Aug 15, 2011 || World News

Monday, August 15, 2011

Peter and the Elephant

Eowyn | August 15, 2011 at 4:30 am | Tags: Chicago, Kenya, splinter, zoo | Categories: Animals, Humor | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8J4

This is an incredible story! You'll be amazed and moved to tears!

In 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Northwestern University .

On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air.

The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.

He got down on one knee, inspected the elephant's foot, and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot.

The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments.

Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away.

Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son.

As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over to near where Peter and his son Cameron were standing.

The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter could not help wondering if this was the same elephant.

Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder.

The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter's legs and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.

Probably wasn't the same elephant.

This is for everyone who sends me those heart-sob b.s. stories.

H/t my dear friend Bill :D

~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

--
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.

Managing Your Thinking

Managing Your Thinking
Posted by Butler Shaffer on August 15, 2011 09:05 AM

CNN the established order's principal voice on cable is providing yet another example of Thomas Pynchon's observation: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." CNN asks (re the GOP campaigning this past weekend) whether Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry had the better outcome. Perry wasn't a candidate at the Iowa straw poll, so the importance of his presence has meaning only to the mainstream media bobble-heads whose job it is to communicate to the boobeoisie the establishment's preferred thinking. No mention need be made of the 800 pound gorilla at the dinner party, because no decent, right-thinking person would be so crass as to mention him, anyway. But in addition to Perry, there was another man whose absence from the straw poll confirms his greatness as a candidate: Rudy Giuliani! Will he be "America's choice?" The establishment may soon tell us via the mainstream media who we really want!

Re: Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!

Mulshine is a 'fanatical' Paul supporter (whatever that means) because he REVIEWED Meet the Press from Sunday?

Oh wait, that is merely the standard fallacy spew designed to mask the reality that you did not actually address *anything* Mulshine stated. Sorry.

Regard$,
--MJ

OK once again: Progressivism is an ideology of corporatism, war, and puritanical statism. Conservatism is an ideology of corporatism, war, and puritanial statism. Liberalism was good up until FDR or so, but then became an ideology of corporatism, war, and puritanical statism. There are differences among these groups, but if you oppose corporatism, war, and puritanical statism, you are a libertarian, or a radical, or an anarchist, or an individualist, or maybe a paleocon (a misnomer). Heck, even "socialist" used to mean pro-liberty, in a sense. But conservatism and progressivism? They were always on the side of the ruling class and always will be. -- Anthony Gregory

At 01:49 PM 8/15/2011, you wrote:

Does everyone see how fanatical the Paul supporters are, and why they will never be successful?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!

Published: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 1:52 PM     Updated: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 2:14 PM

By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

I just turned off "Meet the Press."

This was the single most extreme example of cluelessness in general and liberal media bias in particular that I have ever witnessed.

The subject was yesterday's Iowa Straw Poll, in which Michele Bachmann finished in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul.

Yet these bozos yapped on for half an hour without mentioning Paul, except in passing. They went on at great length about Bachmann and even Tim Pawlenty, her fellow Minnesotan who finished way back in the pack and dropped out of the race. But hardly a word about the Texas congressman.

I found this particularly grating when the subject came to the theme of getting the government off our back. First they showed a clip from Rick Perry, even though the Texas governor did not compete in the straw poll.

Then they showed a clip from, of all people, Pawlenty. Not a single one of these clowns mentioned that Paul practically invented the idea of getting the government off our backs.

And not a single one of them mentioned that Paul also pioneered the idea of voting against raising the debt ceiling. He has never voted to raise it in all his years in Congress. Yet when that issue came up, all the talk was about Bachmann, who just discovered the issue the other day, relatively speaking, and who is a complete ignoramus on economic issues.

What are these idiots up to? Well, I shouldn't use terms like "idiots" and "bozos." These guys know exactly what they're doing. The pitchmen for the mainstream Republican Party, such as Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, want to do everything in their power to deep-six the man who has stood up to the Republican establishment for three decades.

As for the journalists, there was not a conservative up there on stage. All were liberals who love the idea of portraying the ditzy Bachmann as the face of the Republican Party. In the earlier part of the show before the panel session, host David Gregory spent half an hour interviewing her. He focused almost entirely on social issues such as gay marriage, the better to make the GOP look out of touch with middle-class voters.

Somewhere in there one of the panelists made an observation that the attendees at the Ames poll are heavily evangelical in their beliefs. Well if that's the case, then Paul won the day. Even though his message is not tailored to evangelicals, he got the votes of 4,671 of those in attendance. Meanwhile Bachmann, whose appeal is focused on evangelicals, got just 152 more votes than Paul.

And then there's the fact that Paul has defined the issues in this race. On Obamacare, he was the first to come out against the individual mandate, for example, which he did as early as 2007 in this column of mine. He has always been a deficit hawk, another area in which the rest of the field is following his lead. And he's refocused the foreign policy debate to the question of whether the U.S. should be the world's policeman, and he won on that issue it in the debate Thursday night.

I'm sure if I discussed all this with the talking heads who were on the panel, I'd hear what I always hear from liberal commentators: Ron Paul is "unelectable."

Perhaps you believe that. If you do, you're either a Democratic operative or a moron.

Check this page of polling data from Real Clear politics. Of all the candidates in the field, Ron Paul lines up best against President Obama with the single exception of Mitt Romney. And Romney's going to have a tough time getting through the primaries if this straw poll is any indication.

The reason is not far to seek. Alone among the Republicans, Paul connects with the youth vote. Though he the oldest candidate in the field, he has the youngest supporters, all of whom are aware just how wretched an economy they're going to be inheriting.

The economy is going to be the big issue next year, yet the members of the panel ignored it. If they'd paid attention to it, they would have had to discuss Paul, the sole candidate who predicted the collapse of 2008.

It's far more fun for a liberal to focus on Bachmann and her Bible-based ideas on social issues - all of which are calculated to alienate the same youth voters to whom Paul appeals.

A further bonus for liberals is that Bachmann is guaranteed to keep saying really stupid things, such as her assertion that Barack Obama ran up more debt in his first year than all prior presidents combined. Paul, by contrast, cannot be caught in such a howler because he knows the budget much better than any of the questioners do.

