Monday, December 19, 2011

JP Fw: ! What America is?

--- On Mon, 19/12/11, Farhan Safeer Qureshi <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk> wrote:

From: Farhan Safeer Qureshi <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk>
Subject: ! What America is?
To: "Farhan Safeer Qureshi" <farhan.safeer@zil.com.pk>
Date: Monday, 19 December, 2011, 2:05 PM

--
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

good news!

Illegal immigrants have no right to arms

12/16/2011
Dec 16 (Reuters) - Illegal immigrants do not have a right to bear
arms
under the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, based in Missouri,
rejected an appeal brought by Joaquin Bravo Flores, who was charged
with possessing a firearm. Agreeing with the 5th Circuit, the court
concluded that the protections of the Second Amendment do not extend
to undocumented immigrants.
Executing a search warrant in 2010, police uncovered a semi-automatic
handgun in Bravo Flores' Minneapolis apartment. A grand jury indicted
him for being an alien in possession of a firearm in violation of
federal law. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/12_-_December/Illegal_immigrants_have_no_right_to_arms_-_court/&usg=AFQjCNF9gBNuF-847pd-ja1FZv6Gd8tJ2A

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

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

the enemy within

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/30/state-department-stands-decision-include-arizona-human-rights-report

The US State Department included a Justice Department lawsuit against
Arizona's immigration law into a United Nations human rights report to
show how U.S. rule of law can be an example to the world, a State
Department spokesman said Monday.
Spokesman P.J. Crowley said the Arizona immigration law included in an
Aug. 20 report to the U.N. high commissioner on rights.

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

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

Re: Ferrara: Our Marxist Wizard of Oz

Ferrara is a pos associated with Jack Abrahmoff, Ronald Reagan and
Yeshiva University ... enough said

