Tuesday, July 12, 2011

In view of the Gunwalker scandal, this seems ridiculous

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14126227

--
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.

Record Firearm Sales Rise 12.7% Year-Over-Year: Firearm Backlog Grows 153% Sequential Increase.

Volubrjotr | July 12, 2011 at 16:06 | Tags: business, Capital IQ, Firearm, Fiscal year, NASDAQ, Smith & Wesson, SWHC, united states | Categories: gun | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-aNx

Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation Reports Fourth Quarter and Full Year Fiscal 2011 Financial Results - Total Sales in Q4 Increase 7.7% Year-Over-Year to $112 Million - Record Firearm Sales in Q4 Rise 12.7% Year-Over-Year to $102 Million - Firearm Backlog Grows to $187 Million in Q4, a 153% Sequential IncreaseSPRINGFIELD, Mass., June 30, [...]

New Signs of Momentum for Glass-Steagall

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Political Vel Craft <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:33 AM
Subject: [New post] New Signs of Momentum for Glass-Steagall
To: baconlard@gmail.com

New Signs of Momentum for Glass-Steagall

Volubrjotr | July 12, 2011 at 16:33 | Tags: Glass–Steagall Act, Hansen Clarke, John Conyers, Lynn Woolsey, Marcy Kaptur, Maurice Hinchey, Peter DeFazio, United State | Categories: bailout, currency, election, political, politics | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-aO0

July 8, 2011 (EIRNS)—On July 7, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), along with five co-sponsors, introduced a second Glass Steagall bill into the House. H.R. 2451, "To Restore Certain Provisions of the Banking Act of 1933, Commonly Referred to as the Glass Steagall Act, and for Other Purposes," is similar to H.R. 1489 (introduced by Rep. Marcy [...]

Re: Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado About Something?

The diet drinks will make you fatter than the regular fructose sweetened drinks.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:54 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com> wrote:

No.

but the Diet Coke is hilarious

On Jul 12, 1:21 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/> Michelle

> Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado About
> Something?<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/michelle-obamas-shake-s...>
> *doctorbulldog <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>* |

> 12 July, 2011 at 10:34 am | Categories:
> politics<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?cat=398>| URL:http://wp.me/p1NPg-7ff

>
> OMG. Michelle Obama ate a burger and fries.
>
> **
> Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado
> A...<http://vodpod.com/watch/12879250-michelle-obamas-shake-shack-burger-m...>,
> posted with vodpod <http://vodpod.com/?r=wp>

>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/michelle-obamas-shake-s...>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|

> Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.

>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com
>
> here's-your-burger-michelle.jpg
> 33KViewDownload

--
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: Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado About Something?

No.

but the Diet Coke is hilarious

On Jul 12, 1:21 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/> Michelle
> Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado About
> Something?<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/michelle-obamas-shake-s...>
> *doctorbulldog <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>* |
> 12 July, 2011 at 10:34 am | Categories:
> politics<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?cat=398>| URL:http://wp.me/p1NPg-7ff
>
> OMG. Michelle Obama ate a burger and fries.
>
> **
> Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado
> A...<http://vodpod.com/watch/12879250-michelle-obamas-shake-shack-burger-m...>,
> posted with vodpod <http://vodpod.com/?r=wp>
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/michelle-obamas-shake-s...>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
> by Email <http://support.wordpress.com/post-by-email/> feature.
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com
>
> here's-your-burger-michelle.jpg
> 33KViewDownload

--
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.

JP Does these criminal parties have any right to stay free?

Does any of these CRIMINAL POLITICAL PARTIES have any right or legality to exist in Pakistan and participate in elections and govern??????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lg4bqF9F50

What is stopping our judiciary and our institutions to put the founders of these organizations who are operating them in the country in this killing spree to not throw them to the gallows??? Does our constitution allows such criminals to become the law makers????

Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado About Something?

doctorbulldog | 12 July, 2011 at 10:34 am | Categories: politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7ff

OMG. Michelle Obama ate a burger and fries.

Michelle Obama's Shake Shack Burger: Much Ado A..., posted with vodpod

Add a comment to this post

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

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

100* in the shade and no shade

Rep. Ron Paul won't seek reelection

Having trouble viewing this email? Click here

News from The Hill:

Rep. Ron Paul won't seek reelection
By Michael O'Brien

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Tuesday that he won't seek reelection in 2012.

Paul posted to his official Twitter account a message had he had "decided not to seek re-election to Congress," along with a link to a website, The Facts, in which he explained his decision. .

Read the full story here.

For all the latest news:
Visit TheHill.com
Follow @TheHill on Twitter
Like The Hill on Facebook

Forward email

This email was sent to twmccoy@gmail.com by news@thehill.com \| Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ \| Privacy Policy.
The Hill \| 1625 K St. NW \| Washington \| DC \| 20006

Re: JP MONSANTO Lobbying for introducing Genetically Modified Crops in Pakistan

this is like killing our generation with the seeds of poison. and i am sure our politicians will immediately provide access to these money-hungry corporate...we all should unite to kill any such attempts....they have destroyed the food chain in usa and now attempting it in canada by bribing the politicians in different ways...we need to protect our families, our nation from such an evil.

