Tuesday, June 7, 2011

The Dark Side of the Welfare State

The Dark Side of the Welfare State
by Fergus Hodgson, June 7, 2011

There comes a point when elected leaders reach the end of their ability to tax, borrow, and inflate for funding. The United States is verging on that threshold.

However, rather than acknowledge the folly of and dispense with unsustainable entitlements, U.S. leaders are, for the most part, endeavoring to preserve them.

This leads to what Sven Larson, a research fellow with the Wyoming Liberty Group, has described as the "dark side" of the welfare state: prevailing or incrementally increased levels of taxation but an erosion of core government services. "You keep the shell or the façade of the welfare state, but what you actually provide inside of it becomes more and more hollow," he says. "It is as though Wal-Mart would give you a poorer product, but they would keep raising the prices.… That is what [the U.S.] government is turning to."

Larson and I spoke about how this pattern developed in Sweden, his country of origin, and what he anticipates for the United States as fiscal pressure continues to mount.

Click here to listen to that interview - 22 minutes.

He has documented the Swedish experience and its ramifications in his 2010 book, Remaking America: Welcome to the Dark Side of the Welfare State. The chief motivation was to provide a wake-up call to Americans, to avoid "the same disaster that Sweden is now rapidly becoming." He fears "the differences between America and the Europe [he] left will wither away."

Given the debate over reform of Medicaid and the approaching debt limit, the book is timelier now than when initially released.

His research suggests that once government constitutes about 40 percent of an economy, the disincentive for productivity erodes the tax base and unsustainable deficits are inevitable. The nation has gone beyond the Laffer curve maximum, so officials may raise tax rates, but this only provides short-term revenue as people adapt.

Swedes pushed marginal income tax rates to as high as 61 percent, along with a 25 percent value-added tax. Yet, their balance sheet remained unstable and, during the 1990s in particular, they cornered themselves into widespread cut-backs. So put aside the pristine, idealistic images of Sweden. Along with the world's highest taxes, Sweden now has the least accessible health care in the industrialized world, almost three times the American rate of assault, and the highest rate of sexual assault in Europe.

In fact, in 2006 there were 505 cases of arson on public schools and that's in a nation with a smaller population than North Carolina. Larson presents this as a symbol of Sweden's social disintegration.

The kids are burning down their own schools.… They are growing up on the dark side of the welfare state, in a school system that treats them not as students but as irritating cost units.

Back in the United States, government spending eclipsed 41 percent in 2009 and remained at 40 percent in 2010. As deficits mount, desperation for more tax revenue, amid a stagnant economy, is growing evermore apparent. The latest healthcare reform alone had more than 20 new or increased taxes, despite President Obama's campaign promises to the contrary.

The states, many on track for default, are raiding rainy-day funds, delaying refunds, and relying heavily on debt-financed federal aid. The imminent crisis of unfunded pensions is only going to exacerbate the situation and divert taxes away from current services.

The United States already has the most progressive taxes in the OECD, so there is little room for further taxation of the wealthy. Additionally, so long as people can shift their feet and money elsewhere, higher rates would likely prove counterproductive beyond a few years.

While many federal departments could be done away with tomorrow without pain, sufficient political will remains to be seen. Nor does it appear to be there for opt-out or privatization plans, to allow for tax cuts and a transition away from entitlement programs. These, along with the military, make up the lion's share of the budget.

To be fair, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has proposed solutions that would cut much of the fat, but he remains in the minority. Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) budget proposal and Medicaid plan, although perhaps steps in the right direction, do not challenge the notion that the federal government is responsible for health care. Yet even the Ryan plan has drawn immense criticism, including from his own party.

This all suggests that the dark side of the welfare state an ever-growing decline in the quality of government services accompanied by an ever-growing increase of burdensome taxation is arriving on American shores.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106g.asp

Worldwide Freedom is Being Hacked

Worldwide Freedom is Being Hacked
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/06/worldwide-freedom-is-being-hacked.html

Will the "cyber threat" be the next bin Laden?

"Osama bin Laden and the shadowy network of terrorists he supposedly spawned has been the perfect template for controlling physical reality. The fear created by 9/11, and the even worse fear of having it happen again, has bludgeoned common sense from the average person. The Constitution itself has been overthrown, unleashing roving bands of state-sponsored goons to interrogate, molest, and kill with impunity."

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.

Indiana College Bans National Anthem---All in the Name of 'Diversity' and 'Peace'

doctorbulldog | 7 June, 2011 at 10:42 am | Categories: Education, Insanity | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7an

Uh, yeah. Diversity and Peace. That's the ticket...

What a bunch of freakin' 16th Century Mennonite hippies.

Problem is, no matter how much of a pacifist you may wish to be, evil will always be at war with you.

O, thus be it ever when freemen shall stand,
Between their lov'd homes and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

'Diversity' and 'Peace' Lead Indiana College to Ban National Anthem

June 7, 2011 by Jonathon M. Seidl - The Blaze

Goshen College in northern Indiana is a small private school founded on the traditions of the Mennonite Church USA. That's important because it means the school is pacifist. That's also important because it helps explain why the school has just bannedthe National Anthem.

"The Goshen College Board of Directors announced today that it has asked President James E. Brenneman to find an alternative to playing the 'Star-Spangled Banner' that fits with sports tradition, that honors country and that resonates with Goshen College's core values and respects the views of diverse constituencies," the college said in an announcement on its website.

"I am convinced that Goshen College is on a challenging and rewarding journey toward becoming a more diverse institution that serves an increasingly diverse community," Brenneman added. "I am hopeful that this resolution will help Goshen College move forward together, and focus on finding new ways to welcome students from our local and regional community."

"Goshen College has been and remains a ministry of Mennonite Church USA with an enduring peace tradition," Carlos Romero, executive director of the Mennonite Education Agency and an ex-officio member of the Board, said. "The Board's decision reflects a belief that faith and honoring country can co-exist without disturbing higher allegiances to God and that Goshen College will become increasingly diverse and will welcome diverse viewpoints."

According to the release, the school has not played the National Anthem before sporting events since 1957. However, it was never officially banned. In fact, last year the school did allow for some renditions of the song to be played at certain times. But now, that's been halted.

Reports say some at the school were upset that the song contains references to war and military might.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

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

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

KGB OPERATION "BARACK OBAMA"

mikhail-kryzhanovsky-kgb?xg_source=activity

Mikhail Kryzhanovsky. KGB OPERATION "BARACK OBAMA"

Posted by Mikhail Kryzhanovsky on May 27, 2011 at 8:29pm in General Discussion

Part 1. Bill Clinton.

