Saturday, June 30, 2012

Re: Bulletin of Christian Persecution May 10 - June 26, 2012

<Grin>!
 
Hey Wes!  
 
Well,  I ain't all that offended either......I just needed something to slap Plain Ol around about!
 
Good to see ya!  Have a great weekend!
 
Keith

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Wes <wesleykellner@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it,
>that would explain your sensitivity
>and I find it just as offensive.
>ok ... as much as I dislike people telling me what words to use, I'll use christian instead.
>What makes it offensive? Because it's an x instead of a ✞?
 
I never heard of it before either. I didn't find it offense, I'm kinda trying to learn to not be offended at anything, it tends to make you an outcast. I'm especially not offended since Kieth mentioned it was a city in China and I can playfully think of it as Zion (Xian). So now everytime you use Xians you can maybe pretend you're saying zionists.
 
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. (clipped from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism)
 
>Again, to the best of my knowledge, the Chinese City of Xian has very little Islamic population, and no war going on with Islam that I am aware of.
 

On Friday, June 29, 2012 3:59:15 PM UTC-5, plainolamerican wrote:
I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it,
--
that would explain your sensitivity

 and I find it
just as offensive.
---
ok ... as much as I dislike people telling me what words to use, I'll
use christian instead.
What makes it offensive? Because it's an x instead of a ✞?

On Jun 29, 1:34 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually,  I didn't know that,  but then again, I am one that still takes
> offense to folks who say or write, "Merry X-Mas".  What the Hell is "X-Mas"?
>
> I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it, and I find it
> just as offensive.
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > xian is an abbreviation for christian ... but you know that
>
> > On Jun 28, 12:27 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:

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

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

Re: John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate

Guten Abend From Troisdorf Deutschland Michael!
 
You know,  in all honesty  I enjoy you!  I enjoy your posts;   your commentary and your take on a number of the articles that you post.  When I have the time,  I try to read most of everything that you do post.....With all due respect, I even read the articles that I consider to be penned by;  (and admittedly my term: )  "Wacko Right,  Conspiratorialist Crackpots"; or those who would like to think of themselves as proverbially being "Extreme Libertarians".
 
Nevertheless, a couple of observations:
 
First,  we all see so many things written and said on the web,  on a gamut of subject matter, that is so far from accurate or truthful.....No question, the WWW is an amazing phenomena and a truly wonderful resource;  but it also has very little checks with regard to regulating and/or prohibiting those who haven't a clue of what they are talking about, getting on the web and posting information that is false and fictitious, but representing such information as the gospel. 
 
Second,  with regard to the Supreme Court's June 28, 2012 Opinion which in part upheld the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act";  or "ObamaCare";  we have seen a whole lot of commentary written and/or verbally professed from both sides of the aisle....."Talking Heads";  columnists and bloggers, both from the World Wide Web as well as in the mainstream media who have had a whole lot to say in just a few short days. 
 
Many of these individuals that I reference haven't a clue about what they are talking about.  It is clear that most of them have not even taken the time to  read the Court's Syllabus,  much less the actual Opinion, and admittedly it's lengthy;  a total of 193 pages.....The Majority's Decision is 59 pages in and of itself.
 
My goal here is not to sound arrogant;  just the opposite.  As stated, I enjoy your posts, and our discussions here in PF.   I don't like the condescending repartee however.  Scratch your head all you want.....Did you read the Opinion?   If you did,  then you would know,  (addressed on Page 40-41 of Judge Roberts' Ruling, that Judge Roberts and the Majority (as well as Judge Scalia and the Dissent)  very well considered the issue of whether the purported ObamaCare "Tax"  is potentially capitation;  a direct tax,  or in any way a violation of Article I, §9, clause 4  of our Constitution.  See 06.28.2012 Slip Op at 40-42.
 
I know that most Americans don't have time to read Supreme Court Opinions.  This howevever was a monumental Decision, and something that could potentially effect our very way of life, and the direction of our Nation. I probably over-reacted this past Thursday, when the Court rendered its Opinion ,  but the Court's Decision pissed me off; and I still don't fully understand Judge Roberts' logic;  which as stated in my previous posts,  centers around his determination (and again,  I opine mistakenly)  that a "Tax"  is analogous to a "Penalty".  As Judge Scalia pointed out, this is the first time in our recorded history that the Court has concluded as such.  
 
