Sunday, September 16, 2012

**JP** Views about Pakistan

Please read and comment 

Raja G Mujtaba
O.M. Center For Policy Studies

Opinion Maker depends on readers' support. Please help us continue by contributing directly through Paypal

Foresight with Insight

May Allah bless us all

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
For more options, visit this group at
You can also visit our blog site : &
on facebook

All the Islamophobia You Can Shake a Stick At


All the Islamophobia You Can Shake a Stick At

by Daniel Greenfield
September 13, 2012 at 4:30 am

Any concerns about Islam can be dismissed as illegitimate by attaching a "phobia" at the end of it, and the power of the "phobia" is not just limited to killing debate about the famously moderate religion, but any "extreme" versions of it as well.

Most Americans were introduced to the term "Islamophobia" after the Muslim massacre of thousands of people had played out in their streets, their cities and on their television screens. Just when Americans had good reason to fear Islam, they were cautioned that such fears were symptomatic of an irrational and bigoted Islamophobia working its way through their reptile brains.

Eleven years later the number of Islamic phobias has proliferated as wildly as rabbits on a warm summer day or Al-Awlaki tapes at a London mosque. Any concerns about Islam can be dismissed as illegitimate by attaching a "phobia" at the end of it, and the power of the "phobia" is not just limited to killing debate about the famously moderate religion, but any "extreme" versions of it as well.

The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization drawing its inspiration in equal parts from the Koran and Mein Kampf, whose author's credits include Hamas and Al Qaeda, coined the term "Ikhwanophobia", which it defines as "the fear and or hatred of the Muslim Brotherhood members and their ideologies."

There are no hard and fast numbers on the spread of Ikhwanophobia, but anecdotal evidence appears to suggest that Egyptian Christians and Liberals are among the major groups stricken with the dreadful and often fatal disease.

As part of its Anti-Ikhwanophobia campaign, the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun) unveiled an Ikhwanophobia website to alert infidels to the harmful effects of fearing the Brotherhood. Members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who were irreparably traumatized by the fear in a Christian woman's eyes as they were burning her house to the ground, are encouraged to talk about their secret shame.

" aspires to open a new gateway for Ikhwanophobia victims encouraging them to share their sufferings," the site announces. And there may even be an Oprah special in the works. But the proliferation of Islamic phobias does not end there.

Much as the atom bomb began an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union; Islamophobia began a phobia race between Sunni and Shiite Islamists. The Shiite Islamists of Iran responded to the Sunni Islamist Brotherhood's Ikhwanophobia by discovering Shi'itophobia.

According to Iran's Fars News Agency, the United States, Mubarak and Israel conspired to spread Shi'itophobia throughout Egypt. "Cairo's efforts to spread the Shi'itophobia were made at the order of the Zionist regime of Israel and were exercised on the basis the US plots." The poor wording of the article may give us some insight into the mind that could coin a word like "Shi'itophobia".

It is unclear how long Shi'itophobia has been around, but Vince Vance & The Valiants' 1980 hit single, "Bomb Iran" was probably an early representative of the genre. At the Tehran International Book Fair, a Dr. Farzin Banki warns that Shi'itophobic books must be identified and dealt with. Considering the treatment received by Salman Rushdie's book, there is no doubt that the Mullahs are expert at handling Shi'itophobia.

Not to be outdone by the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian Mullahs, the Salafis, currently everyone's definition for Islamic extremism, have also developed their own phobia. In response to Ikhwanophobia and Shi'itophobia, Egyptian Salafists unveiled "Salafi-phobia".

"We are trying to hammer home the message that Salafists are normal people," an Egyptian Salafist told CNN, without acknowledging that Salafists with hammers are the last thing that anyone wants to see. "We eat the same food, drink the same beverages and frequent the same hangouts. So don't be surprised when you find Salafists sitting next to you at Costas, sipping lattes." And then possibly blowing up the place on the way out.

While the Muslim world has been criticized for a lack of mental health treatment options, Islamists, to their credit, have already discovered more phobias than Sigmund Freud. Dr. Freud however would have commented on the psyches of people who insist on uncovering phobias in others while neglecting to analyze their own faults. Not to mention the mental state of mass murderers who insist that fear of them is an irrational phobia almost as serious as the severe case of Acrophobia that gripped dying office workers in the World Trade Center on September 11.

Not content with dismissing all criticism of Islam as Islamophobia, Islamists have begun generating sectarian phobias for each violent group and subgroup. The proliferation of Ikhwanophobias, Shi'itophobias and Salafiphobias is a symptom of the Islamophobia that Muslims feel for each other. And it will not end until there are more phobias to be found in Islam than in the APA's entire Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Amid all the Ikhwanophobias, Shi'itophobias and Salafiphobias, it is curious that no one has yet been diagnosed with Ahmadiphobia. Ahmadis are routinely persecuted and killed by other Muslims, but the media does not appear eager to alert Pakistani Muslims that they might be coming down with Ahmadiphobia. There is similarly no Bahaiphobia, Yazdiphobia or any phobias involving non-violent Muslim sects. Instead all the phobias, Ikhwanophobia, Salafiphobia and Shi'itophobia appear to be of violent Muslim groups—almost as if there is nothing irrational about those phobias at all.



