Tuesday, October 4, 2011

Re: one for the record books

I hope that there is an outcry and a backlash against ESPN, ABC and Disney over this.
 


 
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:55 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-in-hot-water-for-comparing-Obama-to-Hitler

--
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.

Obama Humor:



 

 
 
 
 

Patriot Humor

3...2...1... Ripped off?
FAIL! During China's Sept. 29 launch of their Tiangong rocket, the state broadcaster inexplicably played the song "America the Beautiful". Here's a link to the article on space.com.

That's racist!

Inappropriate music selections aren't the only unusual thing China's up to these days. Check out this "Obama Fried Chicken Restaurant" in Beijing. Some suggest it is racist, and they might be half right.


Click Here

Property of Barack Hussein Obama stamp

Add a little bit of fun to our country's current financial cesspool. While we would not advocate defacing currency, we know you will think of many amusing and satisfying uses for our RED self-inking stamper, Property of Barack Hussein Obama. All purchases at The Patriot Post Shop support our Mission of Service to America's Armed Forces.


And now for a cartoon

 

 

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
IF YOU DON'T STAND BEHIND OUR TROOPS, FEEL FREE TO STAND IN FRONT OF THEM! Please visit: www.operationshoebox.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.

Re: The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Follies

"Green Jobs"?
 
Okay.......


 
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:18 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
not $$ ... effectiveness

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military
assistance.Over the past decade, the U.S. has given more than $17
billion in military aid to this country of 7,746,000 people.

If military aid were cut off to Israel, the tax money could be spent
in the United States to provide 364,000 low-income households with
affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green
jobs, or to provide access to primary health care services for 24
million uninsured Americans.
Money saved could aid the U.S. military, which is closing military
bases, freezing pay raises for service members, and cutting the
defense budget.
Military aid is given predominantly to Middle Eastern countries,
particularly Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi-Arabia, neither of which
is a developing country.



On Oct 3, 8:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> trusted.
> ----
> wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> *Everyone*  is as narrow as it gets, and no, Israel is not the best nor the
> biggest lobby in Washington. That would be:
>
> US Chamber of Commerce<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000019798&year=2011>
> $770,655,680American Medical
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000068&year=2011>
> $252,037,500General
> Electric<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000125&year=2011>
> $251,940,000AARP<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000023726&year=2011>
> $207,432,064Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of
> America<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000504&year=2011>
> $204,433,920American Hospital
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000116&year=2011>
> $203,648,736Blue Cross/Blue
> Shield<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000109&year=2011>
> $169,655,236National Assn of
> Realtors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000062&year=2011>
> $166,150,553Northrop
> Grumman<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000170&year=2011>
> $164,845,253Exxon
> Mobil<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000129&year=2011>
> $163,512,742Verizon
> Communications<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000079&year=2011>
> $158,014,841Edison Electric
> Institute<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000297&year=2011>
> $154,005,999Business
> Roundtable<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000032202&year=2011>
> $150,550,000Boeing
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000100&year=2011>
> $147,884,310Lockheed
> Martin<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000104&year=2011>
> $142,374,763AT&T
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000076&year=2011>
> $126,449,336Southern
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000168&year=2011>
> $124,130,694General
> Motors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000155&year=2011>
> $121,899,170PG&E
> Corp<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000290&year=2011>
> $119,190,000Pfizer
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000138&year=2011>
> $114,757,268
>
> Israel doesn't even make the top 20 in lobbying...the top ten are:
>
> United Arab Emirates$10,914,002United Kingdom$6,105,200Japan$4,231,656Iraq
> $3,708,368Turkey$3,524,632Morocco$3,337,392Saudi Arabia$3,308,285South Korea
> $2,941,004Netherlands$2,694,604Equatorial Guinea$2,408,168
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:46 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > trusted.
> > ----
> > wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> > It is not just Israel
> > ---
> > no, israel just happens to be the largest, most effective lobby in DC
> > a lobby that can destroy any voice in opposition to israel
>
> > the US and its policies can not be trusted.
> > ---
> > but somehow the israelis can trust the US to protect them?
>
> > On Oct 3, 2:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Painol,
>
> > > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > > trusted.
>
> > > On Oct 3, 10:57 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > > > there
> > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > > > Viet
> > > > Nam
> > > > ---
> > > > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our
> > > > sovereignty?
> > > > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat?
>
> > > > You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like most
> > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine
> > > > ----
> > > > Truman:
> > > > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own
> > > > destinies in their own way.
> > > > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947),
> > > > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine.
>
> > > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends
> > > > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do
> > > > what they are supposed to do anyway.
>
> > > >     Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish
> > > > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about
> > > > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of
> > > > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry
> > > > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis
> > > > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in
> > > > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced
> > > > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care
> > > > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks
> > > > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special
> > > > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political
> > > > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
> > > > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no
> > > > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management,
> > > > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who
> > > > remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey PlainOl',
>
> > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in
> > the
> > > > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues.
>
> > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the
> > sovereignty
> > > > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene.
> >  Thus,
> > > > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but
> > are
> > > > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th
> > centuries,
> > > > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case
> > with
> > > > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat
> > in
> > > > > 2003)  and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's
> > soveriegnty
> > > > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden.
>
> > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > there
> > > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > Viet
> > > > > Nam,  and Iraq.  You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like
> > most
> > > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet
> > Nam)
> > > > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can
> > think of
> > > > > no incidents.  (Maybe the Spanish American War....)
>
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or
> > protecting
> > > > > > one foreign government from another
>
> > > > > > backatcha:
> > > > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their
> > enemies
> > > > > > attack them should we interfere?
> > > > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted
> > our
> > > > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
>
> > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey PlainOl',  (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul
> > Supporters
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > in PF!)
>
> > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple.   I am going to
> > give a
> > > > > > > hypothetical:
>
> > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century
> > > > > > technology,
> > > > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams
> > both
> > > > > > > residential and commercial,  (which would potentially include
> > chemical
> > > > > > waste
> > > > > > > and toxins,  leachates,  etc.)  into a system that is untreated,
> > and the
> > > > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the
> > Nation of
> > > > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this
> > stream away
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American
> > beaches
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > shorelines,  would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or
> > to stop
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > a waste stream?"
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people
> > like
> > > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty
> > to be
> > > > > > > > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up
> > around
> > > > > > > > the world ever since.
> > > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > > spot on!
>
> > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs
> > of
> > > > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund
> > their
> > > > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E.
> > Woods, Jr.
> > > > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed
> > Ron Paul's
> > > > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that
> > conservatives
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent,
> > no one
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > cares about these labels,
>
> ...
>
> read 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.

