Friday, July 29, 2011

JP Iran Accused Of Al-Qaeda 'Secret Deal' By U.S. Officials

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration accused Iran on Thursday of entering into a "secret deal" with an al-Qaida offshoot that provides money and recruits for attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Treasury Department designated six members of the unit as terrorists subject to U.S. sanctions.

The U.S. intelligence community has in the past disagreed about the extent of direct links between the Iranian government and al-Qaida. Thursday's allegations went further than what most analysts had previously said was a murky relationship with limited cooperation.

David S. Cohen, Treasury's point man for terrorism and financial intelligence, said Iran entered a "secret deal with al-Qaida allowing it to funnel funds and operatives through its territory." He didn't provide any details of that agreement, but said the sanctions seek to disrupt al-Qaida's work in Iraq and deny the terrorist group's leadership much-needed support.

"Iran is the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world today," Cohen said in a statement. "We are illuminating yet another aspect of Iran's unmatched support for terrorism."

Treasury said the exposure of the clandestine agreement would disrupt al-Qaida operations by shedding light on Iran's role as a "critical transit point" for money and extremists reaching Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"This network serves as the core pipeline through which al-Qaida moves money, facilitators and operatives from across the Middle East to South Asia," it said..

Treasury said a branch headed by Ezedin Abdel Aziz Khalil was operating in Iran with the Tehran government's blessing, funneling funds collected from across the Arab world to al-Qaida's senior leaders in Pakistan. Khalil, the department said, has operated within Iran's borders for six years.

Also targeted by the sanctions is Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, appointed by Osama bin Laden as al-Qaida's envoy in Iran after serving as a commander in Pakistan's tribal areas. As an emissary, al-Rahman is allowed to travel in and out of Iran with the permission of government officials, the statement claimed.

The sanctions block any assets the individuals might have held in the United States, and bans Americans from doing any business with them.

No Iranian officials were cited for complicity in terrorism. The others targeted were Umid Muhammadi, described as a key planner for al-Qaida in Iraq's attacks; Salim Hasan Khalifa Rashid al-Kuwari and Abdallah Ghanim Mafuz Muslim al-Khawar, Qatar-based financial supporters who've allegedly helped extremists travel across the region; and Ali Hassan Ali al-Ajmi, a Kuwait-based fundraiser for al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The action comes a day after the top U.S. commander for special operations forces said al-Qaida is bloodied and "nearing its end," even as he warned that the next generation of militants could keep special operations fighting for a decade to come.

Navy SEAL Adm. Eric T. Olson said bin Laden's killing on May 2 was a near-fatal blow for the organization created by bin Laden and led from his Pakistan hide out. He said the group already had lost steam because of the revolts of the Arab Spring, which proved the Muslim world did not need terrorism to bring down governments, from Tunisia to Egypt.

Treasury's public allegations against Iran may reflect part of a strategy to expand the pressure on smaller, less well-established offshoots of al-Qaida as the weakening of the group's leadership threatens to make its activities more disparate. Washington already has re-focused much attention on al-Qaida's Yemen-based branch, which has attempted to bomb a U.S.-bound jetliner and cargo planes in recent years.

But the exact nature of Iran's relationship with al-Qaida remains disputed in Washington, with different branches of the intelligence community disagreeing about whether Iran is supporting al-Qaida as a matter of policy, according to one U.S. official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Some hardline militants backing al-Qaida, members of Islam's majority Sunnis, see the Shiite Islam dominant in Iran as heretical, and they view Tehran's regional ambitions as a greater threat than the West. Sunni insurgents in Iraq have used car bombs and suicide attacks against Shiite targets, killing thousands since 2003, as well as targeting Shiite militias allied to Iran.

Since 2001, Iran has appeared a somewhat reluctant host for senior al-Qaida operatives who fled there after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, keeping them under tight restrictions. After an initial period of cooperation with the West, Iran now seems to be a more comfortable haven even if it remains on the edge of al-Qaida's orbit.

Western officials point to the release earlier this year of an Iranian diplomat who was held for 15 months after being kidnapped by gunmen in Pakistan.

In negotiations for the diplomat's freedom, they say Iran promised better conditions for dozens of people close to Osama bin Laden who were being held under tight security. These included some of the terror chief's children and the network's most senior military strategist, Saif al-Adel.

Still, the life of the al-Qaida-linked exiles in Iran continues to be very much a blind spot for Western intelligence agencies. Few firm details have emerged, such as how much Iran limits their movements and contacts.

