"Ludwig von Mises called this an inevitable "caste conflict." There can be no natural class conflict in society, Mises showed, since the free market harmonizes all economic interests, but in a system of government-granted privileges, there must be a struggle between those who live off the government and the rest of us. It is a disguised struggle, of course, since truth threatens the loot."
Regulatory-Industrial Complex
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.
[The Left, the Right, and the State (1990; 2008)]
Socialists want socialism for everyone else, but capitalism for themselves, while capitalists want capitalism for everyone else, but socialism for themselves.
Neither Ted Kennedy nor Jane Fonda practices a vow of poverty, nor are they taking any homeless into their mansions, while too many big companies try to short-circuit the market with government privileges. And one way they do it is through the regulatory agencies that acne Washington, DC.
If I may make a public confession (counting on the charity of Mises Daily readers): I used to work for the US Congress. I've since gone straight, of course, but the experience had its value, much as the future criminologist might benefit from serving with the James Gang.
For one thing, being on Capitol Hill showed me that, unlike the republic of the Founding Fathers' vision, our DC Leviathan exists only to extract money and power from the people for itself and the special interests.
Ludwig von Mises called this an inevitable "caste conflict." There can be no natural class conflict in society, Mises showed, since the free market harmonizes all economic interests, but in a system of government-granted privileges, there must be a struggle between those who live off the government and the rest of us. It is a disguised struggle, of course, since truth threatens the loot.
When I worked on Capitol Hill, Jimmy Carter was bleating about the energy crisis and promising to punish big oil with a "windfall profits tax." But I saw that the lobbyists pushing for the tax were from the big oil companies.
And, after a moment's thought, it was easy to realize why. There was no windfall-profits tax in Saudi Arabia, but it did fall heavily on Oklahoma. And as intended, the tax aided the big companies that imported oil by punishing their competitors, smaller, independent firms.
In the ensuing restructuring of the industry, also brought about by the price and allocation regulations of the Department of Energy, the big firms bought up domestic capacity at fire-sale prices, and then the Reagan administration repealed the tax and the regulations. Meanwhile, the big companies received contracts from the Department of Energy to produce money-losing "alternative fuels."
In every administration, the tools of inflation, borrowing, taxation, and regulation are used to transfer wealth from the people to the government and its cronies.
At times, one or another of these tools becomes politically dangerous, so the government alters the mix. That's why the Reagan administration switched from taxes and inflation to borrowing, and it's why the Bush administration, with the deficit a liability, calls for more taxes, inflation, and regulation.
A tremendous amount is at stake in the re-regulation of the economy advocated by the Bush administration. Just one clause in the Federal Register can mean billions for a favored firm or industry, and disaster for its competitors, which is why lobbyists cluster around the Capitol like flies around a garbage can.
While claiming to need more money for -- among other vital projects -- a trip to Mars supervised by Dan Quayle, the president is boosting the budget of every regulatory agency in Washington.
Here are just some of those agencies, and the way they function: Founded by Richard Nixon, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration is an antientrepreneur agency. Not only does OSHA target small- and medium-sized businesses, its regulatory cases are easily handled by Exxon's squad of lawyers, while they can bankrupt a small firm.
Also founded by Nixon, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issues regulations drawn up in open consultation with big business -- regulations that often conform exactly to what those firms are already doing. Small businesses, on the other hand, must spend heavily to comply.
Another Nixon creation is the Environmental Protection Agency, whose budget is larded with the influence of politically connected businesses, and whose regulations buttress established industries and discriminate against entrepreneurs -- by, for example, legalizing pollution for existing companies but making new firms spend heavily.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development was founded by Lyndon B. Johnson, but its roots stretch back to the housing policy of the New Deal, whose explicit purpose was to subsidize builders of rental and single-family housing. Since LBJ's Great Society, HUD has subsidized builders of public-housing projects, and of subsidized private housing. How can anyone be surprised that fat cats use HUD to line their pockets? That was its purpose.
The Securities and Exchange Commission was established by Franklin D. Roosevelt, with its legislation written by corporate lawyers to cartelize the market for big Wall Street firms. Over the years, the SEC has stopped many new stock issues by smaller companies, who might grow and compete with the industrial and commercial giants aligned with the big Wall Street firms. And right now, it is lessening competition in the futures and commodities markets.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was created in 1887 to stop "cut-throat" competition among railroads (i.e., competitive pricing) and to enforce high prices. Later amendments extended its power to trucking and other forms of transportation, where it also prevented competition. During the Carter administration, much of the ICC's power was trimmed, but some of this was undone in the Reagan administration.
The Federal Communications Commission was established by Herbert Hoover to prevent private property in radio frequencies, and to place ownership in the hands of the government. The FCC set up the network system, whose licenses went to politically connected businessmen, and delayed technological breakthroughs that might have threatened the networks. There was some deregulation during the Reagan administration -- although it was the development of cable TV that did the most good, by circumventing the networks.
The Department of Agriculture runs America's farming on behalf of producers, keeping prices high, profits up, imports out, and new products off the shelves. We can't know what food prices would be in the absence of the appropriately initialed DOA, only that food would be much cheaper. Now, for the first time since the farm program was established by Herbert Hoover, as a copy of the Federal Food Administration he ran during World War I, we are seeing widespread criticism of farm welfare.
The Federal Trade Commission -- as shown by the fascist-deco statue in front of its headquarters -- claims to "tame" the "wild horse of the market" on behalf of the public. Since its founding in 1914, however, it has restrained the market to the benefit of established firms. That's why the chief lobbyists for the FTC were all from big business.
When then-Congressman Steve Symms (R-ID) tried to partially deregulate the Food and Drug Administration in the 1970s to allow more new drugs, he was stopped by the big drug companies and their trade association. Why? Because the FDA exists to protect them.
OSHA, CPSC, EPA, HUD, SEC, ICC, FCC, DOA, FTC, FDA -- I could go on and on, through the entire alphabet from Hell. I have only scratched the villainous surface. But according to the average history or economics text, these agencies emerged in response to public demand. There is never a hint of the regulatory-industrial complex. We're told that the public is being served. And it is: on a platter.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of The Left, the Right, and the State.
http://mises.org/daily/5930/RegulatoryIndustrial-Complex
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Re: From Sarah Palin PAC on HBO's Documentary Movie About Her, "Game Change"
This sort of nonsense -- like many of the 'efforts' in this and other forums -- would be better served following a very simple rubric:
Person A is wrong when he claims <insert specific claim WITH context so the reader can determine meaning> because of <insert argument with supporting proof>
That Person A is a <insert derogatory> or has some (alleged) agenda or has an (alleged) history and similar is irrelevant and proves NOTHING.
Regard$,
--MJ
If you don't like someone, the way he holds his spoon makes you furious; if you like him, he can turn his plate over into your lap and you won't mind. -- Irving Becker
At 01:28 PM 3/1/2012, you wrote:
From Sarah Palin on HBO's Documentary Movie About Her, "Game Change"
Read it and judge for yourself:
Dear SarahPAC Supporter,
Liberals have proven once again that they do not value truth. The
liberal left distorts facts to fabricate its own version of history.
Their latest effort in storytelling is HBO's movie, Game Change.
The screen writer of Game Change, Danny Strong, lapsed into a tired
routine of manipulating facts and omitting key parts of Governor
Palin's story in order to push a biased agenda and drive ratings.
We have warned viewers of Game Change's distortions--based upon the
description and reports from people who have viewed the film, HBO must
add a disclaimer that this movie is fiction.
Game Change is just the most recent example in a long history of facts
being distorted for profit. Frank Bailey, a former aide to Governor
Palin, was recently fined nearly $12,000 by the Alaska Attorney
General's Office for stealing the Governor's internal emails. Bailey
then turned the emails over to a blogger from the radical left who
twisted the text into her own narrative for profit, proving again that
Governor Palin's opponents will stop at nothing to destroy her record
of service.
