Aug 19, 2011 || World News

Friday, August 19, 2011

I came up with a NEW TERM – Islamoblow

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=90015&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Iowntheworldcom+%28IOwntheWorld.com%29

--
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 Donuts Prayer

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

a good read by the brits:

http://www.lobster-magazine.co.uk/articles/l30iran.htm

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

1.   I don't remember who said in an earlier thread that there was a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, that is incorrect.

2.    There was an attempt to nationalize the oil industry in Iran in the early 1950s, as well as a threat of a communist takeover of the Nation by Soviet backed political groups withn Iran.   Once again, See The Truman Doctrine.

3.    There was in fact an Iranian military in 1953, (and prior to that also) to include an Iranian Navy, Army and even an Air Force. It is true that most of the Iranian Navy was destroyed in WWII, but was rebuilt especially under the Shah. Just as important, (and what I was mainly referring to in my post above) was that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, there was clearly a military.

4.    Whether there was an Iranian military or not, the logistics of the area is what is critical. Today, the Iranians can pretty much end Persian Gulf oil shipments, by closing down the Persian Gulf.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to undue western "influence" over oil in the area.

There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the mysterious WMDs.

The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national defense reserve.

Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the Third World by limiting export earnings.

Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. consumption were met mainly by domestic production.
Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today.

Read more: Coping with change - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy.  Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq (Persian: محمد مصدّق, IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] (

listen)*), also Mossadegh, Mossadeq, Mosadeck, or Musaddiq (16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected^[1]^[2]^[3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 to 1953 when he was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

1.   I don't remember who said in an earlier thread that there was a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, that is incorrect.

2.    There was an attempt to nationalize the oil industry in Iran in the early 1950s, as well as a threat of a communist takeover of the Nation by Soviet backed political groups withn Iran.   Once again, See The Truman Doctrine.

3.    There was in fact an Iranian military in 1953, (and prior to that also) to include an Iranian Navy, Army and even an Air Force. It is true that most of the Iranian Navy was destroyed in WWII, but was rebuilt especially under the Shah. Just as important, (and what I was mainly referring to in my post above) was that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, there was clearly a military.

4.    Whether there was an Iranian military or not, the logistics of the area is what is critical. Today, the Iranians can pretty much end Persian Gulf oil shipments, by closing down the Persian Gulf.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to undue western "influence" over oil in the area.

There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the mysterious WMDs.

The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national defense reserve.

Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the Third World by limiting export earnings.

Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. consumption were met mainly by domestic production.
Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today.

Read more: Coping with change - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy.  Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

THE ANNOINTED ONE Some stupid thoughts
The Fox News talking heads on are now telling us Tea Baggers what we
want to hear
in the upcoming elections and pointing out and denigrating those that
do not comply with their appointed political guidelines. (Perry
comment on the traitorous actions of himself)
What I want to hear is a candidate that has brains that has at
least a modicum of smarts and will help return the US to a more
democratic,
constitutionally compliant Government; One that recognizes the
true Sovereignty of Native American land.
Let's start with the Farmers watering down of the Marijuana crops and
what made
them so special.
Each right wing idiot has different table manners, underpants and sit-
com ideals. They gathered in clumps like that and immigrated to
specific areas of the nation in order to live freely in
a like-minded community with its own outhouses geared to those
ideals. The
idea of the corporate government and those that find one gay bar was/
is
somehow different, better or worse than another was and is to kill
Now that is really tough, Rhode Island is all about foreclosures and
Iowa
is all about Swedish fags; not only are there differences but for each
to do
what it does best there must be differences in all aspects of life
and
accepted practices. The Koch Brothers and those elected Republicans
seem to think that this
is just not so.
The white slave owners knew it had to be so.
To point this out and name the names that think otherwise is no
longer
considered good driving skills. It is considered to be anti-white as
if
there is a single definition as to what a white man is…. there is
not.
In all the history of the USA the ONLY time that right wing idiots
seem to
agree on everything is when their wives find out they been to a strip
bar This was true until the US decided to enter into a NASCAR event
on
a regular basis, now that which once made the USA multi-racial and a
beacon
to homeless people. It is considered unpatriotic and un-American to
think for yourself.
What we will soon have is "no laws, no nations, no air force" that
will
preclude any common sense. What we will have is a lack of
competition between men with small dicks for commerce and ideas; what
we will
have is just another homo country that loses its edge as it
slips into a Fascist quagmire.
What we are doing is losing that very identity that made the USA the
great and desired example it once was. That's my Glenn Beck Paranoid
Remember…States have no rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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.