On December 31, 1969 Oxford student and anti-war activist Bill Clinton came to Moscow through Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland for 5-days vacation at expensive "National" Hotel. His autobiography says the only person he knew in Moscow was Anik "Nikki" Alexis, a daughter of a French diplomat who was now studying at the Patrice Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University. Clinton recalls, "One night I took a bus out to Lumumba University to have dinner with Nikki and some of her friends"

On the bus back home, Clinton says, there was only one other passenger, Oleg Rakito, who "spoke better English than I did" and "asked me lots of questions and told me he worked for the government, virtually admitting he was assigned to keep an eye on me". The story is all fake. First, foreigners who can afford "National" don't use public transportation on January -30 C night. Second, KGB officer might reveal his identity to a foreigner only if he's recruiting him. Third, Bill Clinton was recruited, otherwise he would have left Moscow immediately and in panic. Instead, he enjoyed the rest of his vacation and went to Chechoslovakia, another socialist country. Bill Clinton tried to move America towards socialism through health care reform plan. His effort ultimately died, though Obama finished the job successfully. Clinton helped Russians to save their secret source, CIA "mole" John Deutch.

Deutch was born in Belgium to a Russian father and he was the only Russian CIA Director. He got some jobs with top secrets access : 1983 - President's Commission on Strategic Forces, 1990-1993 - the President's Intelligence Advisory Board member , 1993-1994 - Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, Deputy Defense Secretary, 1995-1996 Director of Central Intelligence Agency. Since 2000 - MIT Professor and Director for Citigroup. Deutch was appointed CIA Director by President Clinton and stayed in Langley in 1995- 1996. He is a Russian "mole," and he's safe because President Clinton obstructed the investigation and pardoned this enemy of state in 2001.

John Deutch ordered my recruitment. In 1995 I, a former KGB intelligence officer and Ukrainian National Security illegal spy, came to USA where I hoped to work for the government as strategic intelligence analyst. I was recruited by CIA as "Filament" and had to work also for FBI National Security Division - it was CIA-FBI conspiracy.I had to spy on the U.S. Congress They wanted also to influence the White House and I wrote "The Professional" system special instructions for President Bill Clinton (now in use by Barack Obama). My "White House Special Handbook", 2007 is based on "The Professional". I state that political control over the White House and the U.S. Congress, not national security, was and is the CIA and FBI top priority.

The also had "a very important job up to my high professional skills as a sniper". I didn't want to kill politicians. They've pressed me very hard in return. .Three months before 9/11 tragedy happened, in June 2001, I've warned American President George W. Bush and the U.S. Senate on CIA anti-American activity, national security collapse and my personal situation. My Senator Hillary Clinton refused to mess with CIA . In September 2002, White House sent a request to the Dept. of Justice, where FBI Director R. Mueller blocked it because I was a "joint" CIA-FBI project. Senator Chuck Schumer's (D) Office explained to me that "American national security is not his business".President Obama, Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security Secretary and Mark Kappelhof, Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division keep silence. In 2007, ALGORA, a small publishing company, released my "White House Special Handbook, or How to Rule the World in the 21st Century", based on "The Professional". 300 universities and colleges including Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Georgetown and Oxford, learn top political management in a right, KGB way .

Three signs are enough to triangulate a "mole" and here they are for Mr. Deutch:
1. Two days after Deutch retired from the CIA, on December 16, 1996, technical personnel discovered at his house highly classified information stored on his unclassified computer, loaded from his agency computer. He refused to explain why he violated strict security rules. First, Director of Central Intelligence doesn't need highly classified data on his home computer, because he is a bureaucrat, not an analyst. Second, here we have a trick — the Internet-connected computer is accessible by anyone with some technical knowledge and you don't have to send anything — the Russians will read secret information right from your home computer. 2. In 1997 the CIA began a formal security investigation. It was determined that his computer was often connected to the Internet with no security, and that Deutch was known to leave memory cards with classified data lying in his car. Deutch used his influence to stop further any investigation and the CIA took no action until 1999, when it suspended his security clearances. He admitted finally the security breach and merely apologized. 3. In 1999 the Defense Department started its own investigation, and it appeared that in 1993 Deutch, as Defense Undersecretary, used unsecured computers at home and his America Online (!) account to access classified defense information. As Deputy Defense Secretary, he declined departmental requests in 1994 to allow security systems to be installed in his residence. 4. In 2000 Senator Charles Grassley asked the Justice Department to look into the case. There was no investigation. In 2001 President Clinton pardoned Deutch. There were no comments.

Part 2. "Barack Obama"