From: akhlaq hussain <akhlaq7@hotmail.com>
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, July 12, 2011 12:21:30 AM
Subject: RE: **JP** MONSANTO Lobbying for introducing Genetically Modified Crops in Pakistan

dear eriends it is worth to note the explaination by ijaz rao who is one of the experienced person on the subject . his obsevation are based on facts so for the regulatory and conduct of trial are concerned.h pl. also look on both sides what loss or benefit will accrue due to non refinement of technology. let us ask our own institute to work hard to save the country for exclusive dependence on foreign organization.anyhow your approach reflects love for the soil

SINCERELY YOUR S
Dr. AKHLAQ HUSSAIN
Ex-Director General (Federal Seed Certification & Registration Department)
project director
Establishment of facilitation unit for
participatory vegetable seed and
nursery production programme.
House # 873 St # 34 G-10/1
Islamabad, Pakistan
Ph: 0092-051-2293164
Cell: 0092-300-5186541
Email: akhlaq7@hotmail.com

From: msarwar80@hotmail.com
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: **JP** MONSANTO Lobbying for introducing Genetically Modified Crops in Pakistan
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 00:31:40 +0600

Dear friends and colleagues

Below*** is an invitation and attached is program details sent out to the media by MEDIATORS which is the Public Relations (PR) agency for Monsanto.

The latest lobbying effort in the ongoing Biotech/genetically modified (GM) crops approval process in Pakistan is that media is being invited to attend a seminar/workshop in Indonesia. So in the next few months expect some very pro-GM crop stories in the media with examples from the Philippines, India, USA and rest of the World except, Pakistan since nothing actually has been done locally at the Govt., and private sector to analyze/verify the so called socio-economic or yield benefits of Bt corn/maize and Bt Cotton.

In 2007-8, then Federal Secretary Food & Agriculture Mr. Zia-ur-Rehman visited Monsanto headquarters at Creve Couve, Missouri, USA on the Company's invitation. Later a group of farmers was taken to the USA. In 2009, Punjab Govt., Advisor Haroon Khawaja visited St. Louis. In 2010, 6 Govt., officials visited the Philippines through Monsanto sponsored 'Biosafety Coalition 'BCP' of the Philippines'. In early 2011, Pioneer Seed Company brought in people from abroad to make some pro-Biotech statements and convince decision-makers just before launching its Bt Corn commercial approval process without even starting the large-scale open field trials. Now media is being taken to Indonesia in the name of capacity building regarding GM crops'.

So no wonder with such lobbying at work, about 2 months back, ex-Chairman of TAC sub-committee Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad thought it's OK to let Monsanto drafted reports be circulated among colleagues and recommend its word on face value without any analysis by the Pakistani regulators themselves.

The question is: What's wrong with us? We blame politicians of unethical behavior but conveniently forget the same when we are accepting sponsored visits from Corporate sector. Is blaming politicians correct then?

Throughout this effort of introducing Biotech or GM crops in Pakistan, multinational seed companies (especially Monsanto) have indulged in lobbying and such 'Sponsored' visits to influence decision makers and opinion makers. That is why instead of focusing on issues, all we hear is propaganda and quoting examples of Philippines, India etc., instead of any local data. Instead of focusing on conducting proper regulatory procedure, environmental due diligence and socio-economic benefits/disadvantages in local Pakistani conditions, corporate seed sector is trying to make puppets in all segments of Pakistani society who will speak their language and agenda. Media is the latest target of lobbying now.

Is Biotechnology so poor a technology that it requires lobbying and sponsored visits? Is ethics of any importance to regulators, media?

Media should stop blaming the politicians for wrong-doings, if it can accept visits sponsored by Corporate entities, what's wrong with politicians doing what they do.

3 cheers for tireless flouting of regulatory process and related ethics, by the multinational/Corporate seed companies, to get Biotech approvals in Pakistan.

Regards

Ijaz Ahmad Rao

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Email from Monsanto (PR) agency MEDIATORS

***

Subject: Invitation for Media Capacity building workshop

> XXXX,
> Editor,
> XXXX
> XXXX
>
> Dear
> XXXX,

As discussed on telephone on behalf of our client Monsanto Pakistan Agritech Limited, we would request you to kindly nominate a senior reporter / feature writer on agriculture based in Lahore for capacity building to attend a workshop on :

Status, Impacts and Future Prospects of Agri-biotechnology in a Changing Climate. It is a Regional Workshop for Media Practitioners from July 20-22, 2011 in Jakarta, Indonesia.

The workshop is organized by BIOTROP, Bogor, Indonesia. Other organizers and sponsors of this workshop are SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center on Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), SEAMEO Regional Center for Tropical Biology (BIOTROP), the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA)and the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII), Indonesian Biotechnology Information Center (IndoBIC) and Crop Life Asia(CLA)Please note that Air-fare and accomodation would be covered by our client.

Kindly let us have the name and contact details of your nominee as soon as possible as we have to arrange Visas and make other necessary travel arrangements. Please note that your nominee must have a valid passport with at least six months validity.

A copy of the Workshop program is attached for your attention.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest

Kind Regards

Babar Ayaz
Mediators
10-11, Mezzanine Floor, Progressive Plaza, Beaumont Road, Karachi
00-92-21-5656177

-----------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad Boota Sarwar

H#193, Street#42

Margala Town, Phase II

Islamabad.

