Friday, March 30, 2012

Re: The Right Wing's Election-Year Islamophobia Fuels a New Smear Campaign Against Obama

http://www.youtube.com/v/R611drTEHPA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam

On Mar 30, 9:10 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Right Wing's Election-Year Islamophobia Fuels a New Smear Campaign
> Against Obama
> In an election in which racist slogans are off the table, the
> Islamophobic accusation of "acting Muslim" remains a politically
> acceptable chauvinism.
> March 29, 2012  |
>
> Those who fervently believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim generally
> practice their furtive religion in obscure recesses of the Internet.
> Once in a while, they'll surface in public to remind the news media
> that no amount of evidence can undermine their convictions.
>
> In October 2008, at a town hall meeting in Minnesota for Republican
> presidential candidate John McCain, a woman called Obama "an Arab."
> McCain responded, incongruously enough, that Obama was, in fact, "a
> decent family man" and not an Arab at all. In an echo of this, a woman
> recently stood up at a town hall in Florida and began a question for
> Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum by asserting that the
> president "is an avowed Muslim." The audience cheered, and Santorum
> didn't bother to correct her.
>
> Though they belong to a largely underground cult, the members of the
> Obama-is-Muslim congregation number as many as one third of all
> Republicans. Arecent poll found that only 14% percent of Republicans
> in Alabama and Mississippi believe that the president is Christian.
>
> These true believers treat their scraps of evidence like holy relics:
> the president's middle name, his grandfather's religion, a widely
> circulated photo of Obama in a turban. They occasionally traffic in
> outright fabrications: that he attended a radical madrasa in Indonesia
> as a child or that he put his hand on the Qur'an to be sworn in as
> president. An even more apocalyptic subset believes Obama to be
> nothing short of the anti-Christ.
>
> By and large, however, this cult doesn't attract mainstream support
> from the larger church of Obama haters. Indeed, these more orthodox
> faithful have carefully shifted the debate from Obama being Muslim to
> Obama actingMuslim. Evangelical pundits, presidential candidates, and
> the right-wing media have all ramped up their attacks on the president
> for, as Baptist preacher Franklin Graham put it recently on MSNBC,
> "giving Islam a pass."
>
> The conservative mainstream still calls the president's religious
> beliefs into question, but they stop just short of accusing him of
> apostasy and concealment. What they consider safe is the assertion
> that Obama is acting as if he were Muslim. In this way, Republican
> mandarins are cleverly channeling a conspiracy theory into a policy
> position.
>
> There is a whiff of desperation in all this.  After all, it's not an
> easy time for the GOP. The economy shows modest signs of improvement.
> The Republican presidential candidates are still engaged in a
> fratricidal primary. By expanding counterterrorism operations and
> killing Osama bin Laden, the president has effectively removed
> national security from the list of Republican talking points.
>
> One story, however, still ties together so many narrative threads for
> conservatives. Charges that the president is a socialist or a Nazi or
> an elitist supporter of college education certainly push some buttons.
> But the single surefire way of grabbing the attention of the media and
> the public -- as well as appealing to the instincts of the Republican
> base -- is to assert, however indirectly, that Barack Obama is a
> Manchurian candidate sent from the Islamic world.
>
> Obama and the Muslim World
>
> A succession of Republican candidates have attempted to run to the
> right of party favorite Mitt Romney by asserting that only a true
> conservative can defeat Obama in November. Most of them boasted of the
> same powerful backer. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and
> Rick Santorum all declared that God asked them to run for higher
> office. Together with Newt Gingrich, they have deployed various
> methods of appealing to their constituencies, but none is more potent
> than religion.
>
> Rick Santorum, a Catholic and the favorite of the evangelical
> community, has been particularly adept at using his soapbox as a
> pulpit. The president subscribes to a "phony theology," Santorum has
> claimed, "not a theology based on the Bible, a different theology."
> Although he occasionally asserts that "Obama's personal faith is none
> of my concern," he nonetheless speaks of the president's attempt to
> "impose values on people of faith"-- implying that the president is
> certainly no member of that community.
>
> In his attacks on the president's spirituality, Santorum is cleverly
> attacking Mitt Romney's Mormonism as well (a theology also based on
> text other than the Bible). At the same time, the suggestion that
> Obama is somehow "other" operates as a code word for "Black" in a race
> in which race goes largely unmentioned.
>
> It's an odd set of charges. Obama, after all, did everything possible
> during his first presidential campaign to foreground his Christianity.
> He was repeatedly seen praying in churches and assiduously avoided
> mosques. He never made a campaign appearance with a prominent Muslim.
> He talked about his "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ.
>
> The day after he clinched the Democratic Party nomination in 2008, he
> gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)
> in which he reaffirmed that he was "a true friend of Israel." Although
> he would occasionally mention his Muslim relatives and the time he
> spent in Indonesia as a child, he generally did whatever he could to
> emphasize only two out of the three major monotheisms.
>
> As president, Obama has certainly "reached out" to the Muslim world.
> In Cairo, in June 2009, he spoke of seeking "a new beginning between
> the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual
> interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America
> and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition."
>
> That new beginning, however, has yet to come. At home, for example,
> the Obama administration provided federal funds that the New York City
> Police Department then used to expand its surveillance of Muslim
> American neighborhoods. (Even the CIA was involved in this "human
> mapping" project.) The FBI has spent the Obama years rounding up
> suspected Muslim terrorists in operations that flirt dangerously with
> entrapment. The administration has expanded the no-fly list, though
> because the list is secret it's difficult to know whether
> Muslim-Americans are specifically profiled. Anecdotal evidence,
> however, suggests that they are.
>
> The administration's record internationally is even more
> disappointing. The conduct of U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- the night
> raids, massacres (including the recent murders of 16 Afghan
> villagers), and the Qur'an burnings -- have enraged local Muslims.
> Obama has expanded the CIA's drone air campaign by a considerable
> margin in the Pakistani borderlands. Civilian casualties,
> overwhelmingly Muslim, continue to occur there and in other "overseas
> contingency operations" as U.S. Special Operations Forces have
