the world of faltering economies from here to Greece and back again.
> Welcome to outsourced jobs.
> Welcome to rapacious bankers making money on housing loans they knew were bad for those in search of the American Dream.
> Welcome to useless pat-downs every time you fly.
> Welcome to "reality TV" and vulgar "entertainment".
> In these and so many other ways, this new generation is thoroughly screwed.http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2011/05/screwed-generation.html

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

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

Re: What Really Happened To Osama?

Israeli leaders and the Israel Lobby in this country exploit the
beliefs of Christian fundamentalists who believe all this, see Bible
prophecy fulfilled in the establishment of Israel, and firmly endorse
the Jewish "birthright" concept. They privately laugh at such
supporters, with their belief that the re-establishment of Israel
presages the Second Coming of Christ and all that, while they
appreciate the valuable political support the evangelical Christians
provide them in the U.S. But I doubt that many Israeli leaders believe
the Bible tales. These comprise a colorful series of stories that has
little or no relationship to historical reality, as some Israeli
archeologists and even rabbis have pointed out. - Gary Leupp

On May 17, 12:51 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> *What Really Happened To Osama?* (26 second video) <g>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfF1vkMQ0h0
> --
>
>       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.
>
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

--
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: Slaves to Words

We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us
---
Abe paid for his mistakes.

While the income tax was eliminated after the war, "nuisance" taxes
were not, surviving long after the Civil War was over. It was another
war, World War I, which prompted the overhaul of Mr. Lincoln's tax
system.

The Sixteenth Amendment was ratified in February of 1913.At just 30
words, it is the briefest Constitutional Amendment with the exception
of the Bill of Rights.It states "The Congress shall have power to lay
and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any
census or enumeration."

Eight months after it was ratified, President Woodrow Wilson signed
the Underwood-Simmons tariff bill, enacting the first of many income
tax laws to follow.The bill eliminated many of the "nuisance" taxes
from the Civil War era, and even reduced the original income tax
rate.The new income tax, with a rate of one percent on incomes between
$3,000 and $20,000, less deductions and exemptions, and graduated
surtaxes up to six percent on higher incomes, applied to barely one
percent of the population.

On January 5, 1914, the Department of the Treasury unveiled the new
Form 1040 to the awaiting public.People who could were anxious to
file, to show both their patriotism and that they were among the elite
who earned enough to qualify to pay income taxes.The deadline for
filing the form with the local tax collector's office was less than
two months away, March 1, 1914.With just over 350,000 1040s filed in
the first year, the Bureau of Internal Revenue audited 100 percent of
the returns.

On May 17, 6:50 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Slaves to WordsBy Thomas Sowell
> 5/17/2011We could definitely use another Abraham Lincoln to emancipate us all from being slaves to words. In the midst of a historic financial crisis of unprecedented government spending, and a national debt that outstrips even the debt accumulated by the reckless government spending of previous administration, we are still enthralled by words and ignoring realities.
> President Barack Obama's constant talk about "millionaires and billionaires" needing to pay higher taxes would be a bad joke, if the consequences were not so serious. Even if the income tax rate were raised to 100 percent on millionaires and billionaires, it would still not cover the trillions of dollars the government is spending.
> More fundamentally, tax rates-- whatever they are-- are just words on paper. Only the hard cash that comes in can cover government spending. History has shown repeatedly, under administrations of both political parties, that there is no automatic correlation between tax rates and tax revenues.
> When the tax rate on the highest incomes was 73 percent in 1921, that brought in less tax revenue than after the tax rate was cut to 24 percent in 1925. Why? Because high tax rates that people don't actually pay do not bring in as much hard cash as lower tax rates that they do pay. That's not rocket science.
> Then and now, people with the highest incomes have had the greatest flexibility as to where they will put their money. Buying tax-exempt bonds is just one of the many ways that "millionaires and billionaires" avoid paying hard cash to the government, no matter how high the tax rates go.
> Most working people don't have the same options. Their taxes have been taken out of their paychecks before they get them.
> Even more so today than in the 1920s, billions of dollars can be sent overseas electronically, almost instantaneously, to be invested in other countries-- creating jobs there, while millions of American are unemployed. That is a very high price to pay for class warfare rhetoric about taxing "millionaires and billionaires."
> Make no mistake about it, that kind of rhetoric wins votes for political demagogues-- and votes are their bottom line. But that is totally different from saying that it will bring in more tax revenue to the government.
> Time and again, at both state and federal levels, in the country and in other countries, tax rates and tax revenue have moved in opposite directions many times. After Maryland raised its tax rates on people making a million dollars a year, there were fewer such people living in Maryland-- and less tax revenue was collected from them.
> In 2009, many people specializing in high finance in Britain relocated to Switzerland after the British government announced plans to take 51 percent of high incomes in taxes.
> Conversely, reductions in tax rates can lead to more tax revenue being collected. After the capital gains tax rate was cut in the United States in 1997, the government collected nearly twice as much revenue from capital gains taxes in the next four years as in the previous four years.
> Similar things have happened in India and in Iceland.
> There is no automatic correlation between the direction in which tax rates move and the direction in which tax revenues move. Nor is this a new discovery.
> Back in the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that people with high incomes were simply not paying the high tax rates that existed on paper, because they were putting their money into tax shelters.
> After the tax rates were cut, as Mellon advocated, investments flowed back into the private economy, producing higher output, rising incomes, more tax revenue and more jobs. The annual unemployment rate in the next four years never exceeded 4.2 percent, and in one year was as low as 1.8 percent.
> Despite political demagoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," in human terms the rich have less at stake than working people. Precisely because the rich have so many ways of avoiding taxes, a high tax rate is likely to do them far less harm than it does to the economy, on which millions of people depend for jobs.http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/05/17/slaves_to_words