Destroy all socialists today!!!!!!!!!

Some stupid thoughts
The Fox News talking heads on are now telling us Tea Baggers what we
want to hear
in the upcoming elections and pointing out and denigrating those that
do not comply with their appointed political guidelines. (Perry
comment on the traitorous actions of himself)
What I want to hear is a candidate that has brains that has at
least a modicum of smarts and will help return the US to a more
democratic,
constitutionally compliant Government; One that recognizes the
true Sovereignty of Native American land.
Let's start with the Farmers watering down of the Marijuana crops and
what made
them so special.
Each right wing idiot has different table manners, underpants and sit-
com ideals. They gathered in clumps like that and immigrated to
specific areas of the nation in order to live freely in
a like-minded community with its own outhouses geared to those
ideals. The
idea of the corporate government and those that find one gay bar was/
is
somehow different, better or worse than another was and is to kill
Now that is really tough, Rhode Island is all about foreclosures and
Iowa
is all about Swedish fags; not only are there differences but for each
to do
what it does best there must be differences in all aspects of life
and
accepted practices. The Koch Brothers and those elected Republicans
seem to think that this
is just not so.
The white slave owners knew it had to be so.
To point this out and name the names that think otherwise is no
longer
considered good driving skills. It is considered to be anti-white as
if
there is a single definition as to what a white man is…. there is
not.
In all the history of the USA the ONLY time that right wing idiots
seem to
agree on everything is when their wives find out they been to a strip
bar This was true until the US decided to enter into a NASCAR event
on
a regular basis, now that which once made the USA multi-racial and a
beacon
to homeless people. It is considered unpatriotic and un-American to
think for yourself.
What we will soon have is "no laws, no nations, no air force" that
will
preclude any common sense. What we will have is a lack of
competition between men with small dicks for commerce and ideas; what
we will
have is just another homo country that loses its edge as it
slips into a Fascist quagmire.
What we are doing is losing that very identity that made the USA the
great and desired example it once was. That's my Glenn Beck Paranoid
Remember…States have no rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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: Who Schooled Whom?

1. I don't remember who said in an earlier thread that there was a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, that is incorrect.

2. There was an attempt to nationalize the oil industry in Iran in the early 1950s, as well as a threat of a communist takeover of the Nation by Soviet backed political groups withn Iran. Once again, See The Truman Doctrine.

3. There was in fact an Iranian military in 1953, (and prior to that also) to include an Iranian Navy, Army and even an Air Force. It is true that most of the Iranian Navy was destroyed in WWII, but was rebuilt especially under the Shah. Just as important, (and what I was mainly referring to in my post above) was that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, there was clearly a military.

4. Whether there was an Iranian military or not, the logistics of the area is what is critical. Today, the Iranians can pretty much end Persian Gulf oil shipments, by closing down the Persian Gulf.

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to undue western "influence" over oil in the area.

There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the mysterious WMDs.

The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national defense reserve.

Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the Third World by limiting export earnings.

Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. consumption were met mainly by domestic production.
Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today.

Read more: Coping with change - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

WARNING* Skank Alert **WARNING

catscanner150 | August 18, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8NF

Janeane Garofalo's 'Racist Dogwhistle' Tells Us Herman Cain Doesn't Have a Mind of His Own

by John Nolte

Thanks to Barack Obama's failed presidency, the desperate Left is left with nothing to defend and can only personally destroy, and so they've created a world where the words "basketball," "clouds" and "food stamps" are all racist. The only thing that's not racist, however, is actual racism, especially when that racism is directed at a Black Republican.

Case in point: The Miserable Janeane Garofalo:

Garofalo also said successful businessman Herman Cain is either being paid to run or is suffering from Stockholm syndrome because he is a "person of color" running as a Republican in the party's presidential primary.

