Friday, December 30, 2011

The Looking Spoon Blog






The Looking Spoon Blog


If The Liberal Media Covered Jesus's Birth...

Posted: 30 Dec 2011 04:40 AM PST

Click to see the full size. From The People's Cube


Obozo The Clown

Posted: 29 Dec 2011 07:10 AM PST

I drew this on my iPhone using Sketchbook Mobile and my finger. It's can be found at the "TLS Sketchbook.".



Reagan Wisdom On Why Gun Control Doesn't Work

Posted: 29 Dec 2011 07:10 AM PST

New Year's Resolutions For Liberals

Posted: 29 Dec 2011 07:10 AM PST

You are subscribed to email updates from Blog
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610


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

**JP** Shaan-e-Nuzool | Surah al-Baqarah, Verse 190


https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/384468_338100702869247_291711234174861_1480515_18879932_n.jpg

 
--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

****People oppose things because they are ignorant of them****

--
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

Why We Must Stop SOPA



New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

Why We Must Stop SOPA

by Harold

End of the American Dream 12/30/2011 Right now, there are two pieces of legislation in Congress that would change the Internet forever if they are enacted. The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) would give the federal government the ability to potentially shut down millions of websites. SOPA (the [...]

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/2011/12/30/06-773/

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.

Obama ordered Congress to work on transfer of Taliban leader from Gitmo to Afghanistan

Obarfo better wipe his own ass before he 'orders' congress to wipe theirs.

New post on Creeping Sharia

Obama ordered Congress to work on transfer of Taliban leader from Gitmo to Afghanistan

by creeping

This aligns with the last post that revealed that Obama is leaning on Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf Qaradawi to broker a deal with the Taliban. Negotiations with the Taliban have been going on for almost a year. via US mulls transfer of high-risk Taliban prisoner in peace bid | World news | guardian.co.uk. The Obama [...]

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/2011/12/30/obama-ordered-congress-to-work-on-transfer-of-taliban-leader-from-gitmo-to-afghanistan/

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.

Anti-Muslim Truth Blog Taken Down by WordPress After Complaints From Terrorist-linked CAIR








Fortunately it will be back up by Monday…it received dozens of offers of new servers to host it!

 

No "hate" involved but a lot of facts about Islam which, to the distress of Muslims, are all true. 

 

Truth hurts?

 

 



http://www.theblaze.com/stories/anti-muslim-hate-blog-taken-down-by-wordpress-after-complaints-from-cair/

Anti-Muslim Hate Blog Taken Down by WordPress After Complaints From CAIR

An anti-Muslim hate blog that contained inflammatory comments has been taken down by its hosting company after numerous complaints from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, PR Newswire reports.

Visitors to the site Barenakedislam.com now see a message noting the blog is no longer available:

A news report posted by CAIR on YouTube in November details the threats made by those on the blog:

CAIR has archived some of the pages, and it seems some of the complaints stem from the comments readers were leaving, such as this one:

Muslims have an all-or-nothing, openly declaring they'll destroy us if we don't destroy them. That's why, if you see a Muslim licking an ice cream cone in the park and you blow his head off you are technically committing an act of self defense.

It would be like shooting a Nazi off a half track while he's playing a harmonica for his comrades. Doesn't matter if they've taken a pause to refresh their hateful bodies and minds. You know what they'll do inevitably if allowed to continue in your midst.

Muslims must learn they they are not safe anywhere outside a Muslim country. It's because we are not safe when even one of them is among us. They have a wold-among sheep mentality. And like wolves among sheep, they can't be reasoned with. Nor does it matter if their is a whole burgeoning sheepfold and only a few wolves.

[...]

It kills me every time I have to drive by the Mosque on Rte. 7 on Friday in Falls Church, VA and see the police protecting these scumbags and to know that the Fort Hood shooter "worshiped" there and that Al-Awlaki preached there, etc.

My heart does a back flip to see a mosque "desecrated". But here a clue, Haji: You cannot desecrate that which is profane. It should never have been "consecrated" in the first place.

[...]

Burn every mosque to the ground in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and kill every Muslim twice. Read the Old Testament/Torah; yeah, Jesus was there, too! And the more desperate our times become, the more as see the radical solutions applied there as most efficacious and most perfectly innocent, most perfectly righteous. Those passages where the children of Israel are told to kill everyone and burn everything, to take nothing from the sick, dead culture they purged, neither their gods nor their earthly goods, etc., mean something altogether different to me now that I am 44 years old and have seen this spreading evil I never knew existed before.

[...]

Burn every mosque, kill every Muslim, then follow them back to the hellish countries they invaded and took over in the 7th Century and liberate them – whether they want to be liberated or not.

I am calling for a worldwide Crusade against Islam. We've let the Muslims breed their hate and rebound from the last quarantine for far too long and now they are a threat to every man, woman, and child on the planet again. And so, clearly, it's time for another crusade.