On Dec 18, 10:39 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The truth, in less than 2400 words. Ferrara is right on the mark here:
>
> *Our Marxist Wizard of Oz*
> Peter Ferrara
> December 16, 2011
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/peterferrara/2011/12/17/our_marxist_wi...
>
> His mother was an unabashed hippie from 1960s central casting. His father
> was an openly avowed Communist from Kenya. While his father wasn't around
> much, his devoutly progressive grandparents arranged for him to be mentored
> during his adolescent years by a dues paying member of the U.S. Communist
> Party, Frank Marshall Davis.
>
> When he went to college, he was attracted to the Marxist professors and
> student activists, according to his own published memoirs. When he
> graduated, he moved to Chicago and became an instructor for the left-wing
> extremist organization ACORN in the social manipulation methods of radical
> Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. He attended for close to two decades the
> Trinity United Church of Christ, which practiced neo-Marxist Black
> Liberation Theology. That church was headed during those years by the
> openly socialist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who declared that the 9/11 terrorist
> attack on America was "America's chickens coming home to roost." He also
> famously preached from his pulpit, "Not God bless America, God damn
> America...."
>
> He launched his political career in the living room of the home of Bill
> Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, co-founders and former leaders of the openly
> Communist domestic terrorist organization, the Weather Underground. That
> organization conducted several bombings in America and engaged in other
> violence that resulted in several injuries and even deaths.
>
> All of this is documented in the public record. This is the man the
> Democrat party took off the streets of Chicago, then pursuing a career as a
> Marxist street agitator, and launched into the White House, favoring him
> over Hillary Clinton because she was too moderate for the party. They did
> that because he best reflects the heart and soul of today's radical-left,
> Che Guevara Democratic Party. It is in this context that we should
> understand and analyze Obama's Hugo Chavez speech given last week at
> Osawatomie High School in Kansas.
>
> *Obama's Hugo Chavez Coming Out*
>
> In that speech, he drew a picture of America as a struggling third world
> nation, saying at stake today "is whether this will be a country where
> working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings,
> own a home, and secure a retirement." In fact, he said, "there are millions
> of working families in this country who are now forced to take their
> children to food banks for a decent meal."
>
> This sounds more like Indonesia, or Venezuela, or Nicaragua. But it is not
> America "long before the recession hit."
>
> He explained the roots of the problem as:
>
> Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed
> businesses to do more with less, and made it easier for them to set up shop
> and hire workers anywhere in the world.... Steel mills that needed 1,000
> employees are now able to do the same work with 100, so that layoffs were
> too often permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle.... If
> you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many
> in your profession replaced by ATMs or the Internet.
>
> This Luddite analysis fundamentally misconceives the role of technology in
> a modern economy. Such advancing technology increases worker productivity,
> and, therefore, wages and standard of living. Technological progress over
> the decades is why the average American worker in 2000 enjoyed 7 times the
> standard of living of the average American worker in 1900.
>
> He then tries to pin the blame for his failures on others, saying, "Now, in
> the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a
> kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst
> economic crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same
> practices that got us into this mess."
>
> The policies that got us into this mess included primarily the so-called
> "affordable housing policies" Obama himself and other Democrats long
> advocated, with the government forcing the banks by overregulation to drop
> their traditional lending standards to provide loans and mortgages to low
> and moderate income applicants who could not qualify under those
> traditional standards. (See the full documentation and discussion in Paul
> Sperry's *The Great American Bank Robbery: The Unauthorized Report About
> What Really Caused the Financial Crisis* and Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua
> Rosner's *Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and
> Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon*.
>
> The other major factor was the Fed's loose monetary policy starting under
> Bush in the 2000s, which funded the housing bubble. Both policies were
> departures from the fundamental planks of Reaganomics. As I discuss in
> detail in my own book, *America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb*, the four planks
> of Reaganomics had been effectively abandoned by 2008, and that was the
> cause of the financial crisis, which ended the 25-year economic boom from
> 1982 to 2007 that Reaganomics had created.
>
> Obama tries to continue his historical revisionism, saying, "Remember that
> in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive
> tax cuts in history, and what did they get us? The slowest job growth in
> half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for
> the investments that built this country."
>
> Here is what really happened. Those Bush tax cuts quickly ended the 2001
> recession, despite the contractionary economic impacts of 9/11, and the
> economy continued to grow for another 73 months. After the rate cuts were
> all fully implemented in 2003, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs and
> the unemployment rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over
> the next 3 years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%.
>
> In response to the rate cuts, business investment spending, which had
> declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per quarter.
> That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its
> highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7
> trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost
> doubled. Capital gains tax revenues had doubled by 2005, despite Bush's 25%
> cut in the capital gains rate.
>
> The deficit in the last budget adopted by Republican Congressional
> majorities was $161 billion for fiscal 2007. Today that deficit is nearly
> 10 times as much. Total federal revenues under Bush soared by nearly 30%,
> from $1.991 trillion in 2001 to $2.568 trillion in 2007. The day the
> Democrat Congressional majorities took office, January 3, 2007, the
> unemployment rate was 4.6%. George Bush's economic policies, "the failed
> policies of the past" in Obama's rhetoric, had set a record of 52 straight
> months of job creation.
>
> What has continued to fail us now is that Obama's own policies, the exact
> opposite of Reaganomics in every detail, have failed to produce any timely
> real recovery from the last recession. Before this last recession, since
> the Great Depression recessions in America have lasted an average of 10
> months, with the longest previously at 16 months. But here we are today 48
> months after the last recession started and there is still no real
> recovery. Instead, we have record poverty, and record extended unemployment.
>
> They can't say that is because the recession was so bad, because the
> historical record in America is that the deeper the recession the stronger
> the recovery. Based on the historical record, we should be ending the
> second year of a booming economy right now. The failure to achieve that is
> the responsibility of Barack Obama.
>
> Obama himself was counting on precisely this history making him look like a
> hero. That is why he so confidently told the Today Show on Feb. 2, 2009, "a
> year from now I think people are gonna see that we're starting to make some
> progress...if I don't have this done in three years, then this is going to
> be a one-term proposition."
>
> Before Barack Obama as President, the rest of the world looked to America
> as the example for the economic model that works to achieve prosperity. But
> today Obama tells America "It doesn't work. It's never worked. It didn't
> work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not
> what led to the incredible postwar boom of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't
> work when we tried it during the last decade."
>
> But it's President Obama, who fundamentally doesn't understand his own
> country, that doesn't work.
>
> *Obama's Tax and Spending Fantasies*
>
> In his Kansas speech, Obama offered as his solution increased government
> spending as the foundation for rising prosperity. He says:
>
> Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in places with
> the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, and
> communicate with the rest of the world. That's why the over one million
> construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed
> shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding
> our roads and bridges; laying down faster railroads and broadband;
> modernizing our schools -- all the things other countries are doing to
> attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.
>
> Instead of the American capitalist model maximized by Reaganomics, Obama
> tells us to look at the basic infrastructure spending of other countries as
> the model that works. But American economic growth is not suffering because
> of a lack of basic infrastructure like a third world country. It is
> suffering because Obama is so doggedly pursuing the opposite of every
> policy that would free the economy to produce and boom. Under such
> Obamanomics, soon enough America will be suffering from the lack of a
> reliable energy grid like a third world country.
>
> Obama whines that Bush's massive deficits (if his deficits were massive
> what are Obama's?), supposedly caused by his tax cuts (not--revenue again
> rose during the Bush years), "have made it much harder to pay for the
> investments that built this country and provided the basic security that
> helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things
> like education and infrastructure; science and technology; Medicare and
> Social Security."
>
> But spending on all of those items soared during the Bush years, and they
> have rocketed up all the faster under Obama. To no avail, because
> government spending is not the foundation of increased economic growth and
> prosperity. Increased production, spurred by ever stronger incentives, is.
>
> Of course, essential to all of President Obama's essential spending is to
> increase tax rates on the rich, otherwise known in English as the nation's
> investors and job creators. As President Obama tutored us in Kansas last
> week:
>
> But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If
> we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values.
> We have to make choices.... Do we want to make the investments we need in
> things like education, and research, and high-tech manufacturing? Or do we
> want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our
> country? Because we can't afford to do both. That's not politics. That's
> just math.
>
> So there you have the Obama formula for economic growth and prosperity.
> After the greatest runaway spending spree in American history during the
> Obama Administration, the answer is for government to increase spending
> even more, financed by increasing tax rates even more on the very investors
> and job creators that produce the jobs for the middle class and working
> people in America's economic system. That is a perfect prescription for
> another recession, not the long, long overdue recovery America is still
> waiting for under Obamanomics. Obama tells us, "It is wrong that in the
> United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who
> earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody pulling in $50
> million." That would be wrong if it were true. But it is not.
>
> What Obama is peddling to America on tax policy is only the ugliest example
> of his well-established rhetorical style of calculated deception. It is
> based on what he thinks the average voter does not know and will not know,
> and can be manipulated to believe to Obama's political advantage. For the
> picture he is painting of the rich getting away without paying their fair
> share while working people bear most of the tax burden is the opposite of
> reality.
>
> Even before Obama was elected, under those "failed policies of the past,"
> the top 1% of income earners in 2007 paid 40% of federal income taxes (up
> from 17.6% when Reagan entered office), while the CBO just reported that
> they earned 17% of the income in 2007. Moreover, that 40% of federal income
> taxes paid by the top 1% was more than paid by the bottom 95% combined,
> according to official IRS data. While the top 1% paid 40% of federal income
> taxes, the bottom 40% paid no federal income taxes as a group on net. Today
> 47% pay no federal income taxes.
>
> Yet, Obama has already enacted under current law further tax increases on
> the nation's job creators, investors and small businesses going into effect
> in 2013, when the tax increases of Obamacare become effective and the Bush
> tax cuts expire. Consequently, that year the top two income tax rates would
> rise by close to 20%, the capital gains tax would soar by nearly 60%, the
> tax on dividends would nearly triple, and the Medicare payroll tax would
> rocket up by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers. This alone would take us
> well beyond the Clinton tax rates, despite Obama's outdated talking point
> that he is still repeating from 2008.
>
> This is in addition to America suffering with virtually the highest
> corporate tax rate in the industrialized world at nearly 40% on average,
> counting state corporate rates. As I have previously noted, even Communist
> China imposes only a 25% rate, with the rate in the EU even less on
> average. Our Canadian neighbors, enjoying a booming economy since Obama was
> elected in America, will enjoy a 15% rate next year, down from 16.5% this
> year.
>
> Yet Obama barnstorms America calling for still more tax increases on
> American business, large and small, and the job creators and investors on
> which jobs and prosperity for working people depend. The galloping
> regulatory burdens he is now imposing effectively involve still further tax
> increases stifling production. It all adds up to a brew for another
> recession in 2013, unless the American people force a change in course in
> 2012.
>
> Newt.For.President.2012..jpg
> 23KViewDownload
>
> Ferrara.jpg
> 21KViewDownload