"[He's] in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican party, the conservative movement, the Tea Party certainly. [In] the last 30 years the Republican party has been moving more and more to the right, but also race-baiting more. Gay-baiting more. Religion-baiting more," Garofalo said.

"But, Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go like 'I love that, that can't be racist. He's a black guy, a black guy asking for Obama being impeached.' Or 'it's a black guy whose anti-Muslim. It's a black guy who is a Tea Party guy.'"

(more…)

So Garbuffalo, who's the real racist here, a grass roots movement that has never made a racist comment about Obama, or a leftist goon who accuses a self made, successful black businessman of being an "uncle tom". I know who my choice would be, and it's picture is at the top of this post.

Tom in NC

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

Fwd: Coil of Rage

Any thoughts?

From: "john robertson" <lawjkr@me.com>
To: "Tracey home" <droblaw@comcast.net>, "kevin robertson" <hakawenterprises@mac.com>, "Philip O'Halloran" <editrel@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:07:54 PM
Subject: Fwd: Coil of Rage

Begin forwarded message:

From: anne m simoneau <annemsimoneau@gmail.com>

Date: August 18, 2011 9:22:56 PM EDT

To: audrey.amberg@yahoo.com

Subject: Coil of Rage

-----

Coil of Rage

THIS SHOULD IRRITATE SOME PEOPLE.

When you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.

A Coil of Rage

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass .... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future..... I rest my case.

I bought and read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It was difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he use to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE".. His words, not mine.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT -- HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW! Is anyone out there awake?

Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father:

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams From My Father :

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams From My Father:

"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."

From Dreams From My Father:

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams From My Father:

"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY .............. and most scary:

From Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation! Keep your eye on him and don't blink.

I don't care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative or a liberal; be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

Spread the word!

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to undue western "influence" over oil in the area.

There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the mysterious WMDs.

The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national defense reserve.

Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the Third World by limiting export earnings.

Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. consumption were met mainly by domestic production.

Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today.

Read more: Coping with change - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

Walmart Has Added a Sign to Speed Checkout Service

lowtechgrannie | August 17, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Tags: Walmart | Categories: Humor | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8Mr

H/T Kelleigh

~LTG

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

Podcast interview re the aridification of the American Southwest w/ Dr. Richard Seager

Posted this morning at Electric Politics, a podcast interview about
the aridification of the American Southwest with Dr. Richard Seager of
Columbia University, a leading climate scientist who is especially
expert on the causes behind and the history of rainfall in the region.
The short version is this: People living in the American Southwest are
in for a rude shock. They're not experiencing a "drought" (and they
haven't yet even experienced the equivalent of the record-setting dry
spell of the 1950s). Instead, what's happening is that the climate in
the Southwest is permanently changing into a more arid state. Not
quite a desert, but close enough. It's one more proof, if you will, of
anthropogenic climate change. And in this case the science is
extraordinarily robust.

Policy makers in the region and in Washington had better pay attention
if they're to avoid or ameliorate vicious political struggles over
water rights, particularly between population centers and agriculture.
Most likely, however, those in power only will recognize what's
happening with 20/20 hindsight, long after the Southwest has dried up.

Thanks very much for listening! If you think the podcast is worthwhile
please forward the link.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2011/08/permanent_aridification_transf.html

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

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

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

Political Toons 8.16.11

Animation:

Resized to 98% (was 702 x 477) - Click image to enlarge

Resized to 98% (was 705 x 987) - Click image to enlarge

Resized to 98% (was 704 x 487) - Click image to enlarge

Click below for related story:

Resized to 98% (was 704 x 564) - Click image to enlarge

Resized to 99% (was 698 x 614) - Click image to enlarge

Click below for story:

Click below for related story:

Resized to 98% (was 700 x 249) - Click image to enlarge

This Thread Brought To You By The Letters R & P:

Resized to 98% (was 699 x 739) - Click image to enlarge

Jay Carney "Send In the Clowns" (video)

Britain To Use Extreme Force Against Rioters

Click below for latest episode: