Thursday, October 6, 2011

On Talking to Conservatives


October6th
On Talking to Conservatives
Tom Woods

Once upon a time I was a fairly conventional conservative.  That experience has made it possible for me to speak to conservatives with an ear to their concerns and in a way that has borne some fruit in bringing people to a more consistently anti-state position.

Here's a piece I wrote a few years ago along these lines; I was reminded of it in the course of my various replies to the Cain and Perry supporters who have stopped by my site.

Authority Issues -- Is There Sovereignty Beyond the State?
by Thomas E. Woods Jr.
July 15, 2008

This essay is the first in a three-part symposium on the problem of sovereignty.

Even at this late date and with the term -- like so many other words in our political lexicon -- utterly corrupted, I still cling to the thought of myself as a conservative in areas other than politics. Murray Rothbard was always at pains to note that libertarianism was a political philosophy only, dealing exclusively with the proper use of violence in society, and as such had nothing to say about aesthetics, culture, sexual morality, or any other subject. That was why Rothbard rejected Frank Meyer's "fusionism": someone whose political philosophy is antistatist, regardless of his views on the spectrum of other issues of concern to conservatives, is a libertarian, period.

In politics, after several years in the wilderness, I am indeed a libertarian. That scandalizes some people, I know, even as it strikes me as a morally serious view. A glance at the 20th century, and at American history in particular, reveals no practical reason to be sanguine about the state -- and I am referring to a state in this world, as it has come to exist in the West and around the world, and not as it exists in the pristine abstractions of those who continue to plead with me that this most destructive of institutions really can be made right.

We need government to uphold the norms of morality, I am told by people who specialize in the unintentionally funny. If the moral condition of society has reached a level at which we would look for relief to the kind of men who can succeed in a political system like ours, then the patient is terminal.  On the other hand, had the churches not turned their attention these past 45 years to lettuce boycotts and excited pronouncements about the wondrous prospects of the modern world, they might have done more to arrest the moral decline for which we are now told we need the state.

Ron Paul, I need hardly add, is the honorable and unspoken exception to all the claims I make here.  The Ron Paul phenomenon brought to light a great many people who are still capable of independent thought, and I think his Campaign for Liberty, with its Old Right statement of principles, holds genuine promise. Whether anything comes of political action or not, though, our goal should not be the hopeless one of erecting an improved structure on the ruins of the system. It must be to dismantle. Anything and everything, and as swiftly as possible. The more we roll back, the easier it will be for prosperity and civilized life to re-emerge.

Society has managed rather well without slavery, an institution that at one time was taken for granted by nearly everyone, and which many Christian thinkers thought could be purged of its worst abuses but probably never eradicated. I am likewise confident that individuals and communities would not only survive but flourish without being taxed and harassed by an apparatus of exploitation that does nothing but consume wealth and ruin people's lives, here and around the world; that punishes what is excellent, productive, and decent; and that successfully propagandizes the public into blaming private scapegoats for problems government itself creates. That a supposed lack of regulation could seriously be proposed as the cause of the mortgage crisis was as predictable as it is idiotic.

A robust defense of this political position is a subject for another time. Right now, I'd like to take up a more fundamental question­who or what is sovereign?

Sovereignty, a modern notion, is a direct challenge to the decentralized political order of the Middle Ages. As proposed by Jean Bodin, sovereignty involves a social authority whose judgments and declarations necessarily override, and are immune to challenge by, those of any other sector of society. Associations below the level of the central government possess what privileges they have not by right but by the generosity of the sovereign.

We should not caricature Bodin's views -- a reading of his work reveals a strong sympathy for human associations between the individual and the state, a sympathy far less in evidence in the writing of later thinkers. Bodin also seeks to protect the household from the sovereign's undue interference. These are important caveats.

Still, Bodin's legal monism set the stage for the continued erosion in Western countries of competing sources of law and allegiance besides the central government. Robert Nisbet observes the clearly modern implications of Bodin's work: "The political, rather than the religious or the economic power, is made foremost. Legal pluralism is replaced by legal monism. Only that authority is legally binding which stems from, or is countenanced by, the king."