I want their blood on my hands as a matter of principle. I want to feel Islam physically dying at my feet. I pity anyone who doesn't share this urge. You don't put the devil on notice that he has to be good or he'll suffer consequences. You don't keep a close eye on him or quarantine him. You blot him out of existence. It is not in his nature to comply with your wish to live in peace and security. And that, with nothing more, delineates your DUTY, to dispose of him. It's not an excuse for YOUR injustice. It's a mandate for your implementation of justice. Anything less and you are being unjust to the point of insanity or evil yourself. [Emphasis added]

According to the explanation posted in the YouTube video, this isn't the first time CAIR has successfully petitioned to get an anti-Muslim site taken down.

"At CAIR's request, WordPress.com last year deleted a similar blog containing posts that advocated burning mosques, making false bomb threats implicating Muslims, desecrating Muslim graves, and that recommended the "proper way to shoot a muslim [sic]," the description notes.

PR Newswire adds that "Bare Naked Islam" was "one of the major promoters of the campaign to pressure Lowe's to drops its ads from TLC's 'All-American Muslim.'"

(H/T: Gateway Pundit)

 

 



--
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.

Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming


12/28/2011 @ 1:41PM
Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming
Louis Woodhill, Contributor

Much was written about the most recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, which was held in Durban, South Africa November 28 through December 9 of this year. However, most commentators gave short shrift to the most important­in a sense, the only­outcome of the meeting. This was, of course, the agreement to hold yet another conference in yet another nice location (Qatar) about a year from now.

The Durban conference was the seventeenth conference of its kind. They have been held annually since 1995 in places such as Geneva (in July 1996) and Bali (in December 2007). Don't hold your breath for one to be held in Newark, New Jersey, or Fargo, North Dakota.

The meeting in Durban provided an opportunity for Progressives to make their latest argument that ordinary people should surrender their freedom and hand all money and power over to unelected, unaccountable "experts" like, well, the people at the conference. This is, of course, in order to "save the planet" from "climate change". (The issue that had for years been called "global warming" was rebranded as "climate change" when the most recent decade's worth of data proved uncooperative.)

First, let's get the known and knowable facts out of the way. Is the climate changing? Yes. One feature of the manifested universe is the impermanence of all things. The climate has changed over time and will continue to change. Is the change good or bad? Like all change, it is both good and bad.

But, overall, is it good or bad? We can't say. We don't even have a conceptual framework that would allow us to answer that question, or even to adequately describe how the climate is changing. "Climate" is an abstraction, and all abstractions are untrue (or at least incomplete).

Is human activity causing the climate to change? We don't know, and there is no way, even in principle, that we can know. It is difficult enough to determine the "what" of climate change. To determine the "why", we would need to do controlled experiments. And, for this, we would need another planet, identical in every way to our own earth, which we could use as a "control".

But wait! Isn't the science "settled", thus making anyone who questions the climate change "consensus" an anti-intellectual Luddite? No. Nothing in science is ever settled.

"Science" consists of nothing but theories that have not yet been disproved by evidence, but which, in principle, could be so disproved. Even Einstein's theory of relativity, which has been validated by thousands of experiments and measurements over almost a century, was recently called into question by experiments involving neutrinos that appeared to travel faster than light.

If something is "settled", it is not science. It is religious dogma, and an assault upon freedom of thought and inquiry.

But don't the climate scientists' computer models prove that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels are causing climate change? No. First, no computer model can ever prove anything (see the definition of "science" given above). Second, we do not have the capability to model a system as complex as the earth.

The most any computer model can be is a useful tool. As it happens, all of the computer models that have been developed over the years by climate change proponents have already been invalidated by events that they did not accurately predict. For example, given the fast rising CO2 concentration in the earth's atmosphere, global temperatures should have gone up much faster than they have over the past ten years. (And, it is not even clear that they have risen at all,)

So, we don't know what is really happening to the earth's "climate". Even if we did, we could not be sure why it was happening. And, we have no way of knowing whether the change was good or bad for mankind as a whole.

But what of the Progressives' argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, "just in case"?

Two points about this: first, it's not going to happen. The Progressives will have to content themselves with extracting a few billion dollars per year from taxpayers to fund cushy "research" and "advocacy" jobs, and to hold climate change conferences like the one that just concluded in Durban. Second, the climate change advocates obviously don't believe in climate change themselves.

You can't necessarily tell what people are truly committed to from what they say. However, you can always tell what they are truly committed to by how they negotiate. If someone really wants to do something, they will react to a suggestion by engaging it. They will "work with" the suggestion, trying to see how it can help them do what they say they want to do. If someone says that they want to do something but they really have some other agenda, they will respond to a suggestion with an instant, "Yes, but…"

The climate change crowd has been frantically "yes, butting" geoengineering, which involves using technology to control the climate directly. Their efforts in this regard would be hilarious if the stakes in terms of money and freedom were not so high.

It is obvious that even if "climate change" is happening, and even if it is a bad thing, it is not going to be reversed by reducing CO2 emissions. Despite decades of climate change conferences, protocols, and agreements, fossil fuel use has been rising rapidly as people all over the world have adopted free market economics as a way of escaping poverty. So, if anything at all is going to be done about climate change, it will have to be done by "geoengineering".