Ph#0519241485

Cell#03003003405

Email:msarwar80@hotmail.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Obama Makes Move on Medicare, But No Deal Yet

Obama Makes Move on Medicare, But No Deal Yet
"President Obama and congressional Republicans emerged from closed meetings further apart Monday as they struggled to reach a deal on cutting future budget deficits, despite a White House suggestion that it could accept slowly raising the eligibility age for Medicare to 67." ( USA Today)

Rearranging the deck chairs.

A Sales Pitch for Laissez-Faire Health Care
Daniel B. Klein
July 1995 • Volume: 45 • Issue: 7 •

Professor Klein teaches economics at the University of California, Irvine.

What would it mean to establish liberty of property, consent, and contract in the area of health care?

It would mean the repeal of FDA drug-approval requirements, prescription laws, drug-development regulations, and restrictions on the dissemination of information. It would mean the repeal of state and local regulations in the following areas: medical schools and hospitals, occupational licensure, diagnosis and referral, the employment of doctors by for-profit firms, nonphysician ownership of medical firms, the use of brand names, the operation of multiple branch offices, the location of health-care facilities, and marketing practices. For prepaid health plans and hospitals, it would mean the repeal of regulations on benefit packages, enrollment requirements, rate setting, and facility expansion.¹Here I speculate on the desirable features of such a regime.

Education and Training of Practitioners: Private and public institutions would issue degrees, certificates, and other credentials to candidates meeting their requirements. Many training programs would be intensive programs for specific skills. Training would expand and diversify drastically, perhaps even reaching down to basic training for lay people. The profile of practitioners would thus expand. It would permit practitioners the flexibility to adapt their human capital to the opportunities of time and place. Costs to the consumer would drop considerably. To make sense of this blossoming of health services, people would rely on knower intermediaries, information disclosures, brand names, and so on.

Drug Development and Availability: Costs would plummet, timeliness would improve and the profile of drugs would expand. Strong safety and quality incentives would flow from the umbrella of the pharmaceutical brand name and the tort system. Knower-institutionsperfectly analogous to Underwriters' Laboratorieswould develop to certify safety. Doctors and pharmacists, acting as knowers and middlemen, would use their expert knowledge of drugs in advising the consumer.

The market would serve as an experimentation process–sometimes people would be killed by unsafe drugs (and companies would pay dearly), but such consequences belong to a benign process. There is a saying for people who frequently use air travel: If I never miss a plane I know I'm spending too much time in airports. At present, the FDA is the chauffeur whose pre-eminent incentive is to get the passenger to the airport on time. The consequence is that it gets us to the airport three days before the flight, and charges us dearly for the ride. The deaths of 100 children from Sulfanilamide in 1938 pale when compared with the annual death toll from the FDA's curtailment of drug availability. One study catalogues 192 generic and 1,535 brand-name tested drugs available abroad but not approved for sale in the United States.² How many thousands of deaths per year does such delay cause? Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that the FDA delay of just two drugs, misoprostol (which reduces gastric ulcers) and streptokinase (which dissolves blood clots in heart-attack victims), has caused thousands of deaths.³Information and the Active Patient: Drug information would be improved by freedom to self-disclose in labeling and advertising. At present, consumer access to medical information is expanding, in the forms of health-care literature, medical libraries, online information services like Internet, referral services like Prologue, and services like The Health Resource, which generates for a fee thick packets of medical literature to customers specifying a diagnosis.⁴ In a freer market consumers would have easier access to opportune and pointed knowledge.

Commercialization: Brand-name and franchised clinics, medical groups, hospitals, and insurance plans would flourish. Milton Friedman prophesied in 1962: "[T]hey could organize medical care efficiently, combining medical men [and women] of different degrees of skill and training, using technicians with limited training for tasks for which they were suited, and reserving highly skilled and competent specialists for the tasks they alone could perform."⁵ Consumers would obtain at low cost gatekeeper diagnosis, referral, and second-opinion. Friedman's early vision of "department stores of medicine" would be proven prophetic.

Medical Groups and Insurance: Currently, medical groups employ utilization review and peer monitoring to police quality. Intermediaries (such as employers, membership organizations, and so on) serve as middlemen and agents, shopping over medical plans, helping large sets of ignorant consumers discriminate between better and worse health care. In a regime of freedom and enforcement of contract, health plans and insurers could write better patient-enrollment contracts and patient-performance contracts. They could mitigate member-selection problems by using more refined screening and pricing techniques. Perhaps firms would emerge to research, compile, and verify individuals' medical histories. Health plans and insurers could mitigate moral-hazard problems by requiring flu shots, check-ups, and other programs to promote prevention and early treatment.

Independent Knower Organizations: Data banks, consumer information bureaus, referral services, reporting literature, drugtesting facilities, and auditing firms would evolve more swiftly. Local organizations would emerge to rate health-care providers through undercover monitoring, patient interviews, or treatment reviews. Such a service might be supported by patients, analogous to Consumer Reports, or by physicians, analogous to Under-writers' Laboratories or Moody's. Consumers would reward those organizations that help them assess credentials and discriminate among the array of available health services.