--
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.

What Really Happened To Osama?

What Really Happened To Osama? (26 second video) <g>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfF1vkMQ0h0
--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

Re: california down the tubes

both are sanctuary cities and a threat to America

On May 17, 11:05 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> California and New York are more communist than Red China.
>
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> >  m>
>
> > --
> > 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.- 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: The GOP should endorse Obama!

Obama is a socialist and should be removed from our government asap by
any means necessary.

Who can trust a man who prays with xians, jews and muzzies?

On May 17, 12:04 pm, Stephen Stink <not4ud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Monday, May 16, 2011
>
> Obama is So Re-elected!
>
>         The right wing should get on their knees and kiss Obama's feet!  He
> could have destroyed the Republican Party and demolished the
> conservatives for good!  But, he didn't, because he is a good man.  He
> could have taken on the Bush administration and put them on trial for
> treason and war crimes!  But, Barack was too focused on correcting and
> reforming the nation's ills.
> Like Clint Eastwood in his first Spaghetti Western, "A Fistful of
> Dollars"--the Baxter family on the right, the Rejos family on the left
> and Clint Eastwood in the middle--Obama is in the same predicament.
> The right sees him as a Viet Cong and the left sees him as a flunky
> for the corporate master.  The right says the exact same thing about
> Obama as the left said about Bush for eight years.  They even use the
> same rhetoric as the left did!  There is one important difference: the
> right makes money on "Obamaphobia."  The right sells dehydrated food
> to victims of the American dollar's drop to nothing.  They sell
> weapons so that good Americans can defend themselves against the
> roving bands of socialist Muslims in the streets!  They sell DVD's and
> books to prophesize how the terrible left will take away your flat
> screen T.V. or i-pod and put you in a communal farm!  Of course, we
> all know this is bull-crap.
> The Republican candidates for this presidential cycle are a joke!  If
> they really wanted to give Obama a run for his money they would
> nominate Hermann Cain for president.  However, their one problem with
> that?  The Republicans want their country back, not their country
> black.
>         So the Obama family will not be calling Mayflower movers for an
> estimate. They will be living there for, at least, another four years--
> unless something terrible happens.
>         I am curious about who Obama will pick for V.P.?
>
> Surfing on acid.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Hu71RF6xw

--
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 GOP should endorse Obama!

Monday, May 16, 2011

Obama is So Re-elected!