--
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: “Merry Christmas” PC Apartheid in Congress

proof of a secular government

On Dec 19, 9:25 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> New post on *Fellowship of the Minds*
> <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/> "Merry Christmas"
> PC Apartheid in
> Congress<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/merry-christmas-pc-...>by
> Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>
>
> <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/pc.jpeg>
>
> There's a PC apartheid in Congress.
>
> "Merry Christmas" is banned in the U.S. House of Representatives but not in
> the Senate.
>
> Mark Tapscott reports<http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential...>for
> The Examiner, Dec. 16, 2011, members of the House are told they can't
> wish constituents a "Merry Christmas" in any mailing paid for with tax
> dollars.
>
> The congressional franking commission that reviews all congressional mail
> to determine if it can be "franked," or paid for with tax dollars, has
> issued an edict that no holiday greetings, including "Merry Christmas," can
> be sent in official mail.
>
> Members of Congress send millions of dollars worth of mail to constituents
> every year but there are official rules that govern what can and cannot be
> said in those mailings. Members are barred, for example, from saying
> anything that might be construed as advocating their re-election.
>
> But saying "Merry Christmas" is also not permitted, according to a Dec. 12
> memo from the "Franking Commission Staff" concerning "Holiday Messaging."
> The memo explains:
>
> *"Members are unable at the current time to use official resources to
> record holiday greetings, post on social media/website, or send to
> constituents in franked mail or e-communications.*
>
> *Member's Congressional Handbook: GREETINGS-*
>
> *Expenses related to the purchase or distribution of greetings, including
> holiday celebrations, condolences, and congratulations for personal
> distinctions (wedding anniversaries, birthdays, etc.), are not reimbursable.
> *
>
> *Franking Manual:*
>
> *4(a). Example of Nonfrankable Items*
> *-Birthday, anniversary, wedding, birth, retirement or condolence messages
> and holiday greetings are prohibited.*
>
> *You may make reference to the season as a whole using language along the
> lines of 'Have a safe and happy holiday season.' It may only be incidental
> to the piece rather than the primary purpose of the communication."*
>
> Franking commission spokesman Salley Wood confirmed to* The Washington
> Examiner* that members of Congress indeed cannot wish constituents "Merry
> Christmas" in any official mailing: "Currently, incidental use of the
> phrase Happy Holidays is permissible but Merry Christmas is not."
>
> In other words, the very elected representatives who put "In God We Trust"
> on America's currency are prohibited from using the greeting "Merry
> Christmas" in official communications to their constituents!
>
> But that's not the case with the Senate.
>
> According to the regulation of the Senate Ethics Committee that handles
> franking issues for members of the Senate the upper chamber:
>
> *"Senators may not use the frank to mail holiday cards. However, Senators
> may use officially related funds to mail holiday cards to
> constituents.Holiday cards to friends should be sent with personal
> funds, not using
> Senate facilities. Senators also may NOT use the frank to acknowledge
> holiday greetings that were sent to them. Senators may express holiday
> greetings at the commencement or conclusion of otherwise frankable mail."*
>
> And yet, it is the Senate that has a liberal Democrat majority whereas the
> House has a Republican majority. Go figure.
>
> *~Eowyn*
> *Dr. Eowyn <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/eowyn2/>* |
> December 19, 2011 at 5:33 am | Tags: franking
> commission<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=franking-commission>,
> House of Representatives<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=house-of-representatives>,
> Senate Ethics Committee<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=senate-ethics-committee>,
> US Senate <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=us-senate> |
> Categories: Uncategorized <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=1> |
> URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-biS
>
> Comment<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/merry-christmas-pc-...>
> See all comments<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/merry-christmas-pc-...>
>
> Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/merry-christmas-pc-...
> Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://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: No god but allah on dollar bill

the current US dollar vs riyal exchange rate ... 3.751 to 1

On Dec 19, 9:27 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/65f42po****
>
> HOME <http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/> >
> BLOG<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/>> "No God But Allah"
> Appearing on U.S. Dollar Bills
> ****
>
> June 30, 2011****
> "No God But Allah" Appearing on U.S. Dollar Bills****
>
> Bet you thought you'd never see this in your lifetime****
>
> Print This E-mail This ****
>
> ****
>
> ShareThis****
>
> ****
>
> Comments (22)<http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/blog/comments.asp?id=7937>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> ****A lady in Monte Vista, CO had this dollar bill. This is her story. You
> don't think we're in a war. What thoughts come to mind! These are starting
> to show up around our country! ****
>
> ****
>
> After dinner she took a $1 dollar bill out of her purse and displayed it on
> the table. Underneath the words "In God We Trust" someone had stamped the
> dollar bill in red ink---NO GOD BUT ALLAH. We asked her where she had
> gotten this dollar bill. She said it was part of her change in Alamosa, CO.
> We took a picture of her dollar bill. If anyone tries to give you one of
> these dollar bills as change...please refuse it and ask them to give you a
> dollar bill that has not been defaced. ****
>
> ** **
>
> image001.png
> < 1KViewDownload
>
> image002.png
> < 1KViewDownload
>
> allah_dollar_bill_6-2011.jpg
> 167KViewDownload