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

House Republicans are a Disgrace

House Republicans are a Disgrace

Sunday, 16 September 2012 05:29 Right Side News

The 2008 elections ushered in high hopes from Americans who were angry and righteously so, as our elected representatives to the House had strayed down the road of spending money and creating programs. 2008 saw the Tea Party and other grassroots organizations throw out a bunch of them, and elect their replacements. Well, seems there is a major problem when Freshman enter D.C.; they become spineless and are morphed into the collective, as though they become assimilated into The Borg. Below are two great illustrations from the Madison Project.

1.    A Republican House Votes for a New Federal Program

2.    Only 70 Republicans Vote Against Disastrous CR

A Republican House Votes for a New Federal Program

We get the message. Despite all the tough talk during the 2010 elections, House Republicans have no plans to actually eliminate government programs, agencies, and God forbid – departments. But is it too much to ask that we not create new ones?

It is incredible that at a time when Republicans can use their control over the House to force consequential votes on big issues that embarrass Obama, they are beclowning themselves by passing dozens of ridiculous suspension bills. They could spend their time passing a clean TANF extension with a rider prohibiting Obama's waivers for work requirements. They could repeal the ethanol mandate. They can repeal the Fed's dual mandate of destruction (Humphry-Hawkins).

Here's what Republicans had to say about the Pelosi Congress in their 2010 Pledge to America:

"The number of House legislative days devoted to action on noncontroversial and often insignificant "suspension" bills is up significantly in this Congress by comparison with the past several Congresses, wasting time and taxpayer resources. Of the bills considered under the suspension procedure – requiring 2/3 vote for passage – so far during this Congress, more than half were bills naming federal buildings, recognizing individuals or groups (like sports teams) for achievements, or supporting the designation of particular days, months, or weeks."

Needless to say, Republicans have done the same thing. Yesterday, the leadership agreed to bring Democrat Rep. Lipinski's bill to grow government to a floor vote under suspension. The "American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2012 (H.R. 5865)" would create a new board within the Department of Commerce to study ways to grow manufacturing in this country.

Here's the report from the Republican Study Committee:

"The legislation also establishes an American Manufacturing Competitiveness Board, within the Department of Commerce. The Board shall consist of the Secretary of Commerce, as well as two Governors, of different political parties, after consulting with the National Governors Association. The President shall also appoint two other Board members who are current or former officials of the executive branch. The Board will also be comprised of 10 individuals from the private sector. The legislation establishes requirements for these private sector members, including that they have experience managing manufacturing companies with at least 100 employees. The Speaker of the House, as well as the majority leader of the Senate shall each appoint 3 members to the Board. The minority leader of the House, and the minority leader of the Senate shall also each appoint 2 members to the board. The board shall terminate 60 days after submitting their final report to Congress.

The Board is responsible for advising the President on issues affecting the nation's manufacturing sector, as well as conducting a comprehensive analysis of the nation's manufacturing sector, and developing a national manufacturing competitiveness strategy."

So 157 Republicans voted to spend another $15 million to create a new office to develop a competitive strategy for manufacturing? How about getting rid of the taxation, regulation, and litigation that is killing manufacturing? We don't need another agency or board to study this nonsense. We need to eliminate the DOE, much of the DOI, the NLRB, and EPA. That's how we assuage the competitive disadvantage that currently exists for the manufacturing sector.

Here is a color-coded presentation of how each Republican member voted. We are including it in our main legislation page.

As we noted earlier this week, the Continuing Resolution voted on in the House will increase spending, fund Obamacare, and extend the main welfare program without forcing Obama to reinstate work requirements. This bill is really an embarrassment to everything House Republicans professed to stand for. It will delay the major battles until March 27, 2013. And let me tell you, they will really really really take the Democrats' lunch money then. Just wait and see.

The House passed the bill yesterday by a 329-91 margin. Only 70 Republicans voted no. It's very telling that all but 21 Democrats voted for the CR, and half of the no votes were Blue Dogs who were trying to angle to the right in their tough reelection campaigns. Obviously, they didn't feel they were being treated to a "Satan sandwich." We were.

Click here to download the color-coded spreadsheet of the Republican vote from the Madison Performance Index.

Only 70 Republicans Vote Against Disastrous CR

Now the CR moves to the Senate where its passage is a forgone conclusion. House Republicans will vote on a resolution of disapproval against Obama's waiver of welfare work requirements next week, but there is no guarantee that McConnell will force a vote in the Senate. Even if he does, Democrats will now have more leverage to oppose it. They can point to the fact that Republicans were willing to renew the TANF program in the CR without attaching a work requirement provision.

And that is pretty much the end of the 112th Congress, folks. That's a rap…well, at least until the lame duck session – the session that was supposed to be eliminated as a result of the CR. From here on out, it's all about the elections, but we must be prepared for a major showdown during the lame duck.

The Madison Project: Shedding Light on Real Conservative Voting Records

"Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?" – Ronald Reagan, 1975

Nearly 40 years later, third parties are still not viable and many of our elected Republicans are purveyors of pale pastel policies – ones that are barely distinguishable from Democrats.

Worse yet, during every election cycle, nearly every single Republican candidate is quick to promote cherished American values such as free enterprise and individual liberty while out on the campaign trail. However, once elected, a disheartening majority of these elected officials end up abandoning the very principles that got them elected. They talk the conservative talk at home and walk the statist walk in D.C. Worst of all, many of these members of the United States House of Representatives represent strong conservative states and districts. They've been able to hide their not-so-conservative performance...until now.


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

New Film Mocking Religion Surfaces - No Riots Yet




Excerpts from Trailer of Newly Released Antisemitic Iranian Feature Film – In Which Jews Build War Machine to Take Over the World



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

Why Democrats hate the American middle class (superb)


Decades of leftist hatred for America's middle class revealed in one terrifying moment in Charlotte.

by Jeffrey Lord 9/11


Why Democrats hate the American middle class.


It's God's fault. God and plastics. And don't forget the American flag. Which is another way of explaining just why it is today's Democrats -- the very embodiment of the American Left -- literally hate the American middle class. Hate that middle class with a visceral contempt. A contempt that has been repeatedly and vividly documented over the course of the last five decades in venues as varied as movies, music, politics and culture.


It is a contempt so powerful that the backlash from the American middle class has provided not only huge and repeated election majorities for conservatives and Republicans over the decades. The backlash to this vitriol has powered one of the biggest revolutions in American communications history -- providing an enthusiastic audience for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin not to mention an entire talk radio industry. And, of course, Fox News.


Mr. Limbaugh himself emphatically agrees that his audience is composed of the American middle class that is so disdained by liberals, telling The American Spectator that "My audience is comprised of the people who make this country work." The very fact of the perpetual assault by the Left on Rush Limbaugh is a case study all by itself. It perfectly highlights the dilemma the Democrats found themselves in during their convention last week Why?


Because liberals don't just hate Rush Limbaugh. The dirty little secret here is that liberals hate Rush Limbaugh's 20 million member middle-class audience! While at the same time desperately needing a portion of that very same middle-class to win elections. Which is what makes the already vitriolic hatred from liberals towards the American middle class all the more poisonous -- for liberals. Without the middle class, Democrats cannot possibly win a presidential election.

Or, for that matter, most elections. Which means in turn that it is critical, in a political sense, for Democrats to always be seen as courteously if not warmly and lovingly, courting the middle class.


Thus, under no circumstances can the mask that hides that very real contempt towards the middle class ever be allowed to drop. Yet for one-heart stopping moment in Charlotte last week -- that mask did drop. And it was panic city. God was removed from the Democrats'



Followed within 24 hours by a defiant majority refusing to restore Him to the platform yet being overruled as seen in the now famous video of Convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa doing the dirty deed. "Tony Two-Thirds," as we dubbed the mayor after his performance, simply overrode the "no" vote on God and made it a pretend "yes" vote of the required two-thirds. With that "opinion of the chair", the deed was done. God was back in.


To see just how hair-trigger sensitive party leaders were when they realized what had happened, one need go no further than this contentious interview with Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Democrats' Senate Majority Whip. Hours after God's initial failure to make the platform cut, Durbin was questioned by Fox anchor Bret Baier.

Durbin had a meltdown, accusing Baier and Fox of trying to make Democrats look "Godless." But why? Why were Democrats suddenly in such a panic because their own delegates wanted God out of the platform?


There is a reason -- and it's a big reason. A very big reason.


God -- which is to say religion -- is forever associated in American culture with arguably the largest, most influential voting bloc in the

country: the American middle-class. Middle class Americans may be Catholic. They may be Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans or Jews. They may be Evangelicals. Or fundamentalists. They may be… hmmmm… Mormon. Yes they may even be Islamic non-fundamentalists. But whatever their faith may be -- and we've only touched the surface by naming the above faiths -- what they all have in common besides their middle-class status is God. Not to mention a belief system, a value hierarchy of morals, hard work and patriotism that revolves around God.


So it was no accident last week that President Obama and former President Bill Clinton took pains to say some version of exactly the same thing: Democrats just luuuuvvvv the American middle class.

Really. Honest. No kidding. Democrats have all these exciting, especially-designed-for-the-middle-class programs old and new, you see, and…


Stop. Stop. Politely put, this is not just another round of your average political snowjob. The inevitable wooing and mooing by one group of partisans designed to win an election. This is grimacing, clenched-teeth-with-a-forced-smile political BS. BS designed to get must-have votes from a group of Americans today's Democrats -- the embodiment of the American Left -- hate. Yes, hate. Viscerally hate.

Hate every bit as much as they hate Rush or Hannity or Levin or Fox.

Why do they hate the American middle-class, whether lower, middle-middle or upper? They hate the American middle class -- hate it passionately and precisely because it embodies the three values of religion, capitalism and, oh yes, love of country -- patriotism.


EXAMPLES OF HOW the Left so disdains the middle class would fill three Internets. This special contempt, which began spreading like a virus in the 1960s, now permeates not only the nation's politics but its culture -- its movies, music, books, television and now the Internet………..


What relevance does all of this have to the next two-months of the

2012 election? Plenty. Every time you hear Barack Obama or Joe Biden or Bill Clinton sing the praises of the middle class it's because they are scared witless there are millions of that American middle class who are long on to the Democrats' game. Americans who understand in detail that when God is booted from the Democrats' platform it is not just an attack on God.


It is yet another liberal attack in a five decades-long liberal war on the values of an American middle class that believes in God, country, and capitalism. A war on the very people, in Rush Limbaugh's words, "who make this country work."


Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. This was edited from a longer article, worth reading, many examples, read it here:

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

Re: Studio's Ride:

Shouldn't the 'obarfo' sticker be on the LEFT?

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Keith In Tampa <> wrote:

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

Re: The Right to Choose What?

As you know,  I don't have a lot of respect for Richman,  but he hits the nail on the head in this article.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:27 PM, MJ <> wrote:

The Right to Choose What?
by Sheldon Richman, August 2000

Regardless of one's position on abortion, believers in freedom and individual rights should be offended by the pro-abortion advocates' opportunistic shrinking of "a woman's right to choose" down to a single choice. The use of that euphemism hints at a certain squeamishness on its users' part. Can't they say the word "abortion"?

If a woman has a "right to choose" an abortion--if this is a matter of her very dignity--then it is perplexing why, according to these folks, she doesn't also have the right to choose to:

Keep a handgun in her purse and nightstand drawer without having to get permission from the government.

Send her kids to private schools without having also to pay taxes for the government's schools, which are playgrounds for unionized teachers.

Decide how to plan and save for her own retirement and to opt out of the government's dependency-inducing Social Security system.

Decide how to plan and save for her own medical care in retirement and to opt out of the government's dependency-inducing Medicare program.

Purchase medical insurance free of government mandates requiring coverage she does not want.

Ingest whatever substances she wishes without checking to see whether they are on the government's controlled-substances list.

Gamble however she pleases.

Trade sexual favors for money.

Keep all her income without fearing a visit from armed agents of the Internal Revenue Service.

Buy imports from anywhere in the world, such as clothing for her children, free of tariffs and quotas designed to protect domestic products she finds inferior or too expensive.

Buy milk for her children without paying artificially high prices created by government programs to subsidize the dairy industry.

Take a job that pays less than the legislated minimum wage.

Abstain from paying dues to a labor union she wishes not to join.

Select an automobile from an array not tilted toward more dangerous lighter models by the government's superfluous fuel-efficiency standards.

Buy gasoline for her car that is not made artificially expensive by taxes and irrational environmental regulations.

Earn a higher salary instead of seeing some of her income diverted to satisfying the government's OSHA regulations, which have had no bearing on workplace safety anyway.

Use life-saving medicines and medical devices currently kept off the market by irrational and onerous FDA procedures.

Patronize doctors, lawyers, and other professionals whose credentials are vouched for by someone other than government licensing boards, which exist simply to keep the licensees' incomes artificially high.

Smoke tobacco free from government regulations.

Throw trash away without wasting time recycling.

Give more than $1,000 to a political candidate.

Leave her entire estate to her children and not a penny to the government.

Go to college without having to pay a tuition artificially inflated by government loans and grants.

Start a business without undergoing a gauntlet of licenses, taxes, and regulations.

Surf the Web without fearing that the government is monitoring her journey through cyberspace.

Send e-mail without fearing that the government is reading it.

Put an NRA or pro-tax-cut bumper sticker on her car without wondering whether the police will think she's an "extremist."

Join an off-beat religious group without fearing that the government will decide to launch a SWAT invasion and gas her and her children.

Develop her land even if the Army Corps of Engineers insists it's a wetland.

Develop her land even if the Environmental Protection Agency believes that some insect, rodent, or bird is "endangered."

Buy something to make her life more pleasant rather than see that portion of her income spent to bomb people in other countries or to starve them with economic sanctions.

Go about her business without fearing that the government is compiling dossiers on her.

Associate in any way with people born in other countries regardless of whether the INS thinks they should be here.

Purchase a toilet that flushes properly, rather than one conforming to idiotic environmental regulations.

Not pay for someone else's "right to choose" to have an abortion if it violates her convictions or if she simply doesn't want to.

By the way, why shouldn't men have these same rights to choose?

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

The New York Times' Lie and Truths about Iran

Friday, September 14, 2012
The New York Times' Lie and Truths about Iran
Posted by Sheldon Richman

Today's New York Times report "Obama Rebuffs Netanyahu on Setting Limits on Iran's Nuclear Program" contains one outright lie and a couple of true statements that don't get nearly enough attention in the media.

The lie:
Israeli officials, however, say this guarantee [that the Obama administration will prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon] may not be enough for Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened with annihilation.

No Iranian leader has threatened Israel with annihilation.

The truths that require more attention (emphasis added):
Basing a military judgment on Iran's stockpile of medium-enriched uranium could be tricky, however, because while the overall amount of this material has increased, the amount that can be readily used to fuel a bomb has declined since Iran converted some of it into plates to be used in a research reactor in Tehran. . . .
Administration officials contend that the United States will still be able to detect, and prevent, Iran from passing that point. Nor does the administration have evidence that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has even made a decision to build a bomb.

The Fed's Futile Effort To Bail Out Obamanomics

The Fed's Futile Effort To Bail Out Obamanomics
Charles Kadlec

In what can be viewed as a desperate effort to bail out the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration, the Federal Reserve this week committed to purchasing $40 billion a month of mortgage backed securities for an unlimited time and to keep interest rates artificially low until at least mid 2015.  By so doing, the Fed has embarked upon a course that invites higher inflation, falling living standards, and a global financial crisis.