Lay Awareness: There would be medical education without sacerdotal restraints. Basic medicine could be part of the high school curriculum. All manner of health-care education and training could be offered in community colleges and private institutes. Entrepreneurs have already developed medical software that responds to a list of symptoms with possible diagnoses and treatments.⁶ This program is based on data that are more extensive, more accurate, and more current than any doctor could hope to command. Informal courses might teach lay people how to use such programs. People would have better information to assess their needs and opportunities, and they would have the power to self-medicate.

In 1963, the famed economist Kenneth Arrow could write: "It is the general social consensus, clearly, that the laissez-faire solution for medicine is intolerable."⁷ Nowadays there is no such general social consensus.

1.   Paul J. Feldstein, Health Care Economics, 4th ed., Albany: Delman Pub., 1993, p. 321.
2.   Kenneth Anderson and Lois Anderson, eds., Orphan Drugs (Los Angeles: The Body Press), 1987.
3.   James Bovard, "Double-Crossing to Safety," The American Spectator, January 1995, pp. 24-29.
4.   Brigid McMenamin, "An Educated Consumer Is Her Best Patient," Forbes, June 21, 1993, p. 118.
5.   Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
6.   Stephen S. Hyde, "The Last Priesthood: The Coming Revolution in Medical Care Delivery," Regulation, Fall 1992, pp. 70-74.
7.   Kenneth J. Arrow, "Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care," American Economic Review, 53, December 1963, p. 967.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/a-sales-pitch-for-laissez-faire-health-care/

JP Daily Quran and Hadith

IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

Thanks & Best regards,

Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

Re: Most dangerous cities in America

4. New haven, CT

This I knew as I worked in CT. If you go to Yale, stay there.

On Jul 10, 10:23 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/07/09/most-dangerous-citi...

--
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: Boston mayor is really being an idiot about illegal immigrants

Imagine a mayor trying to define a fed program or take his football
and go home.

Actually thought he might stand up to Deval for a minute there.

All moot. In 2013, participation is mandatory for all police depts.

Much ado Mumbles, much ado...

On Jul 11, 8:37 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> PURE politics, which is odd (dumb) for Mumbles. He is in no danger at
> all.
>
> On Jul 11, 5:47 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/07/11/me...- 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.

JP QANDEEL

Duaon ma yaad raakhan

Re: [Fwd: News Alert: Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax Increases]

The problem I have with this is that I have seen this before, got the
t-shirt and all. Tip o'Neil promised Reagan that if they got the tax
increases they would cut the spending. Did not happen. Bush I was
promised the same when he approved the tax increases. Did not happen.
Clinton was also promised the same by hs Dem Congress. Did not happen.
Bush II was promised the same several times. Did not happen. What
makes you think that the Dems will follow through now under the same
circumstances. I want to see the spending cuts proposed, passed,
signed, selaed and delivered first. Then and only then talk about tax
increases (revenue enhancements as the Dems try to euphemize the
stuff). No spending cuts? No tax increases. You have to realize that
the Dems have a long history of promising much and doing little in the
matter. I would not give them the chance to skrew the voters again.

Coach wrote:
> Imagine this, Jan 2011 Obama says to GOP leadership, I am willing to
> cut $4T from the deficit in 10-12 years. Of that amount, $3.2T will
> come from cuts in spending, $800B needs to come from tax reforms
> (reevaluating deductions, foolish tax breaks that have become
> entitlements). I think the GOP would be holding a victory parade down
> Pennsylvania Ave. It's time to realize this problem needs a wide
> range of solutions instead of pigeon holing it to one action plan.
> Businesses not only keep a tight reign on their expenses, but they
> raise prices when needed (as a last resort). So why is the US
> government not allowed?
>
> On Jul 9, 8:47 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Do not agree with Boehner on this at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> [ Attached Message ]From:NYTimes.com News Alert <nytdir...@nytimes.com>To:rhomp2...@earthlink.netDate:Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:35:20 -0400Local:Sat, Jul 9 2011 8:35 pmSubject:News Alert: Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax IncreasesBreaking News Alert
>> The New York Times
>> Saturday, July 9, 2011 -- 8:23 PM EDT
>> -----
>>
>> Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax Increases
>>
>> Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Saturday night said he would drop his push with President Obama for a far-reaching, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federal debt limit.
>>
>> On the eve of a second round of high-level bipartisan talks set for Sunday, Mr. Boehner issued a statement saying he would now urge negotiators to instead focus on trying to craft a smaller package more in line with the $2 trillion in cuts negotiated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
>>
>> Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
>>
>> About This E-Mail
>> You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
>> alerts from NYTimes.com.
>>
>> To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
>> or other newsletters, go to:http://www.nytimes.com/email
>>
>> NYTimes.com
>> 620 Eighth Ave.
>> New York, NY 10018
>>
>> Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company
>>
>
>

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

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

Re: [Fwd: News Alert: Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax Increases]

Imagine this, Jan 2011 Obama says to GOP leadership, I am willing to
cut $4T from the deficit in 10-12 years. Of that amount, $3.2T will
come from cuts in spending, $800B needs to come from tax reforms
(reevaluating deductions, foolish tax breaks that have become
entitlements). I think the GOP would be holding a victory parade down
Pennsylvania Ave. It's time to realize this problem needs a wide
range of solutions instead of pigeon holing it to one action plan.
Businesses not only keep a tight reign on their expenses, but they
raise prices when needed (as a last resort). So why is the US
government not allowed?