--
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

It's a miracle! Allah brings corpse back to life

barenakedislam | July 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM | Categories: Islam and the Jews | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-xwV

From 2002, Palestinians at a funeral are horrified when pall bearers drop the corpse. But run for their lives when the corpse climbs back into the carrier.

God-Hater Arlene Ocasio is Still VA Cemetery Director

Eowyn | July 29, 2011 at 10:23 am | Tags: Arlene Ocasio, Congressman John Culberson, Department of Veterans Affairs, Houston National Cemetery, military veterans, religious discrimination | Categories: Culture War, God's creation, Liberals, Military, Religion, Republican Party, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8ni

Houston National Cemetery

A month ago, I wrote a post on a VA cemetery in Texas, the Houston National Cemetery, banning the words "God," "Jesus," and "God bless" from all funerals because the cemetery's director, Arleen Ocasio, deems those words to be "offensive."

Houston's KTRK ABC13 reports that a local pastor got a restraining order against the cemetery after being told to edit "Jesus" from his prayer during the Memorial Day weekend. Other veteran groups complained after they too were told to refrain from using "God" or "Jesus" during funerals. They also allege Ocasio closed the chapel and turned it into a conference room. Ocasio claims she was only trying to make prayers "more inclusive of other religions."

This is what the bigot looks like, with a butch haircut:

Arlene Ocasio

Michelle Lancaster of BigGovernment, has a follow-up, July 23, 2011.

Nothing's changed. Not only is Ocasio still the VA cemetery's director, the Department of Veterans Affairs defended Ocasio, stating the accusations in the current lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs and Ocasio are categorically false.

Rep. John Culberson

But Republican Congressman John Culberson, who was elected in 2000 to represent Texas District 7, took it upon himself to go undercover at a recent military hero's funeral. Culberson personally witnessed censorship of freedom of speech and freedom of religion at the funerals of our veterans.

Listen here as KTRH's Matt Patrick talks to Congressman Culberson. There is purposeful, deliberate and repeated interference occurring against the grieving families, the VFW Honor Guard and other volunteer organizations there in support of our military hero funerals.

watch?v=aIka4omCJ00

Culberson is so upset with the Director's actions that he's threatening to "zero out" her salary unless she quits or moves elsewhere. Culberson is Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee for the Veterans Administration.

Tell Mr. Culberson that you support him! Go here to send him an e-mail.

Here's contact info for the Houston National Cemetery:

10410 Veterans Memorial Dr.
Houston, TX 77038
Phone: 281-447-8686
Fax: 281-447-0580

White Pages says there are only 4 people named "Arlene Ocasio" living in the U.S. But I can't find the "Arlene Ocasio" who lives in Houston in either the White Pages or Zaba. However, Spokeo has an Arlene Ocasio, single, living on Furlong Ln in Houston, TX.

Let's get the witch out of the Houston National Cemetery!!!

~Eowyn

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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

The $1 Billion Armageddon Trade Placed Against the United States

http://goldsilver.com/news/the-1-billion-armageddon-trade-placed-against-the-united-states/

The $1 Billion Armageddon Trade Placed Against the United States

moneymorning.com
JULY 28, 2011

BY JACK BARNES, Contributing Writer, Money Morning

Someone dropped a bomb on the bond market Thursday – a $1 billion Armageddon trade betting the United States will lose its AAA credit rating.
In one moment, an invisible trader placed a single trade that moved the most liquid debt market in the world.
The massive trade wasn't placed in bonds themselves; it was placed in the futures market.
The trade was for block trades of 5,370 10-year Treasury futures executed at 124-03 and 3,100 Treasury bond futures executed at 125-01.
The value of the trade was about $850 million dollars. In simple terms, if that was a direct bond buy, no one would be talking about it.
However, with the use of futures, you have to have margin capacity behind the trade. That means with a single push of a button someone was willing to commit more than $1 billion of real capital to this trade with expectations of a 10-to-1 return ratio.
You only do this if you see an edge.

This means someone is confident that the United States is either going to default or is going to lose its AAA rating. That someone is willing to bet the proverbial farm that U.S. interest rates will be going up.
I believe what happened is a debt-ceiling deal was done in Washington and leaked to a major proprietary trader. Everyone knows the debt negotiations in Washington have been an extreme game of brinksmanship between political parties, but now someone knows how that game played out.