> dramatically expanded their activities in the Muslim world.
>
> Despite right-wing charges, Obama has maintained a tight relationship
> with Israel and the Israeli leadership. As former New Republiceditor
> Peter Beinart concludes, "The story of Obama's relationship to [Prime
> Minister] Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies is, fundamentally,
> a story of acquiescence."
>
> It's no surprise, then, that surveys in six Middle East countries
> taken just before and two months after the Cairo speech in 2009, the
> Brookings Institution and Zogby International discoveredthat the
> number of respondents optimistic about the president's approach to the
> region had suffered a dramatic drop: from 51% to 16%. A 2011 Pew poll
> found that U.S. favorability ratings had continued their slide in
> Jordan (to 13%), Pakistan (12%), and Turkey (10%).
>
> And yet, perversely, the hard right in the U.S. maintains that the
> Obama administration has behaved in quite the opposite manner.
> "There's something sick about an administration which is so
> pro-Islamic that it can't even tell the truth about the people who are
> trying to kill us," Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich
> typically said while campaigning in Georgia.
>
> Pro-Islamic? That's news to the Islamic world.
>
> But it's nothing new to the world of the U.S. right wing, which
> portrays Obama as anti-Israel and weak in the face of Islamic
> terrorism. At best, the president emerges from these attacks as a
> booster of Islam; at worst, he is the leader of a genuine fifth
> column.
>
> Although the administration's policy on Iran is virtually
> indistinguishable from those of his Republican challengers, they have
> presented him as an appeaser. The president who "surged" in
> Afghanistan somehow becomes, through the magic of election-year
> sloganeering, a pacifist patsy. Although Obama never endorsed the
> location of the "Ground Zero mosque," his opponents have suggested
> that he did. Although he was slow to withdraw support from U.S. allies
> in the Middle East like Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia,
> Republican candidates have accused the president of practically
> campaigning on behalf of the Islamist parties that have grown in
> influence as a result of the Arab Spring.
>
> Barack Obama, the right wing has discovered, does not have to be
> Muslim to convince American voters that he has a suspect, even
> foreign, agenda. They have instead established a much lower
> evidentiary standard: he only has to actMuslim.
>
> For this, they don't need a birth certificate. All they need are
> allegations, however spurious, that the president is in league with
> Iran's Ahmadinejad, Arab Spring jihadists, and anti-Israel forces at
> home. This more subtle but no less ugly Islamophobia has already
> insinuated itself into the 2012 elections in a potentially more
> damaging way than did the overt disparagement of Obama's religious
> bona fides back in 2008.
>
> The Upcoming Elections
>
> The 2010 midterm elections witnessed a sharp uptick in anti-Islamic
> sentiment. In addition to the concocted "Ground Zero mosque"
> controversy, Florida preacher Terry Jones threatened to burn the
> Qur'an in front of the world's cameras; a group called Stop
> Islamization of America bought anti-Islamic ads on buses in major
> cities; and a movement to pass anti-Sharia legislation at a state
> level began in Oklahoma. In response to this brushfire of hatred,
> Timemagazine devoted a cover story to Islamophobia that year. On the
> right at least, Islam seemed on the way to becoming a litmus test in
> the way communism was during the Cold War.
>
> Two years later, the hysteria seems to have subsided. The Islamophobes
> haven't gone into hiding. They tried to organize an advertising
> boycott of the TV show All-American Muslim; they campaigned against
> halal meats. But these efforts didn't get much traction.
>
> Meanwhile, Park51-- the real name of the cultural center inaccurately
> dubbed the "Ground Zero mosque" -- opened in its original Park Street
> location with an exhibition by a Jewish photographer. Terry Jones is
> pursuing a quixotic bid for the presidency far from the media
> spotlight. Time has returned several times to the topic of
> Islamophobia, particularly after Anders Breivik's bombing and shooting
> rampage in Norway in July 2011, but with none of the intensity of the
> summer of 2010. The anti-Sharia campaign has passed legislation in
> several states, and laws are pending in more than a dozen more. But
> the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Oklahoma anti-Sharia
> statute unconstitutional, and the anti-Sharia crowd has been unable to
> provide a single piece of evidence that Islamic law poses any
> challenge to the U.S. legal system.
>
> Don't be fooled, though, by the relative quiet. It's still early in
> the election cycle. The Republicans, arrayed in a circular firing
> squad, have been largely focusing their attacks on each other. The
> last man standing will marshal his resources to challenge Obama. In
> the unlikely event that Rick Santorum emerges as the Republican
> candidate, religion will be central to his attack on Obama and the
> Democrats.
>
> Mitt Romney has a more ambivalent relationship to religion as a wedge
> issue, given the level of discomfort that many American have toward
> Mormonism. But there are no Mormon countries to which Romney can be
> accused of owing primary allegiance. It will be safe, in other words,
> to challenge Obama for acting rather than being Muslim, for deferring
> to the Muslim world much as anti-Catholic voters in 1960 imagined John
> F. Kennedy to be taking his orders directly from the Pope.
>
> Romney is already lining up his ducks, welcoming onto his team Islam
> critic Walid Phares and attack ad specialist Larry McCarthy (who did
> an distortion-laden spot on the "Ground Zero mosque" back in 2010).
> After securing the nomination, Romney will simultaneously appeal to
> the center and shore up support among evangelicals. The message that
> Obama is weak, anti-Israel, and appeases Islamic movements and
> countries could catch the attention of both constituencies.
>
> A disconnect between accusation and reality hardly matters in American
> politics these days. Obama the "socialist" somehow manages to work
> hand in hand with Wall Street financiers. Obama the "Nazi" courts
> AIPAC. Obama the "peacenik" has been very much a war president. And
> Obama the "Muslim" gets a big thumbs-down from the Muslim world.
>
> The president makes a lousy Muslim Manchurian candidate, for he has
> disappointed his imagined Muslim handlers at virtually every turn. In
> an election in which racist slogans are off the table, however, the
> Islamophobic accusation of "acting Muslim" remains a politically
> acceptable chauvinism. Given the deep anti-Islamic currents in
> American culture, such accusations might unfortunately prove effective
> as well.
>
> John Feffer is the author of the just-published Crusade 2.0: The
> West's Resurgent War on Islam (City Lights Books). A TomDispatch
> regular, he is the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the
> Institute for Policy Studies and will be starting an Open Society
> fellowship later this year.
>
> More:http://www.alternet.org/news/154758/the_right_wing%27s_election-year_...
> --
> 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: How The Right Wing "ALEC" Teamed Up With The NRA To Get Copycat, "Stand Your Ground" Laws In 21 States