He certainly knows more about it than David Gregory. I suspect another reason these blow-dried bozos don't like to have Paul on their shows is that they'd have to do some actual research to ask intelligent questions on such topics as the role of the Federal Reserve.

With Bachmann, it's a simple matter of asking over and over if she really means what she says about the Bible. This is great fun - if you're a simpleton or a party hack. And all the people on that panel met one of those definitions.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/08/rick_perry_a_right-winger_that.html

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
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.

ONE CAN of BEER A WEEK!

YOUR DOCTOR TOLD ME:

"YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST ONE CAN of BEER A WEEK!"

SO I ORDERED ONE FOR YOU!









   I'M FEELING MUCH BETTER NOW JUST KNOWING YOU ARE SMILING

Re: "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

The ONLY mention by Grigg of Gingrich was : "Newt Gingrich, who successfully co-opted the 1994 Republican "revolution" that led to the seizure of the House from the Democrats, consistently voted to the left of Sanders."
He did not cite the Conservative Index NOR use it for any comparison regarding Gingrich. Additionally, he made no claims that Gingrich WAS (or wasn't) a part of the 108th Congress.

You did understand that I am not certain WHICH Index Grigg relied ... merely providing one of the more recent ones that I had a copy.

Regard$,
--MJ

Giving Donald Rumsfeld a "Defender of the Constitution" award makes total sense when considering that President Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize. Up is down. Black is white. Mitt Romney is conservative. -- Jack Hunter

At 01:43 PM 8/15/2011, you wrote:

Thank you for posting the Conservative Index Michael, for the 108th Congress, (which was 2004). Here is the reason that a purported journalist like William Grigg should have been terminated for writing such jibberish. By example, Grigg claims that Socialist Bernie Sanders had a more conservative voting record than Newt Gingrich in the 108th Congress, based on the New American's Conservative Index.

Sanders had a 10 percent conservative index on the core bills that the Conservative Index focused upon, and a total percentage on all votes of 38 percent, which is far lower than all of the Republicans in the House.

Newt Gingrich was not even a part of the 108th Congress.....

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Have you NEVER reviewed/looked at/seen the Conservative Index?

Really? [it only takes a bit of googling or binging or'ing-ing' of your choice]

I attach a copy of the 108th Congress version.

Regard$,

--MJ

"GOP strategy: scare people into believing state socialism is an imminent threat, then drape state capitalism in free-market garb as the alternative." -- Sheldon Richman

At 10:38 AM 8/15/2011, you wrote:

I'd love to see the data that Grigg purportedly used to come to his conclusions. I doubt his accuracy very, very seriously.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Sunday, October 15, 2006
"The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)
William N. Grigg

The following essay is a re-run, but a very timely one.
It was originally published on July 9 in the "Birch Blog" on The New American's website. Within hours of posting this essay, I received stern, disapproving messages from my superiors at JBS, complaining that the essay undermined what had been described to me as the "corporate consensus" that the Birch Society would have to make nice with the GOP in order to grow and prosper.
What is remarkable about that complaint is this: The essay below cites the "Conservative Index" published by The New American to document and illustrate the points I was making. So I was, in effect, being criticized for making appropriate, if inconvenient, use of materials published by the JBS.
"Why do you insist that the Democrats would be better?" demanded my editor, Gary Benoit, in an e-mail. I replied that what I wrote was not anti-Republican or pro-Democrat, but rather anti-incumbent -- and besides, I asked, how could the Democrats be worse?
At least one other commentator, Laurence Vance, made similar use of that Conservative Index in writing an indictment of the incumbent Republican Congress.
Significantly, even though the JBS officials who fired me protested that blog posts like "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" were terminally off-putting to GOP-leaning Republicans, this specific post prompted a very favorable discussion thread at -- of all places! -- Sean Hannity's website.
And in recent weeks, several high-profile Republican-aligned conservative commentators and activists have openly called for the GOP's defeat in this year's mid-term elections.
I have reason to believe that "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" led directly to the decision to fire me from the JBS. I published it about three weeks after receiving a phone call from Alan Scholl in which my job was threatened for writing an earlier blog explaining how the GOP was cynically exploiting the immigration issue as a way of mobilizing the political support it needed to consummate the creation of a police state, which effectively happened on September 28, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act. On the same date, the Mark Foley scandal broke.
Interestingly, the final essays I published in this space before being fired all dealt with various ways in which the Republican leadership supports torture and perversion -- traits now widely understood by an increasingly disgusted electorate.
My offense, apparently, was to take the JBS's principles (and published works, like the Conservative Index) too seriously, and being ahead of the curve. That's a self-serving view, I admit, but it makes a certain sense -- unlike the explanations currently being handed out by Appleton to justify my termination.

The Only Reason to Vote Republican

Sunday, July 9, 2006, 11:28 PM

Unless your Congressman is named Ron Paul, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

On at least one occasion during the last congressional term, every member of the House of Representatives -- Dr. Paul being the sole exception -- violated his oath of office by voting in favor of unconstitutional legislation; this is documented by the most recent installment of The New American's Conservative Index (CI).

The CI is not a comprehensive survey of congressional votes; it does, however, provide a useful core sample of the convictions -- such as they are -- of Congressmen and Senators by examining their votes on clear-cut constitutional issues.

For the House, the average CI score in this installment was 36 percent. Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, actually out-performed the average, and several supposedly conservative Republicans, by running up a cumulative score of 37 percent. The New American has described as "Sanderistas" those Republicans (such as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay -- 37 percent) whose CI rating is identical to that of Vermont's lefty Independent, or those (like DeLay's replacement John Boehner -- 34 percent) whose performance was even worse.

Newt Gingrich, who successfully co-opted the 1994 Republican "revolution" that led to the seizure of the House from the Democrats, consistently voted to the left of Sanders.

The chief difference between Sanders and the Republican "conservatives" who flank him to the left is found in the preferred beneficiaries of wealth redistribution. Republicans generally favor corporate welfare, while lefties of the Sanders type are wedded to Big Labor and Welfare State constituencies. Both parties -- or, better stated, both appendages of the ruling Establishment Party -- have become nothing more than elaborate political support systems for deeply entrenched constituencies.

Which is one of many reasons why Rep. Paul is so valuable.