This had the hallmarks of one of the largest bond shops in the world knowing something the rest of the market didn't.
The number of shops or even central banks that can take on this level of market risk is extremely small. Some that come to mind are hedge fund manager John Paulson, Bill Gross's PIMCO, and the U.S. and Chinese central banks.
Paulson already scored big – about $6 billion big – on a similar trade years ago when he bet against subprime mortgages, the investments that helped bring down Lehman Bros. and many other investors.
Whoever was behind it wanted a trade on ASAP, and didn't care about the ripples they would cause.
Armageddon trade

You can see how this trade caused fear to be unleashed in the market once it got out and the implications hit by looking at U.S. Treasuries. People who were long 30-year Treasuries panicked as they saw the huge short put on the futures market, and started to unwind their long exposure.
What you, as investors, should do now is look at the bond exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that provide a positive rate of return when U.S. Treasuries drop in value. Yields are going up sooner rather than later, if the person behind this Armageddon trade is correct.

Obama to Approve 'Al-Qaeda Embassy' in Washington

Traitor-in-Chief strikes again.

http://tinyurl.com/3bh9ag3

Obama to Approve 'Al-Qaeda Embassy' in Washington

State Department sympathetic to recognizing rebel terrorists who killed U.S. troops

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Obama administration is preparing to follow Britain in recognizing the rebel National Transitional Council as the official government of Libya by approving an embassy in Washington DC, which given the fact that the rebel army is spearheaded by Al-Qaeda militants who have killed U.S. troops would equate to Obama handing terrorists a diplomatic outpost on U.S. soil.

"The United States said Wednesday it was reviewing a request by Libya's rebels to open an embassy in Washington, following Britain which expelled diplomats from Moamer Kadhafi's regime," reports AFP.

State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters that the U.S. would be "sympathetic" to the request, after which rebel supporters unfurled their flag outside the embassy where Gaddafi's regime is still in control.

The United States formally recognized the rebel council as the country's legitimate government earlier this month, despite the fact that the rebel army is spearheaded by Al-Qaeda terrorists who are supposedly the target of a multi-decade "war on terror" that is now in its tenth year and has cost the U.S. a staggering $5.4 trillion since 9/11.

Shortly after the start of the conflict in March, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the leader of the anti-Gaddafi rebel army, admitted that the rebel ranks include Al-Qaeda terrorists who have killed U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Al-Hasidi described the fighters as "patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," adding that "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader".

The Telegraph confirmed that Al-Qaeda fighters had joined with anti-Gaddafi rebels in a story entitled, Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side, in which Richard Spencer writes how, "WikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi's regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah."

Although NATO and the U.S. admit that "flickers" of Al-Qaeda members have infiltrated rebel ranks, in reality, they are leading the anti-Gaddafi forces in several areas of the country. As the Wall Street Journal reported in a piece entitled, Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels, Al-Qaeda terrorists who worked directly for Bin Laden are recruiting, training and acting as front line field commanders for the rebel army.

Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher and high-school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters from Darna.

Mr. Hasady's field commander on the front lines is Salah al-Barrani, a former fighter from the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which was formed in the 1990s by Libyan mujahedeen returning home after helping to drive the Soviets from Afghanistan and dedicated to ousting Mr. Gadhafi from power.

Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden's holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city's rebel recruits.

A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Former jihadist Noman Benotman, who renounced his al Qaeda affiliation in 2000, said in an interview with the Washington Times that he estimates 1,000 jihadists are in Libya.

Referring to the fighters as "freelance jihadists", Benotman said that the men were part of a North African terror cell known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM), and have completely infiltrated the rebel army.

A 2007 West Point report indicated that the Benghazi-Darnah-Tobruk area of Libya is a world capital for Al-Qaeda or mujahideen suicide bomber recruitment. Author Webster Tarpley details this intelligence in his excellent analysis piece, The CIA's Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq.

Western intelligence agencies have also utilized their links with Libyan Al-Qaeda cells to target Gaddafi in recent history.

In 2002, French intelligence experts revealed how western intelligence agencies bankrolled a Libyan Al-Qaeda cell controlled directly by Osama Bin Laden to hatch a plot to kill Gaddafi that was foiled in March 1996. The cell was led by Anas al-Liby, who was with Bin Laden in Sudan before Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan.

Indeed, it was Gaddafi's Libya who put out the first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden's arrest in 1998. Western intelligence agencies blocked the warrant from being pursued, allowing Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to go on and kill more than 200 people in the truck bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Some of the very rebels now being funded, trained, and offered embassies by Britain and the U.S. were part of the Al-Qaeda cell that tried to kill Gaddafi on behalf of the United States and Britain 15 years ago.