Legalize heroin

"The drug war is "bad" not only because it plainly doesn't work, but because it actually brings about much greater harm than the activities it wages against."

Legalize heroin
Published September 29, 2011 | By Brian Earp

Forget about "medical marijuana." Isn't it time to legalize heroin in the United States? Recreational cocaine? Ecstasy? LSD? How about the whole nefarious basketful of so-called 'harder' drugs?

Yes, it is, says Dr. Ron Paul, a fourteen-term libertarian congressman and obstetrician from the state of Texas. It's a view shared by virtually none of his Republican colleagues, nor, for that matter, very many Democrats. Nor really anyone in the "mainstream" of American politics. But in this post, I'll argue that he's right.

Paul -- who is currently making his third bid for President of the United States, and polling third among Republican contenders -- offered his perspective to comedian and Daily Show host Jon Stewart in an interview earlier this week:

"I think drugs [like heroin] are horrible. I think they're dangerous­prescription drugs as well as illegal drugs. I think they're very, very dangerous. But the war on drugs, which violates civil liberties -- getting people busted in their houses -- that is the danger … [So] I fear the war on drugs more than I fear the drugs themselves."

The "war on drugs" is dangerous indeed; it has failed, and failed dramatically. A new report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy concludes that that "political leaders and public figures should have the courage to articulate publicly what many of them acknowledge privately: that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that repressive strategies will not solve the drug problem, and that the war on drugs has not, and cannot, be won."

The commission consisted of such figures as former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, and the former presidents of Mexico, Brazil and Colombia.

But what sort of "evidence" do they mean? What's so bad about the war on drugs? A 2009 article in the Economist -- to pick one of countless sources making the same point -- renders the situation vivid:

The United States alone spends some $40 billion each year on trying to eliminate the supply of drugs. It arrests 1.5 million of its citizens each year for drug offences, locking up half a million of them; tougher drug laws are the main reason why one in five black American men spend some time behind bars. In the developing world blood is being shed at an astonishing rate. [And] far from reducing crime, prohibition has fostered gangsterism on a scale that the world has never seen before.

Ron Paul is right. The drug war is "bad" not only because it plainly doesn't work, but because it actually brings about much greater harm than the activities it wages against. In light of this fact, the Global Commission on Drug Policy made a number of common-sense recommendations, summarized here and listed below:
  •  Stop vindictive prosecution of our young people and our poor citizens
  •  Break the taboo on debate and reform
  •  Encourage governments to legally regulate drugs to undermine the power of organized crime and safeguard the health and  security of their citizens
  •  Offer a variety of health and treatment services and abolish abusive practices carried out in the name of treatment
  •  Implement syringe access and other harm reduction measures
  •  Invest in serious drug education programs (not cheap slogans like "Just Say No") to prevent young people from taking drugs  and to prevent drug users from developing more serious problems, like AIDS and other infections
  •  Focus repressive actions on violent criminal organizations, not on individuals
  •  Focus law enforcement on reducing drug harm to individuals, communities, and national security
  •  Replace ideology-driven drug policies with policies and strategies grounded in science, health, security, and human rights.

These are all good ideas, and measures in line with such recommendations have already been shown to work. As Denis Owsley and Sarah Serot explain in this excellent article, Portugal had the worst drug problem in Europe in the 1990s, and chose to abandon its war on drugs for the failure it had proven itself to be. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of small amounts of drugs by individuals, with the result that drug deaths are now down 40 percent. But that's not all. Owsley and Serot report:

Crime is down. HIV/AIDS incidence is down 17 percent. Drug treatment rates have doubled because people are voluntarily getting treatment. Marijuana use among teens fell 33 percent because it is no longer forbidden and glamorous. Drug use remained stable and only increased at the same rate as the rest of the world.

Despite statistics like these, many people, even progressive and liberal-minded people, struggle to go "all the way" with Dr. Paul and support the wholesale legalization of drugs across the board. Jon Stewart, for instance, in the interview I mentioned above, seemed to advocate for something like a "compromise" view in his response to Paul's argument. That is, he acknowledged the failure of the drug war with respect to substances like marijuana, but implied that heroin use should be kept legally off-limits:

"There's so much that you say that appeals. And then I always feel like 'Ron Paul, he's really telling it like it is,' and then you'll go one step and I'll go 'No, Ron, oh.' We were talking about the drug war and the legitimacy of the drug war, and you were saying that this was failing, and I was listening to you and thinking 'Yes. Ron Paul, he's schooling these guys.' And then you went, 'Like heroin for instance.' And I went, 'No! Ron!"