Nisbet's work is of the greatest importance for conservatives and libertarians, and his book The Quest for Community, whose soporific title is most unfortunate, is on my list of the ten most important books for someone of our persuasion to read. Its argument is that "the single most decisive influence upon Western social organization has been the rise and development of the centralized territorial state." Nisbet sets out to examine "the conflict between the central power of the political State and the whole set of functions and authorities contained in church, family, gild, and local community."  One of the book's chapters is titled, appropriately enough, "The State as Revolution."

Over the years I have had urged upon me, by friends and strangers alike, a great many visions of how political authority might be exercised in order best to safeguard what might loosely be described as conservative values.  Each such blueprint accepts the modern notion of sovereignty, envisioning a leader (often a king) whose powers would have been unthinkable in the age of Christendom to which these armchair theorists aspire. 

One such person boasted that his revived Christendom would feature a ruler endowed with the power­exercised in light of Christian principles, you understand­to redistribute "a nation's wealth." Even leaving aside the fact that "a nation's wealth" is an evil, stupid, and question-begging phrase, any medieval king attempting to exercise such a power would have found himself either bloodied or on fire.

Medieval historian Norman Cantor describes the Middle Ages this way:

In the model of civil society, most good and important things take place below the level of the state: the family, the arts, learning, and science; business enterprise and technological progress. These are the work of individuals and groups, and the involvement of the state is remote and disengaged. It is the rule of law that screens out the state's insatiable aggressiveness and corruption and gives freedom to civil society below the level of the state. It so happens that the medieval world was one in which men and women worked out their destinies with little or no involvement of the state most of the time.


It was in the Middle Ages, in fact, that the concept of federalism -- which had failed to develop in the ancient world­first appeared in the West. Although he wrote in the early seventeenth century, Johannes Althusius was setting forth a medieval understanding of political organization when he wrote his book Politica Methodice Digesta, Atque Exemplis Sacris et Profanis Illustrata, or simply Politica. Its starting point is not an undifferentiated aggregate of individuals, and its ending point is not a sovereign who is logically and temporally prior to all subsidiary groups in society. Althusius defies both of these modern assumptions, which have informed the thought of so many of the political philosophers who came after Bodin (even if Bodin himself could be ambiguous on these points).

Althusius begins with the family, which he takes to be the fundamental political unit. Groups of families, he explains, may organize to form villages. Groups of villages and towns may organize to form provinces, which in turn may group together to form a kingdom or state. An empire, in turn, is composed of these various states along with free cities (which are directly answerable to the emperor). To the extent that Althusius believes in or employs the concept of sovereignty, he seems to imagine it residing in the symbiotic relation of all these lesser groups as they unite for a common purpose. The individual or group exercising political power at the highest level merely reflects this concord.

If the larger bodies are formed by the voluntary decisions of the lesser, it seems plausible that these smaller associations retain the power to withdraw from associations they freely joined. "Families, cities, and provinces existed by nature prior to realms, and gave birth to them," Althusius writes. And if this is the case, then one could, without doing violence to the overall theory, conclude that sovereignty (to the extent we wish to make use of this concept) in the final analysis resides in the family, the primordial unit of the Althusian apparatus. Whether Althusius would have thought about the matter quite this way is not so clear, but the conceptual apparatus he uses makes such thinking plausible.

But whatever the ultimate locus of sovereignty, Althusius is quite clear about where it does not reside: in the ruling individual or group who happens to occupy the seat of power in a central government. The society he envisions is far too rich and variegated for a single power center to dominate all others.

The predatory modern state against which Althusius theorized corrupts everything it touches. Its centralization of power was directly responsible for the atrocities, domestic and international, of the twentieth century. That centralization was excused by the Left on the grounds that only a strong central authority could liberate individuals from the oppressions of lesser social authorities.  It was welcomed by some on the Right who saw a convenient mechanism for overriding moral decisions it disapproved of on the part of local communities.  Both sides got more than they bargained for. This Frankenstein monster, it turns out, creates far more oppressions than it liberates us from, and consistently distorts or undermines moral virtues from filial piety and thrift to personal responsibility and hard work. In the American case, its extravagance and irresponsibility have brought the country and indeed the world to the brink of economic catastrophe.