--
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: No god but allah on dollar bill

the current US dollar vs riyal exchange rate ... 3.751 to 1

--
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: 2011.10.28 DETROIT - MODEL FOR THE FUTURE? - NOT!

Sweden is lost PlainOl. I don't
think it can change course. It will soon be a Nation that is
governed
under Sharia Law and will be a predominately theological Islamic
Nation-State probably during yous and my lifetime. So will most of
Europe.
----
their problem

(I think Switzerland is an exception, because it has rather
strict immigration laws, and like you pointed out, the Swiss are armed
to
the teeth).
---
it's hard to argue with over 500 years of independence in a volatile
region

Paul is naive, and his statement above makes my point. We are under
attack,
---
We are under attack? Who has spent the last 60 years attacking and
occupying who?
And since you're labeling them as muslims, and not middle easterners,
the 'we' you're referring to would be xians and jews.
Yes, I suggest that your camps fear is based on religious survival.

and it doesn't matter whether we were, "intervening" as Dr. Paul,
and his minsinformed cult of followers would frame it or not. The
current
Islamic leadership that would like to see a global "Dar al Islam" do
in
fact resent our freedoms and successes.
---
belief noted ... not shared
resenting our freedom and success is little concern to the muslims ...
our attacks and occupations are a huge concern, the terrorists have
said so

This is the whole issue of what
you are missing, and I don't know how to convince you, and other
crackpots
and Moonbats of the threat. Open your eyes! Muslims who are in
control
right now, are fundamentalist in their thinking.
---
similar to the Great Commission

Anyone who is not of that
mindset, whether they are Islamic or not Islamic, are infidels. The
term
"Infidel" includes what we might term, "Moderate Muslims". The
current
leadership of Islam have a disdain for anything "Western". They
reject the
McDonaldization of the World, and hate the bright colors, the brand
names, e.g.; anything that is remotely considered Western. This is
not
just Israel and the United States we are talkiing about, they hate
the
names, Bosch, BMW, Mercedes, Siemens, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, or
any
Western identified MWO's.
---
religious kooks they are ... a threat to xianity and judaism for
sure ... a threat to America they are not, proven by our ability to
circle the planet and attack and occupy their countries