Behind Game Change's slanderous agenda is a trail of money leading
straight to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democrat Party. Writer
Danny Strong and director Jay Roach each donated the maximum $2,300 to
Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. Even actress Julianne Moore, who
plays the Governor herself, contributed to the more than $120,000
donated to Obama and Democrats since 2008 by the film's producers and
cast.
The 2008 National Security Advisor to Governor Palin, Randy
Scheunemann, said of the movie, "It gives fiction a bad name to call
this fiction," while Governor Palin aide Jason Recher described the
movie as "a false narrative cobbled together by a group of people who
simply weren't there."
SarahPAC's latest video, Game Change We Can Believe In, shares the
true story of the 2008 Presidential race, the same story that millions
of Americans witnessed. It is a story of a gutsy, Washington-outsider
taking politics-as-usual by storm, the story of a spirited reformer
who refused to conform to establishment norms. Governor Palin left her
home state of Alaska with an 80% approval rating to electrify the
nation overnight with commonsense conservative solutions.
After working with Governor Palin, former McCain campaign adviser
Nicolle Wallace described her as "a once-in-a-generation politician
who just has that something. She electrified our race. She has
inspired our party."
All first-hand accounts of the Governor's 2008 campaign describe her
in similar terms--as an inspirational role model and a true game
changer.
Help us say no to the half-baked truths and fabrications of the
liberal left by watching and sharing the true account of Governor
Palin's transformation of American politics: Game Change We Can
Believe In.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
SarahPAC
More:
www.SarahPAC.com
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
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.
when to start shooting federal judges
Federal judge blocks enforcement of day labor restrictions in
Arizona's 2010 immigration law
Arizona's 2010 immigration law
By Associated Press, Published: February 29
PHOENIX — A federal judge blocked police in Arizona from enforcing a
section of the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law that
prohibited people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day
labor services on streets.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups seeking
to overturn the law will likely prevail in their claim that the day
labor rules violate the First Amendment. She rejected arguments by the
state that the rules were needed for traffic safety and pointed out
that the law, also known as SB1070, says its purpose is to make
attrition through enforcement the immigration policy of state and
local government agencies.
"This purposes clause applies to all sections of SB1070, and nowhere
does it state that a purpose of the statutes and statutory revisions
is to enhance traffic safety," the judge wrote.
The ban was among a handful of provisions in the law that were allowed
to take effect after a July 2010 decision by Bolton halted enforcement
of other, more controversial elements of the law. The previously
blocked portions include a requirement that police, while enforcing
other laws, question people's immigration status if officers suspect
they are in the country illegally.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Gov. Jan Brewer's appeal of
Bolton's decision to put the most contentious elements of the law on
hold. Another appeals court has already upheld Bolton's July 2010
ruling.
Three of the seven challenges to the Arizona law remain alive. No
trial date has been scheduled in the three cases.
Some of Arizona's biggest law enforcement agencies have said in the
past that they haven't made any arrests under the sections of the law
that were allowed to take effect.
Brewer said in a statement that she was disappointed with Bolton's
"erroneous decision," which she said has further eroded the state's
ability to regulate public safety. Also, Wednesday's ruling is just
one more reason to look forward to the Supreme Court's scheduled
consideration of SB1070 in April, she said.
The governor signed the measure into law in the spring of 2010.
Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of
Arizona, one of the group's representing people who filed the lawsuit,
said the judge saw through the government's ruse that the day labor
rules were about traffic safety, when the goal all along was to get at
day laborers.
"There are clear laws now that allow any cop to unclog (the streets)
well before they had this law," Pochoda said.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other
opponents had asked the judge for a preliminary injunction to block
enforcement of the day labor rules, arguing they unconstitutionally
restrict the free speech rights of people who want to express their
need for work.
Brewer's lawyers had opposed attempts to halt enforcement of the day
labor restrictions. They argued the restrictions are meant to confront
safety concerns, distractions to drivers, harassment to passers-by,
trespassing and damage to property.
Brewer's lawyers have said day laborers congregate on roadsides in
large groups, flagging down vehicles and often swarming those that
stop. They also said day laborers in Phoenix and its suburbs of
Chandler, Mesa and Fountain Hills leave behind water bottles, food
wrappers and other trash.
The judge wrote in her latest ruling Wednesday that the law appears to
target particular speech rather than a broader traffic problem. "The
adoption of a content-based ban on speech indicates that the
Legislature did not draft these provisions after careful evaluation of
the burden on free speech," the judge wrote.
Bolton previously denied an earlier request to block the day labor
rules, but opponents were allowed to bring it up again after the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a similar issue in September.
The appeals court had suspended a law from Redondo Beach, Calif., that
banned day laborers from standing on public sidewalks while soliciting
work from motorists. The court ruled the law violated workers' free
speech rights and was so broad that it was illegal for children to
shout "car wash" to passing drivers.
The ruling Wednesday still leaves other elements of the law in place,
such as minor tweaks to the state's 2005 immigrant smuggling law and
2007 law prohibiting employers from knowingly hiring illegal
immigrants.
Other parts of the law that remain in effect include a prohibition on
state and local government agencies from restricting the enforcement
of federal immigration law and a ban on state and local agencies from
restricting the sharing of information on people's immigration status
for determining eligibility of a public benefit.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
--
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.
From Sarah Palin PAC on HBO's Documentary Movie About Her, "Game Change"
From Sarah Palin on HBO's Documentary Movie About Her, "Game Change"
Read it and judge for yourself:
Dear SarahPAC Supporter,
Liberals have proven once again that they do not value truth. The
liberal left distorts facts to fabricate its own version of history.
Their latest effort in storytelling is HBO's movie, Game Change.
The screen writer of Game Change, Danny Strong, lapsed into a tired
routine of manipulating facts and omitting key parts of Governor
Palin's story in order to push a biased agenda and drive ratings.
We have warned viewers of Game Change's distortions--based upon the
description and reports from people who have viewed the film, HBO must
add a disclaimer that this movie is fiction.
Game Change is just the most recent example in a long history of facts
being distorted for profit. Frank Bailey, a former aide to Governor
Palin, was recently fined nearly $12,000 by the Alaska Attorney
General's Office for stealing the Governor's internal emails. Bailey
then turned the emails over to a blogger from the radical left who
twisted the text into her own narrative for profit, proving again that
Governor Palin's opponents will stop at nothing to destroy her record
of service.
Behind Game Change's slanderous agenda is a trail of money leading
straight to the Barack Obama campaign and the Democrat Party. Writer
Danny Strong and director Jay Roach each donated the maximum $2,300 to
Barack Obama's campaign in 2008. Even actress Julianne Moore, who
plays the Governor herself, contributed to the more than $120,000
donated to Obama and Democrats since 2008 by the film's producers and
cast.
The 2008 National Security Advisor to Governor Palin, Randy
Scheunemann, said of the movie, "It gives fiction a bad name to call
this fiction," while Governor Palin aide Jason Recher described the
movie as "a false narrative cobbled together by a group of people who
simply weren't there."
SarahPAC's latest video, Game Change We Can Believe In, shares the
true story of the 2008 Presidential race, the same story that millions
of Americans witnessed. It is a story of a gutsy, Washington-outsider
taking politics-as-usual by storm, the story of a spirited reformer
who refused to conform to establishment norms. Governor Palin left her
home state of Alaska with an 80% approval rating to electrify the
nation overnight with commonsense conservative solutions.
After working with Governor Palin, former McCain campaign adviser
Nicolle Wallace described her as "a once-in-a-generation politician
who just has that something. She electrified our race. She has
inspired our party."
All first-hand accounts of the Governor's 2008 campaign describe her
in similar terms--as an inspirational role model and a true game
changer.