On Jul 9, 8:47 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Do not agree with Boehner on this at all.
>
>
>
> [ Attached Message ]From:NYTimes.com News Alert <nytdir...@nytimes.com>To:rhomp2...@earthlink.netDate:Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:35:20 -0400Local:Sat, Jul 9 2011 8:35 pmSubject:News Alert: Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax IncreasesBreaking News Alert
> The New York Times
> Saturday, July 9, 2011 -- 8:23 PM EDT
> -----
>
> Deficit Talks Scaled Back Over Tax Increases
>
> Citing differences over tax revenues, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Saturday night said he would drop his push with President Obama for a far-reaching, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan tied to a proposal to increase the federal debt limit.
>
> On the eve of a second round of high-level bipartisan talks set for Sunday, Mr. Boehner issued a statement saying he would now urge negotiators to instead focus on trying to craft a smaller package more in line with the $2 trillion in cuts negotiated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
>
> Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
>
> About This E-Mail
> You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
> alerts from NYTimes.com.
>
> To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
> or other newsletters, go to:http://www.nytimes.com/email
>
> NYTimes.com
> 620 Eighth Ave.
> New York, NY 10018
>
> Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company

--
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.

Legalize It

It is not legalization but prohibition that should be considered outlandish and offensive. This should be apparent to the constitutionalists among us, who define the primary purpose of government as the protection of individual rights.

Legalize It
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
by Stefano R. Mugnaini

I don't use marijuana, medical or otherwise. I don't plan to take it up. Still, like an increasing number of Americans, I am vehemently opposed to the war on drugs.

Several powerful arguments can be proffered in support of the notion that drug use is a poor life decision. It has a negative impact on health, like eating too much sugar or using tobacco. It can be well argued that it is a wasteful way to spend one's time, like playing disc golf. And it is mind numbing, just like watching Hannity or Hardball.

All of these choices are harmful to their practitioners. But should any of these decisions, however foolish, be illegal? Any harm they inflict is only upon their practitioners; not abstainers. No matter how much cherry-picked clinical data is used to argue otherwise, no one is harmed by another person's ignorance, poor health, or choice of hobbies.

I write from the perspective of someone who has shifted from conservatism to libertarianism; as such, I am at least passingly familiar with the conservative arguments against legalization, which reveal an inherent contradiction. Many who argue powerfully in favor of a constitutionally limited government recoil in horror at the notion that the state might be limited in its war powers -- especially as they relate to the war on drugs. They brand Ron Paul as an outlandish, extremist character for daring to suggest that the government should mind its own business every now and then. And many conservatives who generally argue for the limitation of the power and scope of government could not more heartily endorse the drug war -- lending tacit approval to the virtually limitless power it grants law enforcement.

It is not legalization but prohibition that should be considered outlandish and offensive. This should be apparent to the constitutionalists among us, who define the primary purpose of government as the protection of individual rights. They see, whether accurately or not, the US Constitution as written for the purpose of permanently enshrining the Jeffersonian ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence. "Federalist Number 5," ironically, cites an argument by British Queen Anne to contend that the union established by the Constitution would preserve our liberties:

An entire and perfect union will be the solid foundation of lasting peace: It will secure your religion, liberty, and property; remove the animosities amongst yourselves.… It must increase your strength, riches, and trade.… We most earnestly recommend to you calmness and unanimity in this great and weighty affair, that the union may be brought to a happy conclusion, being the only effectual way to secure our present and future happiness.

To the minarchist, the protection of these rights is the only legitimate function and purpose of government. Consider Bastiat's argument:

It is not because men have made laws that personality, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is because personality, liberty, and property exist beforehand that men make laws.… [Law] is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.… So long as personal safety was ensured, so long as labor was free, and the fruits of labor secured against all unjust attacks, no one would have any difficulties to contend with in the State. (pp. 47–48)

In the Rothbardian tradition, government is the primary force undermining these rights.

When we look at the State, naked, as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged, to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are reprehensible crimes.… Regardless of popular sanction, War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery. ( For A New Liberty, p. 31)

My purpose for writing is not to discuss, at any length, the differences between these approaches nor to argue for the superiority of one over another. Rather, consider the main thing these approaches have in common: the notion that individual, natural rights are of supreme importance. The goal of agorists and proponents of republican, constitutionally limited government have in common, at least, a nominal acceptance of the protection of liberty and property. Hopefully, they also share a recognition of the truth of that famous statement on the danger of government attributed to George Washington: "it is not reason … it is force."

In light of this, what contribution does the war on drugs make to the perpetuation of liberty and the protection of property? And at what costs?

The White House's drug-policy website reports a requested budget of $15.5 billion for 2011.

For our trouble, we have seen drug-usage rates rise, even while prisons are filled with nonviolent offenders. In 2008, four of five arrests were for possession, not distribution. Two of five are for marijuana. Americans pay to support one-fourth of the world's prison population, largely because of the drug war. And yet violence flourishes, in part because the war on drugs causes drug prices to skyrocket. That the drug war is a colossal failure is scarcely debatable, especially in light of the UN's recent pronouncement to that effect. If the United Nations is calling a multiple-government power grab a disaster, then it is probably a train wreck of unprecedented proportions.

