Sunday, May 13, 2012
taliban singles online
--
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.
Unbelievable Even for California
The caption of this e-mail is "Unbelievable Even For California"......Not really. California might well be lost. Folks like Lil'MarxistMoonbatTommyTomTomForNews, as well as others, would probably see nothing wrong at all with this event.
It frightens the dickens out of me. This is becoming more and more mainstream and acceptable. The "Shock Value" is no 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.
Texting while walking? Big gubermint will have none of that!
WordPress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: An Open Letter to Ron Paul
<<<That New Constitution of
mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on!>>>
Since you have never seen fit to post your "New Constitution" and all
anyone can do is see bits and pieces out of context I'll reserve my
"hope" for more tangible things... like three wish genies and such.
On May 13, 5:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: Many of you may not realize that the present "thread", in reply
> to MJ's Limbaugh post, summarizes how—in just a single day—the
> hopefully-awake voters can forever correct our BROKEN government;
> broken media; and too-often two-faced businesses (Which are only doing
> the same 'wrongs' that their competitors do.) that cause 80% of
> American's to feel our government is headed in the wrong direction.
> If 80% of us don't like government, then why do we keep "doing
> business" with them? FIRE their asses and put in place a founding-
> father-approved government that will benefit the VAST majority of
> Americans, not just the 'criminal' simple majority that has divided
> this country down-the-aisle for over two centuries! Disallow ALL
> group influences, so that government can finally be reined-in to the
> benefit of us all! The solution is to FREE capitalism and to get
> government off of our backs. Do that, and there will be enough
> charitable people willing to assure that no truly needy person will
> lack having their survival necessities met. In other words: Improve
> the dog-eat-dog world out there, and nice people will, once again,
> start caring to help their neighbors, rather than saying... "Let
> government do it." Folks, government is KILLING this country! ***
> Tell your friends and relatives what I say. That New Constitution of
> mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on! — John A. Armistead —
> Author and Patriot
>
> On Apr 15, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear MJ: Sorry for the delay in replying; I've gotten out of the
> > habit of looking toward this group. As you know, Amendment 10
> > empowers the States, or the Citizens, to handle public issues not
> > spelled out in the Constitution as being specifically delegated to the
> > Federal Government, nor prohibited being handled by the States.
> > Nothing in my New Constitution changes that Amendment.
>
> > Since the present Constitution requires that the States uphold and
> > sware alligance to the Constitution, the ratification of "a" (or my)
> > New Constitution will require that the States continue to do so. The
> > only amendment that I even slightly diminished is Amendment 1.
> > Therein, I deny freedom of speech to those in the professional media
> > who had gotten to use (abuse) their power by talking about their
> > personal political ideals, while the non-professional man-on-the-
> > street doesn't get a similar voice. When Rush Limbaugh, David
> > Letterman, or Oprah can use their celebrity to sway voters, that
> > corrupts our Representative Republic.
>
> > Don't worry that I have stopped fair news coverage. In the early days
> > of television, events were covered LIVE, as these happened. But now,
> > the 24-7, 365 day a year programs have biased reporters telling you
> > what has happened and saying such things as such-and-such candidate
> > has no chance of getting the nomination. Such statements, whether
> > 'fair and balanced' or not, are effectively wagging the dog. Even
> > reading news with a raised eyebrow is getting to have an influence
> > that no free society can allow! If the people are allowed to see the
> > daily events as they happen, they are perfectly capable of making up
> > their own minds how to vote on election day. The entire new Amendment
> > 1 follows. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
>
> > "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: *** the
> > freedom of speech of those Citizens who don't work for the media; the
> > freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium; the right
> > of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group
> > to petition government or any of its branches or departments for
> > redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning government shall
> > receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just
> > responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read,
> > understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or
> > requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond to a
> > rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single
> > provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment, especially
> > those in management or public office—including judges and justices—who
> > ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who
> > has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in
> > having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice
> > shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they
> > in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in
> > court; justice be not "blind", but well informed. Freedom of the
> > press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness
> > in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission
> > of the truth—except in cases of obvious fiction or satire—is
> > prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a
> > collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for
> > example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying
> > comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened
> > by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by
> > management; editorial comments by others that are in any way
> > ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring
> > at specific times or designated locations that most would come to
> > associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss of
> > license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > pending election or referendum, nor badger a candidate or office-
> > holder with acrid questions, nor violate the latter's right to privacy
> > by intentionally revealing non criminal interpersonal dealings. Any
> > person(s) who does the latter is committing a felony. However,
> > factual, thorough coverage of the candidates or referenda issues—on an
> > as occurs basis—is allowed, provided there are no comments nor
> > actions, as above, and provided the same unbiased coverage is given to
> > all of the candidates or to all of the referenda issues. No medium's
> > programs or formats, nor the status of any of its associated employees
> > shall unduly influence any election or governmental process, or the
> > business shall be closed. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium's content, they shall
> > be allowed to reply—without editing—in that medium. Each medium shall
> > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment—
> > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
> > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
> > commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
> > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
> > display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > parties."