The Federal Open Market Committee's (FOMC) official statement, released Thursday after the conclusion of its meeting, pays lip service to price stability, which it defines as an increase in the price level of 2% a year, or a 33% devaluation of the dollar over the next 20 years. However, the Fed also left little doubt that for the foreseeable future, it will print money in an effort "to support a stronger economic recovery."

The fundamental problem is the Fed's policy stance is internally incoherent.  Stabilizing the value of the dollar would require the Fed to provide as much, or as little, money as the world demands at a stable price level.  In other words, price stability requires the quantity of money to be the variable.

However, the Fed has chosen the opposite policy.  Now, the quantity of money will increase at a fixed, $40 billion a month, which, by necessity means any change in the demand for dollars that does not precisely match the increase in the dollar's supply will produce a change in the price of the dollar. In other words, the Fed's new policy will lead to unstable prices.

The most likely direction of instability will be higher inflation.  First, the Fed is increasing the supply of money relative to the demand for dollars in an explicit effort to lower interest rates and spur consumption.  Too much money relative to the demand for money cheapens the dollar and leads to higher prices.

Second, this process feeds on itself.  By increasing the risk of inflation, the Fed's policy has made holding dollars more risky which produces a fall in the demand for dollars  – individuals and businesses alike seek to avoid holding any asset whose value is in decline.  A fall in the demand for dollars in the face of rising supply adds fuel to inflationary pressures.

This process has started already.  In his remarks at the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming on August 31, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke signaled the Fed was likely to decide on another round of quantitative easing at the FOMC meeting just ended. Between August 30 and Tuesday, the value of the dollar in terms of gold fell 4.5%.  It then fell an additional 2.2% on Thursday, the day the Fed announced its next round of quantitative easing.

Over that entire period, the dollar also fell 3.7% against the struggling euro, and the price of oil rose nearly 5%. Price changes of this magnitude in so short a time point directly to a fall in the demand for dollars and higher inflation in the months ahead.  Only a shock to the global financial system which would increase the demand for dollars by triggering a flight into the dollar can reverse these inflationary pressures.

Although the risks of inflation are all too real, the supposed benefits of the Fed printing money and keeping interest rates low are highly questionable.  A just published Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas working paper by William R. White, entitled:   " Ultra Easy Monetary Policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences" concludes the negative consequences of the sort of quantitative easing the Fed has just embraced will likely outweigh any short term benefits:

"…the capacity of such (ultra easy) policies to stimulate 'strong, sustainable and balanced growth' in the global economy is limited.  Moreover, ultra easy monetary policies have a wide variety of undesirable medium term effects – the unintended consequences.  They create malinvestments in the real economy, threaten the health of financial institutions and the functioning of financial markets, constrain the 'independent' pursuit of price stability by central banks, encourage governments to refrain from confronting sovereign debt problems in a timely way, and redistribute income and wealth in a highly regressive fashion.  While each  medium term effect on its own might be questioned, considered all together they support strongly the proposition that aggressive monetary easing in economic downturns is not a 'free lunch'."

Of course, we have been suffering just these consequences from a too-easy Fed for the past dozen years.  Since 1999, the Fed, first under Alan Greenspan, and then under Ben Bernanke, sought to manage the U.S. economy by manipulating interest rates and the value of the dollar.  In addition, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have pursued a weak dollar policy in hopes it would stimulate job creation in the U.S.

Instead, easy money and the weak dollar have crushed the middle-class with more than a decade of below average growth and falling living standards.  Since 1999, the dollar has been devalued more than 80% against gold.  Economic growth has averaged a paltry 1.7% a year – the worst 12 years since the 1930s.  The Fed's easy money policies during the middle of the decade contributed directly to speculative bubble in real estate and the financial crisis of 2008.  And this week, the Census Bureau reported real median household income in 2011 fell for the fourth consecutive year in a row, and is now down 8.9% from where it stood in 1999.

Expect more of the same from the Fed's latest pursuit of the hubris of central planning over its vital role of providing domestic and international markets with a strong and stable dollar.  The run-up in the price of gold and oil in just two weeks indicates any short-term increase in demand will be offset quickly by higher prices and falling real wages and profits.  The rush into gold, which provides no economic benefit other than to protect its holder against bad monetary policy, also indicates the malinvestments have already begun. The yield on the 10-year Treasury bond has begun to creep up.  And, the rush to hedge against the debauchery of the dollar sets the stage for the next bubble and plants the seeds of the next financial crisis.

What is missing is a robust debate over monetary policy in the Presidential campaign.  President Obama through his silence implicitly endorses the Fed's move in hopes it will somehow bail out the economy from his administration's failed economic policies. Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney criticized the Fed's move as evidence that the economy is not improving, but he has yet to offer a hard dollar alternative to the failed soft dollar of the past dozen years.

The Republican platform calling for a gold commission now appears prescient.  The time is past due to restore a rules based monetary policy that will guarantee the value of the dollar and insure the independence of the Fed.  The question is: does Governor Romney have the wisdom and courage to embrace monetary reform as a central plank in his own bid for the Oval Office.

The Muslim Protests: Two Myths Down, Three to Go

The Muslim Protests: Two Myths Down, Three to Go
By Robert Wright
Sep 13 2012, 10:06 PM ET

Here is the narrative that pretty much everyone was buying into 36 hours ago: Crude anti-Islam film made by Israeli-American and funded by Jews leads to Muslim protests that boil over, causing four American deaths in Libya.