The genteel F.A. Hayek included a chapter in The Road to Serfdom (1944) called "Why the Worst Get on Top." It helps to explain why, in a country as expansive as the United States, the two major parties can offer the American population nothing better than a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama. The incentive structure that emerges in the modern state rewards and privileges people like this. That's a practical reason that any decent people who manage to succeed in American politics should limit their ambitions to shutting down whatever part of Leviathan they can, in order to restrict the scope of society's worst over the rest of us.

Grandiose plans for society and the world brought into effect by the modern state – "national greatness conservatism," in other words – have nothing to do with conservatism as historically understood.  It is leftists rather than conservatives who have typically been unsatisfied with the prosaic pursuit of bourgeois life. As I wrote in a symposium for Modern Age last year, conservatives delight in and defend those finite but noble (and attainable) virtues we associate with hearth and home. That is all very mundane and uninteresting to those who would urge "greatness" upon us, but it is also much less utopian and yields far fewer corpses.

It was Don Livingston who first brought Althusius to my attention.  It was also Don who shared with me the telling verse, "Who in fields Elysian would dwell, do but extend the boundaries of hell."

Thomas E. Woods Jr. is the New York Times bestselling author of eight books, including Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, and, most recently, Who Killed the Constitution? The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (with Kevin R.C. Gutzman).

Read more: http://takimag.com/article/authority_issuesis_there_sovereignty_beyond_the_state#ixzz1a1halOjM


http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/on-talking-to-conservatives/

Re: Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul

not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate
apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its
foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that
they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a
police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in
swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other
taxpayers that don't share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars
and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and
bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
---
simply said ... they are socialists
know the enemy

On Oct 6, 7:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "So why the lies?
> "I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent."Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paulby Laurence M. Vance
> Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.
> The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.Lie number one:Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn't support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.Lie number two:Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn't support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don't likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.Lie number three:Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn't support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."Lie number four:Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn't support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world's policeman.Lie number five:Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn't support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.
> So why the lies?
> Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.
> I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn't just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn't change his message depending on the crowd he's addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?
> So why the lies?
> I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.
> But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don't share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
> The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, Iconcludedthat he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right's embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.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.

federal judge upholds Alabama's new immigration laws

By Peggy Gargis

BIRMINGHAM, Ala | Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:24pm EDT

(Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday again refused to halt
Alabama's tough new anti-illegal immigration law, leaving in place for
now measures that are prompting some Hispanics to flee the state.

District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on September 28 backed the
law authorizing police to detain people suspected of being in the
country illegally if they cannot produce proper documentation when
stopped for any reason.

The judge also upheld a provision that permits the state to require
public schools to determine the legal residency of children.

Blackburn said in a ruling on Wednesday that the law's challengers,
including President Barack Obama's administration and civil rights and
immigrant advocacy groups, had not shown they were likely to prevail
in their efforts to get the law struck down.

She also found the public interest would not be harmed by letting the
measure stand while the groups appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 11th Circuit.

"Alabama has an interest in enforcing laws properly enacted by its
Legislature and not likely to be found unconstitutional," the judge
wrote. "Moreover, the public has an interest in having properly
enacted valid laws enforced."

The Alabama law passed both chambers of the Republican-led legislature
by large margins earlier this year, with lawmakers saying Obama
administration had not done enough to stop the flow of illegal
immigrants into the country.

Blackburn also allowed Alabama to bar illegal immigrants from
commercial contracts with state or local governments, applying for or
renewing drivers' licenses and identification cards or seeking license
plates.

The judge temporarily prevented the state from making it a crime to
knowingly transport or harbor an illegal immigrant or prohibit illegal
immigrants from attending its public colleges.

--
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.