I think the only way that one could understand the Court's ruling, and what actually happened,   is if they take the time to actually read the Opinion.   The only way that one would understand my comments, is if they take the time to at least look at my extracted, highlighted pages of the Opinion, that I attached to my previous comments above, and once again here today.    when folks make far reaching opinions that are contrary to what the Court said,  it doesn't reflect well nor does it add to their credibility.
 
Keith


On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:59 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

<scratches head>
The Constitution does not matter and is not the 'central issue' on matters Constitutional and Unconstitutional?

Regard$,
--MJ

"In all my years as a judge at every level of the bench, including the Supreme court, at least 85% of all lawyers that practiced before me were either INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT, OR BOTH."
-- former supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger




At 09:41 AM 6/29/2012, you wrote:
Hey Michael,
 
I don't see this as being the "central" issue.  It boils down to whether the term, "Penalty"  can be for the first time construed as a"Tax";  and the definition prior to yesterday, was that a "Penalty"  was unlawful.  Clearly, as both Justices Scalia and Roberts pointed out,  with differing conclusions,  is that the Congress never intended for the estimated 4 million Americans who they believe will not subscribe to the individual mandate of health insurance,  (and how they come up with 4 million is anyone's guess.....I surmise it will be more like 20 million!)  were not to be considered, "criminal".  
 
Therein lies the conundrum, and for the life of me, I don't see how Roberts could have concluded that "Penalty"  is a "Tax".  He nevertheless did.
 


 
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:45 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

The Court is playing word games in order to justify/affirm this unconstitutional nonsense.

The Constitution (rather than stare decisis -- simply compounding the errors of past edicts) states:

AIS2C3
... direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers ...
AIS7C1
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
AIS8C1
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This 'penalty tax' is direct, but NOT apportioned.
The legislation -- if a tax -- originated in the Senate, not the House.
The Power to 'tax' is limited to 'raising revenue' in order to accomplish the powers enumerated. To whit: The Congress's power To 'tax' can ONLY be in done in order to pay debts (see AIS8C2), provide common Defence (see AIS8C10-16) or provide for the general well-being (see AIS8C3-9, 17).
Notably absent is a Power to 'tax' in an effort to 'penalize' or 'punish' as occurs with PPACA in the absurd light the latest decree provided by Bush Justice Roberts and his merry band of usurpers.

Furthermore, AIS8C3
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Commerce is the exchange of title. Joe contracting with Doctor A is not with 'foreign Nations' not 'among several States' not 'with Indian Tribes'. Joe is merely WITHIN a State.

As is typical of 90% of what is foisted upon Americans, Amendment X applies:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Regard$,
--MJ

Certainly, Congress should possess the power of raising revenue from their constituents, for the purpose mentioned in the 8th section of the 1st article; that is, "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general. welfare of the United States." It has been common with the gentlemen, on this subject, to present as with frightful pictures. We are told of the hosts of tax-gatherers that will swarm through the land; and whenever taxes are mentioned, military force seems to be an attending idea. I think I may venture to predict that the taxes of the general government, if any shall be laid, will be more equitable, and much less expensive, than those imposed by state governments. -- Mr. Wilson 04 December 1787



At 07:23 AM 6/29/2012, you wrote:
Good Afternoon from Köln Michael,
 
I got to my apartment yesterday evening around 18:30 Central European Time,  and the American news agencies were just beginning to report the Supreme's Opinion.   I was tired,  frustrated,  (I had sat in traffic for over an hour and a half,  just to get less than twelve miles)  and hearing the news,  I felt literally devastated.   I was so frustrated, and felt sold out by my own Nation.  What is it that these people could have been thinking?   How is it that some of our people could want such a dramatic change in our very way of culture;  all in the name of "compassion"?    Can they not see how this socialized system is such a miserable failure here in Europe?  Why would we want to emulate something (e.g.;  socialism and communism)  that has never worked through recorded time?
 