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> I would be curious of any response he might provide.
> > > MUCH of your statist embrace neglects Amendment X.
> > > Best wishes,
> > > --MJ
> > > "No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person." -- Lysander Spooner At 05:23 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ:
> > > It's been about nine months since my last reply on this news group. I
> > > was so intrigued by that post of yours: "An Open Letter to Rush
> > > Limbaugh", by L. Neil Smith, a Civil Libertarian, that I penned him
> > > the following long email about myNewConstitution—which many of you
> > > have at least heard about. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
> > > 4/09/12
> > > Dear L. Neil Smith:
> > > I happily read your "open" letter to Rush Limbaugh. I also, happily,
> > > voted for Ron Paul in the SC primary. I am ultra conservative on
> > > fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I've marveled how
> > > expertly (except regarding global warming) that Rush Limbaugh can
> > > correctly tag the issues of the day. However, one thing is missing
> > > from ALL media discussions of politics: The necessary 'call-to-
> > > arms' (figuratively, of course) to actually correct the problems that
> > > the commentators so relish discussing.
> > > Rush Limbaugh is a professional belly-acher. If the problems actually
> > > got FIXED, no one would have reason anymore to listen to him (or them)
> > > belly-aching. That same label fits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, etc.
> > > To remain at the TOP in the media ratings, every one of them must
> > > include one or more "curls" in their
>
> ...
>
> 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.
mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on!>>>
Since you have never seen fit to post your "New Constitution" and all
anyone can do is see bits and pieces out of context I'll reserve my
"hope" for more tangible things... like three wish genies and such.
On May 13, 5:00 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Folks: Many of you may not realize that the present "thread", in reply
> to MJ's Limbaugh post, summarizes how—in just a single day—the
> hopefully-awake voters can forever correct our BROKEN government;
> broken media; and too-often two-faced businesses (Which are only doing
> the same 'wrongs' that their competitors do.) that cause 80% of
> American's to feel our government is headed in the wrong direction.
> If 80% of us don't like government, then why do we keep "doing
> business" with them? FIRE their asses and put in place a founding-
> father-approved government that will benefit the VAST majority of
> Americans, not just the 'criminal' simple majority that has divided
> this country down-the-aisle for over two centuries! Disallow ALL
> group influences, so that government can finally be reined-in to the
> benefit of us all! The solution is to FREE capitalism and to get
> government off of our backs. Do that, and there will be enough
> charitable people willing to assure that no truly needy person will
> lack having their survival necessities met. In other words: Improve
> the dog-eat-dog world out there, and nice people will, once again,
> start caring to help their neighbors, rather than saying... "Let
> government do it." Folks, government is KILLING this country! ***
> Tell your friends and relatives what I say. That New Constitution of
> mine is your and their best hope. Pass it on! — John A. Armistead —
> Author and Patriot
>
> On Apr 15, 9:43 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Dear MJ: Sorry for the delay in replying; I've gotten out of the
> > habit of looking toward this group. As you know, Amendment 10
> > empowers the States, or the Citizens, to handle public issues not
> > spelled out in the Constitution as being specifically delegated to the
> > Federal Government, nor prohibited being handled by the States.
> > Nothing in my New Constitution changes that Amendment.
>
> > Since the present Constitution requires that the States uphold and
> > sware alligance to the Constitution, the ratification of "a" (or my)
> > New Constitution will require that the States continue to do so. The
> > only amendment that I even slightly diminished is Amendment 1.
> > Therein, I deny freedom of speech to those in the professional media
> > who had gotten to use (abuse) their power by talking about their
> > personal political ideals, while the non-professional man-on-the-
> > street doesn't get a similar voice. When Rush Limbaugh, David
> > Letterman, or Oprah can use their celebrity to sway voters, that
> > corrupts our Representative Republic.