On November 4, 2008 "Barack Obama" won presidential election. He was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii.If there's something very wrong with someone's birth certificate and if there's an indication that this someone used a birth certificate information of a newborn child (Virginia Sunahara) who died at birth or soon after birth, we have to talk about the methods Russian intelligence (SVR, a former KGB) and its illegal espionage department. We have to talk about one of the stages of the illegal spy "documentation process" - using "special" birth certificates to get legal documents in USA - SS#, driver license, passport. Hawaii law requires the registration of a death within 3 days and the registration of a birth within 7 days. With an Aug. 4, 1961, birthdate, Virginia Sunahara's birth registration was filed as late as Aug. 11, 1961 – the same day the Nordyke twins' birth certificates were filed by Kapi'olani hospital with the Hawaii Department of Health local registrar and registrar general. Susan Nordyke, the twin born first, received birth certificate number 10637; Gretchen Nordyke, the second, received number 10638. Barack Obama's birth certificate was issued the number 10641, even though it was registered three days before the Nordykes' certificates. However, if the birth certificate number 10641 was first assigned to Virginia Sunahara, the apparent conflict could be explained.
Now, let's reconstruct Obama's biography as I see it with my 30 years of espionage experience. Illegal spy cover story works best if it's a mix of actual and fake facts. "Obama" (let's call him John Smith) was a child of a student from Kenya whop studied at the Peoples' Friendship University in Moscow and who dated a Russian girl. Such kids in Russia were often unwanted by both partners and were raised and educated at a special school. Like Obama, John Smith was born in 1961 and like him graduated from high school in 1979. KGB paid attention to a very smart young man. Lieutenant Smith was Intelligence Institute student in 1979-1982 (it's in Moscow, not far from "Cosmos" Hotel - there are couple of buildings in the area and I got intelligence education myself in one of them back in 1987). Then a decision was made to train him individually as illegal intelligence officer .The "dacha" (Russian for small villa) not far from Moscow, provides an ideally isolated territory for training. Two or three instructors also live there to immerse the candidate completely and supervise him all the time. The internal fittings of the dacha are prepared very thoroughly and carefully. From the first day the candidate becomes accustomed to the circumstances in which he will be living and working in USA for many years. He wears American clothes, eats the food, he's thinking, acting and living like 100% American . From the first day of his training he is supplied with the majority of papers and magazines, he's watching movies and TV shows. The instructors ask the candidate the most difficult questions imaginable with regard to what has been read and seen. After a number of years of such training, the future illegal knows everything about America, espionage technology and speaks perfect English. At the same time, in 1979-1981, Barack Obama studied at Occidental College in Los Angeles where he became a socialist ready to transform the nation by redistributing wealth. KGB station in Washington, DC which was constatntly looking for future secret sources at American universities and colleges, got information about young socialist. They sent his picture and some info to Moscow where strking resemblance was discovered between a college student from Los Angeles and a future illegal spy John Smith. In mid-1981, Obama travelled to Indonesia to visit his mother and sister Maya, and visited the families of college friends in India and Pakistan for 3 weeks. Then something happened in India, a good friend to Soviet Union and a perfect place to recruit foreigners. He was not recruited, he disappeared and John Smith aka Barack Obama came back to the United States - change of agents, one of regular illegal espionage methods.. In 1982 Obama's father died in a car accident in Nairobi, his mother lived in Indonesia and might be just avoided or ignored by her "son" (Don Johnson, Dunham co-worker said "Obama was distancing himself from her". Russians approached Ann Dunham under a "false flag" ( National Security Agency or CIA) and explained that her son had to stay abroad for a secret mission for some time. They told her that she had to be ready to accept another person as her own son. For operation like that, espionage agencies often recruit close relatives and allow them to meet their son(daughter) from time to time outside USA. Money talks, there's nothing unusual, though for Dunham the pressure and depression was too big - she died in 1995 of cancer at 52. Time changes people, so "Obama" had to stay away from his friends and do not show up in public too much. In 1981 he transferred to Columbia University in New York City, where he majored in political science and where nobody could remember him, and graduated with a B.A. in 1983. In 1983-1985 he worked at the Business International Corporation and at the New York Public Interest Research Group. "Obama" had to function like a regular illegal spy, living a quite life , staying away from his mother and old friends, recruiting secret sources and sending information to Moscow. He worked in Chicago as community organizer in 1985-1988 and in mid-1988 travelled to Europe to meet his KGB handlers and get new instructions. He had a choice - a safe variant (to make a political career in one of African countries), and a risky one of staying in America - KGB wanted him to be Martin Luther King #2 or one of African leaders. But it appeared he get much more which is Oval Office. It was decided he could stay in USA longer and it was a success : Illinois state senator (1997-2004) and U.S. Senator (2005-2008). . In 2005 he visited Russia together with Senator R.Lugar and met his SVR handlers to discuss his prospectives for the U.S. presidency. In 2007, Obama announced his candidacy for President of the United States. In 2008 he won the race and became the first Russian illegal spy to be elected the U.S. President.The Congressional Research Service, a public policy arm of Congress, officially admits no one in the government ever vetted Obama's constitutional eligibility. After his victory in November 2008. American President "Barack Obama", the most powerful man in the world, lost sense of reality and ignored his Russian intelligence boss (Mikhail Fradkov) instructions - he had his own vision on how to rule and destroy America .Russians were not going to lose control over the White House and American President. They explained to Obama, that it's OK, but he had to work together with Bill Clinton, a "big friend of Russia" and his people.. Bill Clinton was instructed what to do and in November 2008 Obama had to divide the power - he appointed Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State, Rahm Emanuel ( Clinton's chief political adviser) - the White House Chief of Staff and Leon Panetta (Clinton's Chief of Staff) - CIA Director. On October 2, 2010 he managed to fire Rahm Emanuel (I'll tell you why) and after that Russians humiliated him one more time - in April 28, 2011, he was forced to nominate Panetta to replace Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. If confirmed (in July , 2011), Panetta would end all operations and withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq - that's another Russian intelligence order. Obama, actually, lost half of his power by giving two key Cabinet positions to Clintons team - that's how Russians punished their illegal spy for his independence. Still, as a Russian illegal intelligence officer he's good. He's destroying America - its called "socialist intervention into the US economy". Besides, while Bill Clinton saved one Russian "mole" John Deutch, Obama saved 10 (ten) Russian illegal spies sending them back to Russia in 2010 without any investigation - severe blow to American national security and priceless gift to SVR, Russian intelligence. In April, 2011 he announced his intention to seek re-election in 2012. Coming collapse of America is the KGB/SVR payback for what happened to the Soviet Union which disappeared from the globe.
Part 3. Hillary Clinton
2012 is coming and there's a player who'll never give up and whom Russian intelligence service can't stop. Hillary Clinton with a team of her own. In March , 2010 I've received an invitation for a dinner with President Barack Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi from DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) signed by Ian Sugar, Director of Development. Sugar explained that I pay $15,999 (credit card) and on May 13, 2010, at 6.00 PM I can come to St. Regis hotel, New York . Now, guess who was the DCCC Chairman in 2005-2009 and who could advise Ian Sugar to send Kryzhanovsky, a former KGB sniper, an invitation to a dinner with Obama ? Rahm Emanuel. I didn't go, instead I've put on YouTube my video to show vulnerability of Obama's protection system. On October, 12 2010, I had a meeting with two Secret Service agents, John and Bratt (646-842-2107) - they were very nervous about the video We had a long discussion. I've asked them why they allow the White House press office to put Obama's next day schedule on Internet with exact time and place of his trips - it gives a perfect possibility to kill him. They told me it was Rahm Emanuel's order and they can do nothing though on October 2, 2010 Obama fired Emanuel and it was a small victory over Clintons. More interesting - they told me they wanted me to work for them too :" We know you as "Filament", you work for CIA and we want you to work for us too under the same alias. We'll pay you". So, I'm still acting CIA agent and they're still sure I'll do political murders ? And who's the target - Obama ? That's why Secret service is nervous - they are in the game ? That's not the end. On January, 20 2011 I talked to FBI agent Eric Perry. He said my video made "high authorities, people on the very top vextremely nervous". He didn't explain if it was FBI Director Robert Mueller, the White House Chief of Staff or Obama himself. He asked me to delete the video from YouTube. Why FBI is so nervous, they are in the game ? Like with JFK assassination, you don't need huge conspiracy - it's enough if CIA Director, FBI Director and Secret Service Director make a deal. Back in 1963 they made a deal not to touch Lee Oswald untill he finished the job - simple, right , Mrs Hillary Clinton ?

Part 4. What's next ?