The right wing should get on their knees and kiss Obama's feet! He
could have destroyed the Republican Party and demolished the
conservatives for good! But, he didn't, because he is a good man. He
could have taken on the Bush administration and put them on trial for
treason and war crimes! But, Barack was too focused on correcting and
reforming the nation's ills.
Like Clint Eastwood in his first Spaghetti Western, "A Fistful of
Dollars"--the Baxter family on the right, the Rejos family on the left
and Clint Eastwood in the middle--Obama is in the same predicament.
The right sees him as a Viet Cong and the left sees him as a flunky
for the corporate master. The right says the exact same thing about
Obama as the left said about Bush for eight years. They even use the
same rhetoric as the left did! There is one important difference: the
right makes money on "Obamaphobia." The right sells dehydrated food
to victims of the American dollar's drop to nothing. They sell
weapons so that good Americans can defend themselves against the
roving bands of socialist Muslims in the streets! They sell DVD's and
books to prophesize how the terrible left will take away your flat
screen T.V. or i-pod and put you in a communal farm! Of course, we
all know this is bull-crap.
The Republican candidates for this presidential cycle are a joke! If
they really wanted to give Obama a run for his money they would
nominate Hermann Cain for president. However, their one problem with
that? The Republicans want their country back, not their country
black.
So the Obama family will not be calling Mayflower movers for an
estimate. They will be living there for, at least, another four years--
unless something terrible happens.
I am curious about who Obama will pick for V.P.?


Surfing on acid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3Hu71RF6xw

--
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.

Pics and toons 5/17/11 (3)




 

--
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.

Pics and toons 5/17/11 (2)




 

--
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.

Pics and toons 5/17/11 (1)

 



--
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: california down the tubes

California and New York are more communist than Red China.

On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 4:53 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
m>

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes


So now socialism is no longer socialism? Is THAT how you resolve your own socialistic embrace? Simply REDEFINE terms?

As noted, socialism interferes with the free use of one's own private property.
I remain curious why 10% of the GNP is *magically* optimum.

Regard$,
--MJ

Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product, should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. -- Frédéric Bastiat




At 04:38 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
MJ:  You prove nothing by arguing that another way of characterizing
socialism is to claim such interferes with the free use of one's
property.  I say the same thing: Socialism STEALS from those who
actually WORK for a living to give to the good-for-nothings who are
unwilling to lift a finger, other than to vote in the most leftist
Democrats around.  You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
simply don't measure up.  — NE —

On May 16, 2:05 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> At 07:36 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ:  When the cost of running our government(s) starts
> approaching the optimum 10% of the GNP, there will be such a huge
> What makes 10% GNP 'optimum'?amount of cash available to purchase desired goods and services, the
> many more people should be willing to be charitable.  Socialism is
> FORCED charity that robs from the rich to give to the lazy and good-
> Nonsense.
> Socialism is INTERFERING in the free use of one's private property.
> Regard$,
> --MJAll States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of Court Intellectuals, whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public. -- Murray Rothbard

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes


<sigh>
Again, you imagine toiling away for hours is somehow synonymous with quality. Shit is shit whether it took you 10 minutes or 15 years.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. " -- Marcus Tullius Cicero





At 04:41 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Do this MJ:  Spend nearly 15 years of your life pinning and polishing
a New Constitution.  On the day of the referendum, the voters will get
to decide whose has the most appeal to them.  Your ideas of the worth
of my document don't matter.  — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 2:11 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Again you attempt to change the subject.
> Whether I read or have read Atlas Shrugged is irrelevant ... just like the remainder of your response.
> Regard$,
> --MJ "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression...[when] governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve" --Henry GeorgeAt 07:44 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:MJ:  You should read 'Atlas Shrugged.'  Government could NEVER
> orchestrate an entire economy, the way "the law of supply and demand"
> can.  Our biggest problem with government is that those out-of-touch,
> career politicians have zero real-world experience.  They actually
> BELIEVE that they are necessary to determine how everything on Earth
> gets done.  Within four total years of the ratification my New
> Constitution there won't be a single "career path" politician in
> Washington!  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On May 12, 1:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > At 08:18 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:Dear Jonathan:  No!  Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> > by government would be socialist.  My New Constitution includes these
> > and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> > businesses:
> > Government REQUIRING any business, individual, collection of individuals that serves ANYTHING other than securing EVERYONE's right to life; their own life; self-ownership serves to provide advantage to some at the expense of others AND necessarily interferes with the use of one's private property -- you know, socialism.
> > You STILL do not see how you are endorsing and promoting what you claim to be eliminating."Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> > their customers.  The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> > charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> > discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> > shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> > perform no actual work on an ongoing basis.  Fair and honest business
> > practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> > customers without coercion."
> > This is socialism in any of its many forms.
> > Take 'discriminatory' -- which necessarily occurs whenever more than one person seeks an available position ...
> > What about the discrimination against the Business Owner that occurs when people choose NOT to work for him?And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> > best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> > enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> > to prosper."
> > MORE Socialism in any of its many forms.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 1990.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://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.