>
> > Don't worry that I have stopped fair news coverage. In the early days
> > of television, events were covered LIVE, as these happened. But now,
> > the 24-7, 365 day a year programs have biased reporters telling you
> > what has happened and saying such things as such-and-such candidate
> > has no chance of getting the nomination. Such statements, whether
> > 'fair and balanced' or not, are effectively wagging the dog. Even
> > reading news with a raised eyebrow is getting to have an influence
> > that no free society can allow! If the people are allowed to see the
> > daily events as they happen, they are perfectly capable of making up
> > their own minds how to vote on election day. The entire new Amendment
> > 1 follows. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
>
> > "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: *** the
> > freedom of speech of those Citizens who don't work for the media; the
> > freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium; the right
> > of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group
> > to petition government or any of its branches or departments for
> > redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning government shall
> > receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just
> > responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read,
> > understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or
> > requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond to a
> > rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single
> > provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment, especially
> > those in management or public office—including judges and justices—who
> > ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who
> > has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in
> > having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice
> > shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they
> > in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in
> > court; justice be not "blind", but well informed. Freedom of the
> > press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness
> > in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission
> > of the truth—except in cases of obvious fiction or satire—is
> > prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a
> > collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for
> > example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying
> > comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened
> > by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by
> > management; editorial comments by others that are in any way
> > ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring
> > at specific times or designated locations that most would come to
> > associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss of
> > license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > pending election or referendum, nor badger a candidate or office-
> > holder with acrid questions, nor violate the latter's right to privacy
> > by intentionally revealing non criminal interpersonal dealings. Any
> > person(s) who does the latter is committing a felony. However,
> > factual, thorough coverage of the candidates or referenda issues—on an
> > as occurs basis—is allowed, provided there are no comments nor
> > actions, as above, and provided the same unbiased coverage is given to
> > all of the candidates or to all of the referenda issues. No medium's
> > programs or formats, nor the status of any of its associated employees
> > shall unduly influence any election or governmental process, or the
> > business shall be closed. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> > medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > others, but if a person is harmed by the medium's content, they shall
> > be allowed to reply—without editing—in that medium. Each medium shall
> > respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> > government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment—
> > being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
> > truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
> > commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
> > candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
> > display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > parties."
>
> > On Apr 9, 6:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> I would be curious of any response he might provide.
> > > MUCH of your statist embrace neglects Amendment X.
> > > Best wishes,
> > > --MJ
> > > "No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person." -- Lysander Spooner At 05:23 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ:
> > > It's been about nine months since my last reply on this news group. I
> > > was so intrigued by that post of yours: "An Open Letter to Rush
> > > Limbaugh", by L. Neil Smith, a Civil Libertarian, that I penned him
> > > the following long email about myNewConstitution—which many of you
> > > have at least heard about. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
> > > 4/09/12
> > > Dear L. Neil Smith:
> > > I happily read your "open" letter to Rush Limbaugh. I also, happily,
> > > voted for Ron Paul in the SC primary. I am ultra conservative on
> > > fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I've marveled how
> > > expertly (except regarding global warming) that Rush Limbaugh can
> > > correctly tag the issues of the day. However, one thing is missing
> > > from ALL media discussions of politics: The necessary 'call-to-
> > > arms' (figuratively, of course) to actually correct the problems that
> > > the commentators so relish discussing.
> > > Rush Limbaugh is a professional belly-acher. If the problems actually
> > > got FIXED, no one would have reason anymore to listen to him (or them)
> > > belly-aching. That same label fits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, etc.
> > > To remain at the TOP in the media ratings, every one of them must
> > > include one or more "curls" in their
>
> ...
>
> 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: Jim Crow’s Drug War
The drug war brings big money and big power to government officials,
at the state, local, and, of course, federal levels.
But a third big reason is undoubtedly the same force that drove
federal officials to embrace Jim Crow and segregation in Washington,
D.C., after the end of the Civil War and to continue such racist
policies well into the next century: Plain old-fashioned racial
bigotry
---
creating and promoting racial tension is the goal of the jews at the
aclu
know the enemy and their tactics
this is just another battle in the war for political power
On May 12, 12:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Friday, May 11, 2012Jim Crow s Drug Warby Jacob G. Hornberger
> After the Civil War, Washington, D.C., became a model Jim Crow city for the United States. Having supposedly waged the war for the purpose of ending slavery, U.S. officials proceeded to keep the nation s capital city segregated all the way through the 1950s.
> U.S. officials like to point to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as evidence of how enlightened they ultimately became when it came to the mistreatment and abuse of black Americans.
> But does human nature really change that rapidly?
> After all, not long after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted, federal officials began waging their much-vaunted war on drugs, one of the most racist federal programs in U.S. history.
> Moreover, knowing full well the racist aspects and consequences of the war on drugs, federal officials living today continue to wage the drug war more fiercely than ever.
> In some ways, the drug war is more brutal toward blacks than segregation was. With the drug war, bigoted cops can target blacks for abuse and mistreatment and there s no social stigma attached to it. It s all legitimate because it s all part of eradicating the scourge of drugs from our society.
> Moreover, what better way to remove blacks from society than by putting them in jail? With segregation, bigots still had to encounter blacks within the community. With the drug war, the bigots can remove them entirely from society by carting them off to jail to serve long sentences, where no one but prison officials and other prisoners will see them.
> Moreover, the beauty of the drug war, insofar as bigots are concerned, is that it provides a means by which blacks can be denied the right to vote -- you know, the same right that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was designed to protect. All they have to do is convict blacks of felony possession of drugs and voila! -- no more right to vote, forever.