George Zimmerman, a
28-year-old self-appointed "neighborhood watch vigilante"
---
only a minority or criminal would make such a statement

On Mar 30, 9:51 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How The Right Wing "ALEC" Teamed Up With The NRA To Get Copycat,
> "Stand Your Ground" Laws In 21 States
> The Florida 'stand-your-ground' law "is the template for an American
> Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) 'model bill' that has been pushed
> in other states."
> March 25, 2012  |
>
>         There is little doubt that it was George Zimmerman, a
> 28-year-old self-appointed "neighborhood watch vigilante," who shot
> and killed the 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last month as he "returned
> from a trip to 7-11 with an iced tea and a pack of Skittles."
>
> Less known is the relationship between the Florida "stand your ground"
> law, which may allow the killer of Trayvon Martin to walk free, and a
> powerful but private, behind-the-scenes organization that has
> channeled such bills into the legislatures of Florida and other
> states.
>
> The Florida law that is drawing such sudden attention due to the death
> of a teenager in Sanford "is the template for an American Legislative
> Exchange Council (ALEC) 'model bill' that has been pushed in other
> states," PR Watch's Brendan Fischer recently reported.
>
> Fischer says that "Evidence suggests a major reason Zimmerman thought
> he needed to use deadly force against the unarmed Martin is because
> the teen was black... Zimmerman has not been charged with any crime."
>
> According to Fischer, "The bill was brought to ALEC by the National
> Rifle Association (NRA), and fits into a pattern of ALEC bills that
> disproportionately impact communities of color."
>
> It is no surprise that ALEC is hardly a household name. The American
> Legislative Exchange Council, (ALEC) prefers to do its business in
> secret. And since ALEC's founding in 1973 by Paul Weyrich (who
> co-founded the Heritage Foundation and is widely considered to be one
> of the Godfathers of the New Right); former Illinois Republican
> Congressman Henry Hyde; and conservative activist Lou Barnett, the
> organization has successfully stayed out of the spotlight.
>
> If it weren't for the resolute reporting of a handful of investigative
> journalists and the extraordinary work of the Center for Media and
> Democracy's ALEC Exposed Web site, not much would be known about ALEC.
>
> Source Watch, a project of the Wisconsin-based Center for Media and
> Democracy, described ALEC as a "semi-secretive" organization that "has
> been highly influential, has operated quietly in the United States for
> decades, and received remarkably little scrutiny from journalists,
> media or members of the public during that time." A report by the
> American Association for Justice, titled "ALEC: Ghostwriting the Law
> for Corporate America" described the organization as "the ultimate
> smoke filled back room."
>
> As John Nichols recently pointed out in The Nation, "the shadowy Koch
> brothers-funded network ... brings together right-wing legislators
> with corporate interests and pressure groups to craft so-called 'model
> legislation.'" And while ALEC is predominantly concerned with cutting
> tax rates for corporations and wealthy individuals, privatization,
> de-regulation, and weakening, if not eliminating unions, it "also
> dabbles in electoral and public safety issues. And 'Stand Your Ground'
> proposals have for seven years been on its agenda."
>
> Last year, when Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker unleashed an
> unprecedented attack on public workers in that state, and
> Republican-controlled state legislatures around the country began its
> assault on voting rights, ALEC's fingerprints were all over those
> initiatives.
>
> From the NRA to ALEC to the states
>
> John Nichols recently reported in The Nation that "The National Rifle
> Association led the advocacy on behalf of the proposal, [which was
> signed into law by then-Governor Jeb Bush] arguing that it was needed
> to provide immunity to gunmen who might use deadly force against
> unarmed individuals who they imagine to be threatening.
>
> Media Matters recently pointed out that the language in "Florida's
> statute on the use of force in self-defense is virtually identical to
> Section 1 of ALEC's Castle Doctrine Act model legislation":
>
> The Florida law states:
>
> (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is
> attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no
> duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet
> force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably
> believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily
> harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of
> a forcible felony.
>
> According to Media Matters, "The language is identical to ALEC's
> Castle Doctrine Act model legislation, which they have been working
> hand in hand with the NRA to pass across the country":
>
> 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is
> attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or
> vehicle] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and
> has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
> including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is
> necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or
> herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
>
> "In a 2008 interview with NRA News," Media Matters noted, "ALEC
> resident fellow Michael Hough explained how his organization works
> with the NRA to push similar legislation through its network of
> conservative state legislators:
>
> HOUGH: We are a very pro-Second Amendment organization. In fact, last
> session, I'll get off-topic here real quick, but some of the things
> that we were pushing in states was the Castle Doctrine. We worked with
> the NRA on that, that's one of our model bills that we have states
> introduce.
>
> A 2002 report from Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources
> Defense Council titled "Corporate America's Trojan Horse in the
> States: The Untold Story Behind the American Legislative Exchange
> Council," found that "the NRA is a longtime funder of ALEC." "In
> 1993," the report states, "ALEC adopted a resolution expressing its
> opposition to a waiting period to buy firearms and a ban on
> semiautomatic firearms. 'The administration and Congress should take a
> hard look at ALEC's resolution,' James Baker, the executive director
> of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action,
> said."
>
> SourceWatch points out that "The NRA was a 'Vice-Chairman' level
> sponsor of 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual
> Conference, which in 2010, equated to $25,000," and that an NRA
> operative was "the co-chair of ALEC's Public Safety and Elections Task
> Force for a number of years, until the Spring of 2011.
>
> Despite its modus operandi of secrecy and backroom dealing, every once
> in a while something so egregious happens that ALEC is forced out of
> the shadows. Investigations surrounding the cold-blooded killing of
> Trayvon Martin by a self-styled vigilante, could push ALEC out into
> the open.
>
> More:http://www.alternet.org/story/154689/how_the_right_wing_%22alec%22_te...
>
> --
> 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: What’s going to happen during 3 days of SCOTUS arguments on health care?

btw - what a week of music!
http://tinpansouth.com/performers2012.html
ending with these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Znhvb0pYjO0
old and sweet!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXq9q7NS1qc&feature=related

Tele's rule!