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes


Maybe your problem is that you are too close to grasp the simply realities so many are attempting to point to for you.
I realize you imagine that your socialist embrace will somehow be good for everyone, but reality simply demonstrates otherwise. Sorry.

Regard$,
--MJ

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


At 04:46 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
MJ:, you are like someone dying of hydrophobia:  You deny the
substance (water) that could make your final hours better.  And you
deny that my New Constitution will accomplish what you and your lame
quotations haven't accomplished in a decade.  — J. A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On May 16, 2:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You can continue to INSIST that this constitution of yours does all sorts of
> things, but the REALITY is that it simply does not. THAT was the point made
> for you here ... a pity you constantly try to obfuscate and change the subject.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> The authority of government can have no pure
> right over my person or property but what I concede to it.  -- Thoreau, 1849
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >MJ:  My New Constitution RESTORES the maximum property rights to the
> >people!  I force our (was) police state to be deferential to any and
> >all law-abiding citizens.  You, like J. Ashley, need to learn to
> >read.  Socialism, or getting without giving, is banned by my document.
> >That's because socialism would be government sanctioned theft from the
> >rich to give to the lazy and good for nothings.  Stealing isn't
> >'fair', now is it?  — J. A. A. —
>
> >On May 12, 1:38 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > At 11:16 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:a
> > job.  Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
> > > elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
> > > Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.  All of those must be privatized
> > > EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise.
> > > And we AGAIN see an endorsement for socialism.
> > > Pssst, Armistead, the Government doing
> > *anything* other than securing EVERYONE's right
> > to life; their own life; self-ownership serves
> > to provide advantage to some at the expense of
> > others AND necessarily interferes with the use
> > of one's private property -- you know, socialism.
> > > How does one privatize THEFT and DISTRIBUTION of ill-gotten gains?
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ"Among the natural rights of the
> > Colonists are these: First, a right to life;
> > Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property;
> > together with the right to support and defend
> > them in the best manner they can. These are
> > evident branches of, rather than deductions
> > from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly
> > called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772
>
> >--
> >Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >For options & help see http://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.

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes


So you are going to CONTINUE to avoid the critique of your socialist embracing wet dream? I suppose I would too, were I you.

Regard$,
--MJ

"In politics stupidity is not a handicap", -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821.)




At 04:49 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Folks, MJ is a jealous misfit.  He's never liked anything in his
life.  Negativity is the closest he comes to experiencing joy.  Sad,
very sad.   — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 2:35 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Your constant efforts to avoid reality do nothing for your cause.
> Why is it you continue to AVOID the words, concepts and ideas presented?
> Regard$,
> --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 05:06 PM 5/13/2011, you wrote:MJ:  You are just a gadfly.  I swat you down, but you can't believe
> you are dead.  — J. A. A. —
> >
> On May 12, 1:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > At 08:18 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:Dear Jonathan:  No!  Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> > by government would be socialist.  My New Constitution includes these
> > and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> > businesses:
> > Government REQUIRING any business, individual, collection of individuals that serves ANYTHING other than securing EVERYONE's right to life; their own life; self-ownership serves to provide advantage to some at the expense of others AND necessarily interferes with the use of one's private property -- you know, socialism.
> > You STILL do not see how you are endorsing and promoting what you claim to be eliminating."Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> > their customers.  The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> > charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> > discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> > shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> > perform no actual work on an ongoing basis.  Fair and honest business
> > practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> > customers without coercion."
> > This is socialism in any of its many forms.
> > Take 'discriminatory' -- which necessarily occurs whenever more than one person seeks an available position ...
> > What about the discrimination against the Business Owner that occurs when people choose NOT to work for him?And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> > best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> > enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> > to prosper."
> > MORE Socialism in any of its many forms.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 1990.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://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.