"Birth certificate" story made Obama very angry, but actually he's in panic. Russians are in panic too - it was a 100% surprise for them. They didn't initially that Obama might get the Oval Office and his enemies would put his fake biography and documents under microscope. Russians could ask Donald Trump to stop his own investigation (Trump met Russian leader Putin and stated that America needs a president like him), but he will run for president in 2012 and he has to press Obama (Trump says "no", but polls say "yes"). Now "Obama" has to make a choice together with his Russian boss Mikhail Fradkov, SVR Director: 1) resign or just disappear and go back to Russia 2) commit suicide or wait until Hillary Clinton's clan kills him with my help, though I can tell Robert Mueller, Leon Panetta and Mark Sullivan one more time - I'm not coming back, I will not kill "Barack Obama" or anybody else, stop calling me and sending agents to get me back 3) continue his re-election campaign and presidential activity no matter what 4) fight Hillary Clinton's mafia, cut off any attempts to investigate his biography
There's also "one-way ticket" possibility, if Russian intelligence makes a decision to "neutralize" "Obama" (staged car accident, etc) to avoid huge international scandal.
Mikhail Kryzhanovsky.30 years of international espionage experienceKGB Counterintelligence SchoolKGB Intelligence Institutea former KGB intelligence officera former KGB "Nabat" anti-terror group snipera former SBU (Ukrainian Security Service) illegal intelligence officera former CIA/FBI "Filament"the author of the White House Special Handbook, Algora,2007the author of the US National Security System, 2011unemployed, homeless
prof7prof@yahoo.com

"Barack Obama 2012 : KGB technology 2008" YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvG4nLRn4PI
"Mikhail Kryzhanovsky" YouTube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksQU0D-D2_Y

Re: Save America by kicking all political rituals in the ass!

Sorry, the press conference you linked to may be labeled "Swearing-In" by C-SPAN, but it does not show any oath of office taking place. It's an acceptance speech. Nothing more.

On 06/07/2011 07:50 AM, plainolamerican wrote:

Reasonable to assume? ---- yes  How about some factual evidence? --- http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/86467-1 start listening at 6:50  On Jun 6, 5:17 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

Reasonable to assume? How about some factual evidence?  John made a claim which he has as yet been unable to back up with evidence. (This happens regularly, I might add.)  Choose sides carefully.<g>  On 06/06/2011 02:53 PM, plainolamerican wrote:

  you contention that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the Constitution is incorrect. ---- a naturalized citizen is required to swear an oath to protect and defend the constitution ... thus, it is reasonable to assume that a SS applicant, who is required to be a citizen, would be bound to support and defend the constitution

On Jun 6, 2:34 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John,

It is obvious you want to fight the good fight. It is also obvious you are not equipped to do so. You continually infer that which does not exist.

Secret Service agents are not "executive or judicial officers" of either "the United States or of the several states." Therefore, you contention that Secret Service agents shall be bound by Article VI to support the Constitution is incorrect.

By the way, Article VI, paragraph three (properly quoted) states, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

On 06/06/2011 11:32 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear J. Ashley: I don't have the "existing Constitution" committed to memory. So, I had to scan such to locate Article VI. "... all executive and judicial officers, both of the USA and the several states shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the United States." That OATH requires supporting that the USA is a REPUBLIC. As soon as Barack Obama started appointing czars and making executive orders pushing the USA toward socialism and communism, all officers, such as the Secret Service, are bound by the Constitution to ARREST his skinny ass for treason! Tens of thousands in our military have died fighting socialist and communist nations. So, why won't any one fight the grave enemy bastard who is in our midst? It's because people in government value their identity with... power. Doing WRONG makes one seem more powerful than doing right, "because the glory in doing right must always be shared with its unspoken moral imperative." Jonathan, for a shallow anarchist like you, you seem incapable of understanding that the spirit of the overall Constitution has deference over any "authorization". The Founding Fathers erred, big time, when they just assumed the laws and procedures passed and approved wouldn't run counter to this most simple premise: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!ï¿½ Think about the simple premise, guy. So far, you can't see the forest for the trees! ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½ Patriot On Jun 4, 7:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:

John, You have certainly lived up to your moniker this time. Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." How can something specifically enumerated in the Constitution be unconstitutional? On 06/04/2011 03:37 PM, NoEinstein wrote:    >    Dear plainol...: The Federal Government, especially the court system,

has been disregarding the Constitution for over a century.  If there is a disagreement, the only thing the Supreme Court is authorized to do is to send things back to CONGRESS to be resolved.  Nothing in the Constitution grants one justice more total power than Congress! Therefore the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional... by RITUAL.  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½  Patriot On Jun 3, 3:11 pm, plainolamerican<plainolameri...@gmail.com>      wrote:

Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule? --- what states rights? that was resolved in 1865 ... sorta it's time for another showdown since it's obvious that the feds pick and choose their responsibilities and powers On Jun 2, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>      wrote:

No, MJ!  Every day, the US Supreme Court is finding interpretations that will allow this, but not "that".  Does the federal government's authority to regulate interstate commerce rule, or does the powers granted to the states clause rule?  That, supposedly, will determine the constitutionality of Obama Care.  As I've explained: The Senate was included ONLY because of the small states' extortion (blackmail). A Representative Republic is PURE; an oligarchy, such as the US Senate, is unfair, undemocratic and thus UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Like our Manchurian Candidate... "President" (gag!), Obamaï¿½s being in the White House makes him no less a TREASONOUS bastard!  If you want 100 senile, career politicians to run things, then why not propose a constitution without a House of Representatives?  For running a government, I'll take the fair and democracy-like House, over our drag-on-government US Senate every time!  Harry Reid should be out of a job!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½  Patriot On Jun 2, 9:25 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:

Perhaps we have highlighted (again) yet another of your difficulties. When you ignore common definitions of words, it is difficult to convey your message in any meaningful way. Constitutional, as noted previously is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Regard$, --MJ "[Democracy] is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive" -- Westbrook Pegler, popular columnist of the 1930s and '40s.At 08:38 PM 5/26/2011, you wrote:MJ:  What "definition" is that?  That an anti-democracy and anti- Republic oligarchy has more power than the former two?  The US senate is THE most corrupt band of career politicians on planet Earth!  We could do better by just giving the vote to the first 100 people to cross Main Street!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead ï¿½  Patriot On May 26, 1:32 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>      wrote:

Again, Constitutional is of or by the Constitution. The Senate is constitutional -- by definition. Until the removal of the check with Amendment 17 (not properly ratified per Article V), the Senate was the 'representative' of the States -- those entities forming the United States (plural). Contrary to your insistence, the Constitution does not create this idea of mob rule to which you are so enamored and believe will *magically* correct ills. Regard$, --MJ Democracy: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic ... Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it is based on deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, or impulse, without restraint or regard to the consequences. Result is demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy. -- U.S. Army training manual No. 2000-25 (1928-1932)Dear MJ: The Founding Fathers were BLACKMAILED into including a senate, because small states feared being exploited by larger states. The senate is an oligarchy that slaps-in-the-face our Representative Republic. Since principles of FAIRNESS are so evident throughout the main body of the Constitution, then, the VICTOR in disputes has to be the side favoring fair play and democracy! The mere fact that the senate was included in the Constitution doesn't make that constitutional! Just because 'laws' are passed doesn't make those constitutional, either. The US Senate has been a drag of fair play and democracy from day one! For the record, the US Supreme Court, wherein one justice has a power greater than Congress, or the People, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Learn, if you can, MJ. So far you seem committed to a lifetime of taking-over your flunked courses in how to think. ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ On May 25, 9:43 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:

The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY.  Since there has never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy is the one which isn't FAIR.  Giving undue power to smaller population states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face.  So, the US Senate is and always has been, unconstitutional.The Senate -- by definition -- cannot be unconstitutional. What you (continue) fail to grasp is that the Constitution is/was an agreement

 ..  read more »

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.