In a profile of Rep. Paul that suppurates befuddled condescension, the Washington Post describes him as a "rare breed" in this era of lock-step (or goose-step, in the case of a GOP increasingly defined by fuhrerprinzip) party discipline: "Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years -- when party leaders say `jump,' the savvy congressman had better inquire how high."

Dr. Paul, however, insists on treating his oath to uphold the Constitution as, well, a solemn promise before God to his constituents. Which is why he is a living rebuke to the hypocritical collectivists who infest the Republican Party, and utterly mystifying to the retread socialists who publish the Post.

"Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar," writes the Post in a witticism that's as limp as an un-medicated Rush Limbaugh. "He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. In his legislative fantasies, the amiable Texas congressman would do away with the CIA and the Federal Reserve. He'd reinstate the gold standard. He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended."

Note how the Post treats those prescriptions (particularly those dealing with education ) as whimsical personal opinions, rather than -- as Paul demonstrated to the reporter -- strict application of the actual text of the Constitution. (In what was almost certainly a long overdue primer on the charter of our republic, Paul introduced the Post report to Article I, Section 8, which specifies every purpose for which Congress can appropriate money.)

Rep. Paul has a well-earned and altogether commendable reputation for voting against nearly every proposed law -- perhaps acting on the unassailable insight that in a society suffocating, as is ours, beneath countless positivist laws, the only defensible legislative course is to begin repealing them.

After all, the only Being in the universe who has a right to impose laws originally gave us ten, and He eventually condensed them into two.

Dr. Paul also understands that everything government does is backed by the threat of lethal violence -- often implicitly, but to an increasing extent, overtly. Once the Constitution, which is intended to restrain and control government, is cast aside, that power is emancipated and deployed on behalf of whatever individual or faction can seize control of it, and will be used to the extent the victors can get away with it.

In principle, the only alternative to the Constitution is kto kogo? -- Lenin's "who does what to whom" dichotomy, which -- when coupled with his ideology of rule ("power without limit, resting directly on force") -- provides the formula for the Total State.

Over at the More Liberty Blog, Richard Wilkins observes:

"Last Friday, the House Republicans passed a resolution attacking the media for daring to inform the public about the government's efforts to spy on them. Early this year, the GOP House leadership pushed a bill through the House outlawing "price gouging." Now they are attacking the press. First economic crimes, now attacks on the media for displeasing the State. Maybe GOP really stands for Grand Old Politburo."

If you're content to settle for this -- if you believe that unchecked profligacy, open-ended foreign war, and canine subservience to a lawless executive should be rewarded -- then by all means, vote Republican this November.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/10/only-reason-to-vote-republican.html

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--

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.

Mental Health "Professionals" Seeking to Remove Pedophilia From List of Mental Illnesses

doctorbulldog | 15 August, 2011 at 11:13 am | Categories: Gay Agenda, Medicine, Pedophilia, Psychology | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-7ib

Yup. Anyone who still thinks pedophiles and homosexuals haven't been inexorably intertwined since day one when the push for "gay rights" began hasn't been paying attention. This is the exact same thing the queers did in the early 1970's in order to "normalize" homosexuality. Then, its onward towards changing the laws and minds---especially those of our children---into accepting these sexual perversions as normal. From there, it's just a small hop, skip, and jump into allowing marriages for these perverts under the auspices of "equal rights."

Conference aims to normalize pedophilia
By John Rossomando - The Daily Caller

If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association's bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.

The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine "ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process" and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.

Researchers from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois will be among the panelists at the conference.

B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA's definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of "minor-attracted persons" as "inaccurate" and "misleading" because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.

"It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding," said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. "The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever."

The press release announced a letter the group sent to the APA criticizing its approach, and inviting its leaders to participate in the August 17 conference. "The DSM should meet a higher standard than that," Kline continued. "We can help them, because we are the people they are writing about."

APA spokeswoman Erin Connors told The Daily Caller in an emailed statement that her organization was not participating in the conference and would not comment on its aims.

Re: Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!

Does everyone see how fanatical the Paul supporters are, and why they will never be successful?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!
Published: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 1:52 PM     Updated: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 2:14 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

I just turned off "Meet the Press."

This was the single most extreme example of cluelessness in general and liberal media bias in particular that I have ever witnessed.

The subject was yesterday's Iowa Straw Poll, in which Michele Bachmann finished in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul.

Yet these bozos yapped on for half an hour without mentioning Paul, except in passing. They went on at great length about Bachmann and even Tim Pawlenty, her fellow Minnesotan who finished way back in the pack and dropped out of the race. But hardly a word about the Texas congressman.

I found this particularly grating when the subject came to the theme of getting the government off our back. First they showed a clip from Rick Perry, even though the Texas governor did not compete in the straw poll.

Then they showed a clip from, of all people, Pawlenty. Not a single one of these clowns mentioned that Paul practically invented the idea of getting the government off our backs.

And not a single one of them mentioned that Paul also pioneered the idea of voting against raising the debt ceiling. He has never voted to raise it in all his years in Congress. Yet when that issue came up, all the talk was about Bachmann, who just discovered the issue the other day, relatively speaking, and who is a complete ignoramus on economic issues.

What are these idiots up to? Well, I shouldn't use terms like "idiots" and "bozos." These guys know exactly what they're doing. The pitchmen for the mainstream Republican Party, such as Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, want to do everything in their power to deep-six the man who has stood up to the Republican establishment for three decades.

As for the journalists, there was not a conservative up there on stage. All were liberals who love the idea of portraying the ditzy Bachmann as the face of the Republican Party. In the earlier part of the show before the panel session, host David Gregory spent half an hour interviewing her. He focused almost entirely on social issues such as gay marriage, the better to make the GOP look out of touch with middle-class voters.

Somewhere in there one of the panelists made an observation that the attendees at the Ames poll are heavily evangelical in their beliefs. Well if that's the case, then Paul won the day. Even though his message is not tailored to evangelicals, he got the votes of 4,671 of those in attendance. Meanwhile Bachmann, whose appeal is focused on evangelicals, got just 152 more votes than Paul.