Help us say no to the half-baked truths and fabrications of the
liberal left by watching and sharing the true account of Governor
Palin's transformation of American politics: Game Change We Can
Believe In.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
SarahPAC
More:
www.SarahPAC.com
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
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: Andrew Breitbart Dies.
opinion noted
He was a researcher for Arianna Huffington, and helped launch her
website The Huffington Post.
On Mar 1, 12:13 pm, Bear Bear <thatbear...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He was a much needed voice of reason.
>
> Bear
>
> http://www.breitbart.tv/
--
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.
Andrew Breitbart Dies.
He was a much needed voice of reason.
Bear
--
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: An Update To Google Groups Issues
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
On Mar 1, 12:04 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> no ... MS no longer makes IE for macs
>
> On Mar 1, 11:24 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm curious, does the newer IE9 work on Macs?
>
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > Firefox 10.0.2 on Windows is working ok
>
> > > On Mar 1, 11:01 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > yes, IE8 is not displaying posts and is no longer supported on macs
>
> > > > On Mar 1, 10:33 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I use IE8, Got to group home page but could not get anywhere else.
>
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > > everything is working fine in Firefox 10.0.2 on a mac
>
> > > > > > On Mar 1, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Good Morning Folks,
>
> > > > > > > I just learned, (by trial and error) that Google Groups will in
> > > fact
> > > > > > work
> > > > > > > correctly and interact with the Google Chrome Browser; but for
> > > some
> > > > > > > reason, the Google Groups will not interact correctly with Internet
> > > > > > > Explorer; nor is it working exactly right in Mozilla Firefox.
> > > This might
> > > > > > > at least be a temporary solution to access the Group's web pages.
>
> > > > > > > We are attempting to alert Google Groups to this issue; bear with
> > > us!
>
> > > > > > > KeithInTampa
>
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<
> > >http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: An Update To Google Groups Issues
no ... MS no longer makes IE for macs
On Mar 1, 11:24 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm curious, does the newer IE9 work on Macs?
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Firefox 10.0.2 on Windows is working ok
>
> > On Mar 1, 11:01 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > yes, IE8 is not displaying posts and is no longer supported on macs
>
> > > On Mar 1, 10:33 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I use IE8, Got to group home page but could not get anywhere else.
>
> > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM, plainolamerican
> > > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > > > everything is working fine in Firefox 10.0.2 on a mac
>
> > > > > On Mar 1, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Good Morning Folks,
>
> > > > > > I just learned, (by trial and error) that Google Groups will in
> > fact
> > > > > work
> > > > > > correctly and interact with the Google Chrome Browser; but for
> > some
> > > > > > reason, the Google Groups will not interact correctly with Internet
> > > > > > Explorer; nor is it working exactly right in Mozilla Firefox.
> > This might
> > > > > > at least be a temporary solution to access the Group's web pages.
>
> > > > > > We are attempting to alert Google Groups to this issue; bear with
> > us!
>
> > > > > > KeithInTampa
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<
> >http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Iran: Scapegoat for a Bankrupt Empire
We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors
from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
----
neocons think and want Americans to be builders of emerging
democracies around the globe.
from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
----
neocons think and want Americans to be builders of emerging
democracies around the globe.
we need to redefine what our role in the world is ... because trying
to control foreign nations will bankrupt us, render our nation
useless, and turn our soldiers into tools for business
On Mar 1, 11:19 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "Warnings about a dangerous world also benefit powerful bureaucratic interests. The specter of looming dangers sustains and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with the national security infrastructure that exists outside government -- defense contractors, lobbying groups, think tanks, and academic departments.[1]"Iran: Scapegoat for a Bankrupt Empireby Tim Kelly, March 1, 2012
> Over the last few years the United States has been obsessed with preventing Iran from developing its own nuclear weapon. This obsession has been made even more curious by the fact that American politicians appear to be at odds with their own intelligence services on the issue.
> President Obama said in his State of the Union address, "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
> Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't been any more diplomatic than her boss, saying, "It is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."
> For three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates, the Iranian nuke issue has become a contest to see which one of them can scare the American people the most. Mitt Romney has said, "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel; it is a threat to the entire world." Newt Gingrich repeatedly reminds voters of the horrors of an Iranian bomb and warns of an impending Iranian nuclear strike on the United States. Rick Santorum said while campaigning in Missouri, "Once they [Iranians] have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are at war with us since 1979."
> Such apocalyptic and bellicose rhetoric contrasts sharply with the official reports produced by the U.S. intelligence community, which concludes that Iran is currentlynotattempting to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told a Senate committee,We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.Iran is also under a rigorous inspection regime, which experts say makes it virtually impossible for the government to have an undetected active nuclear-weapons program. While Iran has admitted to enriching uranium for energy and medical purposes, this requires an enrichment level far below the weapons-grade threshold and is permitted under the terms of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
> And Tehran has been more than accommodating to Washington's escalating demands. In 2010, the Iranian government accepted a condition put forth by the Obama administration that they forgo domestic production of non-weapons-grade uranium and purchase it abroad, but when Iran entered into a trade agreement with Turkey and Brazil that did exactly that, the deal was rejected by the United States.
> Moreover, Iran has called for a nuclear-free Middle East; and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa prohibiting the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. That an Islamic government might have genuine moral compunctions about possessing and using weapons of mass destruction might be difficult for a skeptical and morally degenerate West to accept, but the fact that Iran has not yet acquired a nuclear weapon suggests Khamenei's fatwa may be more than just a PR stunt.
> American leaders cite Tehran's supposed intransigence as evidence of the Iranians' malevolent intentions and as justification for further sanctions and even the use of military force. But they ignore Iran's painful colonial past and whitewash their own government's role in that history. Iran spent most of the 20th century being dominated by Russians, British, and Americans. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953, and the United States supported Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in 1980.
> That the Iranian government would feel compelled to resist demands by the United States to curtail or suspend uranium enrichment is not surprising. Any government must at least give the appearance of defending the nation's sovereignty, and most Iranians view their government's nuclear program as an expression of national sovereignty.
> So, given that Iran poses no real threat to the United States and is not even a regional threat because it is dependent on exporting its oil, why are so many American politicians baying for war against the Islamic Republic?
> To get an answer, we should recall what H. L. Mencken said:The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.Conjuring up and exaggerating threats from abroad is a tried and true method of social control. It can also be used by the government to distract the public's attention from domestic problems. There is nothing like a "splendid little war" to take the public's mind off an imploding economy. And with war, politicians have an enemy to scapegoat.
> Another important element is the national-security state, which depends on "threat inflation" for its $1 trillion plus annual budget. This point has been made in, of all places,Foreign Affairs, where Micah Zenko and Michael A. Cohen write,Warnings about a dangerous world also benefit powerful bureaucratic interests. The specter of looming dangers sustains and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with the national security infrastructure that exists outside government -- defense contractors, lobbying groups, think tanks, and academic departments.[1]In 1961, President Eisenhower admonished the nation to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex," but his warning has gone mostly unheeded. As Sheldon Richman writes,The military-industrial complex has never been larger or more pervasive. Thousands of companies exist to sell expensive things to the government. Fortunes have been made. The post–9/11 period has been a feeding frenzy at the taxpayers' trough -- grand larceny of historic proportions.It should be obvious that spending hundreds of billions of dollars year in and year out on military and other "national-security" programs would create powerful constituencies dependent on crises and threats, real or perceived. Such largess creates interests that, once entrenched, will fight doggedly to preserve their privileged positions.
> U.S. military power is so dominant that it is a joke to talk about threats in a conventional sense. The Pentagon's budget could be slashed by 75 percent and the United States would still have the most powerful military in the world. There are currently no nation-states with the will or capacity to invade the American mainland. Furthermore, the United States has a powerful deterrent in its massive nuclear arsenal.