Here is what now seems to be the case: the anti-Islam film wasn't made by an Israeli-American, wasn't funded by Jews, and probably had nothing to do with the American deaths, which seem to have resulted from a long-planned attack by a specific terrorist group, not spontaneous mob violence.

In retrospect, the original narrative should have aroused immediate suspicion. If, for example, this lethal attack on an American consulate in a Muslim country was really spontaneous, isn't it quite a coincidence that it happened on 9/11?

And as for the funding of the film: The filmmaker was said to be describing himself as Israeli-American and volunteering the fact that "100 Jewish donors" financed his project. Well, 1) 100 is a suspiciously round number; and 2) If you were this "Israeli-American," would you be advertising that this incendiary film was a wholly Jewish enterprise? (Kudos to two excellent reporters: Sarah Posner, who seems to have been the first to raise substantive doubts about the filmmaker's identity, and Laura Rozen, who seems to have been the first to suggest that he was "linked to [the] Coptic [Christian] diaspora"--a suggestion that so far is holding up.)

Maybe one reason these questions weren't asked is because the original narrative fit so nicely into some common stereotypes--about crazy Muslims who get whipped into a death frenzy at the drop of a hat, about the backstage machinations of Jews, and about the natural tension between Muslims and Jews. (How many Americans had ever heard about intra-Egyptian tensions between Muslims and Coptic Christians, which may well have been the impetus for this film? How many had even heard of Coptic Christians?)

I bring all this up partly by way of warning that, though some early misconceptions have now been stripped away, we should be careful, as events unfold in the coming days, about letting simplistic mental templates continue to shape the story.

For example, it looks from afar as if ongoing demonstrations and disturbances are all about this film, and as if they're therefore a reminder of how touchy those darn Muslims are. Well, it's true that many Muslims in not-very-cosmopolitan, not-very-diverse, and historically authoritarian countries don't yet share our commitment to free speech and pluralism, and react accordingly to offensive films. But it's also true that these disturbances are about a lot more than this film. A number of grievances are at work, including, as Issandr El Amrani notes, various aspects of American foreign policy. (As either I or my wife can tell you, the issue that sparks an argument and is ostensibly its subject isn't always what the argument is really about.)

Similarly, when Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, seems insufficiently concerned about the security of the American Embassy in Cairo--and when the Muslim Brotherhood itself supports (peaceful) demonstrations against the film--it may be tempting to see this as confirming fears about what happens when Islamists take over a country.

In truth, the behavior of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are less an expression of Islamism than a response to domestic political forces. Morsi and the Brotherhood are trying to fend off a political threat from Salafis who are true extremists; believe it or not, agitating against this movie is a way for them to increase the chances that radical Islamism will fail in Egypt--much as Republicans or Democrats may move toward the other party during the general election campaign in order to defeat it.

So by my count that's four misconceptions--two of them already debunked (about the provenance of the film and its consequences), and two of them still prevalent (about Morsi's motivations and the protestors' motivations).

And there may be one more misconception: the idea that the Egyptian protests were originally spontaneous. El Amrani reports that "the initial Egyptian protests were in good part due to a call by a small Salafi group... and timed for the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks."

The "crazy, touchy Muslims" meme has the virtue of convenience--it saves you the trouble of having to think about this carefully, because it seems to be a grand unifying theory, satisfyingly simple and powerful. But as Einstein, who like any good scientist loved theoretical simplicity, said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[Note: Whether Einstein said exactly that is not known, but he definitely articulated a more long-winded version of it: "[T]he supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." I'm sticking with the shorter version.]

Iran: The Hawks' Fantasyland

Iran: The Hawks' Fantasyland
Bruce Fein
September 11, 2012

Suppose Iran obtained nuclear weapons. The threat of retaliatory annihilation from the United States and Israel, both endowed with enormously superior nuclear arsenals, would assuredly deter Iran's clerical regime from a suicidal nuclear attack against either global or regional superpower.

The threat of nuclear incineration has deterred extremist or unstable regimes in Pakistan and North Korea from using nuclear weapons against historic enemies such as India (for Pakistan) and South Korea and Japan (for North Korea). Only in a neoconservative fantasyland, such as that inhabited by columnist Charles Krauthammer, would Iran not similarly be deterred.

The United States should refrain from any preemptive military strike in hopes of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear capability (which only Congress may authorize under Article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution). Waging war without the justification of self-defense constitutes the crime of aggression under international law. The post-World War II Nuremberg Tribunal, on which the United States sat, punished Hitler's subordinates for wars of aggression. Chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson elaborated: "To initiate a war of aggression . . . is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Possession of nuclear weapons, simpliciter, is not an act of belligerency creating a right of self-defense. If it were, every nation on the planet would be entitled to attack the United States.

Foreign aggression against Iran also would strengthen the ruling clerics by unifying the nation in defense of Iranian sovereignty. The 1980–1988 Iraq-Iran War provoked precisely that patriotic response despite the widespread unpopularity of the Iranian government. United States aggression would additionally risk calamitous blowback indistinguishable from our ill-considered support for Al Qaeda­then in embryo­to oppose the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The United States exercised military restraint when India, Pakistan and North Korea acquired nuclear arsenals. Even neoconservatives are not clamoring to reverse those decisions. Is the case of Iran different?