But why? Why put heroin in a class of its own? To ask the question another way, does it make sense to be against the drug war in general, but support a limited ban on certain drugs seen as being especially addictive and harmful?

I think the pragmatic answer to this question has already been given. Criminalizing heroin, cocaine, and other 'hard' drugs simply doesn't work; so to ban them achieves no good end. But if heroin were legal, some might say, wouldn't droves of new users get in line to start the habit? As Paul asked a debate audience in South Carolina in May: "How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? Oh yeah" -- signal sarcasm -- "I need government to take care of me; I don't want to use heroin so I need these laws!"

Paul might be right in his implied point that heroin use wouldn't go up by much, at least long-term; but he might be mistaken. Those data would have to be collected. For my part, I can certainly imagine some individuals who might seize legalization as an opportunity to experiment with harder drugs -- so it's not inconceivable that this type of fear could be borne out. But libertarians like Paul would respond that if that really did happen -- if some people who wouldn't have used an illicit drug might try it if it were legal -- it wouldn't be the end of the world. Here's why.

Libertarians believe that people should be maximally free, with one condition. That is, people have a right to do whatsoever it is they please -- including stupid things that present a danger to themselves, even a grave danger, even danger to the point of death -- just so long as they do not harm anyone else in the process. If they pose a threat to others, yes, the law can step in; otherwise personal liberty should be held paramount. I'll show my cards here and state that I find this principle basically compelling, though I won't take the time in this post to mount a philosophical case for libertarianism; others have done a much better job than I could possibly do, and it would distract from my present point.

On the libertarian view, if a person wants to use heroin, knowing the addictive and life-destroying possibilities it harbors, the government has no business telling her she can't. The government can educate; the government can persuade -- but it has no moral right to force. It's her body; it's her life.

Paul is also a strict federalist, by the way, which is relevant too. This means that he believes that nation-wide drug laws are by their nature overreaching; indeed, he thinks that they are inherently invalid as they deprive individual states of a vital prerogative. That prerogative, of course, is their 10th amendment right to experiment with legislation at a local -- lab level -- a constitutional design feature with huge practical benefit, since it allows for the generation of separate streams of real-world data on contentious issues, such as drug policy. It allows us to see what really works, or what works best in different situations.

So I should clarify Paul's view. He doesn't explicitly advocate the wholesale, immediate legalization of heroin and other hard drugs, nation-wide, as a practical policy measure in the US (though he clearly would support such a move in a libertarian utopia); but he does think that each state should be free to ban -- or not to ban -- substances of that ilk as they see fit.

Let's re-cast the war on drugs, then, as a problem not just of pragmatics, but of principle. Given libertarian premises, which we'll take as given for this particular post, and the point I'm trying to make, can it be consistent to defend a person's right to harm herself if she chooses to do so … but only up to a point? Can you draw a line at marijuana, say, and leave heroin beyond the pale?

The answer is no.

It seems to me that the main concern here is third-party harm. That is, heroin can rightfully be banned if and only if its use can be shown to harm individuals other than the user. Remember: libertarians believe you have a right to take actions -- even stupid, dangerous actions -- so long as the one at risk of being hurt is you and you alone.

Then a few points arise:

First, you could obviously argue that an individual's heroin use does indeed harm people other than the user. I don't know enough about heroin to offer convincing examples, but insofar as the drug can gradually destroy a user's body and mind, I expect that anyone who loves or cares for the user would be harmed -- emotionally at least -- by her disintegration. And insofar as this type of harm is worse for heroin than for marijuana, say, it could be a valid libertarian grounds for distinguishing between the two drugs in debates about legalization.

But arguments like this strike me as weak. People engage in all sorts of self-destructive habits and behaviors that cause emotional harm to loved ones, and we'd never think of banning all actions which cause emotional harm to others. So is there another type of third-party harm we could invoke? Something more grounded, more physical?

What if heroin caused the user to commit terrible acts of violence, or at least made the commission of such acts much more likely under typical circumstances? But this won't work, either, since heroin use -- like marijuana use, and the use of and several other presently illegal substances -- has an inverse relationship with violence and aggression. The relevant counterpoint is alcohol, of course, which, as is well known, is much, much more likely to lead to third-party physical harms than heroin, pot, and the rest. But alcohol is legal -- as it must be; prohibition doesn't work.

So what are we left with? As far as I can make out, if a person has a right to engage in actions which are harmful only to herself, and if heroin is harmful in just this way -- given the clarifying arguments and examples I've just explored -- then there can be no basis for banning even so dangerous a drug. Such bans don't work, anyway, so the use of heroin -- like that of 'softer' drugs like marijuana -- should be treated as a medical and educational issue, rather than a criminal one. What do you think?

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2011/09/legalize-heroin/

Re: The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Follies

Yes, all of that is true. except the "green jobs", the "vouchers" and the health insurance. Government has never had a social program that worked as designed.
The US needs to close some (a lot) bases, and the budget needs to be trimmed. It is supposedly a "Defense" force. We defend not one inch of US ground at a foreign base. 

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 9:18 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
not $$ ... effectiveness

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military
assistance.Over the past decade, the U.S. has given more than $17
billion in military aid to this country of 7,746,000 people.