And then there's the fact that Paul has defined the issues in this race. On Obamacare, he was the first to come out against the individual mandate, for example, which he did as early as 2007 in this column of mine. He has always been a deficit hawk, another area in which the rest of the field is following his lead. And he's refocused the foreign policy debate to the question of whether the U.S. should be the world's policeman, and he won on that issue it in the debate Thursday night.

I'm sure if I discussed all this with the talking heads who were on the panel, I'd hear what I always hear from liberal commentators: Ron Paul is "unelectable."

Perhaps you believe that. If you do, you're either a Democratic operative or a moron.

Check this page of polling data from Real Clear politics. Of all the candidates in the field, Ron Paul lines up best against President Obama with the single exception of Mitt Romney. And Romney's going to have a tough time getting through the primaries if this straw poll is any indication.

The reason is not far to seek. Alone among the Republicans, Paul connects with the youth vote. Though he the oldest candidate in the field, he has the youngest supporters, all of whom are aware just how wretched an economy they're going to be inheriting.

The economy is going to be the big issue next year, yet the members of the panel ignored it. If they'd paid attention to it, they would have had to discuss Paul, the sole candidate who predicted the collapse of 2008.

It's far more fun for a liberal to focus on Bachmann and her Bible-based ideas on social issues - all of which are calculated to alienate the same youth voters to whom Paul appeals.

A further bonus for liberals is that Bachmann is guaranteed to keep saying really stupid things, such as her assertion that Barack Obama ran up more debt in his first year than all prior presidents combined. Paul, by contrast, cannot be caught in such a howler because he knows the budget much better than any of the questioners do.

He certainly knows more about it than David Gregory. I suspect another reason these blow-dried bozos don't like to have Paul on their shows is that they'd have to do some actual research to ask intelligent questions on such topics as the role of the Federal Reserve.

With Bachmann, it's a simple matter of asking over and over if she really means what she says about the Bible. This is great fun - if you're a simpleton or a party hack. And all the people on that panel met one of those definitions.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/08/rick_perry_a_right-winger_that.html

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

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

JP First Muslim Scientist invent a chemical for removing Atomic radiation....

JP Fitra Parchi by MQM to Diff School....? This is Pakistan Government.....

Re: "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

Thank you for posting the Conservative Index Michael, for the 108th Congress, (which was 2004). Here is the reason that a purported journalist like William Grigg should have been terminated for writing such jibberish. By example, Grigg claims that Socialist Bernie Sanders had a more conservative voting record than Newt Gingrich in the 108th Congress, based on the New American's Conservative Index.

Sanders had a 10 percent conservative index on the core bills that the Conservative Index focused upon, and a total percentage on all votes of 38 percent, which is far lower than all of the Republicans in the House.

Newt Gingrich was not even a part of the 108th Congress.....

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Have you NEVER reviewed/looked at/seen the Conservative Index?
Really? [it only takes a bit of googling or binging or'ing-ing' of your choice]

I attach a copy of the 108th Congress version.

Regard$,
--MJ

"GOP strategy: scare people into believing state socialism is an imminent threat, then drape state capitalism in free-market garb as the alternative." -- Sheldon Richman

At 10:38 AM 8/15/2011, you wrote:

I'd love to see the data that Grigg purportedly used to come to his conclusions. I doubt his accuracy very, very seriously.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Sunday, October 15, 2006

"The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

William N. Grigg

The following essay is a re-run, but a very timely one.
It was originally published on July 9 in the "Birch Blog" on The New American's website. Within hours of posting this essay, I received stern, disapproving messages from my superiors at JBS, complaining that the essay undermined what had been described to me as the "corporate consensus" that the Birch Society would have to make nice with the GOP in order to grow and prosper.
What is remarkable about that complaint is this: The essay below cites the "Conservative Index" published by The New American to document and illustrate the points I was making. So I was, in effect, being criticized for making appropriate, if inconvenient, use of materials published by the JBS.
"Why do you insist that the Democrats would be better?" demanded my editor, Gary Benoit, in an e-mail. I replied that what I wrote was not anti-Republican or pro-Democrat, but rather anti-incumbent -- and besides, I asked, how could the Democrats be worse?
At least one other commentator, Laurence Vance, made similar use of that Conservative Index in writing an indictment of the incumbent Republican Congress.
Significantly, even though the JBS officials who fired me protested that blog posts like "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" were terminally off-putting to GOP-leaning Republicans, this specific post prompted a very favorable discussion thread at -- of all places! -- Sean Hannity's website.
And in recent weeks, several high-profile Republican-aligned conservative commentators and activists have openly called for the GOP's defeat in this year's mid-term elections.
I have reason to believe that "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" led directly to the decision to fire me from the JBS. I published it about three weeks after receiving a phone call from Alan Scholl in which my job was threatened for writing an earlier blog explaining how the GOP was cynically exploiting the immigration issue as a way of mobilizing the political support it needed to consummate the creation of a police state, which effectively happened on September 28, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act. On the same date, the Mark Foley scandal broke.
Interestingly, the final essays I published in this space before being fired all dealt with various ways in which the Republican leadership supports torture and perversion -- traits now widely understood by an increasingly disgusted electorate.
My offense, apparently, was to take the JBS's principles (and published works, like the Conservative Index) too seriously, and being ahead of the curve. That's a self-serving view, I admit, but it makes a certain sense -- unlike the explanations currently being handed out by Appleton to justify my termination.

The Only Reason to Vote Republican

Sunday, July 9, 2006, 11:28 PM

Unless your Congressman is named Ron Paul, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

On at least one occasion during the last congressional term, every member of the House of Representatives -- Dr. Paul being the sole exception -- violated his oath of office by voting in favor of unconstitutional legislation; this is documented by the most recent installment of The New American's Conservative Index (CI).

The CI is not a comprehensive survey of congressional votes; it does, however, provide a useful core sample of the convictions -- such as they are -- of Congressmen and Senators by examining their votes on clear-cut constitutional issues.

For the House, the average CI score in this installment was 36 percent. Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, actually out-performed the average, and several supposedly conservative Republicans, by running up a cumulative score of 37 percent. The New American has described as "Sanderistas" those Republicans (such as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay -- 37 percent) whose CI rating is identical to that of Vermont's lefty Independent, or those (like DeLay's replacement John Boehner -- 34 percent) whose performance was even worse.