Is a Constitutional Convention Necessary?

Is a Constitutional Convention Necessary?
by Laurence M. Vance, June 7, 2011

The evisceration of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court in the recent case of Kentucky v. King should forever put to bed the idea that we need a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution in order to regain control of the federal government.

While seeking a drug bust after a "controlled buy" of crack cocaine, police in Lexington, Kentucky, kicked in the door of the wrong apartment after they supposedly "smelled marijuana," "could hear people inside moving," and believed that "drug related evidence was about to be destroyed." Once inside, the police found three people smoking marijuana, powder and crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia. Police eventually entered the correct apartment and found the suspect whom they initially sought.

A Fayette County Circuit Court ruled that the evidence seized was admissible because the warrantless search was "justified." The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court ruling. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that "exigent circumstances could not justify the search because it was reasonably foreseeable that the occupants would destroy evidence when the police knocked on the door and announced their presence."

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, overruled the Kentucky Supreme Court, seeing "no evidence that the officers either violated the Fourth Amendment or threatened to do so prior to the point when they entered the apartment."

However, in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took to task the other eight justices:

The Court today arms the police with a way routinely to dishonor the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement in drug cases. In lieu of presenting their evidence to a neutral magistrate, police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, nevermind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant.

How "secure" do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?

Although Justice Alito said that "this Court has identified several exigencies that may justify a warrantless search of a home," the Fourth Amendment knows no such exigencies:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Do supporters of a constitutional convention to propose amendments seek to end the federal government's war on drugs that makes cases like Kentucky v. King possible?

Not at all. They want to amend the Constitution for generalities like the federal government's increased power and growth, the federal government's abusing or exceeding its authority, or the federal government's mounting deficits. One organization has proposed The National Debt Relief Amendment: "An increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate States." Constitutional scholar Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute has authored a three-part series on Amending the Constitution by Convention. He seems mainly concerned about the growing national debt and out-of-control spending. His report recommends that "states seriously consider initiating the Article V constitutional amendment process to restrain the federal government." Libertarians have gotten into the act as well, with law professor Randy Barnett making the case for a federalism amendment.

The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, always beginning with an amendment proposed by Congress. Six other amendments sent by Congress to the states were not ratified. Although the other procedure for proposing amendments has never been used, Article V of the Constitution does allow for the states to apply to Congress for an amendment-proposing convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Without getting into the debates among conservatives over the feasibility and desirability of a "con-con," there are several reasons why the whole idea is just a big waste of time.

First of all, as I previously mentioned, supporters of a constitutional convention are not outraged about flagrant abuses of federal power like the war on drugs, the war on terror, and the U.S. empire. If they're not going to strike at the root of problem, then why bother.

Second, although the states should be bulwarks of liberty against federal tyranny, they can't be relied on to check the power of the federal government when they themselves are fiscally irresponsible and violators of individual liberty and property rights just like the federal government.

Third, the original constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was supposed to be "for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." But what happened? The Articles of Confederation were scrapped and the present Constitution was put in its place. The Philadelphia Convention was hijacked by those who desired a consolidated government instead of a confederate one. Who knows what evil would befall us this time?

Fourth, the federal government has tried to circumvent the Constitution since the very beginning. In the landmark case of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved the authority of Congress to set up a national bank, Chief Justice John Marshall paved the way for the growth of the federal leviathan:

Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described.

This is the national bank that future president James Madison, then a member of Congress, argued against because the power exercised by the bank bill was condemned by "the silence of the constitution," "the rule of interpretation arising out of the constitution," and "its tendency to destroy the main characteristic of the constitution."

Fifth, as is evident from the Supreme Court's evisceration of the Fourth Amendment that I previously mentioned, the federal government doesn't follow the Constitution and its amendments now. What makes anyone think it will follow any additional amendments? As constitutional scholar Joe Wolverton has well said:

Until such time as the Constitution is faithfully followed, there is no reason to believe that any amendment passed at an Article V constitutional convention would not be ignored, misinterpreted, and violated as badly as existing clauses to justify the federal government's unrepentant encroachment into the lives of Americans and into the sovereignty of the states.

The case could be made that over 90 percent of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. You know, things like funding education, the arts, foreign aid, scientific research, and medical care. We don't need another constitutional amendment; we need congressmen to follow the plain language of the Constitution.

Sixth, even those politicians that say they revere Constitution don't follow the Constitution. Here is the House Republican " Pledge to America":

For too long, Congress has ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government. Further, it has too often drafted unclear and muddled laws, leaving to an unelected judiciary the power to interpret what the law means and by what authority the law stands. This lack of respect for the clear Constitutional limits and authorities has allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year. We will require each bill moving through Congress to include a clause citing the specific constitutional authority upon which the bill is justified.

What they should have said, of course, is that Republicans in Congress have ignored the proper limits imposed by the Constitution on the federal government, shown a lack of respect for clear constitutional limits and authorities, and allowed Congress to create ineffective and costly programs that add to the massive deficit year after year.

On the very day they published their pledge, House Republicans voted in overwhelming numbers with Democrats to pass four pieces of legislation that violate the very pledge that they promised to adhere to: The Family Health Care Accessibility Act, The Emergency Medic Transition Act, The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act, and the Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act.

Seventh, the Constitution has utterly failed and failed utterly to do what it was intended to do: act as a check on the federal government. James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

No statement in The Federalist has turned out to be as false and laughable as this one.

And eighth, the Constitution has been a dead letter since the so-called Civil War. In the words of Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993), in a speech at the annual seminar of the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association in 1987 on the occasion of the bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution:

While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.

Our federal system of divided authority was destroyed by Lincoln's war. In his book Constitutional Government in the United States, Woodrow Wilson maintained that Lincoln's war to preserve the Union established the principle that "the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers."