Geoengineering is a far more logical response to "global warming" than are efforts to curb CO2 emissions. First of all, geoengineering does not require that our assumption that it is man-made CO2 emissions that are causing the problem be correct. It would work regardless of what was "really" causing global temperatures to rise. Second, there are geoengineering approaches that could cool the earth at a cost of a few billion dollars per year, rather than tens of trillions of dollars per year. And, third, geoengineering does not require that the people of the world surrender their personal and economic freedom.

Given that geoengineering has the potential to actually do something about the climate change "problem", the reaction of the climate change crowd to it has been illuminating. They have gone all-out to stop geoengineering experiments from being conducted, and they are doing everything they can to prevent geoengineering from even being discussed.

Climate change proponents recently mounted a desperate effort to stop an experiment in Britain designed to spray 40 gallons of pure water into the upper atmosphere (the so-called SPICE project). Thus far, they have managed to delay the test, and they are arguing that even if the experiment goes ahead, the results should not be made public.

The Progressives are well aware that their opposition to geoengineering experiments exposes their entire game, which is all about money, power, and central-planning control of people's lives, and has nothing to do with concern about the earth. Unfortunately (for them), they have no choice. Geoengineering solutions might actually work, but they do not require that Progressives be given taxpayer money to hold lavish conferences in lovely places like Durban, South Africa.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2011/12/28/even-the-warmists-dont-believe-in-global-warming/

The truth about Ron Paul


Published 04:33 29.12.11
Latest update 04:33 29.12.11
The truth about Ron Paul
There is no anti-Israel aspect to the Republican presidential candidate's opposition to giving Israel aid, he is opposed in principle to foreign aid, which he sees as a waste of money.
By Leon Hadar

WASHINGTON - He probably won't be the Republican candidate for president in 2012, but Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has a good chance to win the Republican primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire in January, become a driving force in next year's campaign and continue to influence his party's agenda.

This isn't good news for Jewish Republican activists and neoconservative intellectuals who backed the Iraq War; they accuse the most influential libertarian legislator on Capitol Hill of being anti-Israel. The Republican Jewish coalition did not invite Ron Paul to participate in the candidates forum it held this month in Washington, claiming that he is far from the party's mainstream and has criticized Israel bitterly during his years in Congress.

My impression, as someone who was one of his foreign policy advisors during the 2008 presidential campaign, is completely different. Paul, a 76-year-old Baptist who has represented the 22nd District of Texas in Congress since 1979, has a profound knowledge of Jewish history, admires Israel and follows its political and economic developments with great interest.

But Paul is also a believer in the Austrian school of economics, whose standard-bearers include economists such as Josef Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Like other Austrian-Americans, he tends to be skeptical of the need for government interference in the economy and believes that Washington's activist fiscal and monetary policies will lead America into bankruptcy, dangerous levels of inflation and the collapse of its currency. Paul calls for closing the Federal Reserve and other government offices and a significant reduction in the tax burden, along with broad cuts in government spending, including the military budget.

His belief that the government's growing role in the economy contradicts the value of individual economic freedom makes him a political ally of American conservatives, while his opposition to government enforcement of what are called "traditional values" and to undermining civil rights in the name of "national security" explains why he has also become very popular among liberals, but is loathed by neoconservatives.

However, his beliefs also lead him to strongly oppose U.S. military involvement around the world. He argues that military force should be a last resort in order to defend America's vital national interests, not part of an ambitious and expensive strategy intended to impose American ideals and interests on other nations. This policy leads to dangerous American involvement in international disputes that have no direct impact on it and strengthens the power of both the central government in Washington and the military-industrial complex.

It is therefore not surprising that Paul was one of the most prominent members of Congress to oppose the invasion of Iraq, and that today he refuses to support an American military attack on Iran. He believes that Iran - with or without nuclear weapons - does not present a direct threat to American interests, and that Israel has nuclear capability with which to deter Iran if and when the latter does develop nuclear weapons.

Nor is there any anti-Israel aspect to Paul's opposition to giving Israel economic aid. He is opposed in principle to foreign aid, which he sees as a waste of American money on leaders and countries whose interests and ideals are not necessarily in line with America's. Instead, he would encourage commercial ties with and American investment in Israel and other countries.

Thus the fact that Paul sees Israel as America's "close friend" in no way contradicts his opposition to giving Israel economic aid or to an American attack on Iran. He also emphasizes that when it comes to Israel's national interests with regard to Iran or the Palestinians, Washington doesn't have to "dictate" how Israel runs its affairs.

Hence if the Israeli government decided to attack Iran, or for that matter to reject an agreement with the Palestinians, Paul would honor those decisions. At the same time, President Paul would take it for granted that Israelis should be the ones to pay the price of these policies, and should not expect Washington to extricate them from a military or diplomatic hole they dug for themselves.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/the-truth-about-ron-paul-1.404278

Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy


Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy
The Paul-haters won't succeed
by Justin Raimondo, December 30, 2011

"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other, or one will destroy the other. That we know. Yet never has the choice been put to a vote of the people."