Well,  after several cocktails,  (and dinner)  and after receiving numerous e-mails from individuals and entities that were just as outraged as I was,  I did find some solace.
 
I took the time this morning to read Justice Robert's Majority Opinion;  as well as Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion,  and the Dissent's Opinion.  (That took over two hours to get through!) 
 
I disagree that Justice Roberts has somehow issued a Lennist Opinion.....I am baffled as to how Justice Ginsberg could be even remotely construed as a legal scholar;  and I do believe that the Dissent's Opinion, written by Justice Scalia is more aptly correct, with regard to one point, and a point that I think Grigg, like many of the media talking heads, are missing.
 
It's one, very simple point, and what this whole Decision rests upon:  The distinction between the term "Tax"  and "Penalty".  On Page 39,  Justice Roberts makes the following Statement: 
 
"That conclusion should not change simply because Congress used the word "penalty" to describe the payment.  Interpreting such a law to be a tax would hardly "[i]mpos[e] a tax through judicial legislation." Post, at 25. Rather, it would give practical effect to the Legislature's enactment."

Slip Op at 39.
On the other hand,  Justice Scalia frames it as such:
 

"In answering that question we must, if "fairly possible," Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than un- constitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. " ' "[A]l- though this Court will often strain to construe legis- ation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute . . ." or judicially rewriting it.' " Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. supra."

 "Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty: " '[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide forthe support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.' "United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996) (quoting United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931)). In a few cases, this Court has held that a "tax" imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress' taxing power.  "

Dissent Slip Op at 17-18. 

I have extracted,  (and then highlighted)  what I found to be the key portions of both Justice Roberts'  and Justice Scalia's written Opinions.   Again,  this just my take,  and for my notes;  feel free to take as little or as much of them as you wish.

With regard to Justice Ginsberg's concurring Opinion in part, and dissenting Opinion in part,  I did read it,  but found nothing whatsoever worthy of even quoting or adding here.   Justice Ginsberg is an embarassment to the Judiciary,  period. 



On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:17 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
"Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright."

John Roberts, Constitutional Traitor: Chief Justice Approves Obamacare Tax Mandate
Posted on 28 June 2012
by William Grigg
In a ruling written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court -- the same entity that acknowledged in 1819 that the "power to tax is the power to destroy" -- has ruled that the federal government can use the taxing power to compel its subjects to participate in a government-run corporatist health care system.
During a 2009 interview with the obsequious George Stephanopolos, President Obama said that he "absolutely reject[s] the notion" that the federal health care mandate is a tax increase. This morning, the Court, in a 5-4 ruling written by nominal conservative Chief Justice Roberts, rejected the Obama administration's argument that the Constitution's Commerce Clause permits an individual health care mandate; however, the Court also claimed that it could impose such a directive by means of a direct un-apportioned tax (which is not authorized by the Constitution -- see Article I section 2, clause 3 -- and thus is expressly forbidden by it, as if that mattered anymore).
"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," wrote Roberts, deploying the tactical disingenuousness such people always display whenever they ratify a federal power grab. This feigned humility was used to cloak an unambiguous lie: The measure Roberts describes is a direct un-apportioned tax, which, as we've seen, is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution.
In the opinion he wrote on behalf of the four dissenting justices, Antonin Scalia described the Obamacare individual mandate, and the powers arrogated by Washington to enforce it, as a "blatant violation of the constitutional structure," irrespective of the conceptual framework used to justify it.
Scalia pointed out that with respect to the constitutional power "to tax and spend for the general welfare," the High Court "has long since expanded that beyond … taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government's enumerated powers" to the point that it now effectively manages practically every aspect of the lives of U.S. citizens -- and has absorbed all of the powers and functions once reserved to the states. The gravamen of this case, Scalia insists, is not whether the mandate can be justified on grounds other than the Commerce Clause, but whether there are any identifiable limits on the exercise of federal power:

What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power -- upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