Although the Constitution cannot be considered a libertarian document, actually following it would be a tremendous improvement over the situation we are in now. Following it, not amending it.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106f.asp

Anthony Weiner's Apology Speech (Presented By Guilty Looking Dachshunds)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/anthony-weiners-apology-speech-presented-by-guil

Re: Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

The return of the anti-interventionist right is welcome news. It may
assure a real debate on foreign policy in the Republican primaries of
2012.
----
Wolfowitz Doctrine is an unofficial name given to the initial version
of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–99 fiscal years (dated
February 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for
Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.
Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times
on March 7, 1992, and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign
and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist
as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive
military action to suppress potential threats from other nations and
prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the
close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being
officially released on April 16, 1992.

On Jun 7, 11:00 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Return of the Anti-Interventionist RightbyPatrick J. Buchanan, June 07, 2011
> Late last month, when U.S. air strikes caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an angry Hamid Karzai issued an ultimatum.
> If future U.S. strikes are not restricted, we will take "unilateral action" and America may be treated like an "occupying power."
> That brought this blistering retort from one Republican hawk.
> "If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country. If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take 'unilateral action' against NATO forces which conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid."
> Who was the GOP hawk shaking the fist at Karzai? Sarah Palin.
> Insiders attribute Palin's shift from the neocon party line to the departure from her staff of Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb, and their replacement by Libya war skeptic Peter Schweizer.
> Perhaps. But there are other straws in the wind that the GOP is coming to see that, like his "big government conservatism" ballyhooed byThe Weekly Standard, Bush II's compulsive interventionism has proven as great a disaster for his country as it did for his party.
> Last week, House Speaker John Boehner had to scramble to cobble up a substitute resolution to prevent half his GOP caucus from joining with Democrats to denounce President Obama's war in Libya as unconstitutional and to demand a total U.S. pullout in 15 days.
> The author of the end-the-war resolution that seemed likely to pass was Dennis Kucinich. That Republicans would vote for a Kucinich resolution testifies to the anger on the Hill that Obama took us to war without congressional authorization and has treated the War Powers Act with manifest contempt.
> Boehner's resolution, which gives the president longer to comply with the act and involves no deadline for withdrawal, passed 268 to 145.
> But Kucinich's resolution, which would have cut off funds for the Libyan war, still garnered 148 votes, among them 87 Republicans.
> More than a third of House Republicans voted to pull out of the NATO coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces, which would have forced a NATO withdrawal from that civil war. This is historic.
> Yet another reflection of anti-interventionist sentiment can be seen in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' valedictory tour, where he felt compelled to assure U.S. allies in Asia we are there to stay.
> In Afghanistan, Gates seemed to warn the White House not to make too large a withdrawal of forces in July, when President Obama begins to reverse the 30,000-soldier surge of 2009.
> What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?
> First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqthe first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighthwith their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.
> Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.
> A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.
> Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war.
> Harry Truman conducted America's first undeclared war in Korea, calling it a "police action."
> Historians now believe Congress was misled or lied to when it approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing LBJ to attack North Vietnam.
> While George H.W. Bush got the support of both houses for Desert Storm, Bill Clinton launched his war on Serbia in defiance of a House vote not to authorize it.
> George W. Bush got congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq by declaring that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction it did not have. We went to war for nothing.
> Finally, the Libyan war Obama entered, egged on by Britain and France, but without the support of Congress, makes little sense.
> Though Gadhafi is a repellent figure, the architect of the Lockerbie massacre, we have no vital interest in who rules Libya. Yet when Gadhafi falls, it will now be up to us to see to it that Libya is united and repaired and has a democratic government.
> Obama has already committed us to take the lead in a $40 billion rescue of Egypt and Tunisia. Can we also afford to rescue a Yemen that is in terrible shape and a Libya that has been at war for months?
> The return of the anti-interventionist right is welcome news. It may assure a real debate on foreign policy in the Republican primaries of 2012.http://buchanan.org/blog/return-of-the-anti-interventionist-right-4770

--
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: Check out the writeup and photos of this vacation trip

Aahhh the dlounge... I bet it beats the hospital.

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Dick,

I have been to all those places and it is well worth the trip !!! What
they didn't do was go to the aptly named "Whiskey Row" in Prescott
(but it was a kids trip). I love the Lizard's Lounge there. A GREAT
Blues venue.

On Jun 6, 11:33 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Don't let the tag home schooling fool you. The photos are great and the
> trip looks like one I would love to take
>
> http://thepioneerwoman.com/homeschooling/

--
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.

New home of Glenn Beck unveiled: GBTV

He is charging for this and I ain't buying.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glenn Beck <news@glennbeck.com>
Date: Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:15 AM
Subject: New home of Glenn Beck unveiled: GBTV

GBTV. The Truth Lives Here

Today the questions about Glenn's future end -- and the future itself begins.

Glenn Beck and Mercury Radio Arts are proud to announce a new network built from the ground-up. It's called GBTV, and it is the network of tomorrow, a day early.

Will Glenn's show be on GBTV?
Yes! Glenn's show will expand to two hours a night, five nights a week and be streamed live in HD exclusively on GBTV. For more details on Glenn's show, click HERE.

What is GBTV?
Simple: it's a live, streaming video network that, in addition to being the home of Glenn's new show, will also feature a wide variety of other programming. But the real secret to GBTV is what it doesn't have: an agenda. Glenn has financed the development of GBTV himself to ensure that he is only accountable to you.

How do I get GBTV?
The best thing about GBTV is that it goes wherever you do. From your laptop to your desktop to your iPad, iPhone or television (via a Roku device), GBTV is always available. No more faking illnesses to ensure you're home to watch Glenn -- if you've got Internet access, you've got GBTV.

How much does it cost?
Let's put it this way, a month of GBTV access is almost 40% cheaper than THIS. For full pricing details, including how to get a month free, click HERE.

OK, I'm sold. Now what?
Join us! It's time to roll up our sleeves and make a real difference. That's why GBTV is not just a place to view shows you love; it's a way to get involved and to turn ideas into action. We're going to leave the sensational scandals and partisan bickering to others and instead move forward and find real solutions. We hope you'll join us on this journey toward building a better tomorrow -- we promise, it'll be one heck of a ride.

Welcome to GBTV: The Truth Lives Here.

Still have questions? Join Glenn tomorrow night for the FREE GBTV Launch Event -- Wednesday, June 8th at 7 pm ET. Get all the details HERE.

Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right

Return of the Anti-Interventionist Right
by Patrick J. Buchanan, June 07, 2011

Late last month, when U.S. air strikes caused civilian casualties in Afghanistan, an angry Hamid Karzai issued an ultimatum.

If future U.S. strikes are not restricted, we will take "unilateral action" and America may be treated like an "occupying power."