> Washington does not maintain 900 overseas military bases and deploy 300,000 soldiers in 130 foreign nations for the purposes of defense. The obvious truth is that the United States maintains its overwhelming military capabilities for the purposes of empire.
> The war on terror, Iranian nukes, human rights, and the "responsibility to protect," are just national-security pretexts or cynical humanitarian facades put up by the American establishment to conceal its ruthless geopolitical strategy to control the world's resources and prevent the rise of any challengers to U.S. hegemony.
> Just a glimpse at a map of the world reveals as much. Wherever there are energy resources and chokepoints on the flow of oil, you will find a concentration of U.S. forces. The Pentagon's own Defense Planning Guidance admits this:The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.But this imperial-military order demands a prodigious infusion of cash -- and with the U.S. economy still in free fall, and the federal government borrowing forty cents for every dollar it spends, the foundations are cracking. Since 2000, the national debt has gone from $5.7 trillion to almost $16 trillion today. U.S. policy makers appear to think they can borrow forever and not face any consequences.
> This delusion encourages the United States government to make its foreign policy increasingly bellicose and reckless. The American colossus may bestride the world today, but its bank account is empty, its credit cards are maxed out, and its days are numbered.Tim Kelly is a columnist and policy advisor at the Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia, a correspondent for Radio America's Special Investigator, and a political cartoonist.[1] Thanks to John Glaser for pointing out the Foreign Affairs article in his blog post atAntiWar.com.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203a.asp
--
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.
GOProud Tea Party Conservative Publisher and Author Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43
GOProud Tea Party Conservative Publisher and Author Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43
May he rest in pieces. -T
Publisher and Author Andrew Breitbart Dead
To: Undisclosed-Recipient@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, March 1, 2012, 7:05 AM
TRAGEDY!!!
WHO IS GOING TO RUN THE REPUBLICAN WITCHHUNTS?
who is going to 'investigate' rumors with their crack team of
photoshoppers, liars, pimps and hos?
The Los Angeles Coroner's Office confirmed to ABC News Radio that
Breitbart died shortly after midnight at UCLA Medical Center. CAUSE
OF DEATH: his soul collapsed.
Publisher and Author Andrew Breitbart Dead
By CHRISTINA NG (@ChristinaNg27)
March 1, 2012
Washington Times commentator and Breitbart.com webmaster Andrew
Breitbart speaks during the American Conservative Union's Conservative
Political Action Conference, Feb. 12, 2011 in Washington, DC. (Brendan
Smialowski/Getty Images)
Andrew Breitbart, the noted conservative Internet publisher and
author, has died. He was 43.
A statement posted on his website said that Breitbart died
"unexpectedly from natural causes" this morning.
The Los Angeles Coroner's Office confirmed to ABC News Radio that
Breitbart died shortly after midnight at UCLA Medical Center.
The following statement was posted on Breitbart's website today:
"With a terrible feeling of pain and loss we announce the passing of
Andrew Breitbart. We have lost a husband, a father, a son, a brother,
a dear friend, a patriot and a happy warrior.
Andrew lived boldly, so that we more timid souls would dare to live
freely and fully, and fight for the fragile liberty he showed us how
to love.
Andrew recently wrote a new conclusion to his book, Righteous Indignation:
Breitbart appeared as a commentator on Real Time with Bill Maher and
Dennis Miller. In 2004 he was a guest commentator on Fox News
Channel's morning show and frequently appeared as a guest panelist on
Fox News's late night program, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld. Breitbart also
appeared as a commentator in the 2004 documentary Michael Moore Hates
America.[15]
On October 22, 2009, Breitbart appeared on the C-SPAN program
Washington Journal. He gave his opinions on the mainstream media,
Hollywood, the Obama Administration and his personal political views,
having heated debates with several callers.[5]
In the hours immediately following Senator Ted Kennedy's death,
Breitbart called Kennedy a "villain", a "duplicitous bastard", a
"prick"[16] and "a special pile of human excrement."[17][18]
In February 2010 Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media
Award during the Conservative Political Action Conference in
Washington, D.C. During his acceptance speech, he responded directly
to accusations by New York Times reporter Kate Zernike that Jason
Mattera, a young conservative activist, had been using "racial tones"
in his allusions to President Barack Obama, and had spoken in a "Chris
Rock voice." From the podium, Breitbart called Zernike "a despicable
human being" for having made such allegations about Mattera's New York
accent.[19] At the same conference, Breitbart was also filmed saying
to journalist Max Blumenthal that he found him to be "a jerk", and "a
despicable human being" due to a blog entry posted by Blumenthal.[2]
Breitbart often appeared as a speaker at Tea Party movement events
across the U.S. For example, Breitbart was a keynote speaker at the
first National Tea Party Convention at Gaylord Opryland Hotel in
Nashville on February 6, 2010.[20] Breitbart later involved himself in
a controversy over homophobic and alleged racial slurs being used at a
March 20, 2010 rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.
by asserting that slurs were never used, and that "It was a set-up" by
Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Party. Breitbart offered to donate
$100,000 to the United Negro College Fund "for any audio/video footage
of the N-word being hurled", claiming that they made it up. Breitbart
insisted Congressman John Lewis and the several other witnesses were
forced to lie, concluding that "Nancy Pelosi did a great disservice to
a great civil rights icon by thrusting him out there to perform this
mischievous task. His reputation is now on the line as a result of her
desperation to take down the Tea Party movement.
Breitbart launched a number of websites, including Breitbart.com,[24]
BigHollywood.com,[25] BigGovernment.com,[26] BigJournalism.com,[27]
and BigPeace.com.
Controversies
This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the
article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the
section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the
material. (December 2010)
Anthony Weiner
Main article: Anthony Weiner sexting scandal
On May 28, 2011, Breitbart posted a sexually explicit photo on his
BigJournalism website of New York Representative Anthony Weiner
obtained through Weiner's Twitter account.[39] Initially Weiner denied
that he had sent a link to the photograph to a 21-year-old female
college student, but after questions developed, he admitted to
inappropriate online relationships. On June 6, 2011 Breitbart reported
other photos Weiner had sent, including one that was sexually graphic.
On June 8, 2011, the sexually graphic photo was leaked after Breitbart
participated in a radio interview with hosts Opie and Anthony, though
Breitbart stated that the photo was published without his
permission.[40] Weiner subsequently resigned from his congressional
seat on June 21, 2011.
Shirley Sherrod
Main article: Resignation of Shirley Sherrod
On July 19, 2010, Breitbart posted two short videos showing excerpts
of a speech by Shirley Sherrod at an NAACP fundraising dinner in March
2010. The videos ensuing controversy resulted in Sherrod being fired
from the United States Department of Agriculture on July 19. After
Breitbart was criticized for taking Sherrod's words out of context, he
posted the complete 40-minute video of the speech.[41][42][43] The
NAACP stated that the video excerpts aired by Breitbart were
deliberately deceptive and said that he had "snookered" the
group.[42][43] Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack later apologized
to Sherrod and offered her a new job.[44] In 2011, Sherrod brought
suit against Breitbart for defamation.[45]
ACORN undercover videos
Main article: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy
Breitbart was also involved in the 2009 ACORN video controversy.
Hannah Giles[46][47] posed as a prostitute seeking assistance while
James O'Keefe portrayed her boyfriend, and clandestinely videotaped
meetings with ACORN staff.[48] Subsequent criminal investigations by
the Brooklyn District Attorney's office and the California Attorney
General found the videos were heavily edited in an attempt to make
ACORN's responses "appear more sinister",[49][50][51] and contributed
to the group's demise.[52][53] Breitbart then provided a forum for
O'Keefe on his BigGovernment.com website[54] and defended his actions
on Sean Hannity's Fox News Channel program.[55]
GOProud
Breitbart has also been embroiled in a controversy within the
conservative movement related to the participation of gay group
GOProud in the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an
annual conference held in Washington, D.C. by the American
Conservative Union. In 2011 he was the primary host of a party that
served to "welcome" the "homocons" to the convention (though it was
the second year they had been participants). This flew in the face of
a boycott staged by a few social conservative groups that were
offended by the inclusion of GOProud within the conservative fold.