On Dec 17, 9:18 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Good Morning PlainOl!
>
> Herein lies I think the divergence of opinion:
>
> You Wrote:
>
> *"Your camp, however, thinks that it's because they hate our freedom and
> success and are trying to rule our nation. One has to only look at the
> actions of the US military to see who is trying to rule who."*
> **
> *=======*
>
> Dr. Paul said:
>
> *"To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same,
> this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come
> here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to
> Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that's the
> reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they
> explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said they
> come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."*
>
> ==========
>
> Let's stick on the same premise here for a moment, and keep the discussion
> to the United States, as compared to Switzerland and Sweden. In
> particular, Sweden.
>
> As you pointed out, neither of these Nation-States spend money on foreign
> involvement like the United States. Sweden is lost PlainOl. I don't
> think it can change course. It will soon be a Nation that is governed
> under Sharia Law and will be a predominately theological Islamic
> Nation-State probably during yous and my lifetime. So will most of
> Europe. (I think Switzerland is an exception, because it has rather
> strict immigration laws, and like you pointed out, the Swiss are armed to
> the teeth).
>
> Paul is naive, and his statement above makes my point. We are under
> attack, and it doesn't matter whether we were, "intervening" as Dr. Paul,
> and his minsinformed cult of followers would frame it or not. The current
> Islamic leadership that would like to see a global "Dar al Islam" do in
> fact resent our freedoms and successes. This is the whole issue of what
> you are missing, and I don't know how to convince you, and other crackpots
> and Moonbats of the threat. Open your eyes! Muslims who are in control
> right now, are fundamentalist in their thinking. Anyone who is not of that
> mindset, whether they are Islamic or not Islamic, are infidels. The term
> "Infidel" includes what we might term, "Moderate Muslims". The current
> leadership of Islam have a disdain for anything "Western". They reject the
> McDonaldization of the World, and hate the bright colors, the brand
> names, e.g.; anything that is remotely considered Western. This is not
> just Israel and the United States we are talkiing about, they hate the
> names, Bosch, BMW, Mercedes, Siemens, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, or any
> Western identified MWO's.
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:42 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I understand the threat that Islam and its
> > leadership poses to the world.
> > ---
> > yeah, sharia law and governance ... I get it
> > imo - our legal system shouldn't use sharia or any other religious
> > law. The USA is a secular nation.
> > That many european and middle eastern countries, like Israel and
> > India, do is their business
>
> > Again, Dr. Paul indicated last night that
> > he doesn't understand this threat.
> > ---
> > he understands the difference between a potential threat, a real one
> > and a fear of islam.
> > We are being invaded every day by foreign hispanics from the south and
> > you're worried about the muzzies?
>
> > There was one comment he made about how
> > Islam doesn't attack Switzerland or Sweden......I broke out laughing!
> > ----
> > the statement:
> > Rep. Paul stressed that Santorum's claim that Islamic theology is
> > founded upon killing everyone is not based in reality: "To declare war
> > on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is
> > dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come
> > here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to
> > Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that's the
> > reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here and they
> > explicitly explain it to us. The CIA has explained it to us. They said
> > they come here and want to do us harm because we're bombing them."
>
> > S&S do get attacked by terrorists, like many countries, but
> > Switzerland does not send troops to intervene in other nations.
> > Switzerland does not spend tens of billions of dollars yearly to fund
> > dictators around the world, nor did Switzerland donate hundreds of
> > billions of dollars to the Warsaw Pact through bank "loans."
> > Switzerland does not send billions of dollars worth of weaponry every
> > year to the warring tribes in the Middle East . Switzerland has no
> > enemies. Yet the Swiss are armed to the teeth and dug into every hill
> > and under every building.
>
> > US policy is the evil-parallel-universe inverse of the Swiss. The US
> > intervenes everywhere, spies on everyone, supports every faction in
> > every dispute. We have as many enemies as there are disputatious
> > people in the world. Yet we spend more effort on disarming our own
> > airline pilots and other law-abiding citizens than on providing
> > shelters for our children against nuclear, chemical, or biological
> > attack. We have an expensive conventional army, and quite a few aging
> > offensive nuclear weapons.
>
> > In a perfect world, Dr. Paul's logic is.....Logical. Unfortunately,
> > Dr.
> > Paul is just flat out naive regarding foreign policy and world
> > affairs.
> > ---
> > naive about what?
> > His opinion, like that of many Americans, is that our occupation and
> > interference in their government is the cause of their disdain or
> > hatred. Your camp, however, thinks that it's because they hate our
> > freedom and success and are trying to rule our nation. One has to only
> > look at the actions of the US military to see who is trying to rule
> > who.
>
> > I am rushed this morning, but I will follow up with examples of what I
> > speak of, and attempt to demonstrate why the term "Neo-Con" is so
> > misplaced by Ron Paul and his misinformed supporters.
> > ---
> > it's not misplaced ... it's accurate
> > the term and members have changed over time a bit but
> > 'neoconservatives' currently includes those who support spreading
> > democracy at the end of a gun, support israel, and want to keep any
> > potential national adversary in the cross-hairs so they can feel safe
> > while plundering resources and replacing leaders, regardless of the
> > failure of the policy.
>
> > On Dec 16, 8:44 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good Morning PlainOl,
>
> > > Your Wiki article is thoughtful, and usually I don't use Wiki for
> > examples
> > > of political theory.
>
> > > I have no hatred of Islam. I have studied Islam, long before the
> > > September 11, 2001 tragedy, and I understand the threat that Islam and
> > its
> > > leadership poses to the world. Again, Dr. Paul indicated last night
> > that
> > > he doesn't understand this threat. There was one comment he made about
> > how
> > > Islam doesn't attack Switzerland or Sweden......I broke out laughing!
>
> > > In a perfect world, Dr. Paul's logic is.....Logical. Unfortunately,
> > Dr.
> > > Paul is just flat out naive regarding foreign policy and world affairs.
>
> > > I am rushed this morning, but I will follow up with examples of what I
> > > speak of, and attempt to demonstrate why the term "Neo-Con" is so
> > > misplaced by Ron Paul and his misinformed supporters.
>
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:30 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > Again, I don't think you know what a NeoCon is.
> > > > ---
> > > > I do and you have already admitted that you don't
> > > > here's a primer ... read it thoroughly
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
>
> > > > You have been filled
> > > > with such hatred and misinformation
> > > > ---
> > > > cite specific hatred
> > > > you're the one with a hatred for islam ... a religion with just as
> > > > many kooks as xianity and judaism
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 5:04 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Again, I don't think you know what a NeoCon is. You have been
> > filled
> > > > > with such hatred and misinformation, that you wouldn't know the
> > truth if
> > > > it
> > > > > hit you right square in the ass.
>
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 3:56 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > Your views on isolationism,
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > I don't advocate isolationism ... but you do advocate imperialism
>
> > > > > > extremism,
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > exemplified by the US invasion of the middle east
>
> > > > > > and anti-semitism are noted.
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > you're accusation has been noted ... so has has your allegiance to
> > the
> > > > > > imperialist warmongering zionist neocons
>
> > > > > > On Dec 14, 2:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Your views on isolationism, extremism, and anti-semitism are
> > noted.
>
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 11:53 AM, plainolamerican <
> > > > > > plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > there is no socialist-elitist Democrat who is
> > > > > > > > going to bring prosperity to any community, State, region or
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > federal level
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > agreed
>
> > > > > > > > then there's the waste of our nation's wealth and soldiers on
> > other
> > > > > > > > countries (interventionism) at the hands of the republicans and
> > > > > > > > democrats
>
> > > > > > > > vote for Ron Paul and rebuild America as a powerhouse, without
> > > > > > > > imperialist warmongering
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 9:57 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > The bottom line, is that there is no socialist-elitist
> > Democrat
> > > > who
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > going to bring prosperity to any community, State, region
> > or
> > > > on the
> > > > > > > > > federal level. The socialist-elitist Democrats have not
> > brought
> > > > any
> > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > ideas or thoughts to the table in over seventy years. It is
> > a
>
> ...
>
> 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.

No god but allah on dollar bill

http://tinyurl.com/65f42po

HOME > BLOG > "No God But Allah" Appearing on U.S. Dollar Bills

June 30, 2011

"No God But Allah" Appearing on U.S. Dollar Bills

Bet you thought you'd never see this in your lifetime

Print This E-mail This

ShareThis

Comments (22)

A lady in Monte Vista, CO had this dollar bill. This is her story. You don't think we're in a war. What thoughts come to mind! These are starting to show up around our country!