then in May!
http://www.keywestsongwritersfestival.com/home.php

On Mar 30, 12:31 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> My friend, I think we are on the same side here.
> --
> thanks for the friendship ... we usually have similar opinions
>
>  I am just pointing out
> that there is NO way out of the HC mandate.  NONE!
> ---
> a fine (penalty-tax)
>
>   Whereas, there is with
> car insurance - don't drive.
> ---
> some state allow a post bond instead
> there have always been good Americans who refused to be shackled with
> insurance
>
> The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming
> VERY
> popular), as we most certainly will all die.  Ergo, you MUST buy it,
> and we
> mean NOW!!!  Or pay the PENALTY!  NOW!
> ---
> Tennessee has no law preventing anyone from burying their family
> members on private property.
>
> On Mar 30, 10:15 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > My friend, I think we are on the same side here.  I am just pointing out
> > that there is NO way out of the HC mandate.  NONE!  Whereas, there is with
> > car insurance - don't drive.
>
> > The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming VERY
> > popular), as we most certainly will all die.  Ergo, you MUST buy it, and we
> > mean NOW!!!  Or pay the PENALTY!  NOW!
>
> > Dig?
>
> > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:48:18 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > No its not.  If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car
> > > insurance.
>
> > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
> > > ---
> > > I concede it's not the same ... in that you will forced to buy health
> > > insurance.
>
> > > the only point I was making is that the state DOES require you to buy
> > > auto insurance ... so they can require you buy health insurance ... if
> > > this OC is ok's by the USSC
>
> > > On Mar 29, 10:28 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > No its not.  If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car insurance.
>
> > > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
>
> > > > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:51:03 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > > > but it does force you to buy auto insurance if you do drive.
> > > > > tom's point is valid
> > > > > Some states will allow you to post a bond instead of buying insurance
>
> > > > > On Mar 29, 7:45 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > The STATE government cannot force you to buy car insurance if you do
> > > not
> > > > > > intend to drive a car.
>
> > > > > > The comparison falls down right there.
>
> > > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:34:05 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
> > > > > > > If the government can force you to buy car insurance, and it does,
> > > why
> > > > > > > can't it ask you to buy health insurance?
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:56 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >  "If the
> > > > > > > > government can force you to buy health insurance, why can't it
> > > force
> > > > > > > > you to buy broccoli?"
>
> > > > > > > > This is the crux of the matter.....
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates...
>
> > > > > > > > > What's going to happen during 3 days of arguments on health
> > > care?
> > > > > > > > > By Jeffrey Rosen,  PROFESSOR OF LAW Published: March 23
>
> > > > > > > > > Starting Monday, the Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of
> > > oral
> > > > > > > > > arguments over three days to consider the constitutionality of
> > > > > > > > > health-care reform, the most time given to a case in more than
> > > 45
> > > > > > > > > years. We're certainly in for a historic event — but it might
> > > be
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > entertaining one, too.
>
> > > > > > > > > Oral arguments are always theatrical: The lawyers stand only a
> > > few
> > > > > > > > > feet from the justices, who loom above them on a curved bench,
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > they are barraged with so many questions that they often have
> > > > > trouble
> > > > > > > > > completing a sentence. The hearings are also an opportunity
> > > for
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > traditionally secretive Supreme Court to cut loose. In fact,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Roberts court is known as a "hot bench" — not a reference to
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > unusual sexiness of the justices but to the fact that eight of
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > nine are unusually chatty during oral arguments (Justice
> > > Clarence
> > > > > > > > > Thomas hasn't uttered a word since 2006). Even though the
> > > justices
> > > > > > > > > rarely change their minds during oral arguments if they
> > > already
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > strong views about a case, the hearings can clarify their
> > > > > thinking,
> > > > > > > > > offer some lively give and take, and occasionally lead to
> > > humor.
>
> > > > > > > > > So, will the oral arguments over health-care reform produce
> > > some
> > > > > > > > > laughs? Here's a preview of what might transpire when the
> > > commerce
> > > > > > > > > clause becomes a punch line.
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Antonin Scalia
>
> > > > > > > > > According to a 2010 study in the Communication Law Review,
> > > Scalia
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > the funniest member of the court, based on how many laughs the
> > > > > various
> > > > > > > > > justices have elicited in the courtroom. But his wit sometimes
> > > has
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > sharp edge. In 1988, when a lawyer fumbled for the answer to a
> > > > > > > > > question, Scalia exclaimed, "When you find it, say 'Bingo!' "
>
> > > > > > > > > Expect some zingers from Scalia in the health-care argument,
> > > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > > focused on the not-so-side-splitting subject of whether
> > > Congress
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > the authority to require people to buy health insurance as
> > > part of
> > > > > its
> > > > > > > > > power to regulate interstate commerce. Imagine, for example,
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > following exchange:
>
> > > > > > > > > Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "In 2005, Justice Scalia,
> > > you
> > > > > held
> > > > > > > > > that Congress has the power to prevent California from
> > > authorizing
> > > > > > > > > people to grow marijuana for their own use. Surely, the
> > > decision
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > to buy health insurance has a far greater impact on the
> > > economy."
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Scalia: "Depends on what part of California you're
> > > from."
>
> > > > > > > > > Justice Stephen Breyer
>
> > > > > > > > > Breyer's jokes often follow a long question identifying the
> > > > > hardest
> > > > > > > > > issue in the case. He cares about legislative history and may
> > > > > focus on
> > > > > > > > > a striking irony in the health-care law briefs: During the
> > > debate
> > > > > over
> > > > > > > > > the legislation in Congress, Republicans insisted that the
> > > mandate
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > buy health insurance should be considered a tax, and Democrats
> > > > > > > > > countered that it shouldn't. The moment President Obama signed
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > bill, though, both sides rushed to court to claim the
> > > opposite:
> > > > > > > > > Democrats now insist that the mandate is absolutely a tax (and
> > > > > > > > > therefore authorized by the taxing clause of the
> > > Constitution),
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Republicans are equally confident that it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > > This debate is also relevant to whether the court has the
> > > power to
> > > > > > > > > hear the case in the first place. If the mandate is a tax,
> > > > > according
> > > > > > > > > to a 1867 law, litigants may have to wait until it goes into
> > > > > effect in
> > > > > > > > > 2014 to challenge it. If Breyer can get a laugh out of the "is
> > > it
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > tax?" debate, he deserves to be promoted to funniest justice.
>
> > > > > > > > > Chief Justice John Roberts
>
> > > > > > > > > All eyes will be on Roberts to see whether he is inclined to
> > > > > interpret
> > > > > > > > > the commerce clause of the Constitution as narrowly as he did
> > > in
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > opinion that gave rise to one of his most memorable one-liners
> > > as
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > appellate judge. In 2003, Roberts dissented from a ruling
> > > holding
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to
> > > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > > development on the habitat of the arroyo toad. He said the
> > > federal
> > > > > law
> > > > > > > > > couldn't be applied to "a hapless toad that, for reasons of
> > > its
> > > > > own,
> > > > > > > > > lives its entire life in California." Verrilli will try to
> > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > > Roberts that the interstate economic effects of thousands of
> > > > > uninsured
> > > > > > > > > sick people are far greater than those of the hapless toad,
> > > all
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > while avoiding the word "toad."
>
> > > > > > > > > As the crucial swing vote, Kennedy is most frequently
> > > flattered in
> > > > > > > > > Supreme Court briefs. Some libertarians hope that he will
> > > strike
> > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > the health-care mandate by invoking the same right to privacy
> > > that
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > recognized when he reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. "At the
> > > heart
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"
> > > > > Kennedy
> > > > > > > > > wrote; Scalia later ridiculed this as the "sweet mystery of
> > > life"
> > > > > > > > > passage. For Scalia and the other conservatives, Roe v. Wade
> > > is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > root of all constitutional evil. So if Paul Clement — who will
> > > > > argue
> > > > > > > > > before the court for the health-care law's challengers — wants
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > appeal to Kennedy without alienating the other conservatives,
> > > he
> > > > > may
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