Writer, producer, and publisher Roger L. Simon referred to the group
as a "game-changer" for the Republican party, and asserted that it
represented a turning point in the appeal that the conservative
movement might hold for young people. Breitbart was on the Advisory
Board of GOProud until he stepped down in the wake of the group's
inadvertent outing of a senior Rick Perry aide.[56] [57]
Personal life
Breitbart was married to Susannah Bean, the daughter of actor Orson
Bean, and had four children.[7][58]
Death
On March 1, 2012, a notice on breitbart.com said that Breitbart had
died unexpectedly from natural causes earlier that day in Los Angeles.
He was 43 years old.[4][59] A bystander saw him collapse while out on
a walk in Brentwood shortly after midnight and called paramedics, who
rushed him to the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center where he was
declared dead.[60]
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Breitbart
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy
--
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: An Update To Google Groups Issues
I'm curious, does the newer IE9 work on Macs?
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:11 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Firefox 10.0.2 on Windows is working ok
On Mar 1, 11:01 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, IE8 is not displaying posts and is no longer supported on macs
>
> On Mar 1, 10:33 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I use IE8, Got to group home page but could not get anywhere else.
>
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > everything is working fine in Firefox 10.0.2 on a mac
>
> > > On Mar 1, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Good Morning Folks,
>
> > > > I just learned, (by trial and error) that Google Groups will in fact
> > > work
> > > > correctly and interact with the Google Chrome Browser; but for some
> > > > reason, the Google Groups will not interact correctly with Internet
> > > > Explorer; nor is it working exactly right in Mozilla Firefox. This might
> > > > at least be a temporary solution to access the Group's web pages.
>
> > > > We are attempting to alert Google Groups to this issue; bear with us!
>
> > > > KeithInTampa
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
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.
Iran: Scapegoat for a Bankrupt Empire
"Warnings about a dangerous world also benefit powerful bureaucratic interests. The specter of looming dangers sustains and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with the national security infrastructure that exists outside government -- defense contractors, lobbying groups, think tanks, and academic departments.[1]"
Iran: Scapegoat for a Bankrupt Empire
by Tim Kelly, March 1, 2012
Over the last few years the United States has been obsessed with preventing Iran from developing its own nuclear weapon. This obsession has been made even more curious by the fact that American politicians appear to be at odds with their own intelligence services on the issue.
President Obama said in his State of the Union address, "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't been any more diplomatic than her boss, saying, "It is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."
For three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates, the Iranian nuke issue has become a contest to see which one of them can scare the American people the most. Mitt Romney has said, "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel; it is a threat to the entire world." Newt Gingrich repeatedly reminds voters of the horrors of an Iranian bomb and warns of an impending Iranian nuclear strike on the United States. Rick Santorum said while campaigning in Missouri, "Once they [Iranians] have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are at war with us since 1979."
Such apocalyptic and bellicose rhetoric contrasts sharply with the official reports produced by the U.S. intelligence community, which concludes that Iran is currently not attempting to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told a Senate committee,
And Tehran has been more than accommodating to Washington's escalating demands. In 2010, the Iranian government accepted a condition put forth by the Obama administration that they forgo domestic production of non-weapons-grade uranium and purchase it abroad, but when Iran entered into a trade agreement with Turkey and Brazil that did exactly that, the deal was rejected by the United States.
Moreover, Iran has called for a nuclear-free Middle East; and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa prohibiting the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. That an Islamic government might have genuine moral compunctions about possessing and using weapons of mass destruction might be difficult for a skeptical and morally degenerate West to accept, but the fact that Iran has not yet acquired a nuclear weapon suggests Khamenei's fatwa may be more than just a PR stunt.
American leaders cite Tehran's supposed intransigence as evidence of the Iranians' malevolent intentions and as justification for further sanctions and even the use of military force. But they ignore Iran's painful colonial past and whitewash their own government's role in that history. Iran spent most of the 20th century being dominated by Russians, British, and Americans. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953, and the United States supported Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in 1980.
That the Iranian government would feel compelled to resist demands by the United States to curtail or suspend uranium enrichment is not surprising. Any government must at least give the appearance of defending the nation's sovereignty, and most Iranians view their government's nuclear program as an expression of national sovereignty.
So, given that Iran poses no real threat to the United States and is not even a regional threat because it is dependent on exporting its oil, why are so many American politicians baying for war against the Islamic Republic?
To get an answer, we should recall what H. L. Mencken said:
Another important element is the national-security state, which depends on "threat inflation" for its $1 trillion plus annual budget. This point has been made in, of all places, Foreign Affairs, where Micah Zenko and Michael A. Cohen write,
U.S. military power is so dominant that it is a joke to talk about threats in a conventional sense. The Pentagon's budget could be slashed by 75 percent and the United States would still have the most powerful military in the world. There are currently no nation-states with the will or capacity to invade the American mainland. Furthermore, the United States has a powerful deterrent in its massive nuclear arsenal.
Washington does not maintain 900 overseas military bases and deploy 300,000 soldiers in 130 foreign nations for the purposes of defense. The obvious truth is that the United States maintains its overwhelming military capabilities for the purposes of empire.
The war on terror, Iranian nukes, human rights, and the "responsibility to protect," are just national-security pretexts or cynical humanitarian facades put up by the American establishment to conceal its ruthless geopolitical strategy to control the world's resources and prevent the rise of any challengers to U.S. hegemony.
Just a glimpse at a map of the world reveals as much. Wherever there are energy resources and chokepoints on the flow of oil, you will find a concentration of U.S. forces. The Pentagon's own Defense Planning Guidance admits this:
This delusion encourages the United States government to make its foreign policy increasingly bellicose and reckless. The American colossus may bestride the world today, but its bank account is empty, its credit cards are maxed out, and its days are numbered.
Tim Kelly is a columnist and policy advisor at the Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia, a correspondent for Radio America's Special Investigator, and a political cartoonist.
[1] Thanks to John Glaser for pointing out the Foreign Affairs article in his blog post at AntiWar.com.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203a.asp
Iran: Scapegoat for a Bankrupt Empire
by Tim Kelly, March 1, 2012
Over the last few years the United States has been obsessed with preventing Iran from developing its own nuclear weapon. This obsession has been made even more curious by the fact that American politicians appear to be at odds with their own intelligence services on the issue.
President Obama said in his State of the Union address, "America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hasn't been any more diplomatic than her boss, saying, "It is the policy of this administration that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapon and no option has ever been taken off the table."
For three of the four remaining Republican presidential candidates, the Iranian nuke issue has become a contest to see which one of them can scare the American people the most. Mitt Romney has said, "a nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel; it is a threat to the entire world." Newt Gingrich repeatedly reminds voters of the horrors of an Iranian bomb and warns of an impending Iranian nuclear strike on the United States. Rick Santorum said while campaigning in Missouri, "Once they [Iranians] have a nuclear weapon, let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri. These are folks who have been and are at war with us since 1979."
Such apocalyptic and bellicose rhetoric contrasts sharply with the official reports produced by the U.S. intelligence community, which concludes that Iran is currently not attempting to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. James Clapper, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, recently told a Senate committee,
- We continue to assess Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons, in part by developing various nuclear capabilities that better position it to produce such weapons, should it choose to do so. We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons.