After dinner she took a $1 dollar bill out of her purse and displayed it on the table. Underneath the words "In God We Trust" someone had stamped the dollar bill in red ink---NO GOD BUT ALLAH. We asked her where she had gotten this dollar bill. She said it was part of her change in Alamosa, CO. We took a picture of her dollar bill. If anyone tries to give you one of these dollar bills as change...please refuse it and ask them to give you a dollar bill that has not been defaced.

--
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.

“Merry Christmas” PC Apartheid in Congress

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

"Merry Christmas" PC Apartheid in Congress

by Dr. Eowyn

There's a PC apartheid in Congress.

"Merry Christmas" is banned in the U.S. House of Representatives but not in the Senate.

Mark Tapscott reports for The Examiner, Dec. 16, 2011, members of the House are told they can't wish constituents a "Merry Christmas" in any mailing paid for with tax dollars.

The congressional franking commission that reviews all congressional mail to determine if it can be "franked," or paid for with tax dollars, has issued an edict that no holiday greetings, including "Merry Christmas," can be sent in official mail.

Members of Congress send millions of dollars worth of mail to constituents every year but there are official rules that govern what can and cannot be said in those mailings. Members are barred, for example, from saying anything that might be construed as advocating their re-election.

But saying "Merry Christmas" is also not permitted, according to a Dec. 12 memo from the "Franking Commission Staff" concerning "Holiday Messaging." The memo explains:

"Members are unable at the current time to use official resources to record holiday greetings, post on social media/website, or send to constituents in franked mail or e-communications.

Member's Congressional Handbook: GREETINGS-

Expenses related to the purchase or distribution of greetings, including holiday celebrations, condolences, and congratulations for personal distinctions (wedding anniversaries, birthdays, etc.), are not reimbursable.

Franking Manual:

4(a). Example of Nonfrankable Items
-Birthday, anniversary, wedding, birth, retirement or condolence messages and holiday greetings are prohibited.

You may make reference to the season as a whole using language along the lines of 'Have a safe and happy holiday season.' It may only be incidental to the piece rather than the primary purpose of the communication."

Franking commission spokesman Salley Wood confirmed to The Washington Examiner that members of Congress indeed cannot wish constituents "Merry Christmas" in any official mailing: "Currently, incidental use of the phrase Happy Holidays is permissible but Merry Christmas is not."

In other words, the very elected representatives who put "In God We Trust" on America's currency are prohibited from using the greeting "Merry Christmas" in official communications to their constituents!

But that's not the case with the Senate.

According to the regulation of the Senate Ethics Committee that handles franking issues for members of the Senate the upper chamber:

"Senators may not use the frank to mail holiday cards. However, Senators may use officially related funds to mail holiday cards to constituents. Holiday cards to friends should be sent with personal funds, not using Senate facilities. Senators also may NOT use the frank to acknowledge holiday greetings that were sent to them. Senators may express holiday greetings at the commencement or conclusion of otherwise frankable mail."

And yet, it is the Senate that has a liberal Democrat majority whereas the House has a Republican majority. Go figure.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | December 19, 2011 at 5:33 am | Tags: franking commission, House of Representatives, Senate Ethics Committee, US Senate | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-biS

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/2011/12/19/merry-christmas-pc-apartheid-in-congress/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

The Perfect Contest for Congress: House vs Senate

First ever World Watching Paint Dry Championships to be held in UK

http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/884763-first-ever-world-watching-paint-dry-championships-to-be-held-in-uk

Re: Thought for the Day

Americans can be arrested on home soil and taken to Guantánamo Bay
---
there are a lot of American citizens who should be taken to GB ... and
the US military should have all the tools they need to find, imprison,
interrogate, and eventually punish for crimes against America

On Dec 18, 1:47 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ** **
>
> Americans can be arrested on home soil and taken to Guantánamo Bay under a**
> **
>
> provision inserted into the bill that funds the US military.****
>
> ** **
>
> Take Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn 1st.****

--
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: American Thinker: Paul's Foreign Policy Exposed

Interesting that you would voice the opinion of a non-American.

in his central point, namely that "they don't come
here to kill us because we're free and prosperous.
---
is something that neocons will not admit to understanding .... because
it thwarts their plans in the middle east.

we know what their plan is, the crimes they will commit to accomplish
it, and who it benefits.

when Obama exposes those who Gingrich will fill his cabinet with they
will vote for a democrat ... and i will continue to vote for an
independent, as I will not support imperialist warmongers lead by
zionists