> A felony drug conviction also enables bigots to disarm blacks, given that a felony conviction means that the felon can no longer own firearms. That s obviously not as good as a law that expressly prohibits blacks from owning firearms but it s a close second.
> In the early years of the drug war, bigots could justify the drug war with good intentions. We just want to end the war on drugs, federal officials proclaimed. We just want to eradicate drugs from our society. Our intentions are entirely honorable.
> Several decades later, however, those good intentions have been buried under a mountain of failure, death, destruction, and corruption, not only here in the United States but also within Latin America.
> So, why do federal officials persist in waging the war on drugs, given its manifest failure and destructiveness and the reality that it will never succeed in attaining its goal?
> Two big reasons are money and power. The drug war brings big money and big power to government officials, at the state, local, and, of course, federal levels.
> But a third big reason is undoubtedly the same force that drove federal officials to embrace Jim Crow and segregation in Washington, D.C., after the end of the Civil War and to continue such racist policies well into the next century: Plain old-fashioned racial bigotry, all wrapped up in pretty drug-war rationales.
> To learn more about the racism of the federal government s war on drugs, readThe New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindnessby Michelle Alexander.
> Or read thisNew York Timesreview of the book.
> Or read this ACLU article:The Drug War is the New Jim Crowby Graham Boyd.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-05-11.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.
at the state, local, and, of course, federal levels.
But a third big reason is undoubtedly the same force that drove
federal officials to embrace Jim Crow and segregation in Washington,
D.C., after the end of the Civil War and to continue such racist
policies well into the next century: Plain old-fashioned racial
bigotry
---
creating and promoting racial tension is the goal of the jews at the
aclu
know the enemy and their tactics
this is just another battle in the war for political power
On May 12, 12:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Friday, May 11, 2012Jim Crow s Drug Warby Jacob G. Hornberger
> After the Civil War, Washington, D.C., became a model Jim Crow city for the United States. Having supposedly waged the war for the purpose of ending slavery, U.S. officials proceeded to keep the nation s capital city segregated all the way through the 1950s.
> U.S. officials like to point to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as evidence of how enlightened they ultimately became when it came to the mistreatment and abuse of black Americans.
> But does human nature really change that rapidly?
> After all, not long after the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted, federal officials began waging their much-vaunted war on drugs, one of the most racist federal programs in U.S. history.
> Moreover, knowing full well the racist aspects and consequences of the war on drugs, federal officials living today continue to wage the drug war more fiercely than ever.
> In some ways, the drug war is more brutal toward blacks than segregation was. With the drug war, bigoted cops can target blacks for abuse and mistreatment and there s no social stigma attached to it. It s all legitimate because it s all part of eradicating the scourge of drugs from our society.
> Moreover, what better way to remove blacks from society than by putting them in jail? With segregation, bigots still had to encounter blacks within the community. With the drug war, the bigots can remove them entirely from society by carting them off to jail to serve long sentences, where no one but prison officials and other prisoners will see them.
> Moreover, the beauty of the drug war, insofar as bigots are concerned, is that it provides a means by which blacks can be denied the right to vote -- you know, the same right that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was designed to protect. All they have to do is convict blacks of felony possession of drugs and voila! -- no more right to vote, forever.
> A felony drug conviction also enables bigots to disarm blacks, given that a felony conviction means that the felon can no longer own firearms. That s obviously not as good as a law that expressly prohibits blacks from owning firearms but it s a close second.
> In the early years of the drug war, bigots could justify the drug war with good intentions. We just want to end the war on drugs, federal officials proclaimed. We just want to eradicate drugs from our society. Our intentions are entirely honorable.
> Several decades later, however, those good intentions have been buried under a mountain of failure, death, destruction, and corruption, not only here in the United States but also within Latin America.
> So, why do federal officials persist in waging the war on drugs, given its manifest failure and destructiveness and the reality that it will never succeed in attaining its goal?
> Two big reasons are money and power. The drug war brings big money and big power to government officials, at the state, local, and, of course, federal levels.
> But a third big reason is undoubtedly the same force that drove federal officials to embrace Jim Crow and segregation in Washington, D.C., after the end of the Civil War and to continue such racist policies well into the next century: Plain old-fashioned racial bigotry, all wrapped up in pretty drug-war rationales.
> To learn more about the racism of the federal government s war on drugs, readThe New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindnessby Michelle Alexander.
> Or read thisNew York Timesreview of the book.
> Or read this ACLU article:The Drug War is the New Jim Crowby Graham Boyd.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-05-11.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.
Study
----
Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies
Sent from my iPad
--
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 5/13/12 (5)
--
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.
Dodd frank failure
--------
Tom Easton on Dodd-Frank: "A Terrible Law"
Sent from my iPad
--
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 5/13/12 (4)
--
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 5/13/12 (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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)