More significant, however, is the damage that this farcical war does to our life, liberty, and property.

The war on drugs, like any war, serves to continually expand the power of the state.

Recently, we have seen virtually limitless expansions of the power of police. They are granted the authority to obviously violate the Fourth Amendment whenever "'the exigencies of the situation' make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that [a] warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

In Kentucky vs. King, the exigencies involved were the smell of marijuana and the sound of a flushing toilet. Woe to the man who has a stomach virus on a day when he burns yard trash!

Recent news reports about the abuse of civil-forfeiture laws have further diminished the credibility of the notion that the drug war is about the public good; it seems to be more about lining the public coffers.

Above all of this hovers the tragic story of Jose Guerena, murdered by police in a fruitless drug raid on his Arizona home and allowed to bleed to death, unaided. The police did find guns and body armor; probably rather common for a marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq. His murderers were recently cleared of any wrongdoing. Guerena is just another casualty in another senseless, immoral war; not on drugs, nor on some foreign enemy, but on liberty itself.

The war on drugs consistently leads to the violation of rights. It feeds the growth of government power, at a tremendous cost to the public, based on the spurious notion that government has the right or responsibility to dictate to private citizens their choice of recreational activities. It's time to legalize freedom.

Stefano R. Mugnaini is the minister of the Essex Village Church of Christ in Charleston, South Carolina, and a graduate student working toward a master of divinity, expecting to graduate this year. See his blog.

http://mises.org/daily/5425/Legalize-It

Managed Trade Is Not Free Trade

Managed Trade Is Not Free Trade
by Laurence M. Vance, July 11, 2011

As libertarians have long pointed out, trade agreements like the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) are not free-trade agreements and organizations. Rather, they are managed-trade agreements and organizations that abdicate power to an international body, and in direct violation of the Constitution. As Congressman Ron Paul stated,

We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so.

CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods.

If there is any doubt about the insidious nature of "free trade" agreements and organizations, then consider the recent brouhaha in Congress over an amendment to the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 ( H.R.2112). The amendment ( H.Amdt.454), which passed by a vote of 223-197, states that "none of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide payments (or to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to provide payments) to the Brazil Cotton Institute." What the amendment effectively does is prohibit the $147 million annual payment the United States makes to Brazil to settle a WTO dispute over cotton subsidies.

What is the United States doing paying $147 million a year to the Brazil Cotton Institute? How many Americans know that their tax dollars are being spent this way?

In response to a 2002 Brazilian complaint to the WTO about certain features of the U.S. cotton subsidy program, the United States agreed last year to begin making the $147 million payment so it can continue to subsidize American cotton farmers and still be "trade compliant." (From 1991 to 2004, U.S. farm subsidies for cotton production averaged $1.7 billion per year).

In 2004, a WTO dispute settlement panel ruled against the United States. The WTO's appellate body ruled against the United States in 2005 after an appeal of the settlement panel decision. The settlement panel and appellate body reports were then adopted by the WTO membership, which means that the United States was obligated to bring its policies into line with WTO recommendations or negotiate a settlement with Brazil.

Key findings of the WTO were that
U.S. domestic cotton subsidies have exceeded WTO commitments of the 1992 benchmark year, thereby losing the protection afforded by the "Peace Clause," which shielded them from substantive challenges; the two major types of direct payments made under U.S. farm programs Production Flexibility Contract payments of the 1996 Farm Act and the Direct Payments of the 2002 Farm Act do not qualify for WTO exemptions from reduction commitments as fully decoupled income support and should therefore count against the "Peace Clause" limits; Step-2 program payments are prohibited subsidies; U.S. export credit guarantees are effectively export subsidies, making them subject to previously notified export subsidy commitments; and U.S. domestic support measures that are "contingent on market prices" have resulted in excess cotton production and exports that, in turn, have caused low international prices and have resulted in "serious prejudice" to Brazil.

The "Peace Clause" is article 13 of the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture that exempts domestic support measures that comply with the agreement's requirements from being challenged as illegal subsidies through dispute settlement proceedings, as long as the level of support for a commodity remains at or below the benchmark 1992 marketing year levels.

Naturally, Brazil is upset about the passage of the amendment and is threatening to retaliate. The resulting trade war will be bad for consumers in both countries.

Although I applaud the 95 out of 236 Republicans and 128 out of 184 Democrats in the House that voted for the amendment to end the $147 million payment to Brazil, it should be noted that this was an amendment to a bill to fund the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. The bill, which passed by a vote of 217-203, was rejected en masse by all Democrats including Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin, the author of the amendment in question, mainly because it included cuts to the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program.

This means that the vast majority of Republicans in the House voted to fund programs that are not authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to regulate, subsidize, inspect, or monitor any form of agriculture, food, or drugs. It's that simple. The United States should stop subsidizing its cotton farmers, not because such subsidies are outdated, not because we can no longer afford it, not because cotton farmers are receiving too much money, and certainly not because another cotton-producing country objects to them. The United States should stop subsidizing its cotton farmers because it is a blatantly unconstitutional activity and an illegitimate function of government.