--
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: Newt Gingrich, Weasel

I have replied to a number of your "cut and pastes";  and as EVERYONE in this group can attest, you never, ever respond! 
 
Don't even go there Michael.   You're beginning to piss me off.
 


 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


And you CONTINUE with your meaningless drivel about nonsensical nothingness.
Several People in THIS forum forward/provide 'discussion starters' ... articles, quotes, cartoons, etc.
In the instances I have called you on your wanting responses, instead of addressing these words, concepts and ideas that are presented, you make meaningless proclamations that could be appended to *any* effort provided by *anyone* with similar results OR (your favorite) you simply chant "poopeyhead" as though THAT -- in itself -- has some meaningful refutation of those words, concepts and ideas.

Here is your -- what, 4th? -- effort to CONTINUE to obfuscate and avoid the discussion as it progressed. Can we safely conclude by now that you are simply giving up on your defense of the statist Gingrich?

Regard$,
--MJ

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. -- H. L. Mencken





At 03:56 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
What is it that you have provided to the Group Michael, besides cut and paste articles from Moonbats and Crackpots?  I have at least come forward (recently)  and shown why the "Fallacy Spew"  from these Moonbats and Crackpots is exactly that,  and you have yet to post a cognitive opinion from you, yourself......Come to think of it......Ever.
 


 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

So your "solution" is to spew MORE fallacy?
You apparently do not grasp the logical argument.

So why is it you AVOIDED the words, concepts and ideas presented ... choosing instead to obfuscate and posit MORE fallacy?

Regard$,
--MJ

News flash: Republican statists take control of the House over Democrat statists. Prepare for more socialism, interventionism & imperialism. -- Jacob Hornberger



At 03:30 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Michael,
 
So, once again, let's review:
 
It's okay if the purported "Fallacy spew"  comes from the likes of Justin Raimondo,  Lew Rockwell,  Laurence Moonbat,   Bill Maher,  or some other crackpot,  but when a man who has in fact fought the battle for thirty years for limited government makes a speech that is out of line with what a majority Democratic Party Congress voted for, and that he was in fact a member of, and voted against,  this somehow makes the  man non-credible?
 
I think I got it now.

--
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.

--
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.

Gingrich Offers Healthcare Reform Advice



Gingrich Offers Healthcare Reform Advice
Written by Joe Wolverton, II   
Saturday, 13 February 2010 11:00

Newt Gingrich, architect of the "Contract with America," and John C. Goodman, founding president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote an op-ed column for the Wall Street Journal offering suggestions to President Barack Obama, who seems desperate to find ways to garner bipartisan support for his push for healthcare reform.

In their missive, Messrs. Gingrich and Goodman proceed to provide the president with 10 of the "best ideas out there" for overhauling the American healthcare system and doing so in a manner that would please his political rivals.

Despite being soi-disant conservatives, the advice given by these two eager counselors instructs the president to do this or that, none of which is at all provided for in Article II of the Constitution, the article that defines the powers granted to the president. That said, none of these pointers would be constitutionally possible for Congress either (see Article I of the Constitution).

Never one to allow the Constitution and its enumerated powers to get in the way of a good scheme, however, Gingrich and company offered the following slate of ideas, all of which do nothing but construct a stable around a Hobson's choice of broken down health care horses:

Make insurance affordable. The current taxation of health insurance is arbitrary and unfair, giving lavish subsidies to some, like those who get Cadillac coverage from their employers, and almost no relief to people who have to buy their own. More equitable tax treatment would lower costs for individuals and families. Many health economists conclude that tax relief for health insurance should be a fixed-dollar amount, independent of the amount of insurance purchased. A step in the right direction would be to give Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount.

This sounds fine at first blush and isn't so much a project for the President as a directive to Congress, but it nonetheless proposes changes to a tax scheme whose every mandate is another crime against the Constitution and the restrictions placed therein on the Congress's power to tax citizens. Gingrich and his fellows would be wise to recognize that no matter how much they love England and our shared history, in America we are citizens, not subjects and we will not be taxed whimsically.

Make health insurance portable. The first step toward genuine portability ­ and the best way of solving the problems of pre-existing conditions ­ is to change federal policy. Employers should be encouraged to provide employees with insurance that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. Also, individuals should have the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. When insurers compete for consumers, prices will fall and quality will improve.