Re: What’s going to happen during 3 days of SCOTUS arguments on health care?

My friend, I think we are on the same side here.
--
thanks for the friendship ... we usually have similar opinions

I am just pointing out
that there is NO way out of the HC mandate. NONE!
---
a fine (penalty-tax)

Whereas, there is with
car insurance - don't drive.
---
some state allow a post bond instead
there have always been good Americans who refused to be shackled with
insurance

The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming
VERY
popular), as we most certainly will all die. Ergo, you MUST buy it,
and we
mean NOW!!! Or pay the PENALTY! NOW!
---
Tennessee has no law preventing anyone from burying their family
members on private property.

On Mar 30, 10:15 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My friend, I think we are on the same side here.  I am just pointing out
> that there is NO way out of the HC mandate.  NONE!  Whereas, there is with
> car insurance - don't drive.
>
> The better comparison would be funeral insurance (which is becoming VERY
> popular), as we most certainly will all die.  Ergo, you MUST buy it, and we
> mean NOW!!!  Or pay the PENALTY!  NOW!
>
> Dig?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:48:18 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > No its not.  If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car
> > insurance.
>
> > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
> > ---
> > I concede it's not the same ... in that you will forced to buy health
> > insurance.
>
> > the only point I was making is that the state DOES require you to buy
> > auto insurance ... so they can require you buy health insurance ... if
> > this OC is ok's by the USSC
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:28 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > No its not.  If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car insurance.
>
> > > Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
>
> > > On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:51:03 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
> > > > but it does force you to buy auto insurance if you do drive.
> > > > tom's point is valid
> > > > Some states will allow you to post a bond instead of buying insurance
>
> > > > On Mar 29, 7:45 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > The STATE government cannot force you to buy car insurance if you do
> > not
> > > > > intend to drive a car.
>
> > > > > The comparison falls down right there.
>
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:34:05 PM UTC-4, Tommy News wrote:
> > > > > > If the government can force you to buy car insurance, and it does,
> > why
> > > > > > can't it ask you to buy health insurance?
>
> > > > > > On Mar 25, 1:56 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > > >  "If the
> > > > > > > government can force you to buy health insurance, why can't it
> > force
> > > > > > > you to buy broccoli?"
>
> > > > > > > This is the crux of the matter.....
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 25, 12:30 pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates...
>
> > > > > > > > What's going to happen during 3 days of arguments on health
> > care?
> > > > > > > > By Jeffrey Rosen,  PROFESSOR OF LAW Published: March 23
>
> > > > > > > > Starting Monday, the Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of
> > oral
> > > > > > > > arguments over three days to consider the constitutionality of
> > > > > > > > health-care reform, the most time given to a case in more than
> > 45
> > > > > > > > years. We're certainly in for a historic event — but it might
> > be
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > entertaining one, too.
>
> > > > > > > > Oral arguments are always theatrical: The lawyers stand only a
> > few
> > > > > > > > feet from the justices, who loom above them on a curved bench,
> > and
> > > > > > > > they are barraged with so many questions that they often have
> > > > trouble
> > > > > > > > completing a sentence. The hearings are also an opportunity
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > traditionally secretive Supreme Court to cut loose. In fact,
> > the
> > > > > > > > Roberts court is known as a "hot bench" — not a reference to
> > the
> > > > > > > > unusual sexiness of the justices but to the fact that eight of
> > the
> > > > > > > > nine are unusually chatty during oral arguments (Justice
> > Clarence
> > > > > > > > Thomas hasn't uttered a word since 2006). Even though the
> > justices
> > > > > > > > rarely change their minds during oral arguments if they
> > already
> > > > have
> > > > > > > > strong views about a case, the hearings can clarify their
> > > > thinking,
> > > > > > > > offer some lively give and take, and occasionally lead to
> > humor.
>
> > > > > > > > So, will the oral arguments over health-care reform produce
> > some
> > > > > > > > laughs? Here's a preview of what might transpire when the
> > commerce
> > > > > > > > clause becomes a punch line.
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Antonin Scalia
>
> > > > > > > > According to a 2010 study in the Communication Law Review,
> > Scalia
> > > > is
> > > > > > > > the funniest member of the court, based on how many laughs the
> > > > various
> > > > > > > > justices have elicited in the courtroom. But his wit sometimes
> > has
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > sharp edge. In 1988, when a lawyer fumbled for the answer to a
> > > > > > > > question, Scalia exclaimed, "When you find it, say 'Bingo!' "
>
> > > > > > > > Expect some zingers from Scalia in the health-care argument,
> > > > perhaps
> > > > > > > > focused on the not-so-side-splitting subject of whether
> > Congress
> > > > has
> > > > > > > > the authority to require people to buy health insurance as
> > part of
> > > > its
> > > > > > > > power to regulate interstate commerce. Imagine, for example,
> > the
> > > > > > > > following exchange:
>
> > > > > > > > Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: "In 2005, Justice Scalia,
> > you
> > > > held
> > > > > > > > that Congress has the power to prevent California from
> > authorizing
> > > > > > > > people to grow marijuana for their own use. Surely, the
> > decision
> > > > not
> > > > > > > > to buy health insurance has a far greater impact on the
> > economy."
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Scalia: "Depends on what part of California you're
> > from."
>
> > > > > > > > Justice Stephen Breyer
>
> > > > > > > > Breyer's jokes often follow a long question identifying the
> > > > hardest
> > > > > > > > issue in the case. He cares about legislative history and may
> > > > focus on
> > > > > > > > a striking irony in the health-care law briefs: During the
> > debate
> > > > over
> > > > > > > > the legislation in Congress, Republicans insisted that the
> > mandate
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > buy health insurance should be considered a tax, and Democrats
> > > > > > > > countered that it shouldn't. The moment President Obama signed
> > the
> > > > > > > > bill, though, both sides rushed to court to claim the
> > opposite:
> > > > > > > > Democrats now insist that the mandate is absolutely a tax (and
> > > > > > > > therefore authorized by the taxing clause of the
> > Constitution),
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > Republicans are equally confident that it's not.
>
> > > > > > > > This debate is also relevant to whether the court has the
> > power to
> > > > > > > > hear the case in the first place. If the mandate is a tax,
> > > > according
> > > > > > > > to a 1867 law, litigants may have to wait until it goes into
> > > > effect in
> > > > > > > > 2014 to challenge it. If Breyer can get a laugh out of the "is
> > it
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > tax?" debate, he deserves to be promoted to funniest justice.
>
> > > > > > > > Chief Justice John Roberts
>
> > > > > > > > All eyes will be on Roberts to see whether he is inclined to
> > > > interpret
> > > > > > > > the commerce clause of the Constitution as narrowly as he did
> > in
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > opinion that gave rise to one of his most memorable one-liners
> > as
> > > > an
> > > > > > > > appellate judge. In 2003, Roberts dissented from a ruling
> > holding
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to
> > > > prevent
> > > > > > > > development on the habitat of the arroyo toad. He said the
> > federal
> > > > law
> > > > > > > > couldn't be applied to "a hapless toad that, for reasons of
> > its
> > > > own,
> > > > > > > > lives its entire life in California." Verrilli will try to
> > > > convince
> > > > > > > > Roberts that the interstate economic effects of thousands of
> > > > uninsured
> > > > > > > > sick people are far greater than those of the hapless toad,
> > all
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > while avoiding the word "toad."
>
> > > > > > > > As the crucial swing vote, Kennedy is most frequently
> > flattered in
> > > > > > > > Supreme Court briefs. Some libertarians hope that he will
> > strike
> > > > down
> > > > > > > > the health-care mandate by invoking the same right to privacy
> > that
> > > > he
> > > > > > > > recognized when he reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. "At the
> > heart
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence,
> > of
> > > > > > > > meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,"
> > > > Kennedy
> > > > > > > > wrote; Scalia later ridiculed this as the "sweet mystery of
> > life"
> > > > > > > > passage. For Scalia and the other conservatives, Roe v. Wade
> > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > root of all constitutional evil. So if Paul Clement — who will
> > > > argue
> > > > > > > > before the court for the health-care law's challengers — wants
> > to
> > > > > > > > appeal to Kennedy without alienating the other conservatives,
> > he
> > > > may
> > > > > > > > try to murmur "sweet mystery" so quietly that only Kennedy can
> > > > hear
> > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > Justices Elena Kagan
> > > > > > > > and Sonia Sotomayor
> > > > > > > > These justices weren't yet on the court during the period
> > covered
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > the 2010 laughter study, but Kagan may have her eye on
> > Scalia's
> > > > > > > > "funniest justice" title. She delivered the best one-liner of
> > the
> > > > > > > > current Supreme Court term. Noting that the Federal
> > Communications
> > > > > > > > Commission had interpreted its TV indecency policy to allow
> > the
> > > > > > > > cursing in "Saving Private Ryan" and the nudity in
> > "Schindler's
> > > > List,"
> > > > > > > > she said: "It's like nobody can use dirty words or nudity
> > except
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > Steven Spielberg."
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