Garet Garrett had been an editor of the Saturday Evening Post, a financial writer for the New York Times, a renowned author and journalist of the "roaring Twenties," an intransigent opponent of the New Deal, and sometime novelist: his career spanned the era of Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Truman. In those days his was the voice of mainstream conservatism, albeit of a sort alien to the Newt Gingriches and Charles Krauthammers of this world, and he wrote the above cited words just as the US was embarking on its postwar crusade to save the world from Communism.

He had lived through the previous holy war against the Axis powers, witnessed the demise of the Old America and the rise of the Welfare-Warfare State, and saw – even then – that the country would face ruination if the crusading spirit prevailed over the need for self-preservation. He saw what would happen if we acquired an empire and sought to remake the world in our image. He annoyed his fellow libertarian, the novelist and ideologue Rose Wilder Lane, with his "keening" note of pessimism, which mourned "a world forever lost." Lane was sure the "world revolution" of freedom was coming, yet in those dark days when the spirit of freedom was seemingly forgotten it looked as if her friend Garrett was right.

Garrett died in 1954, a few years after the publication of his prescient essay: Rose followed him in 1968. Neither got to see the rise of a movement that would take the former's insights and the latter's optimism and forge a new path – and a new hope – for lovers of liberty. But I like to think they are still hovering over us, delighted at the success of their intellectual heirs, who today call themselves libertarians . No doubt they are buoyed by the success of presidential candidate Ron Paul, whose thrilling ascent in Iowa and beyond is redeeming Lane's optimism – and Garrett's hope – that the choice between empire and our old republic will – finally – be put to a vote of the people.

Paul's success – he is currently the frontrunner in Iowa, although the "mainstream" media is doing its best to downplay the numbers – has provoked an outburst of hysteria and pure hate from the War Party. Iowa, they declare, will be rendered " irrelevant" if Paul wins: Joe McQuaid, the bombastic editor of the neocon Union-Leader, rants that " Ron Paul is a dangerous man." How is that? Well, you see, Paul agrees with the overwhelming majority of Americans who don't think the Iraq war – which McQuaid and his tabloid supported – was worth the costs in lives and taxpayer dollars. Paul's anti-interventionist foreign policy views, says the would-be New Hampshire kingmaker, "have been largely overlooked by a news media more interested in the presidential 'horse race' than in the candidates' positions on issues."

McQuaid is getting on in years, and so probably doesn't get out much: while he is railing about the media's inattention to what he considers to be Paul's mortal sin, virtually every article assessing Paul's chances since the beginning of the campaign season has harped on precisely this theme. Paul's appeal is necessarily "limited" due to this: there is a "ceiling" on his support, they aver. As he began to climb in the polls, and this "ceiling" began to lift, the punditocracy declared that Iowa is pass̩, irrelevant, and an archaic tradition which ought to be ignored from now on by Those In The Know: Gail Collins gave voice to the New York-Washington axis when she sniffed that we ought to "feel free to ignore Iowa," because "in some rural districts, the entire caucus will consist of one guy named Earl." That she wouldn't dare say that if Earl lived in, say, the Bedford Stuyvesant section of Brooklyn Рwhere plenty of Earls reside, to be sure Рunderscores the bigotries our elites allow themselves, these days. In the world of Ms. Collins, some Earls are more equal than others.

The alleged dissonance between Paul's anti-interventionism and the frothy-mouthed militarism that has been Republican gospel ever since Robert Taft was cheated out of the GOP presidential nomination by the party's Wall Street wing – (see Phyllis Schlafly's classic A Choice, Not An Echo, p. 52, for a recap of the Eastern Establishment coup) – has been the constant theme of these pieces, written by youngsters with no understanding or knowledge of history. The one exception, oddly, was John Nichols in The Nation, a liberal-progressive periodical not known for its devotion to libertarianism, who recalled the history of the Old Right in his perceptive piece about the intellectual roots of the Paul campaign. McQuaid, for his part, neither knows nor cares about the history of the conservative movement he presumes to advise: he gets his "conservative" gospel from other sources. He cites Dorothy Rabinowitz's darkly threatening characterization of Paul as "the best-known of our homegrown propagandists for our chief enemies in the world. One who has made himself a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace."

He left out the part about Paul being a "propagandist for our enemies," perhaps because it was too much even for him. To the Rabinowitzes of this world – and the Gingriches, the Santorums, the Bachmanns, and the rest of that crazed crew – falls the solemn responsibility of determining the Enemy of the moment. Debate is limited, on this subject, to the question of which Enemy ought to be targeted at this particular point in time. Paul has broken this rule, and allowed that the main enemy – for those who want to limit the power of government, cut $1 trillion dollars from the budget, and emerge out of our economic morass – is in Washington, D.C., not Tehran.

This is literally treason in Rabinowitz's book, but then again that slim volume only contains several variations on a single theme: anyone who criticizes the regime of war and the constant erosion of our civil liberties is lacking in patriotism, and is quite possibly a "traitor," a "fifth columnist," a secret plotter against America and the supporter of its enemies – her enemies. In person – or, at least, on television – her bile is more acidic: here she compares Paul to Hitler and Mussolini while a panel of nattering neocons eggs her on.