How do the authors of these tips justify such a step? Under what theory of constitutionality is this suggestion the bailiwick of Congress? The solution to cutting the tethers on health insurance is to restrain Congress by the shackles of the Constitution. That is to say, health insurance policies will become more portable in direct proportion to the limits placed on Congress's unchecked exercise of illegitimate taxing powers. If left free of stifling government red tape, the marketplace will respond to the needs and desires of workers. Under the current environment, however, employers are fearful of re-designing their models and offering enhanced benefits that might draw the attention of congressmen anxious to skim a few coins off the top of any new pot of gold.

Meet the needs of the chronically ill. Most individuals with chronic diseases want to be in charge of their own care. The mother of an asthmatic child, for example, should have a device at home that measures the child's peak airflow and should be taught when to change his medication, rather than going to the doctor each time.

Having the ability to obtain and manage more health dollars in Health Savings Accounts is a start. A good model for self-management is the Cash and Counseling program for the homebound disabled under Medicaid. Individuals in this program are able to manage their own budgets and hire and fire the people who provide them with custodial services and medical care. Satisfaction rates approach 100%, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

We should also encourage health plans to specialize in managing chronic diseases instead of demanding that every plan must be all things to all people. For example, special-needs plans in Medicare Advantage actively compete to enroll and cover the sickest Medicare beneficiaries, and stay in business by meeting their needs. This is the alternative to forcing insurers to take high-cost patients for cut-rate premiums, which guarantees that these patients will be unwanted.

Again, take the hands of government out of the pockets of Americans and you instantly alleviate the federally applied financial pressure that restricts the ability of working Americans to put aside money for their own healthcare. When insurance companies conspire with congress, then the consumer is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, drowning under wave after wave of constricting clauses and confusing conditions.

Allow doctors and patients to control costs. Doctors and patients are currently trapped by government-imposed payment rates. Under Medicare, doctors are not paid if they communicate with their patients by phone or e-mail. Medicare pays by task­there is a list of about 7,500­but doctors do not get paid to advise patients on how to lower their drug costs or how to comparison shop on the Web. In short, they get paid when people are sick, not to keep them healthy.

So long as total cost to the government does not rise and quality of care does not suffer, doctors should have the freedom to repackage and reprice their services. And payment should take into account the quality of the care that is delivered. Once physicians are liberated under Medicare, private insurers will follow.

Re-tooling Medicare is not the answer to controlling costs. The answer to controlling costs (as well as to controlling every other instance of government malfeasance) is to insist that those representatives already in office restrain themselves and legislate within the narrow and explicit boundaries drawn by the Constitution. Then, in state after state and district after district, elect only those candidates committed, genuinely, demonstrably committed, to serving according to the dictates of our founding document.

Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. There is no question that Medicare is on an unsustainable course; the government has promised far more than it can deliver. But this problem will not be solved by cutting Medicare in order to create new unfunded liabilities for young people.

For a conservative to suggest the continued care and maintenance of Medicare even while acknowledging it is on an unsustainable course is an insult to conservatism and the principles of good government it proclaims. Medicare should be no more well regarded than the thousands of other social programs draining the lifeblood of American might. Furthermore, it is laughable that Medicare be considered sacrosanct when its very existence violates our sacred Constitution.

Protect early retirees. More than 80% of the 78 million baby boomers will likely retire before they become eligible for Medicare. This is often the most difficult time for individuals and families to find affordable insurance. A viable bridge to Medicare can be built by allowing employers to obtain individually owned insurance for their retirees at group rates; allowing them to deposit some or all of the premium amount for post-retirement insurance into a retiree's Health Savings Account; and giving employers and younger employees the ability to save tax-free for post-retirement health.

Building a bridge to Medicare? Talk about your bridge to nowhere. This suggestion is merely a restatement of those before and susceptible to the same criticism. It is economically impossible and thus insulting to business to suggest that employers fund a deposit account from which health insurance policies for their retirees could be paid. Congress should not be asked to "allow" employers to make this change or that change in order to relieve the pressure on retirees, rather companies should insist that Congress comply with the Constitution's limits on its power and then all Americans would be the happy recipients of greater economic freedom.