Newt Gingrich, who successfully co-opted the 1994 Republican "revolution" that led to the seizure of the House from the Democrats, consistently voted to the left of Sanders.

The chief difference between Sanders and the Republican "conservatives" who flank him to the left is found in the preferred beneficiaries of wealth redistribution. Republicans generally favor corporate welfare, while lefties of the Sanders type are wedded to Big Labor and Welfare State constituencies. Both parties -- or, better stated, both appendages of the ruling Establishment Party -- have become nothing more than elaborate political support systems for deeply entrenched constituencies.

Which is one of many reasons why Rep. Paul is so valuable.

In a profile of Rep. Paul that suppurates befuddled condescension, the Washington Post describes him as a "rare breed" in this era of lock-step (or goose-step, in the case of a GOP increasingly defined by fuhrerprinzip) party discipline: "Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years -- when party leaders say `jump,' the savvy congressman had better inquire how high."

Dr. Paul, however, insists on treating his oath to uphold the Constitution as, well, a solemn promise before God to his constituents. Which is why he is a living rebuke to the hypocritical collectivists who infest the Republican Party, and utterly mystifying to the retread socialists who publish the Post.

"Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar," writes the Post in a witticism that's as limp as an un-medicated Rush Limbaugh. "He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. In his legislative fantasies, the amiable Texas congressman would do away with the CIA and the Federal Reserve. He'd reinstate the gold standard. He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended."

Note how the Post treats those prescriptions (particularly those dealing with education ) as whimsical personal opinions, rather than -- as Paul demonstrated to the reporter -- strict application of the actual text of the Constitution. (In what was almost certainly a long overdue primer on the charter of our republic, Paul introduced the Post report to Article I, Section 8, which specifies every purpose for which Congress can appropriate money.)

Rep. Paul has a well-earned and altogether commendable reputation for voting against nearly every proposed law -- perhaps acting on the unassailable insight that in a society suffocating, as is ours, beneath countless positivist laws, the only defensible legislative course is to begin repealing them.

After all, the only Being in the universe who has a right to impose laws originally gave us ten, and He eventually condensed them into two.

Dr. Paul also understands that everything government does is backed by the threat of lethal violence -- often implicitly, but to an increasing extent, overtly. Once the Constitution, which is intended to restrain and control government, is cast aside, that power is emancipated and deployed on behalf of whatever individual or faction can seize control of it, and will be used to the extent the victors can get away with it.

In principle, the only alternative to the Constitution is kto kogo? -- Lenin's "who does what to whom" dichotomy, which -- when coupled with his ideology of rule ("power without limit, resting directly on force") -- provides the formula for the Total State.

Over at the More Liberty Blog, Richard Wilkins observes:

"Last Friday, the House Republicans passed a resolution attacking the media for daring to inform the public about the government's efforts to spy on them. Early this year, the GOP House leadership pushed a bill through the House outlawing "price gouging." Now they are attacking the press. First economic crimes, now attacks on the media for displeasing the State. Maybe GOP really stands for Grand Old Politburo."

If you're content to settle for this -- if you believe that unchecked profligacy, open-ended foreign war, and canine subservience to a lawless executive should be rewarded -- then by all means, vote Republican this November.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/10/only-reason-to-vote-republican.html

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
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.

Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!

Meet the Press: Whatta buncha knuckleheads!
Published: Saturday, August 13, 2011, 1:52 PM     Updated: Sunday, August 14, 2011, 2:14 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

I just turned off "Meet the Press."

This was the single most extreme example of cluelessness in general and liberal media bias in particular that I have ever witnessed.

The subject was yesterday's Iowa Straw Poll, in which Michele Bachmann finished in a statistical dead heat with Ron Paul.

Yet these bozos yapped on for half an hour without mentioning Paul, except in passing. They went on at great length about Bachmann and even Tim Pawlenty, her fellow Minnesotan who finished way back in the pack and dropped out of the race. But hardly a word about the Texas congressman.

I found this particularly grating when the subject came to the theme of getting the government off our back. First they showed a clip from Rick Perry, even though the Texas governor did not compete in the straw poll.

Then they showed a clip from, of all people, Pawlenty. Not a single one of these clowns mentioned that Paul practically invented the idea of getting the government off our backs.

And not a single one of them mentioned that Paul also pioneered the idea of voting against raising the debt ceiling. He has never voted to raise it in all his years in Congress. Yet when that issue came up, all the talk was about Bachmann, who just discovered the issue the other day, relatively speaking, and who is a complete ignoramus on economic issues.

What are these idiots up to? Well, I shouldn't use terms like "idiots" and "bozos." These guys know exactly what they're doing. The pitchmen for the mainstream Republican Party, such as Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, want to do everything in their power to deep-six the man who has stood up to the Republican establishment for three decades.

As for the journalists, there was not a conservative up there on stage. All were liberals who love the idea of portraying the ditzy Bachmann as the face of the Republican Party. In the earlier part of the show before the panel session, host David Gregory spent half an hour interviewing her. He focused almost entirely on social issues such as gay marriage, the better to make the GOP look out of touch with middle-class voters.

Somewhere in there one of the panelists made an observation that the attendees at the Ames poll are heavily evangelical in their beliefs. Well if that's the case, then Paul won the day. Even though his message is not tailored to evangelicals, he got the votes of 4,671 of those in attendance. Meanwhile Bachmann, whose appeal is focused on evangelicals, got just 152 more votes than Paul.

And then there's the fact that Paul has defined the issues in this race. On Obamacare, he was the first to come out against the individual mandate, for example, which he did as early as 2007 in this column of mine. He has always been a deficit hawk, another area in which the rest of the field is following his lead. And he's refocused the foreign policy debate to the question of whether the U.S. should be the world's policeman, and he won on that issue it in the debate Thursday night.

I'm sure if I discussed all this with the talking heads who were on the panel, I'd hear what I always hear from liberal commentators: Ron Paul is "unelectable."

Perhaps you believe that. If you do, you're either a Democratic operative or a moron.

Check this page of polling data from Real Clear politics. Of all the candidates in the field, Ron Paul lines up best against President Obama with the single exception of Mitt Romney. And Romney's going to have a tough time getting through the primaries if this straw poll is any indication.