One wonders what holds Rabinowitz back from calling for Paul's arrest as an " enemy combatant" – such restraint goes against the grain of her personal style. It is a style that has long since gone out of style, an echo of the bad old days of the Bush era, when the smoke had hardly cleared from the skies over Manhattan, and the country trembled at the commanding tone of the neocons as they accused war critics – "the decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts," as neocon tool Andrew Sullivan put it – of wanting to "mount a fifth column."

One of the most expected – and most welcome – developments of the primary campaign so far, from my perspective, has been Sullivan's withdrawal of his endorsement of Rep. Paul, after pressure from his friends on the Washington-New York cocktail party circuit and outraged emails from his dwindling fan club of gay waiters and sad young women who love only their cats. It's funny how everyone is howling that Paul must actively denounce and cast out any support from some white supremacist no one has ever heard of, but not a peep about the odiousness of an endorsement from someone who advocated, at the height of the post-9/11 hysteria, the launching of a nuclear attack on Iraq. Oh well, each to their own moral priorities.

Rabinowitz and McQuaid and the rest of the hate-mongers, who come up with a fresh Enemy every time we knock off the old one, or tire of the task, know who their real enemy is – and it isn't the President of Iran, or the Communist Party of China. It's those patriotic Americans who believe we ought to be putting the interests of Americans first – and that the empire is an albatross hung around our necks. It's the one-third of veterans who, according to a recent poll, think the Iraq war wasn't worth it: it's the majority of the American people who think we ought to pursue a policy of "minding our own business" abroad – these are the enemies Rabinowitz rails against. Paul is just a stand-in for the great Outer Wilderness that exists – so some say – outside the Washington-New York axis of power. That the great unwashed masses beyond this perimeter don't share the obsessions tormenting the Upper West Side of Manhattan and the Georgetown cocktail party circuit has been of little concern to Dorothy and her friends, the Cowardly Lions of the chickenhawk brigade and the Tin Woodsman a.k.a. Mitt Romney. Along with the scarecrows of the Fox News commentariat, together they've been marching down the yellow-brick road to war with Iran with nary an opponent to vilify. Suddenly they find themselves confronted by one who combines all their fears in a single convenient package: anti-interventionism (which they call " isolationism"), anti-elitism, and a well-organized and ideologically coherent movement targeting not only "big government" but the big financial interests, centered in New York, who profit from a system based on government debt.

The American empire – indeed, the entire colossus that is our bloated federal government – could not exist a single day without enslaving the American people to the demon of debt. The obvious beneficiaries [.pdf] are those collecting the interest on that debt – the big financial institutions that buy and sell US government securities. They finance the wars, they profit from government spending, and this is the essence of the real issue of "crony capitalism" some of the lesser Republican presidential candidates babble about without understanding or acknowledging that it isn't just Solyndra. That's small change compared to the massive theft being pulled off by the Federal Reserve as it inflates away our savings and enriches the few.

How do we pay for our overseas empire? The same way we pay for our burgeoning welfare state: by monetizing the debt, i.e. degrading the currency by creating "money" out of thin air, and inflating the bubble until it bursts again. This has been Paul's issue from the beginning, and it's a powerful one: it has substantially shaped the political discourse, with the other candidates forced to jump on board the anti-Fed bandwagon.

This is the Ron Paul Effect, and it has Dorothy and the War Street Journal running scared. Here is a conservative populist who is challenging their power, and in the very redoubt of neoconservative orthodoxy, the GOP! They who have always lived in fear of the rest of the country – in fear of the day those peasants with pitchforks gather in the streets below and yank them out of their Manhattan towers – are seeing in Paul their worst nightmare come true. That accounts for the spittle on Rabinowitz's cruel lips as she likens a gentle country doctor to the architect of the Holocaust.

It won't be long now before we hear baseless charges of "racism" and "extremism" supplemented by an overarching explanation for the Paulian phenomenon that echoes the clichéd "sociological" analysis of the neocons Richard Hofstadter and Seymour Martin Lipset, whose characterization of "pseudo-conservatism" as "status resentment" and "the paranoid style" given political form was an all-purpose smear, to be trotted out when liberal commentators were forced into discussions of conservatism. Conservatism, in this view, isn't an ideology so much as a mental affliction: Hofstadter and Co. were merely popularizing the Marxist theories of Theodore Adorno and the "Frankfurt School," who opined that opposition to FDR and the New Deal was evidence of a "father complex," the touchstone of "the authoritarian personality." Similar psycho-smears are deployed against Paul, who is said by his enemies to be a "crazy old uncle," "a crazy old codger," and a "crank," with neocon professional prig and "movie critic" Michael Medved calling him " Dr. Demento." This is the level of the "debate" the neocons want: prove you're not a crazy old Nazi!