FW: **JP** FW: [alwayz2gather] JI'AY BHUTTO - RAJJ KAY LUTTO - PHIR BACHON SAMET PHUTTO - LEKIN QAUM KO AQQAL NA A'AEE...

I appreciate these comments…these are true and based on fact….i suggest  all army retired generals that they can form a government supporting by Mr.kianai….because army rule is suitable for our country democracy is totally fail whether he is zardari or sharif brothers …some honest journalist..honest govt officers…imran  khan….this is the solution in my mind…if Mr.kiani faithful to Pakistan he must initiative at once and invites all these personalities…he has supreme power he must do like musharaf has  fully courage to do what ever he want…Gen retd hamid gull, Gen retd moeen udin haider, Gen retd Abdulqauyym , like these people are very sincere and faithful with Pakistan…

 Please write your comments about this suggestions….perhaps with this act  our lovely Pakistan save from corrupt leaders….

 

Thanx  

 

From: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com [mailto:joinpakistan@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Khalid Javed
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 7:00 PM
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: **JP** FW: [alwayz2gather] JI'AY BHUTTO - RAJJ KAY LUTTO - PHIR BACHON SAMET PHUTTO - LEKIN QAUM KO AQQAL NA A'AEE...

 

 

2011/10/1 Mansoor Rahim <mnf132@hotmail.com>

Thank you for comments and emotions.  I appreciate your kind effort.  but my dear can you please specify that in current situation what are the other options we have except PPP, PML-N, MQM and ANP etc.  On the other hand Imran Khan is a one man Show, and most of us even do not know about the other leaders and No.2 of Tehreek-e-insaf. 
 
Lets suppose the nation vote for independent candidates, and all those candidates win, then that particular parliment will face lots of problems to elect their leader of Parliments including (Prime Minister/Ministers/leader of opposition/speakers etc and so on.  Every one will fight for themselves.
 
In last I must say that Imran Khan has been failed to produce quality leaders for this nation and tehreek-e-insaf.  Imran Khan is having qualities of great leader, but what about his cabinet?  Imran Khan has wasted last four to five years.  I would not vote for a graduate who is new to politics, not familiar, no political records or achievements.

 

Then would you vote for these fake gradutes as you did last time and who have brought the country on its knees, and have a lot of polictical experience in lotaism, chronyism, and whose only achievement is looting this country and filling their pockets. These experiences leaders with a lot of political record of deciept and deception have the following few achievements to show: 

 

  1. Pakistan Railways on the verge of collapse. A huge number of trains taken off the track. Before Government bailout they had Rs 52/- in their account. Its employees have not been paid for months.
  2. Pakistan Steel which was a profitable entity a few years ago is bankrupt. Looted with both hands.
  3. PIA which was a pride of the nation, which started the Singapore Airlines, the Emirates Airlines, and Malta Airlines, the former 2 are now amongt the best airlines in the world, had 3 forced landings withing 3 days, and 1/3rd of its fleet has been grounded. France has threatened that unless it improved its maintenance and safety standard immediately it would be banned from landing in Europe. It was stuffed with hordes of incompetent jialas and paid billions of rupees in arrears. It hired a DMD at a salary of Rs 14lac a month to improve maintenance and safety standards last year. The result of the improvements are before us.
  4. WAPDA: the less said the better. The load and generation gap is increasing and not reducing. 3 1/2 years down the line, enough to put up new generation units, but we are exactly where we were 2 years ago.  The cost of power due to theft, cost of fuel, incompetence and corruption, kunda and high transmission losses, amongst the highets in the world, have crippled our industry and in many sectors which have closed down for non competitiveness, and thousands are jobless.
  5. When the PM is aked to control corruption he says there is no corruption, and if anyone thinks there is he can go to the courts.  And when people go to the courts the courts are contempted and their verdicts are flouted shamelessly, and manipulated protests and processions are taken out against the courts and judiciary. Government enquiries are obstructed and honest officers, a few that are left are ostracised, hounded, shunted into sidelines or fired.
  6. Those convicted of corruption are forgiven and reinstated to the prize jobs by the President. And those imprisoned are released through presidential pardons on national days. To release one such crook 5000 convictes were released by Asif Zardari last  year.
  7. When the country was drowning in floods last year Mr President flew off to visit his father's Chateau in France which his father had bought selling Bambino cinema tickets. 
  8. Government has no money to spend on the flood victims but has the money to dole out in billions to lawyers community to erode the support for the Chief Justice.
  9. In the last year's floods the nation and international community donated generously. Most of that money was misappropriated. In these floods no one is willing to help.
  10. The expenditure of the Presidency and the PM houses is nearly double that of their counter parts in India. The PM hose has 700 gardners.
  11. Nearly every month our worthy President goas on a foreign tour living in the most expensive hotels, expenses running into crores for each trips, when people of Pakistan are deeply sinking into poverty. They ca'nt get a square meal a day.
  12. His visits are so many that the Chinese are fed up. He needs just an excuse to go running to China, because he is reported to be running his private investments there.
  13. Mr Zardari is our armed forces supreme commander, but has not visited the troop fighting  and dying on the front lines even once. He is such a scared and fearful man.
  14. Mr Gilani pays no income tax, but a wears a new Armani suit costing over a lac every day.
  15. Mr Sharif pays more income tax: Rs 2500.  
  16. Our worthy Foreigh Minister went to India dressed like a model wearing diamonds and jewellry and carrying a designer bag which only millionaires can afford, and the country she represented was going around with a begging bowl. She made a spectacle of herself. Her Indian hosts were simply dressed. Has anyone seen Hillary Clinton dressed like that.