On Dec 19, 8:04 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Exposed
> *By* *Daren Jonescu*
> December 19, 2011
>
> Much has been said against Ron Paul's foreign policy. He has been accused
> of anti-Semitism, of living in a pre-technological past, and of using moral
> equivalency arguments to critique America's unwillingness to "mind its own
> business," in effect blaming the U.S. for September 11th. Whatever truth
> there may be in some of these criticisms of Paul's position -- and I have
> previously expressed sympathy with one or two of them (though not the
> anti-Semitism) -- the December 15 debate in Iowa exposed a deeper concern
> with Paul's foreign policy: an unbelievable ignorance.
>
> Herman Cain took a lot of heat from conservatives who thought he showed too
> little knowledge of international issues for someone of his age and
> political aspirations. I thought this criticism unfair, in that it played
> into the hands of the politics-as-usual types, who think Romney and
> Gingrich sound strong on foreign policy because, over many years of
> campaigning, they have memorized a lot of names, facts, and figures. Cain
> did sometimes sound unprepared for broad questions of principle -- which
> are the important questions at this point -- but, to his credit, he usually
> came back sounding a little better the next time around. For all the
> impressive, ready answers offered by slicker, more experienced politicians,
> does anyone really believe there is a person in this nominating process, or
> on this planet, for that matter, who has *all* the necessary knowledge and
> facts at his disposal on any complicated foreign policy question? As many
> good minds have argued, men live in a fog on matters of world historical
> significance. That does not justify relativism in decision or action;
> rather, it reinforces the importance of finding a leader with strong
> principles, and a conscientious will to enact those principles to the best
> of his or her ability, according to the best information available at any
> given moment.
>
> Which brings us back to Congressman Paul, and his performance on December
> 15. The moderator Bret Baier opened the topic of foreign policy by asking
> Paul whether he would still be calling for the removal of sanctions against
> Iran if, as President, he had solid intelligence that Iran had a nuclear
> weapon. Paul's answer<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF07VBAFhh8&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL>,
> in a nutshell, was yes; Iran's desire for nukes, he argued, is
> understandable in light of its feeling "surrounded" in the region.
>
> While it may be true as a psychological analysis, this answer was an
> example of Paul's moral equivalency. Everyone knows why the mullahs want a
> nuclear weapon, and that, in their minds, the desire is reasonable; the
> question is whether it ought to be acceptable to the so-called free world
> that a theocratic despotism harboring dreams of a global theocracy achieved
> by provoking a doomsday scenario should acquire nuclear weapons. Rick
> Santorum made this very point in a strong rebuttal to Paul's answer,
> highlighting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that "martyrdom" is the chief
> Iranian virtue in opposition to Paul's suggestion that a Cold War threat of
> "mutual assured destruction" would be effective against Iran.
>
> Michele Bachmann went further, declaring, "I have never heard a more
> dangerous answer for American security than the one we just heard from Ron
> Paul." Her argument was this:
>
> Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally
> that their mission is to extend jihad across the world, and eventually to
> set up a world-wide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their
> purpose and their plan.
>
> And here is where a policy argument became a question of basic factual
> understanding. Paul, given the opportunity to answer Bachmann's criticism,
> began by saying that he would like to reduce nuclear weapons generally,
> followed by this:
>
> But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims, and say all Muslims are the same
> -- this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't
> come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to
> Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the
> reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here, and explicitly
> explain it to us, CIA has explained it to us -- it said they come here and
> they want to do us harm because we're bombing them....
>
> First of all, who declared war on 1.2 billion Muslims? Who said they were
> all the same? Expressly singling out the regime in Tehran for harsh
> criticism seems to suggest a pretty clear desire *not *to say that all
> Muslims are the same -- as do attempts to support freedom-seeking
> opposition movements within Iran. (How would a "mind our own business"
> policy affect people within such movements?)
>
> This equation of criticizing the Iranian despots with "declaring war on"
> all Muslims demonstrates Paul's facile outlook on the world. *He* is the
> one who views the various peoples of the world in monolithic terms.
> Consider the final sentence of the quotation above. Who are "they" in that
> sentence? The Iranian regime, to which all of the other candidates, as well
> as the moderator, were referring? No, because no one is "bombing them," as
> Paul says of "them." Presumably he means the radical Islamists. But if that
> is so, then he is implying either that the jihadists will, if America
> leaves them alone, simply leave America -- and, by extension, every other
> country that ignores them -- out of their global Islamist agenda, or that
> they are only radical *because* of unjust American policy, i.e. that their
> cause is essentially just and defensive. I don't believe he means to go
> that far.
>
> In truth, I think he really doesn't know whom he means by "they" and
> "them." He is afflicted with foreign policy myopia: A disbelief in the
> complete and independent reality of a world outside of the United States, a
> world in which real people living entirely beyond the realm of our lives.
> To such thinking, the "outside world" is merely an undifferentiated
> repository of resentment against U.S. imperialism. Consider Paul's frequent
> implication that people everywhere view American forces on their soil as
> occupiers. As one who has lived in South Korea for almost five years, I can
> vouch for the fact that such a sentiment is uncommon here -- although it
> occasionally appears among leftists who sympathize with communist North
> Korea.
>
> Paul's rebuttal to Bachmann on Iran goes from the straw-man to the
> ridiculous, however, in his central point, namely that "they don't come
> here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to
> Switzerland and Sweden?"
>
> Well, actually, yes "they" do (see
> here<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItutELT4qE8>,
> here <http://www.thelocal.se/36086/20110912/>, and
> here<http://www.hudson-ny.org/2449/immigrants-swiss-flag-cross>).
> "They" also go to Denmark
> (here<http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-29/five-people-arrested-in-denm...>and
> here<http://midnightwatcher.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/denmark-islamists-see...>),
> The Netherlands
> (here<http://www.mererhetoric.com/2005/11/28/hey-gals-check-this-out-islami...>),
> Germany (here<http://www.meforum.org/687/the-muslim-brotherhoods-conquest-of-europe>),
> Spain (here<http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-13/world/spain.terror.convictions_1_t...>),
> and so on. "They" go wherever "they" perceive an opportunity to gain a
> foothold for the goal "they" share with the Iranian regime: a world-wide
> caliphate.
>
> "Yeah, there are some radicals." I nominate this for the 2011
> Flippant-Dismissal-of-an-International-Threat of the Year Award. "Yeah, the
> Bolsheviks are a little militant about property owners." "Yeah, the Nazis
> are a little pushy about Poland."
>
> Hide-from-reality isolationism vs. globalist interventionism is a false
> dichotomy. There are other options.
>
> Yeah, Ron Paul has a foreign policy problem.
>
> at-logo.gif
> 7KViewDownload

--
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: Saudi's Prince Alwaleed buys $300 million Twitter stake

smart buy ... get used to a larger muslim voice

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani turned down a $10 million donation from
Al-Waleed for 911 disaster relief after the prince suggested the
United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a
criminal attack," and "re-examine its policies in the Middle East."

On Dec 19, 8:14 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/us-twitter-alwaleed-idUSTRE...

--
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.

Saudi's Prince Alwaleed buys $300 million Twitter stake

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/us-twitter-alwaleed-idUSTRE7BI0EF20111219

North Koreans mourning sounds like

a gaggle of geese gagging.