The New York Times has collected and codified the "paranoid style" campaign against Paul, essentially stealing (with only minimal attribution) the "analysis" of Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez, who inveighed against Paul's "right-wing populism" in the pages of Reason magazine. In that essay, they charged that Paul has deliberately cultivated racists and other even less reputable elements while under the influence of his ideological Svengali, the libertarian theorist Murray N. Rothbard. The Times piece tries to link the good Doctor to one self-proclaimed neo-Nazi, who runs a racist web site – coincidentally the same person who was linked by the media to the Republicans in the infamous battle for Broward county, Florida, where disputes over ballot-counting escalated to the level of physical confrontations. Or not so coincidentally, as the case may be. In any case, the Times writer soon turns to the "right-wing populist" theory first floated by the anti-Paul tag team of Weigel and Sanchez, which is supposed to account for the racists and other troglodytes who are supposedly rallying to Paul's banner. Weigel-Sanchez characterize this populist strategy as based on "racism," and they present the following timeline:

"During the period when the most incendiary items appeared­roughly 1989 to 1994­Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic."

What was it about that period – roughly 1989 to 1994 – that stands out in one's mind? If you're a foreign policy analyst, or even if you're just an ordinary educated person, what it recalls is the downing of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the Soviet empire. This, and not some mythical appeal to the followers of David Duke, was the impetus for the "right-wing populist" strategy. Weigel and Sanchez cite as their source Rothbard's 1992 speech to the John Randolph Club, but fail to provide a link – leaving their readers to the interpretive mercies of these two mendacious authors. These two turncoats are liars plain and simple, for the speech, delivered before a group of writers and activists who represented both the libertarian and conservative strains of the emerging "paleo" coalition, was a passionate appeal for unity now that the greatest cause of their previous separation – the cold war – was over. It was a call for the conservative movement to return to its anti-imperialist Old Right roots:

"What I call the Old Right is suddenly back! The terms old and new inevitably get confusing, with a new 'new' every few years, so let's call it the 'Original' Right, the right wing as it existed from 1933 to approximately 1955. This Old Right was formed in reaction against the New Deal, and against the Great Leap Forward into the Leviathan state that was the essence of that New Deal.

"… The most radical view of the New Deal was that of libertarian essayist and novelist Garet Garrett, an editor of the
Saturday Evening Post. His brilliant little pamphlet The Revolution Was, published in 1938, began with these penetrating words – words that would never be fully absorbed by the right:

"'There are those who still think they are holding a pass against a revolution that may be coming up the road. But they are gazing in the wrong direction. The revolution is behind them. It went by in the night of depression, singing songs to freedom.'

"The revolution was, said Garrett, and therefore nothing less than a counterrevolution is needed to take the country back. Behold, then, not a 'conservative,' but a radical right.

"In the late 1930s, there was added to this reaction against the domestic New Deal, a reaction against the foreign policy of the New Deal: the insistent drive toward war in Europe and Asia. Hence, the right wing added a reaction against big government abroad to the attack on big government at home. The one fed on the other. The right wing called for non-intervention in foreign as well as domestic affairs, and denounced FDR's adoption of Woodrow Wilson's Global Crusading which had proved so disastrous in World War I. To Wilson-Roosevelt globalism, the Old Right countered with a policy of America First. American foreign policy must neither be based on the interests of a foreign power – such as Great Britain – nor be in the service of such abstract ideals as 'making the world safe for democracy,' or waging a 'war to end all wars,' both of which would amount, in the prophetic words of Charles A. Beard, to waging 'perpetual war for perpetual peace.'"

Racism? "Exploitation of class and race resentment"? There is none of that here: go and see for yourself. David Duke gets a mention in passing. Joe McCarthy is praised for his anti-elitism, populist appeal, and instinct that the main danger to liberty is right here at home, while Rothbard notes ruefully that the militant anti-Communism of the McCarthyites was soon transmuted into a militant foreign policy that nearly plunged us into a nuclear showdown with the Soviets.

With communism out of the way, however, conservatives could unite with libertarians to get rid the last vestiges of leftism: for while the Bolsheviks were defeated, to Rothbard's great joy, their Menshevik cousins were in power in every Western country, including the United States. At the end, he conjures up a vision of a world eerily descriptive of the hysteria surrounding Paul's rise in the polls:

"Social democracy is still here in all its variants, defining our entire respectable political spectrum, from advanced victimology and feminism on the left over to neoconservatism on the right. We are now trapped, in America, inside a Menshevik fantasy, with the narrow bounds of respectable debate set for us by various brands of Marxists. It is now our task, the task of the resurgent right, of the paleo movement, to break those bonds, to finish the job, to finish off Marxism forever."

This is precisely the task Paul has set for himself, and in the process he is creating – or, rather, recreating – a conservatism that is anti-war, anti-elitist, and anti-corporatist to the bone. This has the neocons fighting mad, but there is very little they can do about it except attach themselves to Romney, the Establishment candidate, and hope the peasants with pitchforks can be smeared out of existence.

We are, indeed, trapped inside a Menshevik nightmare world, in which peace is demonized as " appeasement" and the uniquely American antipathy to the exercise of arbitrary government power is deemed "unpatriotic." Paul, it seems, has found the trap door out, however, and it looks like many of his fellow citizens are pouring through the breach. – much to the horror of our arrogant elites, who don't recall authorizing any such movement.