Re: MOVIE REVIEW: "Bully" Behind Every Harassed Child? A Whole Lot of Clueless Adults

This film is not rated.
----------------------------------
 
Yes it is, and its bullshit.  Rather the point.

--
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: Hate Group Count Tops 1,000 as Radical Right Expansion Continues

It's not really the Jews here, it is a far left extremist faction,
which
is still in the minority in this Nation, that espouses this nonsense.
---
go ahead and deny who has always been the main influence on their
group. It does not change who they are and who they are attacking.

if you're white and even hint of preserving your national or religious
heritage or participate in a militia you will be accused of racism and
be labeled a hate group by the SPLC.
their hypocrisy is astounding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgkDT_2W4_A

as you know ... I don't care about the fate of religious groups ...
but the obvious jewish promotion of socialism, hate and speech laws,
open borders, race baiting, interventionist advocacy in the middle
east and the protection of israel is not in my country's best
interest ... and I will not stand silently and ignore the threat. It's
not about their race, religion or ethnicity ... it's about their
efforts to make the USA a socialist nation and their loyalty to the
USA first.

yes, they accurately accuse some groups who deserve the distinction,
but how many jewish hate groups have ever been on their list?
http://www.youtube.com/v/R611drTEHPA&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1%22%3E%3C/param%3E%3Cparam