The United States has free-trade agreements in force with seventeen countries (Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Peru, and Singapore). The most well-known of these agreements is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. All remaining duties and trade restrictions were supposedly eliminated by January 1, 2008. But as the late economist Murray Rothbard explained:

Genuine free trade doesn't require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a "trade agreement"; Nafta is called a trade agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by two-thirds of the Senate). If the establishment truly wants free trade, all it has to do is to repeal our numerous tariffs, import quotas, anti-"dumping" laws, and other American-imposed restrictions on trade. No foreign policy or foreign maneuvering is needed.

A real free-trade agreement eliminating tariffs between the United States, Mexico, and Canada would have been a paragraph, not the hundreds of pages that NAFTA is.

Government-managed trade is not free trade. Free trade does not depend on trade agreements, and neither does it depend on factors of production, absolute advantage, comparative advantage, or efficiency. Free trade is ultimately about freedom: the freedom of individuals and businesses to buy and sell products and services from and to any other individual and business in any other country without government regulations, restrictions, subsidies, tariffs, quotas, "dumping" laws, embargoes or trade agreements.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107i.asp

A Bright Idea in Congress

A Bright Idea in Congress
By Anthony Gregory | Monday July 11, 2011

Perhaps if I only blog about the positive developments in politics it will save time. Well, here we go. House Republicans are pushing to preclude the government from banning incandescent light bulbs.

This is an idea I can get behind. Incandescent bulbs are a glorious thing. They bring light, the essence of civilization, into our homes at all hours of the day and night. This light is cheap, bright, and, most important, clear and easy on the eyes.

I know I'm not the only one for whom fluorescent light is a bit of a downer. It doesn't seem to light up the room the way the old-fashioned bulbs do. Reading under the politically correct light gives me a headache after a few hours. And since I often spend eight or so hours a day reading, this can be a problem.

My travails are minor compared to those of others. Some eye drops and a break from reading and I'm fine. A friend of mine stocks up on the classic bulbs because the fluorescent ones give him migraines even after a short time.

There is something soothingly proper about the traditional bulbs. Something that seems to connect us to the past as well as the future. The fluorescent bulbs are not more space-agethat would be coolbut rather seem a bit dystopian, like a historical accident that defines our era but, if social progress is real at all, will eventually fade out of memory.

Of course, those who enjoy fluorescent light should be free to buy the product. But so should those who wish to buy the older variety. In a free society, that's how it would work. But energy is not dictated purely by the market. The politicians see energy as a national resource, not an economic good to be bought and sold, but one ultimately to be rationed by the central state. This is the problem. In few other cases are we chastised for using too much of a product, for if we pay for it, everyone is happy. With electricity, although we pay for it, the government constantly hectors us for using less. This is a sign that we don't live with energy liberty and electrical free enterprise. All the energy fallacies we hear about todaywar for oil, energy independence, the need to ban glorious incandescent lightspring from the fact that energy is far too socialized and the implicit premise that it should be socialized completely.

How many bad ideas does it take to screw up our light bulbs? Just one. The idea that government knows best.

http://blog.independent.org/2011/07/11/a-bright-idea-in-congress/

Make that a WHITE wine!

"Make that a WHITE wine please" -- They Don't Like Black People

Tedium Tatters: "Make that a WHITE wine please" -- They Don't Like Black People

I update this list of major "progressives," or as I call them, pro-regressives, monthly, who can live anywhere they want who almost always choose to live in all white neighborhoods, and only on rare occasion choose to live in a gentrifying neighborhoods where upper middle class, mainly white, bureaucrats and politicos are displacing black people. BUT WHO NEVER live in a majority non-white neighborhood, even when they live in a city like DC that is 55% African-American.

This month's Leftovers are Talking Points Memo founder Joshua Marshall and Rutgers University assistant professor Susan E. Feinberg.

A reportedly inebriated Dr. Feinberg attacked Rep. Paul Ryan in an expensive restaurant in DC this week. Apparently his two dinner companions, private sector economists, ordered a $350 bottle of wine. Feinberg apparently manages not only to dine at expensive restaurants on her tax funded salary, but also knows (from across a room) what vintage a bottle of wine is and how much it costs! Feinberg thought anyone threatening to cut off her bar tab shouldn't be having an expensive wine!

Feinberg's story ended up in the leftover web rag Talking Points Memo, which as far as we know has never said a peep about Michelle Obama's lavish lobster dinners in Spain paid for by the tax payer, Nancy Pelosi's expensive tastes funded by giving her husband's businesses regulatory advantages, or Harry Reid's Ritz-Carlton condo bought with proceeds from shady land deals.

But of course what is most interesting is that like almost every other pro-regressive, both Prof. Feinberg and TPM founder Joshua Marshall, have deliberately chosen to live as far from black people as they can.

Dr. Feinberg lives in lily white American University Park, at 4341 Chesapeake Street NW, in a house she bought long ago that is now assessed as worth just under $600,000. A pie chart for the racial demographics of her 20016 zip code is very eye opening.