Note the sheer breadth of the Anti-Paul Popular Front, extending all the way from the Beltway "libertarians" of the Weigel-Sanchez-"cosmotarian" school to the Union Leader, the War Street Journal, and the identity-politics lefties who think Rachel Maddow is a real "radical." At the core of the smear campaign, you'll note, are our old friends the neocons: the self-proclaimed " homosexual warrior" Jamie Kirchick, who effortlessly wafted from The New Republic to Radio Free Europe and thence to the extremist edges of the neocon movement inhabited by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The latest "rediscovery" of the infamous newsletters was prompted by a rehash published in Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard, who is still hoping that David Petraeus or some general on a white horse will come riding in to save the GOP from Paul.

This is a classic neocon smear operation, and it has only just begun. Before long, we'll be treated to endless elaborations of the New York Times-Weigel-Sanchez "analysis," which will no doubt bring in all the familiar demons that haunt the nightmares of our elites: no smear campaign involving the alleged "evils" of right-wing populism is complete without invoking the specters of Father Coughlin, the German-American Bund, and the allegedly pro-Nazi sympathies of the old American First Committee, the biggest antiwar movement in American history and one that was mercilessly smeared by the left and actively persecuted the US government. And, of course, as Ms. Rabinowitz proved, the inevitable comparison to Hitler – because in Bizarro World, don't you know, the peacemakers are Hitlerites and the war-makers are the Good Guys.

This campaign will fail: indeed, it is already failing. Nobody is buying it. That's because the people are tired of our arrogant, self-satisfied elites, who think they can determine the outcome of an election before a single ballot is counted. The more they say "but of course he can't win," the more the average person wonders: isn't that our decision to make?

I can't help feeling gleeful. The old paradigm that Republicans are invariably – genetically – warmongers is coming apart at the seams, and the War Party is livid. Well, that's tough, but all good rackets must come to an end, especially when the fleeced discover to what extent they've been robbed.

It's the thrill of a lifetime to see the neocons in such a frothy-mouthed lather: they are calling Paul a hater, but they are the ones exuding hate from every pore. And the people can smell it as it stinks up the political atmosphere, poisoning the election and obscuring the issues they care about. That's why the haters can't touch Paul, and won't touch him with their vicious tactics – although I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if their accusations of "racism" and worse inspire violence against Paul's followers and possibly even against the candidate himself. Which is why I hope and pray Paul has some good security in place, because he represents the last chance we have to change American foreign policy before we're all dragged down by the impending collapse of the American empire.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/12/29/ron-paul-and-the-future-of-american-foreign-policy/

**JP** Letter to Editor - The Vice President

Dear Join Pakistan

 

LETTER TO EDITOR

December 30th, 2011

 

The Vice President

 

In reply to a TV reporter’s question as to who was the President whose Vice he was, Dr. Babar Awan replied that there was only one President in the country. An obvious hint to President Zardari. Does it mean that Babar Awan has been appointed as the Vice President of the country?  If yes, under what constitution?  And if not, then what is the answer to the TV reporter’s question?

 

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
30 Westridge 1
Rawalpindi 46000
Pakistan
Tel: (051) 5158033
E.mail: jafri@rifiela.com

--
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

Re: **JP** FACE THE REALITY (PTI)

Dear Ejaz Ch. and Mansoor, 

There is no change .... PTI IS JUST A FRONT SHOW. 
in PTI's last CEC meeting all founder members opposes to get these black sheep in the party..... but what is going on..... we will see old actor in new dresses .... nothing more than this.  


IMRAN KHAN is not a name of change.... its a new model for the publicity of a upcoming stage play.


Regards, 

Roy Farooq Ahmad 
Pakistan News Network International 


From: "ejazch101@gmail.com" <ejazch101@gmail.com>
To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: **JP** FACE THE REALITY (PTI)

Assalamu alaikum
Personally I don't know Mansoor Rahim but fully endorse his point of view,let every Pakistani come to PTI and welcome them BUT we have to stick our ideology.

Ejaz Ahmad Chaudhary
Central Vice President. PTI
*** This Message Has Been Sent Using BlackBerry Internet Service from Mobilink ***

From: Mansoor Rahim <mnf132@hotmail.com>
Sender: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 07:39:58 +0000
To: <joinpakistan@googlegroups.com>
ReplyTo: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
Subject: **JP** FACE THE REALITY (PTI)

SALAM TO MY DEAREST PAKISTANIS BROTHER & SISTER
 
PLEASE READ MY FULL EMAIL WITH ATTENTION AND THEN ADVISE ME.  THANK YOU.
 
As all of us knows that various party leaders are joining PTI.  I have some questions in my mind.
 
1-  Are they joining PTI as a workers or as a leaders?
2-  Are we lacking leadership in PTI except Imran?
3-  PTI is looking strong at the moment, but what about people's tsunami.  Do you think that people's tsunami will vote funeral lords of PTI or a common man? As experienced funeral lords did not perform for the betterment of people  despite to be un-corrupt.
4-  Do you think that such funeral lords will allow a common man to be a candidate in his area?  If No then where is the CHANGE?   
 