The reason is not far to seek. Alone among the Republicans, Paul connects with the youth vote. Though he the oldest candidate in the field, he has the youngest supporters, all of whom are aware just how wretched an economy they're going to be inheriting.

The economy is going to be the big issue next year, yet the members of the panel ignored it. If they'd paid attention to it, they would have had to discuss Paul, the sole candidate who predicted the collapse of 2008.

It's far more fun for a liberal to focus on Bachmann and her Bible-based ideas on social issues - all of which are calculated to alienate the same youth voters to whom Paul appeals.

A further bonus for liberals is that Bachmann is guaranteed to keep saying really stupid things, such as her assertion that Barack Obama ran up more debt in his first year than all prior presidents combined. Paul, by contrast, cannot be caught in such a howler because he knows the budget much better than any of the questioners do.

He certainly knows more about it than David Gregory. I suspect another reason these blow-dried bozos don't like to have Paul on their shows is that they'd have to do some actual research to ask intelligent questions on such topics as the role of the Federal Reserve.

With Bachmann, it's a simple matter of asking over and over if she really means what she says about the Bible. This is great fun - if you're a simpleton or a party hack. And all the people on that panel met one of those definitions.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/08/rick_perry_a_right-winger_that.html

Texas RLC Sends Out Warning on Rick Perry

Texas RLC Sends Out Warning on Rick Perry
By Dave Nalle - August 12, 2011 at 10:41 PM

Don't Believe the Hype. Meet the Real Rick Perry
Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas Sends Warning to Republicans Nationwide About Perry's Tax and Spend Record

AUSTIN, TX – Texas Governor Rick Perry may be the flavor of the day for a lot of Republicans, but Texas Republicans who are familiar with his record are a lot less enthusiastic about his presidential run. "Perry has a unique talent for finding new ways to raise taxes and loves to use taxpayer money to subsidize his business cronies," says Secretary Dave Nalle of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas. "His supposed belief in limited government and states rights conveniently disappears whenever it conflicts with the demands of the special interests and corporate cronies who he serves."

Governor Perry's record of big government, big spending, big taxing and attacks on the fundamental rights of Texas citizens is a familiar to Texans, but seems to be much less well known to Republicans outside of the state, which may explain his high initial showing in the polls. The Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas is compiling a complete dossier on Perry to share with fellow Republicans outside their state so that they can be informed about what they are being sold in a Perry presidential candidacy.

The file on Perry's abuses of power, insider deals with cronies and tax and spend policies is thick, but for a start here are what Texas RLC members voted as the top five Perry scandals which GOP primary voters need to know more about:

Business Slush Funds

source

Toll Roads and Land Seizures

source

Forced Vaccinations

source

The Job-Killing Franchise Tax

source

Scuttled the Anti-TSA Bill

source

Don't be fooled by campaign hype. If Perry says he'll cut taxes or get government off our back, look up his real record. Look up his past statements. He supported TARP. He supported the bailouts. He was even Al Gore's Texas campaign manager back in 1988. A vote for Perry in the Republican primary is a vote for more big government and more taxes and more of the the same deficits and irresponsibility we had for 12 years under Bush and Obama. The Republican Party and the nation need real leadership, not more of the same with a nicer head of hair.

RLC of Texas Chairman Judson Vandiver asks, "Let's hope Republicans outside Texas see through all the hype. Let's all say to to Perry what he said to a Texas state trooper when he tried to bully her after she pulled him over for speeding YouTube: 'Why don't you just let us get on down the road?'"

http://www.rlc.org/2011/08/12/texas-rlc-sends-out-warning-on-rick-perry/

Re: "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

Have you NEVER reviewed/looked at/seen the Conservative Index?
Really? [it only takes a bit of googling or binging or'ing-ing' of your choice]

I attach a copy of the 108th Congress version.

Regard$,
--MJ

"GOP strategy: scare people into believing state socialism is an imminent threat, then drape state capitalism in free-market garb as the alternative." -- Sheldon Richman

At 10:38 AM 8/15/2011, you wrote:

I'd love to see the data that Grigg purportedly used to come to his conclusions. I doubt his accuracy very, very seriously.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Sunday, October 15, 2006

"The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

William N. Grigg

The following essay is a re-run, but a very timely one.
It was originally published on July 9 in the "Birch Blog" on The New American's website. Within hours of posting this essay, I received stern, disapproving messages from my superiors at JBS, complaining that the essay undermined what had been described to me as the "corporate consensus" that the Birch Society would have to make nice with the GOP in order to grow and prosper.
What is remarkable about that complaint is this: The essay below cites the "Conservative Index" published by The New American to document and illustrate the points I was making. So I was, in effect, being criticized for making appropriate, if inconvenient, use of materials published by the JBS.
"Why do you insist that the Democrats would be better?" demanded my editor, Gary Benoit, in an e-mail. I replied that what I wrote was not anti-Republican or pro-Democrat, but rather anti-incumbent -- and besides, I asked, how could the Democrats be worse?
At least one other commentator, Laurence Vance, made similar use of that Conservative Index in writing an indictment of the incumbent Republican Congress.
Significantly, even though the JBS officials who fired me protested that blog posts like "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" were terminally off-putting to GOP-leaning Republicans, this specific post prompted a very favorable discussion thread at -- of all places! -- Sean Hannity's website.
And in recent weeks, several high-profile Republican-aligned conservative commentators and activists have openly called for the GOP's defeat in this year's mid-term elections.
I have reason to believe that "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" led directly to the decision to fire me from the JBS. I published it about three weeks after receiving a phone call from Alan Scholl in which my job was threatened for writing an earlier blog explaining how the GOP was cynically exploiting the immigration issue as a way of mobilizing the political support it needed to consummate the creation of a police state, which effectively happened on September 28, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act. On the same date, the Mark Foley scandal broke.
Interestingly, the final essays I published in this space before being fired all dealt with various ways in which the Republican leadership supports torture and perversion -- traits now widely understood by an increasingly disgusted electorate.
My offense, apparently, was to take the JBS's principles (and published works, like the Conservative Index) too seriously, and being ahead of the curve. That's a self-serving view, I admit, but it makes a certain sense -- unlike the explanations currently being handed out by Appleton to justify my termination.