This is an endless list of the "record of achievement" of your experienced people who are not "new to politics". Which "quality leader" have they produced? Zardai, Gilani, Rehman Malik, Babar Awan, Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, Maulana Fazalur Rehman, Chawdhary's of Gujrat, Moonis Ilahi, etc etc etc. These dispicable louts who have pawned the future of our future generations and Pakistan has become a failed and ungovernable state at their "experienced" hands. Karachi is in a state of civil war. Political parties have become armed bands and their leaders war lords and dons. We are becoming Afghanistan and Ethiopia. The country is at the edge of a precipice.

 

Do you still want these experienced poltical leaders?

 

 
The turn over of our elections are always lower you know very well. some says (Sab chor hein) and not voting. 
 
PAKISTAN IS THE MIRACLE OF ALLAH AND WILL COME OUT OF BAD TIMES VERY SOON.      





 


From: ighori@saudioger.com
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 08:37:30 +0300


Subject: **JP** FW: [alwayz2gather] JI'AY BHUTTO - RAJJ KAY LUTTO - PHIR BACHON SAMET PHUTTO - LEKIN QAUM KO AQQAL NA A'AEE...

I request all Pakistani nation please don't elect these kind of politician next time…like zardari and gailani can bargain their own daughters and sisters for money and dollars………

 

 

 

 

 

undefined » undefined

لا يمكن ترجمة كل هذا الكم من الكلمات

__._,_.___

.

Error! Filename not specified.

__,_._,___


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

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

 

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

Bad Financial News Keeps Pouring In: 14 Facts That Just Might Scare The Living Daylights Out Of You




New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

Bad Financial News Keeps Pouring In: 14 Facts That Just Might Scare The Living Daylights Out Of You

by Harold

EconomicCollapseBlog 10/4/2011 Will the bad financial news ever stop?  A lot of people in the financial world were hoping for a much better fourth quarter after an absolutely disastrous third quarter.  Well, if Monday was any indication, October could end up being a really rough month for global financial markets.  So much bad financial news [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/02-775/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

“Occupy Wall Street” is a Communist Movement



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Fellowship of the Minds <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:31 AM
Subject: [New post] "Occupy Wall Street" is a Communist Movement
To: baconlard@gmail.com


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

"Occupy Wall Street" is a Communist Movement

by Dr. Eowyn

The Occupy Wall Street movement is now spreading to other cities across the United States.