That brought this blistering retort from one Republican hawk.

"If President Karzai continues with these public ultimatums, we must consider our options about the immediate future of U.S. troops in his country. If he actually follows through on his claim that Afghan forces will take 'unilateral action' against NATO forces which conduct such air raids to take out terrorists and terrorist positions, that should result in the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan and the suspension of U.S. aid."

Who was the GOP hawk shaking the fist at Karzai? Sarah Palin.

Insiders attribute Palin's shift from the neocon party line to the departure from her staff of Randy Scheunemann and Michael Goldfarb, and their replacement by Libya war skeptic Peter Schweizer.

Perhaps. But there are other straws in the wind that the GOP is coming to see that, like his "big government conservatism" ballyhooed by The Weekly Standard, Bush II's compulsive interventionism has proven as great a disaster for his country as it did for his party.

Last week, House Speaker John Boehner had to scramble to cobble up a substitute resolution to prevent half his GOP caucus from joining with Democrats to denounce President Obama's war in Libya as unconstitutional and to demand a total U.S. pullout in 15 days.

The author of the end-the-war resolution that seemed likely to pass was Dennis Kucinich. That Republicans would vote for a Kucinich resolution testifies to the anger on the Hill that Obama took us to war without congressional authorization and has treated the War Powers Act with manifest contempt.

Boehner's resolution, which gives the president longer to comply with the act and involves no deadline for withdrawal, passed 268 to 145.

But Kucinich's resolution, which would have cut off funds for the Libyan war, still garnered 148 votes, among them 87 Republicans.

More than a third of House Republicans voted to pull out of the NATO coalition attacking Moammar Gadhafi's forces, which would have forced a NATO withdrawal from that civil war. This is historic.

Yet another reflection of anti-interventionist sentiment can be seen in Defense Secretary Robert Gates' valedictory tour, where he felt compelled to assure U.S. allies in Asia we are there to stay.

In Afghanistan, Gates seemed to warn the White House not to make too large a withdrawal of forces in July, when President Obama begins to reverse the 30,000-soldier surge of 2009.

What explains the shift in political and public sentiment away from military interventionism?

First, the length and cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraqthe first in its 10th year, the latter in its eighthwith their endless bleedings of American blood and treasure for inconclusive results.

Over 6,000 dead, 40,000 wounded, and $1 trillion sunk, with a real possibility a U.S. pullout from Iraq in December could result in civil war, and a fear that the Afghan War, where the Taliban now conduct jailbreaks of 500 men in Kandahar and fight on the Af-Pak border in battalion strength, may ultimately be lost.

A second cause is our fiscal crisis. America cannot afford any more wars, or more billions in foreign aid to balance budgets of Arab countries whose treasuries have been looted by departing despots.

Third, there is the sense in Congress that it has let itself be steadily stripped of its constitutional power to declare war.

Harry Truman conducted America's first undeclared war in Korea, calling it a "police action."

Historians now believe Congress was misled or lied to when it approved the Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing LBJ to attack North Vietnam.

While George H.W. Bush got the support of both houses for Desert Storm, Bill Clinton launched his war on Serbia in defiance of a House vote not to authorize it.

George W. Bush got congressional approval for the invasion of Iraq by declaring that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction it did not have. We went to war for nothing.

Finally, the Libyan war Obama entered, egged on by Britain and France, but without the support of Congress, makes little sense.

Though Gadhafi is a repellent figure, the architect of the Lockerbie massacre, we have no vital interest in who rules Libya. Yet when Gadhafi falls, it will now be up to us to see to it that Libya is united and repaired and has a democratic government.

Obama has already committed us to take the lead in a $40 billion rescue of Egypt and Tunisia. Can we also afford to rescue a Yemen that is in terrible shape and a Libya that has been at war for months?

The return of the anti-interventionist right is welcome news. It may assure a real debate on foreign policy in the Republican primaries of 2012.

http://buchanan.org/blog/return-of-the-anti-interventionist-right-4770

Re: Check out the writeup and photos of this vacation trip

Dick,

I have been to all those places and it is well worth the trip !!! What
they didn't do was go to the aptly named "Whiskey Row" in Prescott
(but it was a kids trip). I love the Lizard's Lounge there. A GREAT
Blues venue.

On Jun 6, 11:33 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Don't let the tag home schooling fool you. The photos are great and the
> trip looks like one I would love to take
>
> http://thepioneerwoman.com/homeschooling/

--
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: Smiting the In-Fiddle

McBilly Osfeiser is just another myth believing xian with an
inferiority complex that subordinates him to the jews.