American Thinker: Paul's Foreign Policy Exposed

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Exposed

By Daren Jonescu

December 19, 2011

Much has been said against Ron Paul's foreign policy. He has been accused of anti-Semitism, of living in a pre-technological past, and of using moral equivalency arguments to critique America's unwillingness to "mind its own business," in effect blaming the U.S. for September 11th. Whatever truth there may be in some of these criticisms of Paul's position -- and I have previously expressed sympathy with one or two of them (though not the anti-Semitism) -- the December 15 debate in Iowa exposed a deeper concern with Paul's foreign policy: an unbelievable ignorance.

Herman Cain took a lot of heat from conservatives who thought he showed too little knowledge of international issues for someone of his age and political aspirations. I thought this criticism unfair, in that it played into the hands of the politics-as-usual types, who think Romney and Gingrich sound strong on foreign policy because, over many years of campaigning, they have memorized a lot of names, facts, and figures. Cain did sometimes sound unprepared for broad questions of principle -- which are the important questions at this point -- but, to his credit, he usually came back sounding a little better the next time around. For all the impressive, ready answers offered by slicker, more experienced politicians, does anyone really believe there is a person in this nominating process, or on this planet, for that matter, who has all the necessary knowledge and facts at his disposal on any complicated foreign policy question? As many good minds have argued, men live in a fog on matters of world historical significance. That does not justify relativism in decision or action; rather, it reinforces the importance of finding a leader with strong principles, and a conscientious will to enact those principles to the best of his or her ability, according to the best information available at any given moment.

Which brings us back to Congressman Paul, and his performance on December 15. The moderator Bret Baier opened the topic of foreign policy by asking Paul whether he would still be calling for the removal of sanctions against Iran if, as President, he had solid intelligence that Iran had a nuclear weapon. Paul's answer, in a nutshell, was yes; Iran's desire for nukes, he argued, is understandable in light of its feeling "surrounded" in the region.

While it may be true as a psychological analysis, this answer was an example of Paul's moral equivalency. Everyone knows why the mullahs want a nuclear weapon, and that, in their minds, the desire is reasonable; the question is whether it ought to be acceptable to the so-called free world that a theocratic despotism harboring dreams of a global theocracy achieved by provoking a doomsday scenario should acquire nuclear weapons. Rick Santorum made this very point in a strong rebuttal to Paul's answer, highlighting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim that "martyrdom" is the chief Iranian virtue in opposition to Paul's suggestion that a Cold War threat of "mutual assured destruction" would be effective against Iran.

Michele Bachmann went further, declaring, "I have never heard a more dangerous answer for American security than the one we just heard from Ron Paul." Her argument was this:

Look no further than the Iranian constitution, which states unequivocally that their mission is to extend jihad across the world, and eventually to set up a world-wide caliphate. We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.

And here is where a policy argument became a question of basic factual understanding. Paul, given the opportunity to answer Bachmann's criticism, began by saying that he would like to reduce nuclear weapons generally, followed by this:

But to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims, and say all Muslims are the same -- this is dangerous talk. Yeah, there are some radicals. But they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden? I mean, that's absurd. If you think that is the reason, we have no chance of winning this. They come here, and explicitly explain it to us, CIA has explained it to us -- it said they come here and they want to do us harm because we're bombing them....

First of all, who declared war on 1.2 billion Muslims? Who said they were all the same? Expressly singling out the regime in Tehran for harsh criticism seems to suggest a pretty clear desire not to say that all Muslims are the same -- as do attempts to support freedom-seeking opposition movements within Iran. (How would a "mind our own business" policy affect people within such movements?)

This equation of criticizing the Iranian despots with "declaring war on" all Muslims demonstrates Paul's facile outlook on the world. He is the one who views the various peoples of the world in monolithic terms. Consider the final sentence of the quotation above. Who are "they" in that sentence? The Iranian regime, to which all of the other candidates, as well as the moderator, were referring? No, because no one is "bombing them," as Paul says of "them." Presumably he means the radical Islamists. But if that is so, then he is implying either that the jihadists will, if America leaves them alone, simply leave America -- and, by extension, every other country that ignores them -- out of their global Islamist agenda, or that they are only radical because of unjust American policy, i.e. that their cause is essentially just and defensive. I don't believe he means to go that far.

In truth, I think he really doesn't know whom he means by "they" and "them." He is afflicted with foreign policy myopia: A disbelief in the complete and independent reality of a world outside of the United States, a world in which real people living entirely beyond the realm of our lives. To such thinking, the "outside world" is merely an undifferentiated repository of resentment against U.S. imperialism. Consider Paul's frequent implication that people everywhere view American forces on their soil as occupiers. As one who has lived in South Korea for almost five years, I can vouch for the fact that such a sentiment is uncommon here -- although it occasionally appears among leftists who sympathize with communist North Korea.

Paul's rebuttal to Bachmann on Iran goes from the straw-man to the ridiculous, however, in his central point, namely that "they don't come here to kill us because we're free and prosperous. Do they go to Switzerland and Sweden?"

Well, actually, yes "they" do (see here, here, and here). "They" also go to Denmark (here and here), The Netherlands (here), Germany (here), Spain (here), and so on. "They" go wherever "they" perceive an opportunity to gain a foothold for the goal "they" share with the Iranian regime: a world-wide caliphate.

"Yeah, there are some radicals." I nominate this for the 2011 Flippant-Dismissal-of-an-International-Threat of the Year Award. "Yeah, the Bolsheviks are a little militant about property owners." "Yeah, the Nazis are a little pushy about Poland."

Hide-from-reality isolationism vs. globalist interventionism is a false dichotomy. There are other options.

Yeah, Ron Paul has a foreign policy problem.