Since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran's ruling mullahs have predictably acted to advance national interests and to seek money and power in lieu of exporting Shia Islam around the world with force and violence. Ruling clerics and their flocks have shown no enthusiasm for emulating the Jewish mass suicide at Masada in protest of Roman paganism. They negotiated the release of American hostages in Tehran in exchange for an international arbitration tribunal to settle monetary claims. Ayatollah Khomeini accepted termination of the Iraq-Iran conflict. He rejected an indefinite apocalyptic holy war that might accelerate putative ecstasies of afterlife for a mounting number of dead Muslims. Iran negotiated compensation payments in lieu of military retaliation for the accidental United States destruction of a civilian airliner and the deaths of hundreds of passengers in 1988. Iran has refrained from complicity in terrorism in Israel notwithstanding Israeli assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in Iran. Members of Iran's notorious Revolutionary Guard are more preoccupied with making money in government-controlled or protected businesses than with pilgrimages to Mecca.

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons bespeaks realpolitik, not avidity for destroying Israel. For more than fifty years, the United States has attempted to manipulate the internal affairs of Iran to its own advantage. The CIA engineered the overthrow of popularly elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 in favor of the pliable and corrupt shah. Washington propped up the shah with massive weapons sales and diplomatic or economic support until he was toppled in the 1979 revolution.

Since then, the covert and overt policy of the United States has been regime change through economic strangulation, sabotage or otherwise­a variation of 1953. The United States supported Iraq in the Iraq-Iran War triggered by Saddam Hussein's aggression. In October 1995, then congressman Newt Gingrich authored the first of several articles urging covert action to overthrow the government of Iran. Gingrich then had $18 million inserted into the classified portion of the annual Intelligence Authorization Act to support covert action to "change the behavior" of the Iranian regime. The provision leaked to the press, was signed by President Clinton, and provoked the Iranian parliament to appropriate $20 million to counter the U.S. covert action.

The United States similarly desires regime change in North Korea, but Washington has refrained from military force to accomplish that objective because North Korea sports nuclear weapons. Iran's leaders have learned from that example. They rationally seek nuclear weapons to deter the United States or Israel from resorting to military force to oust them from power. If the United States and Israel renounced regime change in Iran by outside force or manipulation, Iran might abandon its quest for nuclear weapons in the manner of South Africa, Argentina and Brazil.

Krauthammer Debunked

Neoconservatives have conjured up fantasies about Iran's earthbound theocracy to justify an illegal United States war of "anticipatory self-defense." Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Krauthammer proffers threefold reasons for believing that deterring Iran is fundamentally different than deterring the Soviet Union: the nature of the regime, the nature of the grievance and the nature of the target. But Krauthammer's distinctions are specious.

Soviet dictators were brutal and aggressive far beyond anything risked by Iran's ruling mullahs. Stalin allegedly quipped: "The death of one man is a tragedy, the deaths of millions is a statistic." Stalin or his successors callously perpetrated genocide in Ukraine, liquidated the Kulaks, assassinated Leon Trotsky in Mexico, supported North Korea during the Korean War, occupied Eastern and Central Europe, mercilessly suppressed the Hungarian uprising in 1956, provoked the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, operated a terror network described by neoconservative darling Clair Sterling and invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The Soviet Union featured a massive nuclear arsenal, delivery vehicles and conventional forces that might have inflicted a devastating first strike against the United States that could have foreclosed or crippled nuclear retaliation. Despite the indifference of the Soviet Union toward mass killings and its formidable military might, deterrence worked for the United States throughout the Cold War.

Krauthammer suggests that Iran, equipped with only a tiny, primitive nuclear arsenal, could nevertheless not be deterred. Iran's ruling clerics, says the columnist, covet death and the afterlife triggered by a holy war more than life on earth, power or creature comforts.

In contrast to the Soviet Union, Krauthammer argues, Iran is complicit in suicide bombings, which ostensibly demonstrates indifference or eagerness for death. Did he forget that Tsar Alexander II was killed by a suicide bomber in 1881 in a spasm of pre-Bolshevik terror, and that Lenin's brother was hanged in 1887 for complicity in a bomb plot? In any event, if Iran's clerical regime were heedless of human carnage, then the war with Iraq would have been fought until the last Iranian perished. The conflict would not have ended inconclusively in 1988. Further, the Marxism-Leninism dogma of the Soviet Union prophesying the dictatorship of the proletariat and the withering away of the state was no less messianic or unhinged from reality than is Shia millenarianism.

The Soviet Union was predictably nationalist but supported local communism movements around the globe with money and arms when consistent with Soviet nationalism­for example, Angola, Cuba or Nicaragua. Iran likewise is reliably nationalist. Indeed, Iranians historically have sneered at their Arab neighbors as uncivilized. Enmity between Iran's Shia and Arab Sunnis is notorious. Iran's support for Shia adherents in Syria, Bahrain, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East is no different than Soviet support for local communist political parties. Contrary to Krauthammer, the realpolitik of Iran today fits the realpolitik of the Soviet Union like a glove.