And Tehran has been more than accommodating to Washington's escalating demands. In 2010, the Iranian government accepted a condition put forth by the Obama administration that they forgo domestic production of non-weapons-grade uranium and purchase it abroad, but when Iran entered into a trade agreement with Turkey and Brazil that did exactly that, the deal was rejected by the United States.
Moreover, Iran has called for a nuclear-free Middle East; and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa prohibiting the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons. That an Islamic government might have genuine moral compunctions about possessing and using weapons of mass destruction might be difficult for a skeptical and morally degenerate West to accept, but the fact that Iran has not yet acquired a nuclear weapon suggests Khamenei's fatwa may be more than just a PR stunt.
American leaders cite Tehran's supposed intransigence as evidence of the Iranians' malevolent intentions and as justification for further sanctions and even the use of military force. But they ignore Iran's painful colonial past and whitewash their own government's role in that history. Iran spent most of the 20th century being dominated by Russians, British, and Americans. The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953, and the United States supported Iraq's unprovoked invasion of Iran in 1980.
That the Iranian government would feel compelled to resist demands by the United States to curtail or suspend uranium enrichment is not surprising. Any government must at least give the appearance of defending the nation's sovereignty, and most Iranians view their government's nuclear program as an expression of national sovereignty.
So, given that Iran poses no real threat to the United States and is not even a regional threat because it is dependent on exporting its oil, why are so many American politicians baying for war against the Islamic Republic?
To get an answer, we should recall what H. L. Mencken said:
- The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.
Another important element is the national-security state, which depends on "threat inflation" for its $1 trillion plus annual budget. This point has been made in, of all places, Foreign Affairs, where Micah Zenko and Michael A. Cohen write,
- Warnings about a dangerous world also benefit powerful bureaucratic interests. The specter of looming dangers sustains and justifies the massive budgets of the military and the intelligence agencies, along with the national security infrastructure that exists outside government -- defense contractors, lobbying groups, think tanks, and academic departments.[1]
- The military-industrial complex has never been larger or more pervasive. Thousands of companies exist to sell expensive things to the government. Fortunes have been made. The post–9/11 period has been a feeding frenzy at the taxpayers' trough -- grand larceny of historic proportions.
U.S. military power is so dominant that it is a joke to talk about threats in a conventional sense. The Pentagon's budget could be slashed by 75 percent and the United States would still have the most powerful military in the world. There are currently no nation-states with the will or capacity to invade the American mainland. Furthermore, the United States has a powerful deterrent in its massive nuclear arsenal.
Washington does not maintain 900 overseas military bases and deploy 300,000 soldiers in 130 foreign nations for the purposes of defense. The obvious truth is that the United States maintains its overwhelming military capabilities for the purposes of empire.
The war on terror, Iranian nukes, human rights, and the "responsibility to protect," are just national-security pretexts or cynical humanitarian facades put up by the American establishment to conceal its ruthless geopolitical strategy to control the world's resources and prevent the rise of any challengers to U.S. hegemony.
Just a glimpse at a map of the world reveals as much. Wherever there are energy resources and chokepoints on the flow of oil, you will find a concentration of U.S. forces. The Pentagon's own Defense Planning Guidance admits this:
- The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
This delusion encourages the United States government to make its foreign policy increasingly bellicose and reckless. The American colossus may bestride the world today, but its bank account is empty, its credit cards are maxed out, and its days are numbered.
Tim Kelly is a columnist and policy advisor at the Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Virginia, a correspondent for Radio America's Special Investigator, and a political cartoonist.
[1] Thanks to John Glaser for pointing out the Foreign Affairs article in his blog post at AntiWar.com.
http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203a.asp
Re: Is this thing on?
Google Chrome seems to work.
Thats just dumb
On Mar 1, 10:41 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Greg;
>
> I am sending this to your e-mail, as you probably won't be able to see
> this in the Group's web pages.
>
> Mark and I are aware of the problem, and have contacted Google (this
> morning) regarding the Google "Snafu".
>
> For some reasoning, and I am only assuming that this has something to do
> with Google's "data collection/TOS/Privacy Settings" changes that took
> effect last night; many members cannot access the Group's web pages. The
> only way to see the messages posted is if you subscribe by e-mail, to
> either "Direct" e-mail, "Digest" E-Mail, or "Summary" e-mail.
>
> We regret the inconvenience, and hopefully, Google will get the issue
> resolved shortly. It's our experience that snafus like this clear up in a
> relatively short period of time....."Relatively" being the operative word
> here.
>
> Keith
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:35 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I haven't been able to read a post on any Google board for 2 days.
>
> > Of course, that probably means I am typing out my ass right now.
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: An Update To Google Groups Issues
Firefox 10.0.2 on Windows is working ok
On Mar 1, 11:01 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, IE8 is not displaying posts and is no longer supported on macs
>
> On Mar 1, 10:33 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I use IE8, Got to group home page but could not get anywhere else.
>
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM, plainolamerican
> > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > > everything is working fine in Firefox 10.0.2 on a mac
>
> > > On Mar 1, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Good Morning Folks,
>
> > > > I just learned, (by trial and error) that Google Groups will in fact
> > > work
> > > > correctly and interact with the Google Chrome Browser; but for some
> > > > reason, the Google Groups will not interact correctly with Internet
> > > > Explorer; nor is it working exactly right in Mozilla Firefox. This might
> > > > at least be a temporary solution to access the Group's web pages.
>
> > > > We are attempting to alert Google Groups to this issue; bear with us!
>
> > > > KeithInTampa
>
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: An Update To Google Groups Issues
yes, IE8 is not displaying posts and is no longer supported on macs
On Mar 1, 10:33 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I use IE8, Got to group home page but could not get anywhere else.
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 10:16 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > everything is working fine in Firefox 10.0.2 on a mac
>
> > On Mar 1, 9:59 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Good Morning Folks,
>
> > > I just learned, (by trial and error) that Google Groups will in fact
> > work
> > > correctly and interact with the Google Chrome Browser; but for some
> > > reason, the Google Groups will not interact correctly with Internet
> > > Explorer; nor is it working exactly right in Mozilla Firefox. This might
> > > at least be a temporary solution to access the Group's web pages.
>
> > > We are attempting to alert Google Groups to this issue; bear with us!
>
> > > KeithInTampa
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
One Dollar Gas
"I was directed to the following this morning on NewsMax when I logged on: "Newt Unveils Plan for $2.50 Gas to Kickstart Campaign Comeback" < http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/gingrich-gas-drilling-oil/2012/02/23/id/430411?s=al&promo_code=E416-1 >. It's as typically Republican as it can get, too little, too late, too cowardly, too stupid.
"By contrast, read "One Dollar Gas". Based on leading-edge science and free market economics, it originally appeared in _L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE_ at least two years ago, and is now a chapter in _DOWN WITH POWER: Libertartian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_. Read it at http://www.down-with-power.com/energy.html or better yet, get it in dead-tree or e-reader format at Amazon.com or B&N.com.
"Then contact your nearest libertarian candidate, and get him or her to read it. One Dollar Gas. This is an issue we can win on." -- L Neil Smith
_DOWN WITH POWER: Libertartian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_
One Dollar Gas
Never soft-pedal the truth. It's seldom self-evident and almost never sells itself, because there's less sales resistance to a glib and comforting lie. -- L. Neil Smith
Of all the things to suffer a crisis about, by far the silliest is energy. There is no shortage of energy whatever in America or in the world.
What there is a shortage of -- as usual, with 20th and 21st century problems -- is individual liberty, exacerbated by a surplus, a hideous glut, of mercantilist interference with the free market system. Energy corporations today are unanimous in grim determination that you and Iand those who provide our other goods and servicesmust be limited to purchasing our energy from them, and only from them.
That's what the wars in the middle east are all about.
Unfortunately, their investment in yesterday's scientific ideas, obsolete technology, and gradually collapsing infrastructure make buying energy from them one of the worst bargains we could possibly strike.