The Obamacare statute "exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting States all Medicaid funding," Scalia concludes. "These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act's other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."
Roberts' ruling is applied Leninism -- a pragmatic way of justifying the government's intention to exercise "power without limit, resting directly on force." Money and time are essentially the same thing; one earns money by investing his time -- an irreplaceable and finite quantity -- in commerce or labor. Through taxation the State steals life incrementally, rather than destroying it outright.
In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts has placed the High Court's imprimatur on the proposition that the regime ruling us can steal our lives incrementally in order to force each of us to participate in a health care program that will regulate every aspect of the lives that remain -- and either kill or imprison those of us who refuse to participate.
Read the ruling here. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/john-roberts-constitutional-traitor-chief-justice-approves-obamacare-tax-mandate.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl..Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl..Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h416bmg10

Content-Type: application/pdf;
         name="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl.Dissent.Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="Dept.OfHealth.v.Fl.Dissent.Slip.Op.Extract.June28.2012..pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h416bmg51

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


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Content-Type: image/jpeg;
         name="FromBruceMajorsFaceBookPageThisMorning.06.29.2012..jpg"
Content-Disposition: attachment;
         filename="FromBruceMajorsFaceBookPageThisMorning.06.29.2012..jpg"
X-Attachment-Id: f_h41b8xni0

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

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

Re: Bulletin of Christian Persecution May 10 - June 26, 2012

>I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it,
>that would explain your sensitivity
>and I find it just as offensive.
>ok ... as much as I dislike people telling me what words to use, I'll use christian instead.
>What makes it offensive? Because it's an x instead of a ✞?
 
I never heard of it before either. I didn't find it offense, I'm kinda trying to learn to not be offended at anything, it tends to make you an outcast. I'm especially not offended since Kieth mentioned it was a city in China and I can playfully think of it as Zion (Xian). So now everytime you use Xians you can maybe pretend you're saying zionists.
 
Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy. Some Christian Zionists believe that the "ingathering" of Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Jesus. (clipped from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism)
 
>Again, to the best of my knowledge, the Chinese City of Xian has very little Islamic population, and no war going on with Islam that I am aware of.
 

On Friday, June 29, 2012 3:59:15 PM UTC-5, plainolamerican wrote:
I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it,
--
that would explain your sensitivity

 and I find it
just as offensive.
---
ok ... as much as I dislike people telling me what words to use, I'll
use christian instead.
What makes it offensive? Because it's an x instead of a ✞?

On Jun 29, 1:34 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually,  I didn't know that,  but then again, I am one that still takes
> offense to folks who say or write, "Merry X-Mas".  What the Hell is "X-Mas"?
>
> I have never heard the term Xian until you started using it, and I find it
> just as offensive.
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > xian is an abbreviation for christian ... but you know that
>
> > On Jun 28, 12:27 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:07 PM, plainolamerican
> > > <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:

--
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** Daily Quran and Hadith


IN THE NAME OF "ALLAH"
Assalamu'alaikum Wa Rahmatullah e Wa Barakatuhu,

 

 



 




  


--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Cell: 00971509483403

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

The Mandate Was Never the Issue

Friday, June 29, 2012
The Mandate Was Never the Issue
By Jacob G. Hornberger

It really doesn't matter which way the Supreme Court ruled on President Obama's healthcare mandate. As long as the government is involved in healthcare, there is going to be an endless series of interventions, leading ultimately to a total government takeover of the entire healthcare arena.

For months, we have seen conservatives obsessing over the mandate, suggesting that the defeat of the mandate would be some sort of gigantic victory for economic freedom.

What nonsense. The reason that the mandate was enacted was to address the healthcare crisis. If the mandate had failed to pass or if it had been declared unconstitutional, the government programs that instigated the crisis would have remained in existence. That would have necessarily entailed some other type of new interventions to address the existing crisis.

The fundamental problem is that conservatives and, of course, liberals continue to firmly embrace the programs that are at the root of the healthcare crisis: Medicare, Medicaid, medical licensure, and government regulation. As long as the root causes of the healthcare crisis are permitted to remain in existence, the healthcare crisis will continue to exist, which means that both conservatives and liberals will inevitably be coming up with their own favorite interventions to address the crisis, which will only worsen the crisis, which will mean, of course, calls for new interventions.