have pity for the least of these

On Jun 7, 6:47 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Smiting the In-FiddleAnd Malt Does More than Milton Can, to Justify God's Ways to Manby Fred ReedCyberg, Tennessee– The Reverend McBilly Osfeiser strode to the rostrum of of the Full Bible Perfect Word Baptist Church, a frame building reeking of plainness and Protestantism. He was a tall man, with the sharp facial planes and hard visage of a desert patriarch about to kill something. The congregation shrank in their pews. He was a man who brooked no sin, and no sinners, whom he consigned to eternal damnation, and thought they were getting off light. He looked fiercely about, and spoke:
> "Brethren, I come before you to preach the word of God, for these be evil times, and the children of Israel, and yea the parents and grandparents, even unto their heirs and assigns, are sore beset by the tribe of Mohammed, and Beelzebulb, and Luciferin and Luciferase. In the name of God we must gird our loins, whatever exactly gird means, and smite the followers of Allah, and suffer them not to live, neither child nor mother with child nor suckling babe. Their lands shall be accursed and nothing there shall prosper, neither tares nor the wild ass; thus saith the Lord God, the God of Israel , the god of love and mercy.
> "Today we shall begin our sermon with the story of Samsung and Delilah, in the book of Hezechiah, chapter fourteen, verses nine through twenty-seven, in the reign of Herod Agrippa. In that time Israel was sore beset by the Malachites and the Catamites, even the Stalactites and Stalagmites, and the Assyrians of King Areopagitica with many chariots threatened the city of Solomon. But Samsung spent three days and three nights fasting and praying, and sacrificed a sheep, and it was good in the eyes of the Lord. In the morning he went forth and slew them all, cutting through them with sling and samothrace as one scything wheat until not a Stalagmite was left standing, saving the city.
> "Today, brethren, we of Christ face the same test of our faith. In Afghanistan, as we speak, the Mohammedan Taliban build mighty forces which they will use to conquer all of Christendom and enslave us, having gotten here mysteriously.
> "The powers of the darkness are many and patient, and the Mohammedan awaits to make our wives and daughters into harem slaves. It is well said that if we do not slew them there, or perhaps slay them, they will slew us here, or a slew of them will slay a slew of us there, maybe here, or they will...whatever. Remember the second book of Malthusians, when Chay-suss expelled the Gadarene Swine from the woman afflicted with leprosy, "Rebus sic stantibus," he said. "Carthago delenda est," which is the Latin for "Get the back whence thou camest, and thy towel."
> "I urge you, brethren, to support our Christian troops who with magnificent courage are killing the heathen with drones strikes from thousands of feet while sitting in Colorado. To those weak in faith, who say that we are killing innocent women and children, I say unto ye, women are the source of all Taliban and thus must be military targets. If we destroy arms factories, should we not destroy Taliban factories? As the mighty warrior Jay-suss would want, we will smite them, and leave them bleeding and dying, and wailing over their broken children, blinded and crushed and burned, that they might learn to walk in the ways of righteousness.
> "And now, brethren, I want to introduce you to one of our own warriors for Christ, Willy Bill Bedford, who is just back from the heathen land of Afghanistan, and wounded – wounded, brethren! – smiting the in-fiddle for Jay-suss. Willy Bill, will you come up and testify?"
> Willy Bill was a big, chunky kid with a sloping forehead you could have used to bank a turn in a motorcycle race, and about every other tooth was missing so he looked like a piano keyboard. His left arm was in a cast. "Willy Bill," shouted Reverend Osfeiser, "Tell your brothers and sisters in Jay-suss how you been doing the Lord's work."
> Willy Bill seemed uncomfortable but he sort of scrunched up his courage and said, "Yeah, well. OK, Reverend. Well, we was out in Litani Province and there was twelve of us in a Humvee with 'bout a thousand rounds each of seven-six-two and a sack full of Bibles an'..."
> The reverend roared, "And tell the brethren why you had Bibles, the inherent perfect word of God, with you!"
> "Oh, yeah. We belong to Bible Spreaders, we try to bring Moslems to know Jesus, you know. BS is real important to us, so we always...."
> "You hear that? Bringing souls to God!"
> "Well, we came to Awali, that's this village, maybe three hundred sand-nig – Taliban and their kids, all dirty and livin' in mud huts because they don't love Jesus and the kids there beg for something to eat because they don't know that beggin' ain't right. Well, we told them to get away and smacked them around a little because they might be suicide bombers, you know, and you could just tell the grown-ups hated us for our religion and our freedoms and all, and then we heard a rifle go off. Well, they ain't supposed to have rifles. So the lieutenant called in a air strike and a couple of sixteens came in, and whoom, they just smacked the livin' dog-snot out of those fuckers and....."
> "Now, Willy Bill, don't be using language like that. Do you think Jay-suss talked that way? It's a sin."
> "I'm sorry, Reverend. I won't do it again. I don't want to commit no sin. Anyway, it was a good strike, killed almost everybody although a few was left screamin' and makin' a fuss and women was huggin' kids or what was left, I mean, how much sense does that make? I guess they learned their lesson. So we went through and left Bibles on top of some of the dead ones so whoever found them would come to Jesus and then I fell off the Humvee and broke my arm."
> At which the Reverend McBilly Osfeiser shouted, "Hosannah! Praise the Lord! While we have sat here, living a life of ease, Willy Bill, Cyburg's own Willy Bill, has smote the in-fiddles, and saved our precious daughters from being in harems, though perhaps not in back seats, and saved our holy Tennessee, where we are free and snakes have handles and the God of Wrath rules as he did with Noah in the Sinai!"
> I need a drink.http://www.fredoneverything.net/Jaysuss.shtml

--
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 Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, Mostly

only the convicted need a savior

you're welcome

On Jun 7, 10:11 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My Lord and Savior, is a Jewish Rabbi.
>
> Thanks, man
>
> On Jun 7, 10:34 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced
> > ---
> > the jews will love you for it
>
> > OMy Lordn Jun 6, 7:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > The Tea Party Is a Brown-Shirt Movement, MostlyPosted byAnthony Gregoryon June 6, 2011 12:55 PM
> > > It was obvious in the beginning when all of a sudden they sprung up crying out for their liberty, after years of silence under the fascist Bush administration. They focused on culture-war hot buttons and symbolic battles while ignoring the programs that actually threatened fiscal catastrophe: Medicare and Social Security, which the older demographic behind this movement tended always to support since they guaranteed their status as tax feeders. Meanwhile, most of the Tea Party types complained that Obama the alleged Marxist Muslim wasn't murdering enough people abroad, torturing and detaining enough Muslims and enemies of the state, or deporting enough people for the crime of crossing the border -- although in every case, Obama has actually been like Bush but more so.
> > > Now a big Tea Party leader says, on behalf of her movement, thatthey will support any Republican in 2012-- even Mitt Romney, the socialist who doesn't even have a better position on free market health care than Obama. This is a partisan and hypocritical movement, as many on LRC warned from the beginning (Ryan McMakenandI sounded the alarmmore than two years ago;Laurence Vancewarned about it consistently, even up to the 2010 election;Lew Rockwelltold us to brace ourselves for betrayal). Regime libertarians have been praising this movement for two years, but LRC writers always saw through the subterfuge.
> > > Is this to say there was no one decent in these protests? That no libertarian impulse was there? That no good-faith, everyday Americans frustrated by the status quo jumped on the bandwagon for understandable reasons? Of course not. But in the main, the Tea Party was always even more of a disingenuous coalition than the antiwar movement of 2003, which has turned out to be an anti-Bush movement more interested in electing Democrats and socializing the economy than stopping the slaughter of innocents overseas.
> > > How do we identify a mass movement that's actually for freedom? The Ron Paul movement, especially its youth, is a great example of one: It is passionate about war, opposed to the central bank, jealous of all civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, opposed to the federal police state, wants to end the income tax outright and looks at the entire national leviathan as the enemy, not as savior or an extension of the national will. In short, it loves personal liberty, economic liberty, and peace with all foreign nations, and hates government. If you want to know if someone is serious about freedom, ask him about the last president, U.S. war, or major federal program that he admires. If he names anything from the last sixty years, he is obviously not serious about the short-term threat and long-term struggle for liberty.UPDATE: Am I being far too harsh? After all, there were pro-Ron Paul "tea parties" in 2007. And grassroots organizers are true patriots who seek libertynot just Republican victories. Sure, but at some point, whether in 2008, 2009, or 2010, the movement became hijacked. When almost anyone thinks about the Tea Party, they don't think about the antiwar Ron Paul movement of 2007they think of the Palin/Bachman/Gingrich movement of the last two years. Maybe it was a good movement thatwas hijacked sometime ago. But today it is not a pro-freedom movement, just a pro-Republican one. I have changed the title, however, to be slightly more nuanced.- 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.