Inform consumers. Patients need to have clear, reliable data about cost and quality before they make decisions about their care. But finding such information is virtually impossible. Sources like Medicare claims data (stripped of patient information) can help consumers answer important questions about their care. Government data­paid for by the taxpayers­can answer these questions and should be made public.

Once again it seems Messrs. Gingrich and Goodman are happy to let the tail wag the dog. Consumers would be abler to insist on clearer cost estimates if the greedy hands of lawmakers were restrained by the Constitution. Information will flow much freer and faster if the pipeline was clogged with viscous residue of Congressional overreaching.

Eliminate junk lawsuits. Last year the president pledged to consider civil justice reform. We do not need to study or test medical malpractice any longer: The current system is broken. States across the country­Texas in particular­have already implemented key reforms including liability protection for using health information technology or following clinical standards of care; caps on non-economic damages; loser pays laws; and new alternative dispute resolution where patients get compensated for unexpected, adverse medical outcomes without lawyers, courtrooms, judges and juries.

This recommendation actually contains a nugget of good sense. The authors cite the reforms made in Texas as an example of how the president and Congress could enact tort reform vis a vis medical malpractice. Perhaps if the authors read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution they would realize that the Lone Star lawmakers are doing precisely what they should do: legislate in areas lying outside the exclusive, explicit, and enumerated arena of the national government. It is duplicitous to highlight Texas's success in changing the law within a wider call for federal interference in a matter clearly outside its restricted province of power.

Stop health-care fraud. Every year up to $120 billion is stolen by criminals who defraud public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. We can help prevent this by using responsible approaches such as enhanced coordination of benefits, third-party liability verification, and electronic payment.

There's a great way to prevent the defrauding of Medicare: abolish it. You can't steal from an agency that doesn't exist and the same Congress that gave it life can refuse to fund a behemoth that is begging for euthanasia. If the states want to establish and fund health care systems, then so be it. The constitutionality of such a policy would be up to the citizens of those states to decide. On the federal level, however, there is no constitutional authority for the creation of a nationalized medical insurance provider.

Make medical breakthroughs accessible to patients. Breakthrough drugs, innovative devices and new therapies to treat rare, complex diseases as well as chronic conditions should be sped to the market. We can do this by cutting red tape before and during review by the Food and Drug Administration and by deploying information technology to monitor the quality of drugs and devices once they reach the marketplace.

This final proposition is the least constitutionally offensive of the lot. The elimination of red tape, especially the brand manufactured in D.C., is a worthy goal and should be pursued by all those whose aim is the retreat of the federal government back within its constitutional borders.

There is little wonder that men so inextricably bound to the Republican Establishment as Gingrich and Goodman would offer such predictable suggestions for altering the American health care infrastructure. Neither man is a conservative in the true sense. Both are "conservative," however, in the way that both are determined to conserve the status quo and perpetuate policies and partisanship that will eventually enervate the American middle class. There is hope, though, that by illuminating the unconstitutionality of these proposals, a fire may ignite under a soporific electorate and both branches of elective government (and, by extension, the judicial branch) may soon be populated by men and women zealous not for the accumulation of power, but for the ennobling re-enshrinement of our glorious Constitution and all its confining checks and delicate balances.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2931-gingrich-offers-health-care-reform-advice

Re: What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?

And what part of that is it that you disagree with?   Don't tell us what Bill O'Reilly thinks,  tell us why you disagree with Newt Gingrich.  I agree with Newt,  (which is what he just said), I think we have a right to demand that folks in this Nation obey the law.
 


 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:20 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

You want the MEANINGLESS response?
the O'Reilly Factor

So ... what does that do for you? Anything?


So ... do you want something MEANINGFUL like the actual exchange and endorsement?

Bill: "Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built. The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker."
Newt: "Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization."

Regard$,
--MJ

Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime  that is, the design to injure the person or property of another  is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another....
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.... For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood truth. -- Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty < http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm>




At 04:10 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
In fact,  point out, (in your own words)  where you think Newt Gingrich has advocated for "big government".   Exclude any reference to Gingrich's desire to see all Americans mandated to carry health insurance.
 


 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

<sigh>
Person A states, "X"
Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad is it) ....

INSTEAD try ...

Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C.

Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has the same results.