Government has a hand in this, as well. Generally the more energy that is available to any given individual in any given society, the more individual liberty there is in that society. That is probably the reason why authoritarian, collectivist governments (if you'll pardon a redundancy) adopt mythologies that claim energy is scarce or will soon be.
Nor is the essentially fascistic environmentalist movement at all interested in cheaper, cleaner energy or greater human freedom. Their goal is to round up all of humanity in vertical concentration camps called "arcologies", forcibly reduce the population, mostly by lowering the quality and standard of living, clear the countryside (the way the British did in Scotland in the 18th and 19th centuries), and let it "return to nature"except, of course, for the dachas of the nomenklatura and their more attractive and compliant peasant slaves.
If billions must die to achieve this Utopian dream, so much the better.
For those with different plans for our futures (and I emphasize the plural, here), it's important to understand that existing known reserves of oil, natural gas, and coal in North America alone, are enough to meet our needs for centuries. That's why it's so important for the enemies of liberty to restrict or eliminate prospecting, extraction, and refining energy here, employing evil and inhumane rationalizations that rest on an assumption that animals, plants, and even naked dirt and rocks are more important than their fellow human beings.
Whom they plan to kill off anyway, in the long run. These are the moral cripples famous for saying that "What the world needs is a good plague".
Environmentalists, far from being friends of the Earth, are the enemies of humanity. They want you impoverished, enslaved, or dead. Nobody who actually cares about his fellow human beingsor for the future of his childrenshould ever feed them, house them, clothe them, transport them, protect them, or support them in any other manner.
Let the bastards freeze in the dark.
But I digress.
Just because there is still plenty of fuel -- energy -- left in the ground, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't look for more. The more of anything there is, the cheaper it gets. The cheaper it gets the more we can afford to use. The more we can afford to use, the faster our progress out of the War Century, the century of the biggest, most powerful, and most destructive governments in human history.
And upward, to the stars.
One of the most startling -- and gratifying -- discoveries in recent decades is that most petroleum is not derived from dead animals or plants, but was created by non-biological, or "abiotic" processes in the Earth's crust. These processes continue to this day, and, according to some expers, oil fields once thought to be depleted are presently fillng up again, from underneath, with geologically newer oil.
There are those who say that anywhere you drill -- provided you drill deeply enough -- you'll strike oil. (Naturally, a shallow hole is cheaper to drill than a deeper hole, so some minimal forethought and exploration are called for.) The claim is controversial, and especially repugnant to those who have invested their lives and fortunes in conventional theories about the origin of oil, but the Russians, acting on it, went from being one of the world's largest importers of petroleum to one of the largest exporters, in only half a century.
Oil, in fact, is the second most abundant liquid on the planet, and, in a free market, should cost a mere fraction of what it does now.
There is a number of alternative cheap, clean energy sources to oil, gas, and coal, and I am not referring to diffuse and marginal technologies like solar power and windmills. These perennial favorites of the environmentalist movement have extremely limited small scale applications, such as lighting road signs far from civilization, or pumping well water into stock tanks (windmill-provided power to cities is very costly compared to conventional sources) and otherwise represent expensive and completely unneccesary diversions. The same goes for what I would term "fuel substitutes", such as hydrogen and ethanol.
What might be termed "conventional nuclear power"atomic fissionis unsatisfactory only because it requires a government or large corporation to underwrite, build, and operate it. Otherwise, it is the cleanest, safest, most reliable source of energy on the planet and most of the complaints about it are hysterical or politically contrived.
A generation ago, it was common among the anti-nuclear activists to claim that fission is so unsafe that insurance can't be found to cover it. This is a lie. Insurance companies simply couldn't compete with the protection afforded by government under the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act which limits a company's liability to an unrealistic and unjust figure in the case of a nuclear accident. We now see this same legal "philosophy" set aside by executive command in the case of the Obama-BP oil spill, and this may end offshore drilling entirely.
Although dozens of nuclear reactors provide some 19 percent of the electricity consumed in America (significantly higher than the world average, although 80 percent of France's electricity comes from nuclear power), that figure is in decline, and there have been no new reactors built for many years. The United States Navy maintains over a hundred reactors on its vessels with what is reported to be perfect safety, even on those rare occasions when ships have succumbed to some other disaster and been destroyed. The decline of the United States as a culture can almost be dated to its abandonment of nuclear power, not so much because nuclear power is a good thing, but because it betrays a psychological and emotional loss of the country's grip on the future.
More than anything, the future of nuclear power was killed off by federal construction regulations that seemed to be changed arbitrarily every day, slowing the building process to a crawl, greatly increasing its cost, forcing constant redesigns that might be reversed the next day.
Equally to blame were hundreds of frivolous nuisance lawsuits on the part of the anti-nuclear movement which genuine tort reform of the "loser pays" kind may have prevented. Interestingly, the anti-nuclear movement began with no actual concern about nuclear power itself; its founders, Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden among others, found themselves missing the "good old days" of the anti-Vietnam war movement, and began casting around cynically for something new that they could protest.
In the history of nuclear power, there have been two "accidents", one at Three Mile Island, near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in 1979, and one at Chernobyl, in the Ukraine (then a part of the Soviet Union) in 1986.
In the case of Three Mile Island, when a malfunction occurred, the emergency shut-down system worked exactly as it was supposed to, and the danger was grossly exaggerated by anti-nuclear activists and their propagandists in the news media. Edward Teller, the so-called "father of the H-bomb", visited the site and said afterward that he was the only casualty at Three Mile island, having suffered a minor heart attack in the parking lot, which he blamed on Jane Fonda and Ralph Nader.
Chernobyl is another kettle of fish altogether. Like all communist technology, it was built on the cheap, the product of shoddy, possibly drunken workmanship, substandard materials, corrupt management, and questionable design. Its emergency containment system failed to meet world standards, and it was said, half-jokingly, by western engineers that the Soviets saved money on their reactors by not building an adequate containment vessel around the reactor until it was actually needed.
If anything, Chernobyl demonstrates the serious risks of allowing too much government control of, and interference with, any industry. The danger is only increased in the case of something like nuclear power.
The only legitimate technical objection to nuclear power is that it produces radioactive waste -- spent fuel -- that must be disposed of somehow, usually by storing it deep in abandoned mines where it will remain radioactive and dangerous for thousands of years. The answer to this problem is "rebreeding", a process by which this spent fuel is made useful once again by exposing it to radiation within a special reactor.
France routinely reprocesses a significant amount of its nuclear fuel, and is said to enjoy the cleanest air in Europe. Unfortunately, America has no more breeder reactors, having shut them all down years ago, supposedly, for fear that the end product, the nuclear fuel plutonium, could also be used to build atomic weapons. This is incredibly irrational and stupid, exactly like giving up the use of dynamite in road construction because it might be used for criminal purposes.
At least two technologies, currently suppressed, could each supply enough power to civilization, on their own, to run civilization for centuries. One of these sources is catalytic or "cold" fusion which, contrary to popular belief was never discredited after its discovery in Utah by Fleischmann and Pons, but is still being researched and developed enthusiastically in Europe by certain governments and corporations.
What seems like a dream to some -- a footlocker-sized fusion reactor in everybody's basement, or under the hoods of their cars, that would supply all their energy needs with mininal attention and no nuclear waste or chemical exhaust -- is a nightmare to others, chiefly those who generate energy now by burning coal or natural gas, or who string the wires across the countryside from powerplants to your house.
Regrettably, there isn't a single industrial ox in today's society that isn't gored by what they perceive as the threat of cheap, clean fusion. It is said that its discoverers fled America to Europe, and for a time, actually disappeared, out of fear that they would be killed. All governments hate and fear the individual -- and corporate mercantilism isn't very far behind them -- and wish to restrain him, because they're afraid that, unrestrained, he'll act just like they do.