My Dear Pakistanis
 
Time to pay them back.  Time for wack up.   
 
AB buhut ho chuka, Enough is Enough. it is the time PUNCH them back. 
 
We people are torturing every day and our so called leaders are enjoying Luxirious life.  They do not have any time for our developement.  They gets our votes and cash it . 
 
WIN election, GET POWER and Protocols and ENJOY A ROYAL LIFE FOR YEARS.
 
They (Funeral Lords) are not paying attention to us.  They think we are trash.  (KABAAR)
 
Me, My family and friends would not vote any funeral lord, whether he is from PTI or Not.  We will vote a common honest local man/woman. 
 
I Love PTI and as a worker, and I Mansoor Rahim say a very BIG NOOOOOO to Funeral Lords leaders of Pakistan.
 

Sincerely yours

Mansoor Rahim Zahid


--
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


Re: **JP** FACE THE REALITY (PTI)

Dear Sir,
 
We must understand that how a team performs depends upon the leader who gives it a direction and makes it and nits it into a winning combination. We all recall that the Quaid used to say that when I put my hand in my pocket I find all my coins are counterfeit. Yet with those counterfeit coins he made Pakistan a reality. Had he lived he would have made that combination into working team to run this country well. But he was a sick and dying man and just prayed to Allah SWT to give him time to liberat the Mussalmans of India win a separate homeland, in which he just succeeded.
 
Napoleon used to say that a team of jackals lead by a lion will win over a team of lions lead by a jackal. Imran may or may not prove to be a lion, but what he has shown us over many years in the capacities that fate and the Almighty Allah has entrusted him he has not so far disappointed us. He has the qualities of head and heart to be our new leader. A man makes a leader of men when his heart throbs with that of those he leads. 
 
The arguments you give against him and his team are peripheral. Of course many who are joining him are questionable and have in the past failed us. But under a new leader let us see if they fail again, or will this new leader take out some hidden potential in them, or will sift them out and sideline them when they do'nt. What we have to see is that did they fail, or their leaders failed them? Everyone deserves a fair trial. We have seen time and again that a group of people failed when badly led.
 
The Pakistani nation as a whole has failed, you, me and all the rest of us because we have been relentlessly badly led. But we have witnessed that faced with vital challenges we have repeatedly showed that we deserve to be counted, we have in the core of us some mettle. Look the way the nation responded when hit by earthquake in Kashmir. And perhaps for this very reason we are still on our feat despite the Zardaris and the Gilanis and the Nawaz Sharifs and the rest of the Funeral Lords as you call them. We are in reality prisoners of a system that ensures that we remain hostage to these self serving leaders. We need someone who will uproot the whole system and rebuild it to ensure that the best of us come forward rather the scum of us. Mao Tse Tung used to say that nothing can built without first uprooting and destroying the existing crumbling structure and its foundations. He did just that and look what a great country has been built on the ashes of those opiuum eaters. 
 
Ham nein apnein leiye ek niya qibla aur naiy raastey talaash karni haian. Aur hamein woh leader chahiey jo woh rahein dekh sakta ho aur hamein dikha sakta ho. Jo saamnein sey lead karta ho naan ke peechey sey hankta ho. Aur jis ka daaman saaf ho. And out of the ones we have spotlight falls on Imran Khan. We pray and hope to God Almighty that we are right. If not there is before us an abyss.
 
Wassalaam
 
Khalid Javed          

On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Mansoor Rahim <mnf132@hotmail.com> wrote:
SALAM TO MY DEAREST PAKISTANIS BROTHER & SISTER
 
PLEASE READ MY FULL EMAIL WITH ATTENTION AND THEN ADVISE ME.  THANK YOU.
 
As all of us knows that various party leaders are joining PTI.  I have some questions in my mind.
 
1-  Are they joining PTI as a workers or as a leaders?
2-  Are we lacking leadership in PTI except Imran?
3-  PTI is looking strong at the moment, but what about people's tsunami.  Do you think that people's tsunami will vote funeral lords of PTI or a common man? As experienced funeral lords did not perform for the betterment of people  despite to be un-corrupt.
4-  Do you think that such funeral lords will allow a common man to be a candidate in his area?  If No then where is the CHANGE?   
 
My Dear Pakistanis
 
Time to pay them back.  Time for wack up.   
 
AB buhut ho chuka, Enough is Enough. it is the time PUNCH them back. 
 
We people are torturing every day and our so called leaders are enjoying Luxirious life.  They do not have any time for our developement.  They gets our votes and cash it . 
 
WIN election, GET POWER and Protocols and ENJOY A ROYAL LIFE FOR YEARS.
 
They (Funeral Lords) are not paying attention to us.  They think we are trash.  (KABAAR)
 
Me, My family and friends would not vote any funeral lord, whether he is from PTI or Not.  We will vote a common honest local man/woman. 
 
I Love PTI and as a worker, and I Mansoor Rahim say a very BIG NOOOOOO to Funeral Lords leaders of Pakistan.
 

Sincerely yours

Mansoor Rahim Zahid


--
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