If military aid were cut off to Israel, the tax money could be spent
in the United States to provide 364,000 low-income households with
affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green
jobs, or to provide access to primary health care services for 24
million uninsured Americans.
Money saved could aid the U.S. military, which is closing military
bases, freezing pay raises for service members, and cutting the
defense budget.
Military aid is given predominantly to Middle Eastern countries,
particularly Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi-Arabia, neither of which
is a developing country.



On Oct 3, 8:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> trusted.
> ----
> wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> *Everyone*  is as narrow as it gets, and no, Israel is not the best nor the
> biggest lobby in Washington. That would be:
>
> US Chamber of Commerce<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000019798&year=2011>
> $770,655,680American Medical
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000068&year=2011>
> $252,037,500General
> Electric<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000125&year=2011>
> $251,940,000AARP<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000023726&year=2011>
> $207,432,064Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of
> America<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000504&year=2011>
> $204,433,920American Hospital
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000116&year=2011>
> $203,648,736Blue Cross/Blue
> Shield<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000109&year=2011>
> $169,655,236National Assn of
> Realtors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000062&year=2011>
> $166,150,553Northrop
> Grumman<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000170&year=2011>
> $164,845,253Exxon
> Mobil<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000129&year=2011>
> $163,512,742Verizon
> Communications<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000079&year=2011>
> $158,014,841Edison Electric
> Institute<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000297&year=2011>
> $154,005,999Business
> Roundtable<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000032202&year=2011>
> $150,550,000Boeing
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000100&year=2011>
> $147,884,310Lockheed
> Martin<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000104&year=2011>
> $142,374,763AT&T
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000076&year=2011>
> $126,449,336Southern
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000168&year=2011>
> $124,130,694General
> Motors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000155&year=2011>
> $121,899,170PG&E
> Corp<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000290&year=2011>
> $119,190,000Pfizer
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000138&year=2011>
> $114,757,268
>
> Israel doesn't even make the top 20 in lobbying...the top ten are:
>
> United Arab Emirates$10,914,002United Kingdom$6,105,200Japan$4,231,656Iraq
> $3,708,368Turkey$3,524,632Morocco$3,337,392Saudi Arabia$3,308,285South Korea
> $2,941,004Netherlands$2,694,604Equatorial Guinea$2,408,168
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:46 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > trusted.
> > ----
> > wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> > It is not just Israel
> > ---
> > no, israel just happens to be the largest, most effective lobby in DC
> > a lobby that can destroy any voice in opposition to israel
>
> > the US and its policies can not be trusted.
> > ---
> > but somehow the israelis can trust the US to protect them?
>
> > On Oct 3, 2:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Painol,
>
> > > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > > trusted.
>
> > > On Oct 3, 10:57 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > > > there
> > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > > > Viet
> > > > Nam
> > > > ---
> > > > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our
> > > > sovereignty?
> > > > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat?
>
> > > > You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like most
> > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine
> > > > ----
> > > > Truman:
> > > > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own
> > > > destinies in their own way.
> > > > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947),
> > > > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine.
>
> > > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends
> > > > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do
> > > > what they are supposed to do anyway.
>
> > > >     Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish
> > > > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about
> > > > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of
> > > > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry
> > > > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis
> > > > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in
> > > > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced
> > > > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care
> > > > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks
> > > > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special
> > > > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political
> > > > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
> > > > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no
> > > > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management,
> > > > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who
> > > > remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey PlainOl',
>
> > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in
> > the
> > > > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues.
>
> > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the
> > sovereignty
> > > > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene.
> >  Thus,
> > > > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but
> > are
> > > > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th
> > centuries,
> > > > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case
> > with
> > > > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat
> > in
> > > > > 2003)  and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's
> > soveriegnty
> > > > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden.
>
> > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > there
> > > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > Viet
> > > > > Nam,  and Iraq.  You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like
> > most
> > > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet
> > Nam)
> > > > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can
> > think of
> > > > > no incidents.  (Maybe the Spanish American War....)
>
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or
> > protecting
> > > > > > one foreign government from another
>
> > > > > > backatcha:
> > > > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their
> > enemies
> > > > > > attack them should we interfere?
> > > > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted
> > our
> > > > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
>
> > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey PlainOl',  (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul
> > Supporters
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > in PF!)
>
> > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple.   I am going to
> > give a
> > > > > > > hypothetical:
>
> > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century
> > > > > > technology,
> > > > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams
> > both
> > > > > > > residential and commercial,  (which would potentially include
> > chemical
> > > > > > waste
> > > > > > > and toxins,  leachates,  etc.)  into a system that is untreated,
> > and the
> > > > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the
> > Nation of
> > > > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this
> > stream away
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American
> > beaches
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > shorelines,  would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or
> > to stop
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > a waste stream?"
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people
> > like
> > > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty
> > to be
> > > > > > > > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up
> > around
> > > > > > > > the world ever since.
> > > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > > spot on!
>
> > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs
> > of
> > > > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund
> > their
> > > > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E.
> > Woods, Jr.
> > > > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed
> > Ron Paul's
> > > > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that
> > conservatives
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent,
> > no one
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > cares about these labels,
>
> ...
>
> read 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.