On Wednesday, Britain expelled Gaddafi's diplomats and announced that it would be unfreezing $150 million dollars in Libyan oil revenue that would be used to directly fund the rebel army, abandoning any pretense that the intervention of NATO powers had anything to do with "humanitarianism," which was the reason provided for the war back in March.

In recognizing Al-Qaeda led Libyan rebels who don't even control the majority of Libya, and have virtually no control over key areas, as the official government, both Britain and the US are completely rewriting hundreds of years of diplomatic protocol.

While producing fearmongering videos which characterize white middle class Americans as the primary terror threat, the federal government is simultaneously about to hand an organization infiltrated and in some cases led by Al-Qaeda terrorists its own embassy inside the United States.

Having violated the constitution by ignoring his own lawyers in launching the war without congressional approval, Barack Obama is now directly aiding and abetting Islamic terrorists, breaking his oath to protect America against foreign belligerents by literally inviting the enemy within the gates.

If this isn't a solid case for the impeachment of Barack Obama, then nothing is.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show.

Re: How to shut up the terminally irritating infant.. at least for a few minutes

I always used a sugar tit just like all my ancestors, a little
schnapps goes a long way !!!

On Jul 29, 9:21 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

--
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.

How to shut up the terminally irritating infant.. at least for a few minutes

Everything Obama Says Is a Lie, Except This

Eowyn | July 29, 2011 at 4:01 am | Tags: Congress, Debt Limit, spending cuts, US national debt | Categories: 2012 Election, Crazy Politicians, Economy, Idiot Law Makers, Idiot U.S. Presidents, Republican Party, Taxes, United States, US Presidents | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8mC

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

-- Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

H/t my friend Sol.

~Eowyn

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

Too Big To Fail Bailout Causes Dollar Devaluation: Rothschild's Private Federal Reserve ~ Prints New Dollar For United States ~ Violating The Constitution & President Kennedy's Executive Order.

Volubrjotr | July 29, 2011 at 00:03 | Tags: executive order, Executive Order 11110, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve System, John F. Kennedy, John F. Kennedy assassination, Mr. Kennedy, United State, United States Department of the Treasury | Categories: currency, economy, political, politics, rothschild, subversion | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-b7H

Remember this? January 2, 2010 - A NEW DOLLAR : an insider from the fed banks meeting ... Chapman Predicts the new currency in 18 months .. he is right on target. On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government [...]

Re: [Fwd: Lord, I Want to Thank You For My Smokin' Hot Wife]

I know. I use a lot of his stuff elsewhere too. He just needs to learn how to use his emailing lists better. He needs to use the BCC and not do the dupings. I have mentioned this to him several times but it is like talking to a libtard.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually Travis, Dick is one of your biggest fans! He posts a lot of your material, (in another group) and gives you proper due! (I think you misunderstood his last post.....)

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

Dick: You have to be the dumbest ass ever on a group. You keep picking up others postings and eposting them. We dont need but one posting of an item. Learn how to check the group to see what has been posted idiot.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:45 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:

Never heard of a prayer like this one

--
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.

Lord, I Want to Thank You For My Smokin' Hot Wife

doctorbulldog | 28 July, 2011 at 11:49 am | Categories: Music, Religion, video | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7gU

The supposedly controversial NASCAR prayer last weekend (I still don't understand what all the fuss was about) has been immortalized in song!

It's pretty awesome. And, good luck getting it out of your head for the rest of the day:

watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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.

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

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

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

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

Re: [Fwd: Lord, I Want to Thank You For My Smokin' Hot Wife]

Actually Travis, Dick is one of your biggest fans! He posts a lot of your material, (in another group) and gives you proper due! (I think you misunderstood his last post.....)

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:

Dick: You have to be the dumbest ass ever on a group. You keep picking up others postings and eposting them. We dont need but one posting of an item. Learn how to check the group to see what has been posted idiot.

On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:45 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:

Never heard of a prayer like this one

--
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.

Lord, I Want to Thank You For My Smokin' Hot Wife

doctorbulldog | 28 July, 2011 at 11:49 am | Categories: Music, Religion, video | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7gU

The supposedly controversial NASCAR prayer last weekend (I still don't understand what all the fuss was about) has been immortalized in song!

It's pretty awesome. And, good luck getting it out of your head for the rest of the day:

watch?v=BZnDt2wEFjk

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

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.