There is but one solution to America's healthcare woes ­ to get rid of the root cause of such woes. That means an immediate repeal (not reform) of Medicare, Medicare, medical licensure, and healthcare and insurance regulation ­ and a repeal of the taxes that are collected to fund such things. The solution involves a complete separation of healthcare and the state, just as our ancestors separated religion and the state. Leave people free to keep their own money and provide for their own healthcare.

The United States once had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Healthcare was reasonably priced in the free market and physicians loved their profession. Not anymore. Healthcare costs have soared out of control and doctors are retiring early, now hating what they do in life. The reason? Socialism and interventionism, in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, licensure, and regulation.

As we have seen in other areas of government domination ­ immigration, the drug war, public schooling, etc. ­ a government intervention never resolves the crisis that precipitated it. Instead, it only makes things worse than before. When things get worse, the statists inevitably call for a new intervention intended to fix the crisis. The situation only gets worse, which precipitates calls for new interventions. That's precisely what has happened in immigration, the drug war, public schooling, and healthcare.

Despite the manifest failure of socialism and interventionism all over the world, American statists just won't let go. Like their statist counterparts around the world (e.g., in Greece, Italy, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China, etc.), they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that their beloved socialist and interventionist paradigm has failed.

But as things continue to deteriorate, more and more people are discovering that we libertarians have been right about this from the beginning: It was a horrible, immoral mistake for America to have adopted Medicare, Medicaid, licensure, and regulation.

Instead, America should have continued down the road to free markets, private property, and limited government, a road that continued to encompass a free market healthcare system.

That is still the right road ­ the road to recovery ­ the road to a healthy, prosperous, peaceful, and free society.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-06-29.asp

Re: **JP** Re: (SPN) Re: Imran Speech

Col Sb, I agree with u here. I m a member of TIP, but I think we shud abide by civilised norms of language and public posturing when we are being aired in public meetings. May be if IK had the urge to use the word, then he could have as a friend suggested used the word "Penguin" which according to him was the original word and was slangged out by us Punjabis into a cruder shorter version which we normally use, and which wud be well understood for its meaning without sounding gross to softer ears. Nothing to do with X rated meanings that you have in mind.

As for AAZ, I feel like using harsher language than did IK. The man is a total disgrace to himself and to all of us. His agenda is clear. Loot and plunder this country, destroy it, then pick up his brief case n go away to his palaces wherever they are. He deserves every Pakistani's deepest contempt. Sorry Col Sb, no apologies here.

Khalid Javed

   

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Muhammad Nadeem Yousuf <pti.italy@yahoo.it> wrote:
Col.Jafri you must be thankful to the nation n IK just using unparliamentry words according to you,otherwise they're now ready to send these corrupts Zardari& Co infront of bully DOGS.And wht about you army men use words about civilians(blody civilians)?By the way from where they belong?they have another mothers,sisters,bro?Do't teach us please,we know what we're n what to do.Sorry but it's reality which you ppl do't want see...

Nadeem.
 
MUHAMMAD NADEEM YOUSUF.
ADVOCATE.
COORDINATOR, PTI ITALY.
0039 3336409233


Politics is not a boxing match acc to marquis of Queensbury rules and for Col Jafri to talk about use of Lcorrect language" is ironic given the abuse mly hurls on "bloody civilians"! Imran sopeaks the people's language as he should since he is the voice of the people not of the disdainful drawing room elite! Oxonian lang would be ridiculous on the streets of Pak! If IK wants to send a message of peace also it has to be in the language people can empathise with! And to make this govt of looters and mafias understand his message he needs to communicate in language they can conmprehend! So good for IK for saying it like it is! Zardari and Convict Gilani are taking pungas with lives of ordinary Pakistanis and PTI will not let that continue! Shireen Mazari
Sent from my BlackBerry® Smartphone provided by Ufone

-----Original Message-----
From: Rizwan Saleem <rizsaleem@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:49:57
To: <pakpotpourri1@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <pakistanpress@googlegroups.com>; <pakistan_futures@yahoogroups.com>; <pakistanpost@yahoogroups.com>; <pakistanfront@yahoogroups.com>; <betterpakistan@gmail.com>; <joinpakistan@googlegroups.com>; <socialist_pakistan_news@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: Imran Speech




When in Rome....