--
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: 12 Signs That Americans Who Love Liberty and Freedom Should Watch Their Backs

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/1004/Hank-Williams-Jr.-in-hot-water-for-comparing-Obama-to-Hitler

On Oct 4, 7:14 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> 12 Signs That Americans Who Love Liberty and Freedom Should Watch Their BacksDo you love liberty and freedom? If so, you better watch your back. The control freaks that run our society are stripping away our liberties and freedoms a little bit more each day, and lately they seem to be particularly focused on coming after those that are not "integrating" into the system. Just like the rest of the western world, America is being transformed into a "Big Brother" police state control grid. Nearly everything that you do is being watched and monitored. A whole host of organizations know that you are on this website right now. If you want to go to an NFL game next weekend, there is a good chance that you will be on the receiving end of an "enhanced pat-down" and if you are producing raw milk on your farm there is a good chance that the feds will show up for a pre-dawn raid on your property. In many areas of the country, the government forces us to shoot our kids full of vaccines and implant dangerous microchips in our pets. Virtually wherever we go there is a camera that is watching us or there are other Americans that are evaluating whether or not we are engaged in "suspicious activity" that needs to be reported to the government. Once upon a time, America was all about liberty and freedom, but today our nation is undergoing a radical cultural shift. America is being "locked down", and those who love liberty and freedom should watch their backs.
> Once upon a time, our founders thought that they were guaranteeing our freedoms by adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
> But today there are a lot of freedoms that we simply do not have any longer.
> In America today, you do not have the right to say whatever you want. If you say the wrong thing on a blog or a website it can have dramatic consequences.
> In America today, you do not have the right to do raise your own children as you see fit.
> In America today, you do not have the right to grow whatever food you want and you do not have the right to eat whatever food you do grow.
> In America today, you do not have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
> In America today, you do not have a right to privacy. In fact, you should expect that everything that you do is watched, tracked, monitored and recorded.
> If you doubt any of the statements above, just check out the examples posted below.
> The following are 12 signs that Americans who love liberty and freedom should watch their backs....#1A 55-year-old man in Arizona was recently ordered to turn in all his guns because of things that he wrote on his blog. Fortunately,after WorldNetDaily covered the storythere was an outpouring of outrage and the order was overturned, but what would have happened if WorldNetDaily had not covered the story?#2According toMike Adams of Natural News, the CDC is starting to call parents all over the nation to question them about the vaccination status of their children....The U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which has been comprehensively exposed as a vaccine propaganda organization promoting the interests of drug companies, is now engaged in a household surveillance program that involves calling U.S. households and intimidating parents into producing child immunization records. As part of what it deems a National Immunization Survey(NIS), the CDC is sending letters to U.S. households, alerting them that they will be called by "NORC at the University of Chicago" and that households should "have your child's immunization records handy when answering our questions."You can see a copy of the letter that the CDC is sending out to selected parentsright here.
> #3 According to blogger Alexander Higgins, students in kindergarten and the 1st grade in the state of New Jersey are now required by law to participate "in monthly anti-terrorism drills". The following is an excerptfrom a letterthat he recently received from the school where his child attends....Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.So who in the world ever decided that it would be a good idea for 1st grade students to endure "lockdown" and "active shooter" drills?
> To get an idea of what these kinds of drills are like, just check outthis video.
> #4 According to licensed private investigator Angela V. Woodhull, hospitals are increasingly using "guardianship" to strip elderly Americans of their liberty and to rapidly drain their bank accounts. The following is one story that Woodhull includedin a recent article....Ginger Franklin, Hendersonville, Tennessee, fell down the stairs in her condo and suffered a bump on her head. She was declared "temporarily mentally incapacitated" and a guardian was appointed through the courts.Within six weeks, the guardian had sold Franklin's home, car, furniture, and drained her bank account. Today, Franklin has her freedom back, but she is having to start all over.#5 In a sign of just how far individual liberty in the United States has declined, a judge in Wisconsin has actually ruled that citizens do not have a right to grow and eat whatever foods they want to. The following isa short excerptfrom his recent decision....1) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;2) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;3) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;4) no, the Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State's police power;5) no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice;#6 The freedom to raise our pets as we want to is also being greatly curtailed in many areas of the country. For example, a new law in St. Louis would require nearly all dogs and cats to be sterilized and microchipped....Board Bill 107would require all pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats and microchip them for identification. Those who don't want to sterilize their pets would be assessed a fee of $200 per year.Will the control freaks that run things want to start sterilizing and microchipping humans someday?