Tomorrow, a big one is planned for Washington, D.C.

watch?v=e8K8of1cH1Y

Look, I don't like the global banksters either. But I'd have more sympathy for the demonstrators if their "demands" weren't a tiresome retread of the same ol' Marxist pipe dreams that conned hundreds of millions of people to their deaths -- in the former Soviet Union, in Maoist China, in the short-lived Kampuchea, in Vietnam, in Eastern Europe, and in the gulags of China and North Korea today.

For a list of their outright communist demands -- "Single payer universal healthcare!" "Free college education!" -- see our DCG's post "Occupy Wall Street - Their Demands."

Any remaining doubt that "Occupy Wall Street" is a commie movement is removed when you look at the list of those who showed up to the demonstration yesterday, Oct. 5 (h/t Meredith Jessup of The Blaze, who quipped "Not surprisingly, many of the usual suspects"):

AFL-CIO (AFSCME)
United NY
Strong Economy for All Coalition
Working Families Party
TWU Local 100
SEIU 1199
CWA 1109
RWDSU
Communications Workers of America
CWA Local 1180
United Auto Workers
United Federation of Teachers
Professional Staff Congress – CUNY
National Nurses United
Writers Guild East

Also expected at "Occupy Wall St." yesterday:

VOCAL-NY
Community Voices Heard
Alliance for Quality Education
New York Communities for Change
Coalition for the Homeless
Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project (NEDAP)
The Job Party
NYC Coalition for Educational Justice
The Mirabal Sisters Cultural and Community Center
The New Deal for New York Campaign
National People's Action
ALIGN
Human Services Council
Labor-Religion Coalition of New York State
Citizen Action of NY
MoveOn.org !!!!!!!!
Common Cause NY
New Bottom Line
350.org
Tenants & Neighbors
Democracy for NYC
Resource Generation
Tenants PAC
Teachers Unite

Go here for a livestream of "Occupy Wall St."

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-is-a-communist-movement/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Geert Wilders’ book on Islam set for 2012 U.S. launch




New post on Creeping Sharia

Geert Wilders' book on Islam set for 2012 U.S. launch

by creeping

via Wilders' Islam book set for US launch < Dutch news | Expatica The Netherlands. Geert Wilders, leader of the anti-Islam Freedom Party, is currently working on a book about the history of Islam. Press agency Novum has announced that the book will be launched in the US in late April 2012 and then published [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/geert-wilders-book-on-islam-set-for-2012-u-s-launch/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paul

MJ,

The problem is that it takes more than a sound bite for people to
understand Paul's position. What voter wants to think that much?