On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Syed W. Hussain <flyerswh@hotmail.com <mailto:flyerswh@hotmail.com> > wrote:


Mr. Imran Khan is trying to connect with the poor. Not the elite and educated. Who in reality are the ones 
responsible for the raging poverty.  


Syed W. Hussain




----------------
From: jafri@rifiela.com <mailto:jafri@rifiela.com>
To: pakistanpress@googlegroups.com <mailto:pakistanpress@googlegroups.com> ; pakistan_futures@yahoogroups.Com; pakistanpost@yahoogroups.Com; PakistanFront@yahoogroups.Com; betterpakistan@gmail.com <mailto:betterpakistan@gmail.com> ; joinpakistan@googlegroups.Com; socialist_pakistan_news@yahoogroups.Com
CC: pakpotpourri1@googlegroups.com <mailto:pakpotpourri1@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Imran Speech
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 20:25:09 +0500







It was disappointing to see Imran Khan using street language while addressing a  rally that PTI had staged at Karachi in support of the CJP.  It was unbecoming the stature of a person aspiring to be a national leader. Insinuating President Zardari he said that he had taken a Punga that would ultimately spell his doom worse than Musharraf. I wonder if he knows that Punga is an outright  unparliamentary Punjabi word, whose literal translation cannot be printed in this letter.  Again, he had been repeatedly mentioning President Asif Ali Zardari by calling him  only "Zardari" and that too visibly  contemptuously.    It looked he was playing for the street urchins and using their tenor and tone also.
 
He is an Oxonian and one expects better manners and demeanour from him for his political adversaries.
 
Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)
 


------------------------------------

Socialist Pakistan News (SPN) is managed by supporters and members of Labour Party PakistanYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/socialist_pakistan_news/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    socialist_pakistan_news-digest@yahoogroups.com
    socialist_pakistan_news-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    socialist_pakistan_news-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

ObamaCare = ObamaTax



New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

ObamaCare = ObamaTax

by Scotty Starnes
Scotty Starnes | June 30, 2012 at 6:30 AM | Tags: individual mandate, Obamacare, tax hike | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-7ha

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/obamacare-obamatax/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



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

Tolerance from the left (sarcasm alert)



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Tolerance from the left (sarcasm alert)

by DCG

Defaced billboard an example of free speech denied

Registerguard.com: When driving around Eugene (Oregon), one sees bumper stickers that read "Coexist," "Honor diversity," "Peace," etc. However, tolerance in the city appears to be one-sided — expected, but not always given.

Recently a billboard expressing a sincere message was vandalized by some people who did not like the point of view it expressed. Not only was an expression of free speech defaced, but the property of innocent bystanders was damaged.

"Abortion: A lifetime of regret. Visit Standupgirl.com," read the message on the billboard at the corner of Villard Street and Franklin Boulevard in Eugene. Unfortunately, after being up for 10 days, the billboard was taken down. The message apparently was not welcome by many who preach tolerance, trumpet free speech and call themselves "pro-choice."

Bottles filled with house paint were thrown at the billboard, destroying the sign and splashing paint on cars parked in the Euro-Asian Automotive parking lot. The business owner, upset over damage and vandalism done to the cars, called the sign company. The fine print in the contracts was read, and the billboard was removed and permanently banned.

While abortion is a controversial subject, helping women in an unplanned pregnancy certainly should not be. StandUpGirl.com, a website that welcomes more than 200,000 young women each month, is not political. Rather, it is hosted by dedicated volunteers from around the world who spend endless hours answering letters from young women in unplanned pregnancies, helping them find the answers they need for their individual situations.

Young women who have had or considered an abortion also discuss their experiences at StandUpGirl.com. More than 21 million girls and women have visited the website, many writing to the site to tell their stories. Women facing an unplanned pregnancy are often frightened and want to read the experiences of those who have faced the same circumstances they do. Women find camaraderie with other women in similar life situations through the forums and blogs.