Thermal depolymerization is a late-comer to the field of energy, but one that shows great promise and is already a proven technology. In this process, any organic garbage can be "cooked" into what amounts to "light, sweet crude", the most desirable variety of petroleum. Cast-off computer cabinets were mentioned in the first article about it, as a raw material source. Old automobile tires -- of which there are huge mountains in America, some of them slowly smoldering -- can be processed to produce oil, plus carbon black, a useful industrial product.
Environmentalists whine constantly about landfills. The process of thermal depolymerization will transform them into energy mines. The best part is that, having been demonstrated to work in a small proof of concept plant in New Jersey, the process's inventors believe they can produce oil for somewhere between fifteen and eight dollars a barrel, in a world market where conventional oil is several times that figure, and it doesn't have to be shipped here by pipeline or tanker. Nor does it have to be drilled for on land or at the bottom of the sea. It can even be produced locally, as a routine part of municipal sanitation.
What it means, at the pump, is one dollar gas. "One Dollar Gas"-- that's a winning campaign slogan, for any political party intelligent enough to pick it up and run with it. Regrettably, when I offered it -- and more than once -- to the Libertarian Party, they declined to do so.
Unfortunately, those who provide our energy now, using outdated technology, at much higher prices, feel threatened by this invention -- as well they should -- and are doing their level best to suppress it. It is up to the new media -- the Internet and talk radio -- to expose this illicit activity, bring it to a halt, and promote the new technology.
When I was young -- surprisingly so, perhaps as young as eleven or twelve -- I realized more or less suddenly that the solutions to all of the world's problems had almost certainly been discovered already, quite possibly many times over, but that nobody else wanted to hear or think about them. If libertarians have a natural destiny, it is to think the unthinkable, speak the unspeakable, and get the world to listen.
In general, if we are to survive and advance, the energy industry must be detaxed and deregulated soon. Costs will plummet, and there will be no more reason to rely on unfriendly strangers for our wellbeing.
http://www.down-with-power.com/energy.html
Re: TMLC News Alert - Islamic News Agencies Target TMLC
would you rather eliminate religion from our government than be
outvoted and represented by muzzies?
outvoted and represented by muzzies?
On Mar 1, 9:45 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
> Thomas More Law Center News Alert
> Is this email not displaying correctly? View it in your
> browser<http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=adf1a83154acea60d091b413c&id=e764...>.
>
> [image: Thomas More Law Center - NEWS
> ALERT]<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> *Why Did Several Islamic News Agencies Suddenly Target the Thomas
> More Law Center?*
> ANN ARBOR, MI – In the past few days, several international Islamic news
> agencies, including the Ahlul Bayt News Agency (ABNA) and the International
> Islamic News Agency (IINA) have targeted the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC)
> and its President Richard Thompson, in articles claiming that Muslim
> students in the U.S. are being unfairly treated.
>
> **
>
> The Thomas More Law Center is a national public interest law firm based in
> Ann Arbor, Michigan, whose mission includes the promotion of America's
> Judeo-Christian heritage and a strong national defense.
>
> The news agencies, which decried the lack of religious accommodations for
> Muslims in U.S. public schools focused on comments by Thompson. The story
> published by the International Islamic News Agency stated in part:
>
> *"Some also say providing Muslim students with prayer rooms and special
> food constitutes an organized attempt to push Islamic law in public
> settings. In fact, some of the most outspoken critics of accommodation for
> Muslim students are Christian groups. "What (school officials) are doing …
> is to give Muslim students religious benefits that they do not give any
> other religion right now," Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel at
> the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian advocacy group, told USA Today."*
>
> Thompson did not back down from his comments. "Islam is more than a
> religion. It is a political ideology that regulates every aspect of human
> existence, and calls for the Islamic domination of the world. Since radical
> Muslims know they can never defeat our military on the battlefield, they
> devised the strategy of internal subversion."
>
> Continued Thompson, "Like the ancient Trojan Horse welcomed within the
> city's gates, Islam has entered America disguised as a religion. But its
> ultimate objective is political: Destroy America and establish an Islamic
> nation under Shariah Law. So while America sleeps, they are awake and
> subverting our government, as well as our public schools and universities.
> And we will not be deterred from our efforts to stop them."
>
> In fact, the Thomas More Law Center was one of the first Christian advocacy
> groups in the nation to take legal action against the double standard that
> favored Islam over Christianity.
>
> In 2002, the Thomas More Law Center filed a federal lawsuit against the
> Byron Union School District in California over their three week
> indoctrination course on Islam for its seventh grade students, using the
> work book "Islam, A simulation of Islamic history and culture", workbook's
> cover page<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> .
>
> The 12-year old students were told:
>
> - "From the beginning you and your classmates will become
> Muslim<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> "
> - Dress up as a Muslim and try to be involved guarantee an excellent
> grade<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> .
> - Pick Islamic names and wear them around your neck as ID
> tags<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> .
> - Read the fatiha, the opening chapter in the Koran and recited by
> Muslims at every daily
> prayer<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> .
> - Play a dice game called Jihad by declaring a jihad against another
> group<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> .
> - Jihad is a struggle by Muslims against
> oppression<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> .
> - Complete the phrase required for conversion to
> Islam<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> .
> - Complete the Five Pillars of the Islamic
> Faith<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> .
> - Analyze certain verses from the
> Koran<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60...>
> .
>
> In an astonishing ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved the
> school's Islamic indoctrination holding that the Islam program activities
> were not "overt religious exercises" that raised Establishment Clause
> concerns. Just to make sure their ruling could not be precedent to
> establish similar classes for Christians, they made their ruling "Not for
> Publication."
>
> Our K-12 textbooks contain sugarcoated versions of Islam promoted by the
> Council on Islamic Education. Those versions don't mention its kidnappings,
> beheadings, slave-trading, savage murder, and persecution of non-Muslims or
> the repression of women.
>
> The founder of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Omar Ahmad
> said this to a group of American Muslims in 1998:
>
> *"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become
> dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam
> the only accepted religion on Earth."*
>
> In a more recent Law Center case, in 2007 the Poway School District ordered
> math teacher Bradley Johnson, to take down banners displaying patriotic
> phrases such as "In God We Trust," and "One Nation Under God" because they
> promoted a Judeo-Christian message and might offend a Muslim student.
> Johnson's banners had been displayed for 25 years without a single
> complaint from students or parents.
>
> Showing their bias against Christians, school officials allowed other
> teachers to display non-Christian religious messages in their classrooms.
> These displays included a 40-foot string of Tibetan prayer flags with
> images of Buddha hung across a classroom, a poster with Hindu leader
> Mahatma Gandhi's "7 Social Sins;" a poster of Muslim leader Malcolm X; and
> a poster of the Buddhist leader Dali Lama.
>
> In September 2011, the Thomas More Law Center's lawsuit on behalf of Brad
> Johnson was dismissed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Law Center
> has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
> Be a fan on
> Facebook<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> |
> Follow us on Twitter<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> |
> Forward to a friend<http://us2.forward-to-friend.com/forward?u=adf1a83154acea60d091b413c&...>
> *Copyright © 2012 Thomas More Law Center, All rights reserved.*
> You are receiving this email because you signed up to receive TMLC News
> Alerts.
> Thomas More Law Center
> 24 Frank Lloyd Wright Dr.
> Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
>
> Add us to your address
> book<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/vcard?u=adf1a83154acea60d091b41...>
>
> *Donate* Now
> »<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> unsubscribe from this
> list<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=adf1a83154acea60d...>
> | update subscription
> preferences<http://thomasmore.us2.list-manage1.com/profile?u=adf1a83154acea60d091...>
> | view email in
> browser<http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=adf1a83154acea60d091b413c&id=e764...>
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)