> #7 Whenever any politician suggests that we should "suspend elections", that should be a major red flag. North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue recentlymade national headlineswhen she made the following statement...."I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover"#8 As I wrote about recently, many NFL teams are now performing "enhanced pat-downs" of fans before they enter the stadiums. In Green Bay, the Packers are usinghand-held metal detectorson fans before they are allowed to enter Lambeau field.
> What is next? Will they soon insist that we all undergo full body cavity searches before we are permitted to attend the games?
> #9 Many Americans have complained about the horrible treatment that they are receiving at U.S. airports, but now the TSA is bringing their brand of "security" to many other locations throughout America as well.
> TSA "VIPR teams" now conduct approximately8,000 "unannounced security screenings"a year at subway stations, bus terminals, ports and highway rest stops.
> #10 Many of our public schools are now being run like prisons. In fact, in many areas of the country, little kids are being publicly arrested by policein their own classroomsand are being marched out of their schools in handcuffs.
> #11 If you think that anything that you do on the Internet is private, you should guess again. It has recently come out that Facebook continues to track most of the websites that you visiteven after you have logged out of Facebook.
> In addition, law enforcement agencies all over the globe are increasingly viewing social media as a law enforcement tool. For example, the NYPD recently createda special "social media" unitdedicated to looking for criminals on Facebook and Twitter.
> Also, many large organizations are now setting us very sophisticated systems that keep track of what is being said about them online and who is saying it. For example, the new "Social Media Monitoring Solution" being developed by the Federal Reserve will identify "key bloggers" and monitor "billions of conversations" about the Fed on Facebook, Twitter, forums and blogs.
> #12 The U.S. government is ramping up efforts to have all of us watch one another and to report any sign of "suspicious activity" to them immediately. But exactly what does "suspicious activity" entail? According to a shocking document obtained by Oath Keepers, the FBI has really broadened their definition of "suspicious activity".According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes....paying with cashmissing a hand or fingers"strange odors"making "extreme religious statements""radical theology"purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containerspurchasing meals ready to eatpurchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masksAccording to WorldNetDaily, this document is part of a "series of brochures" that will be distributed "to farm supply stores, gun shops, military surplus stores and even hotels and motels."
> Our entire society is becoming extremely paranoid.
> The Department of Homeland Security is spending massive amounts of money and running tons of ads to promote the "See Something, Say Something" campaign.
> Apparently the Obama administration wants to turn the entire country into a vast network of government snitches.
> They spend billions upon billions of dollars watching all of us, and yet now they also want all of us to watch each other.
> It is not right.
> I don't know about you, but I don't want to end up living in a society that resembles the novel "1984" by George Orwell.
> Sadly, the death of our civil liberties is very rarely mentioned by any of our politicians these days.
> Both major political parties seem to have fully embraced the growing national security apparatus that is starting to suffocate the life out of this country.
> Yes, we will always need security, but security measures should be implemented in such a way that they will never violate the liberty, freedom, honor or dignity of ordinary Americans.
> In a previous article,I wrote the following....If those in charge of our security right now cannot protect us without compromising our liberty, freedom, honor and dignity then they need to immediately resign and allow someone else to do the job.The Department of Homeland Security should be given a dual mandate. They must be charged with protecting us and they must be charged with protecting our liberty, freedom, honor and dignity at the same time.
> If those running the security apparatus in this country right now feel like they cannot do that, then they need to step aside and let someone else take over.
> The status quo is not acceptable.
> Right now, all law enforcement personnel in this country are trained to bark at us like dogs and to treat us like cattle.
> They are actually instructed to be mean and aggressive with us. From the first day of training, they are taught to treat us like dirt.
> Things were not always this way in America. Once upon a time there was a clear distinction between the United States and "evil" totalitarian regimes.
> Well, today we are becoming a little more "evil" and a little more "totalitarian" with each passing day.
> If you love liberty and freedom, you better watch your back.
> America is changing, and not for the better.http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/12-signs-that-americans-who-love-liberty-and-freedom-should-watch-their-backs