The Only Reason to Vote Republican

Sunday, July 9, 2006, 11:28 PM

Unless your Congressman is named Ron Paul, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

On at least one occasion during the last congressional term, every member of the House of Representatives -- Dr. Paul being the sole exception -- violated his oath of office by voting in favor of unconstitutional legislation; this is documented by the most recent installment of The New American's Conservative Index (CI).

The CI is not a comprehensive survey of congressional votes; it does, however, provide a useful core sample of the convictions -- such as they are -- of Congressmen and Senators by examining their votes on clear-cut constitutional issues.

For the House, the average CI score in this installment was 36 percent. Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, actually out-performed the average, and several supposedly conservative Republicans, by running up a cumulative score of 37 percent. The New American has described as "Sanderistas" those Republicans (such as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay -- 37 percent) whose CI rating is identical to that of Vermont's lefty Independent, or those (like DeLay's replacement John Boehner -- 34 percent) whose performance was even worse.

Newt Gingrich, who successfully co-opted the 1994 Republican "revolution" that led to the seizure of the House from the Democrats, consistently voted to the left of Sanders.

The chief difference between Sanders and the Republican "conservatives" who flank him to the left is found in the preferred beneficiaries of wealth redistribution. Republicans generally favor corporate welfare, while lefties of the Sanders type are wedded to Big Labor and Welfare State constituencies. Both parties -- or, better stated, both appendages of the ruling Establishment Party -- have become nothing more than elaborate political support systems for deeply entrenched constituencies.

Which is one of many reasons why Rep. Paul is so valuable.

In a profile of Rep. Paul that suppurates befuddled condescension, the Washington Post describes him as a "rare breed" in this era of lock-step (or goose-step, in the case of a GOP increasingly defined by fuhrerprinzip) party discipline: "Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years -- when party leaders say `jump,' the savvy congressman had better inquire how high."

Dr. Paul, however, insists on treating his oath to uphold the Constitution as, well, a solemn promise before God to his constituents. Which is why he is a living rebuke to the hypocritical collectivists who infest the Republican Party, and utterly mystifying to the retread socialists who publish the Post.

"Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar," writes the Post in a witticism that's as limp as an un-medicated Rush Limbaugh. "He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. In his legislative fantasies, the amiable Texas congressman would do away with the CIA and the Federal Reserve. He'd reinstate the gold standard. He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended."

Note how the Post treats those prescriptions (particularly those dealing with education ) as whimsical personal opinions, rather than -- as Paul demonstrated to the reporter -- strict application of the actual text of the Constitution. (In what was almost certainly a long overdue primer on the charter of our republic, Paul introduced the Post report to Article I, Section 8, which specifies every purpose for which Congress can appropriate money.)

Rep. Paul has a well-earned and altogether commendable reputation for voting against nearly every proposed law -- perhaps acting on the unassailable insight that in a society suffocating, as is ours, beneath countless positivist laws, the only defensible legislative course is to begin repealing them.

After all, the only Being in the universe who has a right to impose laws originally gave us ten, and He eventually condensed them into two.

Dr. Paul also understands that everything government does is backed by the threat of lethal violence -- often implicitly, but to an increasing extent, overtly. Once the Constitution, which is intended to restrain and control government, is cast aside, that power is emancipated and deployed on behalf of whatever individual or faction can seize control of it, and will be used to the extent the victors can get away with it.

In principle, the only alternative to the Constitution is kto kogo? -- Lenin's "who does what to whom" dichotomy, which -- when coupled with his ideology of rule ("power without limit, resting directly on force") -- provides the formula for the Total State.

Over at the More Liberty Blog, Richard Wilkins observes:

"Last Friday, the House Republicans passed a resolution attacking the media for daring to inform the public about the government's efforts to spy on them. Early this year, the GOP House leadership pushed a bill through the House outlawing "price gouging." Now they are attacking the press. First economic crimes, now attacks on the media for displeasing the State. Maybe GOP really stands for Grand Old Politburo."

If you're content to settle for this -- if you believe that unchecked profligacy, open-ended foreign war, and canine subservience to a lawless executive should be rewarded -- then by all means, vote Republican this November.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/10/only-reason-to-vote-republican.html

--

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.

For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/

* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.

* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

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

Re: The Revolution Is Underway

You are correct, RP has NOT swallowed the Neocon Kool-Aid.
You would have thought hiding under the bed from those Red Commies might have provided perspective and a dose of reality, but apparently not.

[your typical fallacy spew is noted, but irrelevant as always]

Regard$,
--MJ

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. -- H. L. Mencken

The problem, is that most Americans rightfully see Mr. Paul's one, major flaw. Although Representative Paul is most likely a genuis at finance, and all conservatives salute him for his fiscal policies, Mr. Paul is just flat out naive on foreign policy and the dangers that face not only the United States but Wesern civilization as a whole.

Re: Is Government Housing in Israel Being Turned Into Institutions?

On Aug 8, 10:01 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is Government Housing in Israel Being Turned Into Institutions?
> ---
> who cares?
> just keep their influence out of America
>
> On Aug 8, 11:24 am, Visual Purple <doreendo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Is Government Housing in Israel Being Turned Into Institutions?
>
> > …while the residents are still in them?
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z5WOR7F4y4
>
> > Folks, you will NEVER see this in the mainstream media or even in
> > alternative media.
>
> > You are about to get a lesson about the real nature of "Zionism" that
> > will divest you of all your illusions.
>
> > The Hebrew word for "Zion" is pronounced Tzi'yon.
>
> > Zion is the crude Hebrew for penis. Just so you know what they are
> > really saying to us.
>
> > Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
> > DoreenDo...@gmail.com- Hide quoted text -
ANOTHER COPY AND PASTE ANTI-SEMITE
GOSH!