Most women who have chosen abortion and write StandUpGirl.com voice the sentiment expressed on the banned billboard: Their abortion "choice" is the regret of their lifetime. They write of their emotional turmoil and their feelings of regret, grief and depression. Often they write to warn other girls not to make the same "choice" they did. On the other hand, women who had considered abortion but decided instead in favor of life, voice gratitude that they chose to deliver their babies.

StandUpGirl.com exists to offer hope and encouragement to every girl who comes, no matter what their circumstances. The website spans the great divide between pro-life and pro-choice and opens the doors for the girls to learn how abortion can affect their lives.

The billboard's message, "Abortion: A lifetime of regret. Visit StandUpGirl.com," approved by the billboard company, offered a message to whoever wanted to consider it. Billboards across the nation offer information on wide range of subjects; readers are free to agree with the message, disagree, or ignore it.

Our great U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment guarantee us the freedom of expression. But there is no guarantee that we will embrace one another's thoughts or opinions. What the authors of our Constitution were striving for is a tolerance for other's ideas. The term "pro-choice" clearly implies that there is room for more than one choice, plus information to make an intelligent choice.

Unfortunately, because some have refused to embrace tolerance, freedom of choice and free speech, Eugene residents have witnessed an example of the eroding of the common courtesies and values that as Americans we all hold dear.

Author: Dawn Marie Perez who is director of the StandUpGirl Foundation in Keizer.

I'm not surprised this happened in Eugene, a liberal-infested pool.  They just prove how hypocritical they are in their actions.  Is anyone surprised?

DCG

DCG | June 30, 2012 at 3:00 am | Tags: abortion | Categories: Children, Culture War, Liberals/Democrats, Pro-Life | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-fpx

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/tolerance-from-the-left-sarcasm-alert/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



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

Obama Campaign Contributor, Who Helped Clinton Enact Assault Weapons Ban, Ran Fast and Furious Gun Trafficking Scheme



New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Obama Campaign Contributor, Who Helped Clinton Enact Assault Weapons Ban, Ran Fast and Furious Gun Trafficking Scheme

by Scotty Starnes

I see a 'fall guy'

Explains Obama's use of executive privilege!

(CNSNews.com) – Dennis K. Burke, who as a lawyer for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in the 1990s was a key player behind the enactment of the 1994 assault-weapons ban, and who then went on to become Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano's chief of staff, and a contributor to Barack Obama's 2008 presidential primary campaign, and then a member of Obama's transition team focusing on border-enforcement issues, ended up in the Obama administration as the U.S. attorney in Arizona responsible for overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.

When Obama nominated Burke to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona, Burke told the Arizona Capitol Times he believed he understood what the president and his attorney general wanted him to do.

"There's clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing, and this is an office that is at the center of the issues of border enforcement," said Burke.

Over the course of several days, CNSNews.com left multiple telephone messages with Burke for comment on this story. He did not respond.

Dennis K. Burke has had a long career working as an aide and political appointee to Democratic elected officials. From 1989 to 1994, he was a counsel for the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, working in that capacity for several years on an assault-weapons ban, which was finally enacted on Sept. 13, 1994 as the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. That act expired on Sept. 13, 2004. (See NYT: Dennis Burke, Sen. DeConcini, Weapons Ban.pdf)

Burke has a long history of being anti-2nd Amendment...like most Democrats. Burke also resigned after admitting to releasing documents to smear ATF whistle blower, Agent Dodson.

From 1994-95, Burke served in the Clinton Justice Department in the Office of Legislative Affairs, and in 1997-99, he was an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona.

From 1999 to 2003, Burke was chief deputy and special assistant to Arizona Attorney General Janet Napolitano.

In 2003, when Napolitano became governor, Burke became her chief of staff. He stayed in that job until the fall of 2008, when he left to help Democratic political campaigns, including then-Sen. Obama's presidential campaign.

Responding to a question about violence on the border, Napolitano said the administration was going to work with the Mexican government on the issue. Then she said: "Secondly, it is looking at, government-wide, at what we can do to stop the southbound export of weaponry, particularly assault-type weapons and grenades that are being used in that drug war."