--
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 Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Follies

not $$ ... effectiveness

Israel is the largest recipient of U.S. foreign military
assistance.Over the past decade, the U.S. has given more than $17
billion in military aid to this country of 7,746,000 people.

If military aid were cut off to Israel, the tax money could be spent
in the United States to provide 364,000 low-income households with
affordable housing vouchers, or to retrain 498,000 workers for green
jobs, or to provide access to primary health care services for 24
million uninsured Americans.
Money saved could aid the U.S. military, which is closing military
bases, freezing pay raises for service members, and cutting the
defense budget.
Military aid is given predominantly to Middle Eastern countries,
particularly Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi-Arabia, neither of which
is a developing country.

On Oct 3, 8:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> trusted.
> ----
> wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> *Everyone*  is as narrow as it gets, and no, Israel is not the best nor the
> biggest lobby in Washington. That would be:
>
> US Chamber of Commerce<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000019798&year=2011>
> $770,655,680American Medical
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000068&year=2011>
> $252,037,500General
> Electric<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000125&year=2011>
> $251,940,000AARP<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000023726&year=2011>
> $207,432,064Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of
> America<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000504&year=2011>
> $204,433,920American Hospital
> Assn<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000116&year=2011>
> $203,648,736Blue Cross/Blue
> Shield<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000109&year=2011>
> $169,655,236National Assn of
> Realtors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000062&year=2011>
> $166,150,553Northrop
> Grumman<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000170&year=2011>
> $164,845,253Exxon
> Mobil<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000129&year=2011>
> $163,512,742Verizon
> Communications<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000079&year=2011>
> $158,014,841Edison Electric
> Institute<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000297&year=2011>
> $154,005,999Business
> Roundtable<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000032202&year=2011>
> $150,550,000Boeing
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000100&year=2011>
> $147,884,310Lockheed
> Martin<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000104&year=2011>
> $142,374,763AT&T
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000076&year=2011>
> $126,449,336Southern
> Co<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000168&year=2011>
> $124,130,694General
> Motors<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000155&year=2011>
> $121,899,170PG&E
> Corp<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000290&year=2011>
> $119,190,000Pfizer
> Inc<http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000138&year=2011>
> $114,757,268
>
> Israel doesn't even make the top 20 in lobbying...the top ten are:
>
> United Arab Emirates$10,914,002United Kingdom$6,105,200Japan$4,231,656Iraq
> $3,708,368Turkey$3,524,632Morocco$3,337,392Saudi Arabia$3,308,285South Korea
> $2,941,004Netherlands$2,694,604Equatorial Guinea$2,408,168
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 1:46 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > trusted.
> > ----
> > wanna narrow this down a bit?
>
> > It is not just Israel
> > ---
> > no, israel just happens to be the largest, most effective lobby in DC
> > a lobby that can destroy any voice in opposition to israel
>
> > the US and its policies can not be trusted.
> > ---
> > but somehow the israelis can trust the US to protect them?
>
> > On Oct 3, 2:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Painol,
>
> > > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > > trusted.
>
> > > On Oct 3, 10:57 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > > > there
> > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > > > Viet
> > > > Nam
> > > > ---
> > > > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our
> > > > sovereignty?
> > > > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat?
>
> > > > You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like most
> > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine
> > > > ----
> > > > Truman:
> > > > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own
> > > > destinies in their own way.
> > > > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947),
> > > > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine.
>
> > > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends
> > > > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do
> > > > what they are supposed to do anyway.
>
> > > >     Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish
> > > > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about
> > > > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of
> > > > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry
> > > > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis
> > > > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in
> > > > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced
> > > > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care
> > > > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks
> > > > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special
> > > > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political
> > > > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
> > > > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no
> > > > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management,
> > > > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who
> > > > remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hey PlainOl',
>
> > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in
> > the
> > > > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues.
>
> > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the
> > sovereignty
> > > > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene.
> >  Thus,
> > > > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but
> > are
> > > > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th
> > centuries,
> > > > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case
> > with
> > > > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat
> > in
> > > > > 2003)  and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's
> > soveriegnty
> > > > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden.
>
> > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > there
> > > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > Viet
> > > > > Nam,  and Iraq.  You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like
> > most
> > > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet
> > Nam)
> > > > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can
> > think of
> > > > > no incidents.  (Maybe the Spanish American War....)
>
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
> > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or
> > protecting
> > > > > > one foreign government from another
>
> > > > > > backatcha:
> > > > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their
> > enemies
> > > > > > attack them should we interfere?
> > > > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted
> > our
> > > > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
>
> > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Hey PlainOl',  (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul
> > Supporters
> > > > > > here
> > > > > > > in PF!)
>
> > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple.   I am going to
> > give a
> > > > > > > hypothetical:
>
> > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century
> > > > > > technology,
> > > > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams
> > both
> > > > > > > residential and commercial,  (which would potentially include
> > chemical
> > > > > > waste
> > > > > > > and toxins,  leachates,  etc.)  into a system that is untreated,
> > and the
> > > > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the
> > Nation of
> > > > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this
> > stream away
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American
> > beaches
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > shorelines,  would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or
> > to stop
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > > a waste stream?"
>
> > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people
> > like
> > > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty
> > to be
> > > > > > > > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up
> > around
> > > > > > > > the world ever since.
> > > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > > spot on!
>
> > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs
> > of
> > > > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund
> > their
> > > > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else
>
> > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E.
> > Woods, Jr.
> > > > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed
> > Ron Paul's
> > > > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that
> > conservatives
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent,
> > no one
> > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > cares about these labels,
>
> ...
>
> read 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 Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Follies