Regard$,
--MJ

"The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to 'loving and faithfully serving his country,' at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting." -- Carl Schurz, April 1898




At 03:53 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
No Michael, I am able to think cognitively, and not just rely on cut and paste posts from Crackpots and Moonbats.
 
Again,  "Let's Review":
 
Do a little research, and you will find that the first paragraph is very much misleading, and the sentence from the fourth paragraph is an outright lie:
 
 Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?

But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil;
 


 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Translation: I am not actually refuting anything, but pretty please accept my fallacy spew as though it did.




At 02:02 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
There are so many mistruths,  and prevaricate misleading statements in this article, that I couldn't get past the second sentence in the fourth paragraph.  Not worth responding to any more Moonbats who don't have a friggin' clue about what they are talking about!!
 
 
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan < jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?
by Butler Shaffer
Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you?
Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt.
Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
~ From the movie Kafka
My recent article on the U.S. government's assassination of Osama bin Laden elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that advised me that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask "how dare you imply that we owed him the 'right' to be captured and brought to justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority!
The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state's enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question "what does any of us 'deserve'?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know what you "deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw when we make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan nor a defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" as an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder.
An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one's perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi's mercurial foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most Americans insist on remaining so dupable – if not outright stupid – as the state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is remarkable.
What did bin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in our dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn to help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of our "New World Order?"
If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a defensible tactic for resolving disputes – or just promoting their own preferences – should it become more widely available for all of us to employ? If two neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of rose bushes along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to settle the matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban street-gangs is but politics on a different scale; that Obama's drive-by shooting in a house in Abbottabad differs from such a killing in south-central Los Angeles more in terms of geography than substance? If the political establishment is willing to embrace such methods as a way of eliminating political enemies in foreign countries, should the same practices be acknowledged as appropriate within America? Might we want to rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most of us eagerly swallowed to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan and George Wallace?
For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state – being defined by its use of violence – exists to promote and enforce conflicts among people. Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, as their content seems to vary from one advocate to another.
The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this: no one wants to be victimized. No one accepts that their life or other property interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound – the vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law."
The idea that the military and/or the police – the enforcement arms of the state – could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new "enemy" to attack. It is also why so many conservatives – and even a number of so-called "liberals" – can get their diapers so knotted over the suggestion that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather than murdered. It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun down "suspects" without, themselves, being held to account in a court of law.
Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to this – unless, of course, you were the suspect – or would you regard demands for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to "escape" his punishment? Is a jury determination of "innocence" to be regarded as a "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is justice delayed, justice denied?"
Given the grisly history of lynching in this country – in which the race of the victim was often all that mattered – President Obama who, regardless of where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads!
Don't you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but it's an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result in wrongful convictions, but I'd rather take my chances with twelve men and women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public trial for the same reasons you and I would.

With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United States of America – as a formal system – is about finished. The Constitution has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the business of the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of government – which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each – has given way to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of "emperor," able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional approval); to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination of any persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, the powers granted to government in the Constitution – which, far from being limited, speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "reasonable" – have been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By contrast, the rights reserved to individuals have been accorded very restrictive meanings. In the treatment of bin Laden – as well as the continuing incarcerations at Guantanamo – we see further confirmation that what we once thought of as an inalienable right to a public trial is another illusion sacrificed to the empty rhetoric of "national security."
Though the "United States of America" is in a terminal condition, "America" – as a social system – may yet survive. America preceded the nation-state and, if we can revisit the basic assumptions that underlay the "founding fathers" efforts, we may discover why conditions in which peace, liberty, and respect for life must take precedence over edicts offered by rulers who smirk and strut as they demand obedience to their every whim.
In the course of such inquiries, we may discover why bin Laden – along with every one of us – deserved to not be dealt with in such an arbitrary, coercive manner. Institutionalized violence is the essence of every political system, and is in the process of destroying Western Civilization. But as secession and nullification enjoy an increasing interest among thoughtful people, members of the establishment power structure may find themselves regarded as the new "Red Coats." Like their predecessors – and in the words of Lysander Spooner – they may then be urged "to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind."
May 14, 2011
Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer236.html
--



Freedom is always illegal!





When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.
"Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
--
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.
 
* 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.
 
* 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.
 
* 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.

--
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.