Except they didn't work with the Mexican government or with Mexican law enforcement. Mexico is still waiting for answers from Team Obama, the most "transparent" administration in history (wink). Just to clarify things for left-wing Obama defenders who attempt to claim Operation Wide Receiver, which happened under the Bush Administration is the same thing as Operation Fast & Furious. 1) The Bush Administration worked with the Mexican government and Mexican law enforcement, unlike Fast & Furious. 2) Nobody was killed under Operation Wide Receiver. Under Fast & Furious several hundred Mexican citizens were killed along with 1 border agent (Brian Terry) and 1 ICE agent (Jamie Zapata). 3) All guns were traceable, unlike those that "walked" under Fast & Furious. 4) There was actual arrests and all guns recovered under Operation Wide Receiver, where over 2,00o guns were "lost" and 700 showed up at crime scenes in Mexico..still no arrests. 5) Wide Receiver was shut down in 2007.

The White House, White House spokesman Jay Carney and Attorney General Eric Holder have all tried to blame Bush but facts stop them cold.

Napolitano further noted that drug cartels were targeting Mexican government officials and law enforcement officers, and that, given the seriousness of the threat, Obama's national security adviser, the attorney general, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and Customs (of which the Border Patrol is part) would all be working on the issue.

Obama, Holder and Napolitano are all tied to this scheme.

"I've met with the attorney general of Mexico and the ambassador already," said Napolitano during the February 2009 hearing. "One of the things that I particularly am focused on is southbound traffic in guns, particularly assault weapons, and cash that are being used to funnel and fund these very, very violent cartels."

Then the administration came up with the idea to traffic firearms (Fast & Furious) to the cartels, which couldn't be traced, and laundered money for the cartels, which they lost.

The same day Napolitano testified in the Homeland Security Committee, Attorney General Holder addressed the issue of drug-trafficking-related gun violence in northern Mexico. He said he had had conversations about the issue with the Mexican attorney general and that the Obama administration believed that re-instating the assault-weapons ban in the United States--the one Dennis Burke had initially helped push through as Senate aide in 1990s--would help the situation in Mexico.

Yes, Holder bragged about 'launching a "major new effort" to break the backs of the cartels. Was that 'Fast and Furious?' We won't know until a court forces Holder/Obama to unseal and release all the records.

"Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder said. "I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

What are the other 'gun-related changes' Obama wants to make...besides allowing criminals to purchase and traffic guns across the border to push for stricter gun control laws?

Four-and-a-half months later, on July 10, 2009, Obama nominated Burke to be the U.S. attorney in Arizona. The Senate confirmed Burke on Sept. 15 of that year.

Gave Obama $$$, got a cushy job. This seems to happen a lot with Obama donors and bundlers.

It was in July 2010, after his nomination as U.S. attorney, that Burke told theArizonaCapitol Times that he had  "been working on homeland security and border enforcement issues" during the transition, and that there had "clearly been direction provided already by President Obama and Attorney General Holder as to what they want to be doing."

"What I hope to do, if confirmed by the Senate," Burke told the paper, "is to ensure that those plans and strategies are being implemented and we're moving quickly on prosecutions."

After the nomination, former Sen. Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) had high praise for Burke's work in getting the assault weapons ban through Congress back in the 1990s.

Be sure to read the full article. This is what investigative reporting use to look like...before Obama became president. What we do know:

Holder bragged about the scheme. Holder openly lied about the scheme. Holder and the DOJ had to retract their testimony twice (gave false information to Congress). Obama ordered the scheme and his stimulus paid for it. Obama said that he had only heard about the gun trafficking scheme through news reports (He somehow knew before Holder knew), yet now he is claiming executive privilege to hide these documents. Was Obama lying then or now? Remember, three of Obama's national security advisers had knowledge about the scheme. It is clear that Obama invoked his executive privilege tactic to hide the facts and to hide the fact that he and Holder are lying.

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/obama-campaign-contributor-who-helped-clinton-enact-assault-weapons-ban-ran-fast-and-furious-gun-trafficking-scheme/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



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