Races in zip code 20016:
White population: 26,457
Black population: 1,705
American Indian population: 154
Asian population: 2,038
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population: 15
Some other race population: 186
Two or more races population: 899
Hispanic or Latino population: 2,376

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/zips/20016.html#ixzz1Rql2f2IP

And Mr. Marshall is no better. He lives on West 23rd Street in gentrified Chelsea in Manhattan (zip code 10011), far away from the poor black children his faction slave trades, rounding them up and selling them to educrat cartels for campaign lucre for Democratic candidates

Races in zip code 10011:
White population: 40,894
Black population: 2,018
American Indian population: 11
Asian population: 4,445
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population: 0
Some other race population: 182
Two or more races population: 1,120
Hispanic or Latino population: 5,898
First ancestries reported:

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/zips/10011.html#ixzz1Rqk7snIQ

From MSNBC to the Washington Post to the Democratic Party, the flaks and cogs of the Obama regime all choose to live in lily white neighborhoods. Even the few people of color among them.

I guess running the modern day slave trade, where you sell black kids to the educrat unions for Democratic Party campaign contributions, makes you feel too guilty to face your victims! (See: "Waiting for Superman.")

Paul Begala (Democratic strategist, Clinton advisor, CNN chatterer, Freddie Mac lobbyist)
1.8% African American
1581 Highland Glen Place
McLean, VA 22101
http://www.city-data.com/zips/22101.html

David Brock (Media Matters for America)
0.53% African American
2310 California Street
Washington, D.C. 20008
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html

The founder of the smear and distraction group Tedium Tatters has two homes, one owned with his restraunter/interior designer partner James Alefantis. Both his Embassy Row home in DC's Kalorama neighborhood and his vacation home are as free of black people (save the help) as they can be.

Hillary Rodham Clinton (Obama regime flak)
0.53% African American
3067 Whitehaven Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20008
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html

Anita Dunn (Obama White House)
3.2% African American
4413 Stanford Street
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20815.html

Karen Finney (Democratic National Committee)
2020 12th Street NW #717
Washington DC 20009
Ms. Finney's zip code, 20009, is plurality white in a black majority city, but her neighborhood, Dupont Circle, within that zip code is overwhelmingly majority white (http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Dupont-Circle-Washington-DC.html). Her building, 2020 Lofts, are infamous for having been initially purchased largely by speculators (http://bubblemeter.blogspot.com/2005/12/lockbox-glut.html). Her loft and many surrounding lofts of the new "U" were built by displacing lower income black homeowners. I suspect she thinks she is living an urban, integrated life (she blogs often about her bi-racial family). But like the other Democrats and Obama regime flaks she does not live in a historically black neighborhood like LeDroit Park or Crestwood or a working class black neighborhood like Anacostia or Riggs Park.

David Ignatius (The Washington Post)
0.53% African American
3400 Ordway Street NW
Washington, DC 20008
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html

Michael R Isikoff
9% African American
6148 31ST ST NW
WASHINGTON, DC20015
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20015.html

Rachel Maddow (all-white hosted MSNBC)
2.7% African American
130 Jane Street (West Village)
New York, NY 10014
http://www.neighborhoodlink.com/zip/10014

Chris Matthews (all-white hosted MSNBC)
3.2% African American
9 East Kirke Circle
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20815.html

Dana Milbank
3805 Ingomar Street NW
Washington DC 20015
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20015.html
(9% African American in a city that is 55% African American)

(Dana Milbank's $1,000,000+ lily white home)

Andrea Mitchell (all-white hosted MSNBC)
0.6% African American
2710 Chain Bridge Road
Washington, DC 20016
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20016.html

Nancy Pelosi
4% African American
3030 K Street NW #214
Washington DC 20007
http://www.city-data.com/neighborhood/Georgetown-Washington-DC.html

Anthony Podesta
0.53% African American
2438 Belmont Road NW
Washington DC 20008
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20008.html
Podesta funds Tedium Tatters, ThinkRegress and other websites that regularly libel the tea party movement as racist.

Harry Reid
6.8% African American
1155 23rd Street NW N2E
Washington DC 20037
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20037.html
Reid's neighborhood has about half as many African Americans as the national average. But since it is in a majority black city, it is viewed by local black residents as an all white neighborhood. It has a slightly higher percentage of African Americans than those of the other Democrats because it has a transient black residents who are students at George Washington University.

Eugene Robinson (The Washington Post)
2.5% African American (i.e., his own family)
5302 18th Street North
Arlington, VA 22205
http://www.city-data.com/zips/22205.html

Senator John Rockefeller
2121 Park Road NW
Washington, D.C. 20010

In 2010 Senator Jay Rockefeller got jealous that Senator Schumer always gets to the camera first and released his list of stimulus projects to cure unemployment, beginning with repeal of the First Amendment. (Seems that if we abolished FOX and replaced it with a government approved network, like the one Mrs. Senator Jay Rockefeller runs, the new network would have job openings.) Senator Rockefeller has the whitest neighborhood of all pro-regressives in DC, since he has managed to surround his $15 million DC estate at 2121 Park Road NW with federal parkland, also known as a taxpayer subsidized private forest. Mainly white birch.

Vivian Schiller (NPR)
3% African American
7361 HEATHERHILL CT
BETHESDA, MD 20817-4668
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20817.html

Ellen Weiss & Rabbi David Saperstein (NPR)
9% African American
5351 29th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20015
http://www.city-data.com/zips/20015.html