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

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

Re: "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)

I'd love to see the data that Grigg purportedly used to come to his conclusions. I doubt his accuracy very, very seriously.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 9:18 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Sunday, October 15, 2006
"The Only Reason to Vote Republican" (revisited)
William N. Grigg

The following essay is a re-run, but a very timely one.
It was originally published on July 9 in the "Birch Blog" on The New American's website. Within hours of posting this essay, I received stern, disapproving messages from my superiors at JBS, complaining that the essay undermined what had been described to me as the "corporate consensus" that the Birch Society would have to make nice with the GOP in order to grow and prosper.
What is remarkable about that complaint is this: The essay below cites the "Conservative Index" published by The New American to document and illustrate the points I was making. So I was, in effect, being criticized for making appropriate, if inconvenient, use of materials published by the JBS.
"Why do you insist that the Democrats would be better?" demanded my editor, Gary Benoit, in an e-mail. I replied that what I wrote was not anti-Republican or pro-Democrat, but rather anti-incumbent -- and besides, I asked, how could the Democrats be worse?
At least one other commentator, Laurence Vance, made similar use of that Conservative Index in writing an indictment of the incumbent Republican Congress.
Significantly, even though the JBS officials who fired me protested that blog posts like "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" were terminally off-putting to GOP-leaning Republicans, this specific post prompted a very favorable discussion thread at -- of all places! -- Sean Hannity's website.
And in recent weeks, several high-profile Republican-aligned conservative commentators and activists have openly called for the GOP's defeat in this year's mid-term elections.
I have reason to believe that "The Only Reason to Vote Republican" led directly to the decision to fire me from the JBS. I published it about three weeks after receiving a phone call from Alan Scholl in which my job was threatened for writing an earlier blog explaining how the GOP was cynically exploiting the immigration issue as a way of mobilizing the political support it needed to consummate the creation of a police state, which effectively happened on September 28, with the passage of the Military Commissions Act. On the same date, the Mark Foley scandal broke.
Interestingly, the final essays I published in this space before being fired all dealt with various ways in which the Republican leadership supports torture and perversion -- traits now widely understood by an increasingly disgusted electorate.
My offense, apparently, was to take the JBS's principles (and published works, like the Conservative Index) too seriously, and being ahead of the curve. That's a self-serving view, I admit, but it makes a certain sense -- unlike the explanations currently being handed out by Appleton to justify my termination.

The Only Reason to Vote Republican
Sunday, July 9, 2006, 11:28 PM

Unless your Congressman is named Ron Paul, he doesn't deserve to be re-elected.

On at least one occasion during the last congressional term, every member of the House of Representatives -- Dr. Paul being the sole exception -- violated his oath of office by voting in favor of unconstitutional legislation; this is documented by the most recent installment of The New American's Conservative Index (CI).

The CI is not a comprehensive survey of congressional votes; it does, however, provide a useful core sample of the convictions -- such as they are -- of Congressmen and Senators by examining their votes on clear-cut constitutional issues.

For the House, the average CI score in this installment was 36 percent. Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, actually out-performed the average, and several supposedly conservative Republicans, by running up a cumulative score of 37 percent. The New American has described as "Sanderistas" those Republicans (such as former House Majority Leader Tom Delay -- 37 percent) whose CI rating is identical to that of Vermont's lefty Independent, or those (like DeLay's replacement John Boehner -- 34 percent) whose performance was even worse.

Newt Gingrich, who successfully co-opted the 1994 Republican "revolution" that led to the seizure of the House from the Democrats, consistently voted to the left of Sanders.

The chief difference between Sanders and the Republican "conservatives" who flank him to the left is found in the preferred beneficiaries of wealth redistribution. Republicans generally favor corporate welfare, while lefties of the Sanders type are wedded to Big Labor and Welfare State constituencies. Both parties -- or, better stated, both appendages of the ruling Establishment Party -- have become nothing more than elaborate political support systems for deeply entrenched constituencies.

Which is one of many reasons why Rep. Paul is so valuable.

In a profile of Rep. Paul that suppurates befuddled condescension, the Washington Post describes him as a "rare breed" in this era of lock-step (or goose-step, in the case of a GOP increasingly defined by fuhrerprinzip) party discipline: "Democrats and Republicans have been quite disciplined in recent years -- when party leaders say `jump,' the savvy congressman had better inquire how high."

Dr. Paul, however, insists on treating his oath to uphold the Constitution as, well, a solemn promise before God to his constituents. Which is why he is a living rebuke to the hypocritical collectivists who infest the Republican Party, and utterly mystifying to the retread socialists who publish the Post.

"Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar," writes the Post in a witticism that's as limp as an un-medicated Rush Limbaugh. "He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin. In his legislative fantasies, the amiable Texas congressman would do away with the CIA and the Federal Reserve. He'd reinstate the gold standard. He'd get rid of the Department of Education and leave the business of schooling to local governments, because he believes that's what the Constitution intended."

Note how the Post treats those prescriptions (particularly those dealing with education ) as whimsical personal opinions, rather than -- as Paul demonstrated to the reporter -- strict application of the actual text of the Constitution. (In what was almost certainly a long overdue primer on the charter of our republic, Paul introduced the Post report to Article I, Section 8, which specifies every purpose for which Congress can appropriate money.)

Rep. Paul has a well-earned and altogether commendable reputation for voting against nearly every proposed law -- perhaps acting on the unassailable insight that in a society suffocating, as is ours, beneath countless positivist laws, the only defensible legislative course is to begin repealing them.

After all, the only Being in the universe who has a right to impose laws originally gave us ten, and He eventually condensed them into two.

Dr. Paul also understands that everything government does is backed by the threat of lethal violence -- often implicitly, but to an increasing extent, overtly. Once the Constitution, which is intended to restrain and control government, is cast aside, that power is emancipated and deployed on behalf of whatever individual or faction can seize control of it, and will be used to the extent the victors can get away with it.

In principle, the only alternative to the Constitution is kto kogo? -- Lenin's "who does what to whom" dichotomy, which -- when coupled with his ideology of rule ("power without limit, resting directly on force") -- provides the formula for the Total State.

Over at the More Liberty Blog, Richard Wilkins observes:

"Last Friday, the House Republicans passed a resolution attacking the media for daring to inform the public about the government's efforts to spy on them. Early this year, the GOP House leadership pushed a bill through the House outlawing "price gouging." Now they are attacking the press. First economic crimes, now attacks on the media for displeasing the State. Maybe GOP really stands for Grand Old Politburo."

If you're content to settle for this -- if you believe that unchecked profligacy, open-ended foreign war, and canine subservience to a lawless executive should be rewarded -- then by all means, vote Republican this November.

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2006/10/only-reason-to-vote-republican.html

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

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