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

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

The Most Dangerous Word in the World

The Most Dangerous Word in the World
by Jeff Berwick

In Ayn Rand's Anthem the one-letter word that was outlawed and punishable by death was "I". But, even without punishment, the word "I" has become much less used in today's world and stands in direct contrast to the most dangerous word in the world.

The most dangerous word is only one letter longer than I. It's small, but is responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths, billions living in slavery and mass impoverishment. It is the word that should be abolished.

The word? We.

People should shudder whenever they hear the word "we" uttered by anyone in politics or the media. Almost without exception, whatever follows that word is going to take away your life, fruits of your labor or your liberty.

The first time I conciously realized how dangerous this word is was a few months ago. I was in the Soviet Republic of Canuckistan, also known as Canada, a place where the word "we" is used with great abandon. I had flipped on the TV for a few minutes and found myself watching the "news". The worst kind, actually, local news.

The big story of the day was that out of a city of more than one million people, someone had died!

Apparently someone was swimming and got hit by a motorboat and died. The government was called in to investigate, of course. As they interviewed the locals I knew what was coming -- probably from years of seeing the same script repeated over and over -- it was all but inevitable.

They interviewed a middle aged woman who was clearly upset about the accident, despite not knowing any of the people involved or having any involvement or interest in the event except that she happened to live nearby. As she attempted to fight off the tears she said it:

"W...W... We can never let this happen again!" she sobbed.

And with those words she all but is sure to take yet another small piece of liberty away. Inquiries will be set-up. Signs will be erected. Men with guns will be extra vigilant out on patrol to make sure that this never happens again.

Lots of money will be spent and wasted to ensure that a few housewives feel a little better.

Notice she would never say, "I can never let this happen again". Then she would actually have to do something. Instead, she uses the much easier word we, and thanks to the magic of government all of a sudden all of us need to do whatever is necessary to try to stop the impossible from happening: accidents.

That is the local version of the word "we". Once the word goes national it goes from being irritating to dangerous.

On CNN, recently, the announcer stated after an emotional piece on one of the "wars" (occupations) the US is currently "fighting" (occupying), wistfully, "I guess that's why WE are over there, isn't it".

To say the reporter is making a fairly bold assumption is an understatement. He is assuming that he has the same beliefs as 300 million+ people and they all have the same desires and fears and that "we" are doing something that all 300 million+ people think is necessary against millions of other people on a different part of the planet who, presumably, aren't like "we".

Not to mention the fact that "we" aren't over there. I am not currently in Iraq or Afghanistan. And it says right below his name that he is broadcasting from Atlanta. So, what is this grand "we" who we are talking about?

Doug Stanhope says it best in his bit about how "we" saved the French in World War II, below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gy19YmQHHJU

So, the next time someone talks about some large group of collective people as "we" or take credit for events they never had anything to do with, be like Doug Stanhope and tell them, maybe "we" should just shut the f*#k up.

http://www.dollarvigilante.com/blog/2011/7/19/the-most-dangerous-word-in-the-world.html

“Shared Sacrifice”: Obama's Demagoguery

"In a fully free society -- which the United States more assuredly is not -- people would be at liberty to earn income through voluntary exchange (without anti-competitive privilege or subsidy) and to keep what they legitimately acquire. Taking someone's belongings without consent would be regarded as theft. That would go for politicians as well as anyone else. All transfers of wealth and income would have to be accomplished through persuasion and consent. Physical force and fraud would be forbidden. Taxation, in the words of a great libertarian, Frank Chodorov, is robbery."

"Shared Sacrifice": Obama's Demagoguery
by Sheldon Richman, July 29, 2011

The most offensive claim made during the debt-ceiling controversy is that there's a moral equivalence between cutting government spending and raising taxes. President Obama asks for "shared sacrifice" to reduce the budget deficit. In his view, if the government spends more than it takes in -- it currently borrows more than 40 cents of every dollar spent -- the "balanced" approach is to "cut" spending and raise taxes.

There are quotation marks around "cut" for a good reason. No one -- Republican House Speaker John Boehner included -- wants to cut spending in the commonsense meaning of the term: namely, reducing government spending from today's level ($3.8 trillion). No, in Washington-talk, to cut a budget is merely to reduce the rate of increase that would have occurred in the future if current law were left unchanged.

If the politicians were honest -- and reporters committed to telling the public the truth -- they would talk about smaller increases in spending, not "cuts," but even that wouldn't be entirely truthful, because in many cases the reduction in future increases itself is an illusion. It involves merely canceling the authority to spend money that no one expects to actually be spent.