On Oct 6, 6:05 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "So why the lies?
> "I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent."Five Lies of the Religious Right About Ron Paulby Laurence M. Vance
> Although I am a theological and cultural Christian conservative, I am not a member of the Religious Right and never have been. Adherents of the Religious Right are oftentimes more wrong than they are right. And they have never been more wrong than in their lies about Ron Paul.
> The lies about Ron Paul uttered by the media, the Republican Party, the political establishment, conservative talk show hosts, and rank and file Republicans and conservatives who blindly parrot their leaders, and even some libertarians are legion. However, when it comes to Christian armchair warriors, Christian Coalition moralists, evangelical warvangelicals, Catholic just war theorists, reich-wing Christian nationalists, theocon Values Voters, imperial Christians, Red-State Christian fascists, God and country Christian bumpkins, and other Religious Rightists that have no problem draping the cross of Christ with the American flag, there are basically five lies that are continually told about Congressman Paul, all recycled from the last time he ran for president.Lie number one:Ron Paul is not pro-life. That is, he doesn't support a federal law or constitutional amendment banning abortion since that is entirely up to the states.The subject of abortion is one that Ron Paul is uniquely qualified to talk about. In addition to being a member of Congress, Ron Paul is a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology who has delivered over 4,000 babies. In forty years of medical practice, Dr. Paul says, "I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman." He believes "beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society." But unlike many Republicans in Congress, Representative Paul also believes in consistently and strictly following the Constitution in all matters. Therefore, as he simply states:Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.Dr. Paul is also consistently pro-life. Many pro-life Religious Rightists are cheerleaders for the killing of innocents outside of the womb in senseless foreign wars. Ron Paul believes in the sanctity of all human life.Lie number two:Ron Paul supports drug use. That is, he doesn't support the unconstitutional federal war on drugs.The $41 billion a year war on drugs is a failure in every respect. It has reduced neither the demand for nor the availability of drugs. It has failed to keep drugs away from kids and addicts. It has made criminals out otherwise law-abiding Americans – over 1.5 million Americans are arrested on drug charges every year, with almost half of those arrests being just for possession of marijuana. The war on drugs encourages violence, unnecessarily swells the prison population with non-violent offenders, destroys civil liberties, attacks personal and financial privacy, and corrupts and militarizes the police. But not only do the costs of the drug war greatly exceed its benefits, it is clearly an unconstitutional activity of the federal government. As a physician, Dr. Paul knows full well the harmful effects of illicit drug use. But he also recognizes the dangers to liberty, property, and limited government that the war on drugs poses. It is perplexing and hypocritical that Religious Rightists don't likewise support a war on alcohol since every negative thing – and more – that could be said about drug abuse could also be said about alcohol abuse.Lie number three:Ron Paul is not pro-Israel. That is, he doesn't support looting the American taxpayers and giving the money to a foreign government.Since World War II, the U.S. government has dispensed hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid in a variety of forms to over 150 countries. Foreign aid is further camouflaged as U.S. support for the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other globalist organizations. Foreign aid now costs the American taxpayer over $40 billion a year. Egypt received over $1.5 billion in foreign aid last year. Israel received over twice as much. Since their peace accord in 1979, Egypt and Israel have been the top two recipients of U.S. foreign aid, accounting for about one-third of all foreign aid spending. Foreign aid is really foreign government aid that enriches the leaders of corrupt regimes and their privileged contractors. Foreign aid further entrenches the U.S. government bureaucracy, increases the power of the state, fosters dependency on U.S. largesse, and lines the pockets of U.S. corporations whose products are bought with foreign aid money. Following the advice of Thomas Jefferson, who advocated "honest friendship with all nations" and "entangling alliances with none," Representative Paul sees neutrality as the best foreign policy for the United States: "The real, pro-US solution to the problems in the Middle East is for us to end all foreign aid, stop arming foreign countries, encourage peaceful diplomatic resolutions to conflicts, and disengage militarily."Lie number four:Ron Paul is weak on defense. That is, he doesn't support perpetual, senseless, and immoral foreign wars.Most of U.S. military spending is not for defense, but for offense. Most of what the military does is outside of the country and in some cases thousands of miles away: providing disaster relief, dispensing humanitarian aid, supplying peacekeepers, enforcing UN resolutions, nation building, spreading goodwill, launching preemptive strikes, establishing democracy, changing regimes, assassinating people, training armies, advising armies, rebuilding infrastructure, reviving public services, opening markets, maintaining no-fly zones, occupying countries, and, of course, fighting foreign wars. The proper use of the military – as envisioned by Ron Paul – is in defending the United States, not defending other countries, and certainly not bombing, invading, or occupying them. Using the military for any other purpose than the actual defense of the United States – its land, its shores, its skies, its coasts, its borders – perverts the purpose of the military. The United States is not and cannot be the world's policeman.Lie number five:Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is, he doesn't support a global empire with 1,000 foreign military bases and troops stationed in 150 countries.The Department of Defense has more than 500,000 facilities on more than 5,500 sites totaling approximately 29 million acres. There are over 300,000 U.S. troops in foreign countries – plus over 100,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus tens of thousands of contractors. The word isolationist is a pejorative term of intimidation used to stifle debate over foreign policy. A noninterventionist foreign policy – like that espoused by Ron Paul – is a foreign policy is a policy of peace, diplomacy, and neutrality that includes trade, cultural exchanges, travel, immigration and emigration, and foreign investment. No invasions, threats, sanctions, embargoes, commitments, meddling, entangling alliances, or troops and bases on foreign soil.
> So why the lies?
> Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really pro-life, pro-family, pro-religion, pro-family values, pro-religious liberty, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, pro-fiscal conservatism, pro-free market, pro-sound money, pro-defense, pro-liberty, pro-peace, pro-privacy, and pro-property. Why all the lies about a candidate who is and has always been really anti-UN, anti-tax increases, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-gun control, anti-unconstitutional government spending, anti-birthright citizenship, anti-amnesty, anti-New World Order, anti-foreign aid, anti-government subsidies, anti-foreign wars, anti-welfare, anti-socialized medicine, anti congressional pay raises, anti-congressional pensions, anti-government-paid junkets, and anti-centralization of power in the federal government.
> I say really because Ron Paul is and has always been for and against these things on a philosophical level. He doesn't just say he is for or against these things to get elected. He doesn't change his message depending on the crowd he's addressing. He has a track record of consistency unmatched by anyone who has ever been in Congress or run for president. Why would any member of the Religious Right not embrace Ron Paul as their ideal candidate even as they run from the current crop of Republican presidential candidates?
> So why the lies?
> I think they are due in a great measure to ignorance: ignorance of the Constitution, ignorance of federalism, ignorance of U.S. foreign policy, ignorance of the U.S. government, ignorance of American history, ignorance of the Republican Party, ignorance of the Bible, ignorance of anything but what is heard on Fox News, ignorance of anything but what is uttered by conservative talk radio show hosts, ignorance of anything but the propaganda that comes out of many church pulpits. Unfortunately, however, much of this ignorance is willful and complacent.
> But not all Religious Rightists are ignorant. Some are just deliberate apologists for the state, its leaders, its military, its wars, and its foreign policy. If they were honest, then they would have to say that they believe in the centralization of power in Washington DC, in a police state that inconsistently criminalizes peaceful behavior, in swearing allegiance to a foreign government and looting other taxpayers that don't share their allegiance, in endless foreign wars and military interventions, and in maintaining an empire of troops and bases around the world and meddling in the affairs of other countries.
> The last time Dr. Paul ran for president, Iconcludedthat he would not be the candidate of choice of the Religious Right because they love centralization more than federalism, political power more than liberty, war more than peace, politicians more than principles, faith-based socialism more than the free market, and the state more than God Almighty. The Religious Right's embrace of candidates like Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and non-candidates like Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee leads me now to the same conclusion.http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance260.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.