oh, the spynets ... well, some accept them and some don't

On Oct 3, 6:48 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>           Hello Plainol,
>
>            What would that have to do with Israel and spynets ? ?
>
> *************************************************************************************
>
> On Oct 3, 5:18 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Especially with this administration and the Muslim terrorist
> > appeasement policies they represent !
> > ----
> > When asked if he considered it legal for President Obama to order al-
> > Awlaki killed, Herman Cain said, "In his case, no, because he's an
> > American citizen."
>
> > On Oct 3, 2:18 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 3, 3:06 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Painol,
>
> > > > It is not just Israel that has working spynets in the US. It is
> > > > EVERYONE!!! They need them, the US and its policies can not be
> > > > trusted.
>
> > > ***************************************************************************­************
>
> > >          Especially with this administration and the Muslim terrorist
> > > appeasement policies they represent !
>
> > > ***************************************************************************­*************
>
> > > > On Oct 3, 10:57 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and
> > > > > there
> > > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including
> > > > > Viet
> > > > > Nam
> > > > > ---
> > > > > are you implying that communism was a direct threat to our
> > > > > sovereignty?
> > > > > if so, then wouldn't you say that socialism is a direct threat?
>
> > > > > You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like most
> > > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine
> > > > > ----
> > > > > Truman:
> > > > > I believe that we must assist free peoples to work out their own
> > > > > destinies in their own way.
> > > > > Speech to a joint session of the US Congress (12 March 1947),
> > > > > outlining what became known as The Truman Doctrine.
>
> > > > > All the president is, is a glorified public relations man who spends
> > > > > his time flattering, kissing, and kicking people to get them to do
> > > > > what they are supposed to do anyway.
>
> > > > >     Had ten minutes conversation with Henry Morgenthau about Jewish
> > > > > ship in Palistine. Told him I would talk to Gen[eral] Marshall about
> > > > > it. He'd no business, whatever to call me. The Jews have no sense of
> > > > > proportion nor do they have any judgement on world affairs. Henry
> > > > > brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis
> > > > > and they stayed. When the country went backward — and Republican in
> > > > > the election of 1946, this incident loomed large on the DP [Displaced
> > > > > Person] program. The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care
> > > > > not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks
> > > > > get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special
> > > > > treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political
> > > > > neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or
> > > > > mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no
> > > > > difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management,
> > > > > Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I've found very, very few who
> > > > > remember their past condition when prosperity comes.
>
> > > > > On Oct 3, 11:08 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hey PlainOl',
>
> > > > > > Israel is a conundrum, and not a good example of other hot spots in the
> > > > > > world, albeit they are right in the middle of several issues.
>
> > > > > > To the point, if any Nation does any act that would threaten the sovereignty
> > > > > > of the United States, then I think we have the right to intervene.  Thus,
> > > > > > when there are those who are not identified with a Nation-State, but are
> > > > > > devout on seeing Islam return to its glory of the 11th and 12th centuries,
> > > > > > then yes, I think we have every right to intervene. So was the case with
> > > > > > Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq (which we believed was a potential threat in
> > > > > > 2003)  and Pakistan just last year, when we violated Pakistan's soveriegnty
> > > > > > to go in and emasculate Osama bin Laden.
>
> > > > > > I cannot think of any time in our history, where we "intervened" and there
> > > > > > wasn't an argument for the protection of our sovereignty, including Viet
> > > > > > Nam,  and Iraq.  You may in fact disagree with the logic,  (and like most
> > > > > > Moonbats, not comprehend the Truman Doctrine with the case of Viet Nam)
> > > > > > and/or be intent on revising contemporary history, but again, I can think of
> > > > > > no incidents.  (Maybe the Spanish American War....)
>
> > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:04 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > would we as a Nation have a right to interfere
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > yes ... even to the extent of dismantling their government, if
> > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > but, remember, this is not about controlling resources or protecting
> > > > > > > one foreign government from another
>
> > > > > > > backatcha:
> > > > > > > If the US stops providing military support to israel and their enemies
> > > > > > > attack them should we interfere?
> > > > > > > remember, israel has spied on us, killed our soldiers, corrupted our
> > > > > > > politicians and promotes socialism in our nation
>
> > > > > > > On Oct 3, 9:50 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hey PlainOl',  (And Michael, Bruce, and all other Ron Paul Supporters
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > > in PF!)
>
> > > > > > > > I have a question, I think it's rather simple.   I am going to give a
> > > > > > > > hypothetical:
>
> > > > > > > > "If Mexico decides to revert back to 19th or early 20th century
> > > > > > > technology,
> > > > > > > > and the Nation chooses to dump all of its sewers, waste streams both
> > > > > > > > residential and commercial,  (which would potentially include chemical
> > > > > > > waste
> > > > > > > > and toxins,  leachates,  etc.)  into a system that is untreated, and the
> > > > > > > > stream of waste is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, where the Nation of
> > > > > > > > Mexico builds a pipe in international waters to divert this stream away
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > its coast, where eventually, it is going to end up on American beaches
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > shorelines,  would we as a Nation have a right to interfere, or to stop
> > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > a waste stream?"
>
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Beginning in the early part of the twentieth century, people like
> > > > > > > > > Woodrow Wilson began supposing that we had the right and duty to be
> > > > > > > > > the world's keepers, and they have proceeded to mess things up around
> > > > > > > > > the world ever since.
> > > > > > > > > ----
> > > > > > > > > spot on!
>
> > > > > > > > > those who think the US should interfere in the internal affairs of
> > > > > > > > > other nations and fund their militaries should fight and fund their
> > > > > > > > > own charities without US tax dollars and soldiers
>
> > > > > > > > > you're either an American or something else
>
> > > > > > > > > On Oct 1, 10:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The Cult of Reagan, and Other Neocon Folliesby Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
> > > > > > > > > > Some time agoThe American Spectator's Jeffrey Lord claimed Ron Paul's
> > > > > > > > > foreign policy of nonintervention was "liberal," and that conservatives
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > supposed to be hawkish on foreign policy. Now to some extent, no one
> > > > > > > really
> > > > > > > > > cares about these labels, and who qualifies as what. But it is
> > > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > > > > false to say that supporters of nonintervention must be left-liberals.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > showed this in my YouTube response, which dismantled Lord's entire
> > > > > > > position:
>
> > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8&feature=player_embeddedIfi.... There is no wiggle room left for Lord after that.
> > > > > > > > > As Gary North put it, "The lesson here is simple: don't get Woods on
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > case if you are saying really stupid things about American history."
> > > > > > > > > > Yet hecame back for more. With a busy schedule both personally and
> > > > > > > > > professionally, I have only now had the time to respond, which I'm
> > > > > > > doing in
> > > > > > > > > a series of bullet points.
> > > > > > > > > > 1) I pointed out in the video that the anti-imperialist movement in
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was dominated by the
> > > > > > > > > conservatives, as historian William Leuchtenberg has noted. I likewise
> > > > > > > > > pointed out that we may count on one hand the number of Progressives
> > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > opposed U.S. entry into World War I. I further noted that the recent
> > > > > > > > > interventions Lord supports were likewise supported by Hillary Clinton,
> > > > > > > > > Howard Stern, theNew York Times, and theWashington Post(among others I
> > > > > > > > > mentioned). Before Lord goes attacking other people for their tactical
> > > > > > > > > alliances, he might make note of the beam in his own eye.
> > > > > > > > > > Lord does not acknowledge any of this. I wouldn't, either, were I in
> > > > > > > his
> > > > > > > > > shoes.
> > > > > > > > > > 2) Lord is obsessed with Ronald Reagan, and again condemns Ron Paul
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > opposing Reagan's expansion of government power. The weird cult of
>
> ...
>
> read 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.