As noted, the so-called balanced approach to deficit reduction sees a moral equivalence between any reduction in spending (even from future increases) and raising taxes. Some people go further and treat government's abstention from taxation as spending in itself. Think about that: If the government, in its mercy, decides not to take $10 from you, that is an expenditure. By that logic, if the politicians change the law and take the $10, that's a spending cut! Only in Washington ...

Bluntly put, there can be no moral equivalence between government's spending people's money and abstaining from taxing that money. To believe otherwise is to believe that the government owns all income and wealth -- which would be equivalent to believing that the government owns us!

In a fully free society -- which the United States more assuredly is not -- people would be at liberty to earn income through voluntary exchange (without anti-competitive privilege or subsidy) and to keep what they legitimately acquire. Taking someone's belongings without consent would be regarded as theft. That would go for politicians as well as anyone else. All transfers of wealth and income would have to be accomplished through persuasion and consent. Physical force and fraud would be forbidden. Taxation, in the words of a great libertarian, Frank Chodorov, is robbery.

Thus the government's decision not to tax cannot be a form of spending, and it cannot be equated with a refusal to sacrifice in behalf of fiscal integrity.

That is not to deny that in our corporate state, large incomes can be acquired through government-granted privilege and other political machinations. But the way to deal with that is to end all privileges. Politicians are hypocritical when they call for higher taxes on all people making more than $200,000 a year even those who earned it without political favor while leaving the system of privilege essentially intact.

Part of the political game now being played is assigning blame for the growing debt and deficit. The Democrats, the more openly big-government side (Republicans are for big government too but are more covert about it), say that the deficit is attributable as much to the failure to tax -- through the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 -- as to the propensity to spend. Even a former Reagan and George H.W. Bush official, Bruce Bartlett, agrees. They claim that the government's fiscal condition would have been far better had those cuts not been enacted, particularly considering that George W. Bush launched two wars and enacted a Medicare drug program. It's certainly true that big expenditures without revenues to cover them created the deficit -- but the moral course would not have been to abstain from cutting taxes or to raise them. It would have been to not spend the money. The wars were immoral (though profitable for the well-connected), and the drug program was an expansion of the welfare state, which forcibly distributes other people's money.

A humane society does not require robbery and political corruption. It requires freedom for people to earn, to keep what they earn, and to help each other through mutual aid.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1107w.asp

The Debt should be rupidiated

From the incomparable Lysander Spooner:

This business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any considerable extent, among human beings. It is like lending money to slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of their plunder. And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived.

If you like that, read Jeffrey Rogers Hummel 1981 article on why the U.S. national debt should be repudiated (pdf).

Ideals Versus Realities

Ideals Versus Realities
By Thomas Sowell
7/29/2011

Many of us never thought that the Republicans would hold tough long enough to get President Obama and the Democrats to agree to a budget deal that does not include raising income tax rates. But they did -- and Speaker of the House John Boehner no doubt desires much of the credit for that.

Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.

How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, "the rich" are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.

Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas -- and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.

All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax "millionaires and billionaires" is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

Now that the Republicans seem to have gotten the Democrats off their higher taxes kick, the question is whether a minority of the House Republicans will refuse to pass the Boehner legislation that could lead to a deal that will spare the country a major economic disruption and spare the Republicans from losing the 2012 elections by being blamed -- rightly or wrongly -- for the disruptions.

Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don't get your heart's desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.

The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one's power. Nor is it selling out one's principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.

There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington's army had not retreated and retreated and retreated, in the face of an overwhelmingly more powerful British military force bent on annihilating Washington's troops.

Later, when the conditions were right for attack, General Washington attacked. But he would have had nothing to attack with if he had wasted his troops in battles that would have wiped them out.

Similar principles apply in politics. As Edmund Burke said, more than two centuries ago: "Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavors."

What does "rational" mean? At its most basic, it means an ability to make a ratio, as with "rational numbers" in mathematics. More broadly, it means an ability to weigh one thing against another.

There are a lot of things to weigh against each other, not only as regards the economy, but also what the consequences to this nation would be to have Barack Obama get re-elected and go further down the dangerous path he has put us on, at home and abroad. Is it worth that risk to make a futile symbolic vote in Congress?

One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.

But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.

Writers can advocate things that have no chance at the moment, for their very writing about those things persuasively can make them possible at some future date. But to adopt the same approach as an elected member of Congress risks losing both the present and the future.

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/07/29/ideals_versus_realities