Fwd: [I-S] CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment • The Register



---------


 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/ 

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/

CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

What do these results mean? Not allowed to tell you

By Andrew Orlowski (andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk)

Posted in Science, 18th July 2011 12:01 GMT

Free whitepaper – Energy Efficient Cooling for Data Centers

The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told [1] Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.


"I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them," reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog [2]. Why?

Because, Heuer says, "That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."


12m muons pass through your body every 24 hours

The unusual "gagging order" could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

The CLOUD experiment builds on earlier experiments by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, who demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun's magnetic field and the strength of the Earth's magnetic field.


Close correlation between cosmic ray penetration and temperature

But how much? Speaking at a private event attended by El Reg earlier this year, Svensmark, who has nothing to do with CLOUD, wouldn't be drawn. He said he thought [3] it was one of four significant factors: man-made factors, volcanoes, a "regime shift" in the mid-'70s, and cosmic rays.

The quantity of cosmic rays therefore has an influence on climate, but this isn't factored into the IPCC's "consensus" science at all.

According to Calder:

"CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It's OK to enter 'the highly political arena of the climate change debate' provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark's heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation."

Let's hope he's been misquoted. The precedents aren't happy [4]. ®

Links

http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article13488331/Wie-Illuminati-den-Cern-Forschern-geholfen-hat.html
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/13/downing_cambridge_climate_conference/page3.html
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lysenkoism 


--

Warm Regards

DOC

___________________ ~ ~
(_____(*)___________} } }

__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

<http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif>
Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2420737/grpspId=1705303292/msgId=242672/stime=1311346660/nc1=1/nc2=2/nc3=3>
__,_._,___

--
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.