On Mar 29, 10:16 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not really the Jews here,  it is a far left extremist faction,  which
> is still in the minority in this Nation,  that espouses this nonsense.  In
> thruth and fact, the SPLC is one of the leading hate groups in the Nation.
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:42 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Hate Group Count Tops 1,000
> > ---
> > say the jews ... and only the jews
>
> > most Americans consider the SPLC a hate group
>
> > On Mar 29, 10:36 am, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > SPLC Hate Group Count Tops 1,000 as Radical Right Expansion Continues
> > > Posted in 'Patriot' Groups, Editor's Pick, Hate Groups, Nativist
> > > Extremist by Mark Potok on February 23, 2011
>
> > >  Print This Post
> > > Editor's Note: The Southern Poverty Law Center is today releasing its
> > > annual count of groups on the American radical right and analysis.
> > > What follows is the main essay from the new issue of the Intelligence
> > > Report, the SPLC's investigative magazine. In the story, you'll find
> > > links to our new hate group map and additional lists of antigovernment
> > > "Patriot" groups and nativist vigilante organizations. The issue also
> > > contains my editorial and stories on Cliff Kincaid, a homophobic
> > > propagandist at the far-right Accuracy in Media group; the adoption of
> > > an Oklahoma law forbidding the use of Shariah law; a racist group's
> > > funding of two Mississippi private academies; a white supremacist's
> > > new novel targeting the SPLC; the National Center for Constitutional
> > > Studies and its extremist version of American history; candidates with
> > > extreme-right ideas who ran in last year's elections; an interview
> > > with a former "esoteric Nazi," and more. The new issue's table of
> > > contents is here.
>
> > > For the second year in a row, the radical right in America expanded
> > > explosively in 2010, driven by resentment over the changing racial
> > > demographics of the country, frustration over the government's
> > > handling of the economy, and the mainstreaming of conspiracy theories
> > > and other demonizing propaganda aimed at various minorities. For many
> > > on the radical right, anger is focusing on President Obama, who is
> > > seen as embodying everything that's wrong with the country.
>
> > > Hate groups topped 1,000 for the first time since the Southern Poverty
> > > Law Center began counting such groups in the 1980s. Anti-immigrant
> > > vigilante groups, despite having some of the political wind taken out
> > > of their sails by the adoption of hard-line anti-immigration laws
> > > around the country, continued to rise slowly. But by far the most
> > > dramatic growth came in the antigovernment "Patriot" movement ­—
> > > conspiracy-minded organizations that see the federal government as
> > > their primary enemy — which gained more than 300 new groups, a jump of
> > > over 60%.
>
> > > Taken together, these three strands of the radical right — the
> > > hatemongers, the nativists and the antigovernment zealots — increased
> > > from 1,753 groups in 2009 to 2,145 in 2010, a 22% rise. That followed
> > > a 2008-2009 increase of 40%.
>
> > > What may be most remarkable is that this growth of right-wing
> > > extremism came even as politicians around the country, blown by gusts
> > > from the Tea Parties and other conservative formations, tacked hard to
> > > the right, co-opting many of the issues important to extremists. Last
> > > April, for instance, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070, the
> > > harshest anti-immigrant law in memory, setting off a tsunami of
> > > proposals for similar laws across the country. Continuing growth of
> > > the radical right could be curtailed as a result of this shift,
> > > especially since Republicans, many of them highly conservative,
> > > recaptured the U.S. House last fall.
>
> > > But despite those historic Republican gains, the early signs suggest
> > > that even as the more mainstream political right strengthens, the
> > > radical right has remained highly energized. In an 11-day period this
> > > January, a neo-Nazi was arrested headed for the Arizona border with a
> > > dozen homemade grenades; a terrorist bomb attack on a Martin Luther
> > > King Jr. Day parade in Spokane, Wash., was averted after police
> > > dismantled a sophisticated anti-personnel weapon; and a man who
> > > officials said had a long history of antigovernment activities was
> > > arrested outside a packed mosque in Dearborn, Mich., and charged with
> > > possessing explosives with unlawful intent. That's in addition, the
> > > same month, to the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in
> > > Arizona, an attack that left six dead and may have had a political
> > > dimension.
>
> > > It's also clear that other kinds of radical activity are on the rise.
> > > Since the murder last May 20 of two West Memphis, Ark., police
> > > officers by two members of the so-called "sovereign citizens"
> > > movement, police from around the country have contacted the Southern
> > > Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to report what one detective in Kentucky
> > > described as a "dramatic increase" in sovereign activity. Sovereign
> > > citizens, who, like militias, are part of the larger Patriot movement,
> > > believe that the federal government has no right to tax or regulate
> > > them and, as a result, often come into conflict with police and tax
> > > authorities. Another sign of their increased activity came early this
> > > year, when the Treasury Department, in a report assessing what the IRS
> > > faces in 2011, said its biggest challenge will be the "attacks and
> > > threats against IRS employees and facilities [that] have risen
> > > steadily in recent years."
>
> > > Extremist ideas have not been limited to the radical right; already
> > > this year, state legislators have offered up a raft of proposals
> > > influenced by such ideas. In Arizona, the author of the S.B. 1070 law
> > > — a man who just became Senate president on the basis of his harshly
> > > nativist rhetoric — proposed a law this January that would allow his
> > > state to refuse to obey any federal law or regulation it cared to. In
> > > Virginia, a state legislator wants to pass a law aimed at creating an
> > > alternative currency "in the event of the destruction of the Federal
> > > Reserve System's currency" — a longstanding fear of right-wing
> > > extremists. And in Montana, a state senator is working to pass a
> > > statute called the "Sheriffs First Act" that would require federal law
> > > enforcement to ask local sheriffs' permission to act in their counties
> > > or face jail. All three laws are almost certainly unconstitutional,
> > > legal experts say, and they all originate in ideas that first came
> > > from ideologues of the radical right.
>
> > > There also are new attempts by nativist forces to roll back birthright
> > > citizenship, which makes all children born in the U.S. citizens. Such
> > > laws have been introduced this year in Congress, and a coalition of
> > > state legislators is promising to do the same in their states. And
> > > then there's Oklahoma, where 70% of voters last November approved a
> > > measure to forbid judges to consider Islamic law in the state's
> > > courtrooms (see related story) — a completely groundless fear, but one
> > > pushed nonetheless by Islamophobes. Since then, lawmakers have
> > > promised to pass similar laws in Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, South
> > > Carolina, Tennessee and Utah.
>
> > > After the Giffords assassination attempt, a kind of national dialogue
> > > began about the political vitriol that increasingly passes for
> > > "mainstream" political debate. But it didn't seem to get very far.
> > > Four days after the shooting, a campaign called the Civility Project —
> > > a two-year effort led by an evangelical conservative tied to top
> > > Republicans — said it was shutting down because of a lack of interest
> > > and furious opposition. "The worst E-mails I received about the
> > > Civility Project were from conservatives with just unbelievable
> > > language about communists and some words I wouldn't use in this phone
> > > call," director Mark DeMoss told The New York Times. "This political
> > > divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too
> > > many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any" opponent.
>
> > > A Washington Post/ABC News poll this January captured the atmosphere
> > > well. It found that 82% of Americans saw their country's political
> > > discourse as "negative." Even more remarkably, the poll determined
> > > that 49% thought that negative tone could or already had encouraged
> > > political violence.
>
> > > Last year's rise in hate groups (see map) was the latest in a trend
> > > stretching all the way back to the year 2000, when the SPLC counted
> > > 602 such groups. Since then, they have risen steadily, mainly on the
> > > basis of exploiting the issue of undocumented immigration from Mexico
> > > and Central America. Last year, the number of hate groups rose to
> > > 1,002 from 932, a 7.5% increase over the previous year and a 66% rise
> > > since 2000.
>
> > > At the same time, what the SPLC defines as "nativist extremist" groups
> > > — organizations that go beyond mere advocacy of restrictive
> > > immigration policy to actually confront or harass suspected immigrants
> > > or their employers — rose slightly, despite the fact that most of
> > > their key issues had been taken up by mainstream politicians (see
> > > story and list). There were 319 such groups in 2010, up 3% from 309 in
> > > 2009.
>
> > > But like the year before, it was the antigovernment Patriot groups
> > > that grew most dramatically (see list), at least partly on the basis
> > > of furious rhetoric from the right aimed at the nation's first black
> > > president — a man who has come to represent to at least some Americans
> > > ongoing changes in the racial makeup of the country. The Patriot
> > > groups, which had risen and fallen once before during the militia
> > > movement
>
> ...
>
> read more »

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

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

Pics and toons 3/30/12 (3)




 

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

Pics and toons 3/30/12 (2)




 

--
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.

Pics and toons 3/30/12 (1)



 



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

**JP** Abbottabad Journalist under threat

Dear All

Check this 24th march clip , a black day in the history of Journalism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCbaD44bxuw&feature=g-all-u&context=G2ff3830FAAAAAAAACAA
or can search with title Abbottabad Press Club

This clip  Show that the senior journalists of Abbottabad are being
targeted by police
and ununiformed persons.


But the question remains who is responsible for targeting them. The
answer is; the place is entry gate of Abbottabad press club and
forcefully stopped at the gate are senior members of PC Mr Zubair Ayub
Express TV Ex president Press Club, Shoukat Jadoon Executive
member APNEC, Mohammad Zubair khan, Khurum Shahzad senior member AUJ
and PC etc. why they do that, this is also a big question, answer is
that, these journalist try to enter in PressClub with black strips,
they are protesting against the KPK gov over illegal tactic against
journalist and newspapers. .

Men using slang language and supervising the police to stop and
torture are not governament servants but they are so called journalist
working as agents of ANP's minister (Sardar Naveed Alam and Amir
Shahzad Owner and CEO of Sarhad News group of Papers, Raja Haroon
Marketing Head of Mahasab etc ) . These are owners of  newspapers  and
news agents but present their self as journalist. The ANP minister's
and gov have bribed big volume of  advertisments. So these so called
journalist  were not willing to give right of protest as Mr Beshir
Bilour has moved a privilege motion against a leading news paper of
Hazara region,Hazara News  and registered cases against another news
paper of Haripur for reporting a story revealing his corruption. The
senior journalist only demanded to attend Bashir Blour function  with
black strips. this  would show their protest against Minister's
pressurizing tactics.

One have to rember that on 21th march working journalist arranged a
big rally in the favour of freedom of press, which give shock to KPK,
in this rally these so-called journalist not participate.

The bitter irony is that the freedom of speech and media (as in all
other issues like name of province and equal rights in jobs and
development funds) was one of the pretexts which the ANP's KPK
administration used in invading Hazara's rights. What kind of freedom
a journalist has when he is threatened by privilege motion and cases?

The Pakistani and  international community has to play an active role
in protecting the journalists of Abbottabad through creating voice and
it also needs an independent committee to investigate the daily
violations that the so called journalists (owners, administrators and
PR managers of Political parties, News agents who are using name press
club and union of journalist as their tool) are exposed to, and to
present those who are responsible.

For it is illogical to imagine that the so called journalist who are
known as agents of administration and the political authorities would
hold the their own self, responsible, while they themselves are
responsible of torturing senior journalists apart from the stopping of
many others to enter into Press club for coverage of Bashir Blour
function by the help of police. The  authorities are responsible for
these  atrocities, as they are responsible of providing safe
environment for journalists to work in.


We working jouirnalists  here in Abbottabd are commented to defend
freedom of press. But we need country wide support and we are hopeful
that all working journalist raise their voice with us for the sake of
journalism, working journalist

Take Care
Allah Hafiz
Mohammad Zubair Khan

--
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

**JP** Fwd: Winners of Agahi Awards 2012 ignored by media?


Dear Journalists,
 
 Mishal Pakistan announced Pakistan's first ever journalist awards few days ago on the basis of the feedback collected from 6 million viewers.The big award of most popular TV anchor was won by Hamid Mir but most of the other winners were young and hardworking journalists like Haroon Baloch  of Roohi TV who got three awards in three different categories.Arshid Sharif of Dunya TV won award for his coverage of war against terror but i noticed that no TV channel and no newspaper gave proper coverage to this big event.Only The News published some details just because the writer of the story Sadia Khalid was also one of the award winners http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-100146-Geo-wins-Peoples-Choice-category-award
 
 But what happened to Asad Kharal and Ali Osman of Express Tribune?Why ET never published the story?Why no TV channel appreciated the youngsters?
 
I hope journalist colleagues will throw some light on the questions boiling in my bloody mind.
 
Haris Khan Afridi

--
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

Old Aero History !!!

 


 

off Topic but I have to wonder if Obama would have funded them.


 
 



 

 
 
                               100 year old film!!
 
This film clip is fascinating and in very good condition for its age being as it shows the Wright Bros demonstrating the Flyer to a group of European officers and officials in 1909. Only runs for 4 minutes. The shots of the plane in flight are the best I have ever seen of this machine showing a degree of speed and smoothness I did not think would have been possible. Excellent starting sequence with the linen covered props and easy start but the outstanding sequence being the take off along the rail. You can't see the actual weight drop to pull it along the rail but in some shots you see the tower. It is clear that the aircraft was unstable because you can see Wright was pretty busy on the elevon and the amount of deflection to correct a pitch excursion was significant. The small piece of string on the forward elevon was put there by the Wrights to ascertain degree of side slip. The aircraft basically turned flat, and although they eventually put in a form of wing warping to add control in the roll axis it was always a difficult plane to handle in turns. They kept it as flat as possible because any side slip over a certain angle was unrecoverable. This was the two seat version as you can see and designed for a hopeful military use. It could only fly in very calm conditions. I saw the replica fly at Temora a few years ago.
 
The in flight shots were something else again and possibly the earliest aerial movie shots ever taken. When you think he had to fly the plane and also hand crank the camera, I think it must have been fixed in position as the camera stays motionless and in any case cameras were heavy in those times and the plane had little spare capacity but I could be wrong. Note the take off ramp. Loved the old Italian Roman ruins in the final shots the approach speed was very slow in deed.
 
Thought you might be interested in this film clip from the Austrian archives about the Wright Brothers demonstrating their plane in Italy in 1909. What is even more fantastic is there was an on-board camera on the Wright plane and the last part of this film shows it. Wilbur Wright is at the controls on both of the flights. It's a GREAT video considering it's 100 years old and the quality/weight of the equipment of that day.  
 
 
 
 










__._,_.___
 
.

__,_._,___

--
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.