Krauthammer instructs: "For Iran, the very existence of a Jewish state on Muslim land is a crime, an abomination, a cancer with which no negotiation, no coexistence, no accommodation is possible." If this were true, Iran would long ago have exhausted itself in more than three decades of endless conventional warfare and suicide bombings in Israel. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, has coexisted with Israel for thirty-three years. Krauthammer is unable to summon a crumb of evidence suggesting coexistence has reached its endpoint.

Finally, Krauthammer insists that Iran would risk self-annihilation with a nuclear attack aiming to destroy Israel because the majority of 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide­the ummah­would survive the devastating local nuclear exchanges. The ummah is 75–90 percent Sunni. The vast majority­including Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan­deplore Shia Iran's nuclear and national ambitions and view Shia Muslims as heretics. At present, Iran is supporting violence against Sunnis in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. Thus, the assertion that Iran would use nuclear weapons against Israel and risk the destruction of Iran's Shia population to benefit Sunni Muslims elsewhere is like the willful blindness that refused to see the intramural communist enmity between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China.

Beware of neoconservatives bearing warnings. As Krauthammer's imagined nuclear nightmare illustrates, they characteristically invent or inflate danger manifold to justify military force, military spending or the crushing of individual liberty. Never forget that the alternative to accepting life with reasonable risks is vassalage to an omnipotent president promising a risk-free existence.

Bruce Fein is author of American Empire Before The Fall. He was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Reagan.

**JP** Fw: Dua maanga karin

--- On Sun, 9/16/12, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: Dua maanga karin
Date: Sunday, September 16, 2012, 5:41 PM

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
For more options, visit this group at
You can also visit our blog site : &
on facebook

Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any g roup , to dictate to others.

Hello John,
Here is where we do disagree.  I see a lot of flaws with our current political party system, but I also see a lot of positive, productive aspects of our system. 
In a nutshell,  we, as a Nation, have always been divided between the "Federalists"  and the "Anti-Federalists".  There has continuously been this ongoing battle in our Nation for over two centuries....."Jeffersonians", as opposed to a "Hamiltonians".  "Federalists" as opposed to  the "Anti-Federalists".  "Strict Constructionists" versus the "Implied Powers" advocators of the Constitution;  those who believe in "State's Rights" over a large federal bureaucracy. The "Federalist"  belief of a National Bank,  versus the Anti-Federalist opposition to a National Bank,  and its trappings.   It boils down to how much federal government do we want in our lives.
Today, these distinctions are very much embraced in the Democrat Party,  which I believe has been broken beyond repair by the infiltration of socialists/communists; but still cling to a Hamiltonian "Large Central Government"  proposition;  as opposed to the Republicans which still embrace a "Jeffersonian/Anti-Federalist/States Rights"  agenda. 
Although there were many of our Founding Fathers who were opposed to the political party system,  these opponents,  (Jefferson and Franklin being two of them)  were nevertheless members of political parties, and they considered them necessary evils of their day.
Today, in the New Millennium  the political party system still remains the only viable mechanism to unite various voters who hold specific issues as their most important, together.   There are at least four or five broad classifications of voter types that usually vote Republican; a coalition if you will; and  some of these group's beliefs obviously overlap.  I am stereotyping here but briefly, by example:
The "Social Conservatives", or "traditionalists"; sometimes unflatteringly referred to as the  "fundamentalist religious zealots"; of which family, church and community are their most important issues;
The "Economic Conservatives"; who view nature as actually benign, encouraging individualism, experimentation, and entrepreneurship;
The "Libertarians"; or "Constitutionalists; who in general look for a strict adherence to the Constitution, and a very limited, restricted government;
The "Fatalists"; or, (again for lack of a better term) the "NeoCons"; (and I deterst that term, because by definition, all "NeoCons" are former Democrats) who generally believe in a strong central government, with a "Federalist" perspective. They are still motivated to vote Republican, because of the Republican platform of a strong national defense.
Again,  I don't understand where or how you believe that political parties in our Nation are now, somehow unconstitutional.   When you get a moment, I would like to understand this train of thought.

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 3:23 PM, NoEinstein <> wrote:
Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
by the faction would get elected.  At that point, political parties
became UNCONSTITUTIONAL!  A process too many of us now accept as the
norm is to have political primaries decide which of the 'acceptable'
candidates gets to vie for office on the first Tuesday in November.
At the time, those things must have seemed logical, because of the
great difficulty of having runoff elections in the horse-and-buggy
era.  But there is little such difficulty, today!  In fact, my "NC"
defines an election process that in just three steps will FAIRLY
narrow down from any number of candidates wishing to get elected, and
without there being any more UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties. To

Section 1:  Executive power shall be vested in a President of the
United States of America.  Candidates for President shall be Citizens
born in the USA who are at least 35 years of age.  With the exception
of the incumbent President and/or VP—if eligible and seeking re
election—other candidates shall, within ninety days of the date of
filing as a candidate for President, have obtained the endorsement of
a min. of 25,000 confirmed registered voters knowledgeable of such
candidate's qualifications.  The 3rd Tuesday in July, voters of all
the states and territories shall reduce the field of presidential
candidates to 8, with the incumbent Pres. & VP to be included in such
number, if applicable.  The 3rd Tuesday in October, voters shall
reduce the field to four, with the incumbent Pres. and VP not
automatically included.  The 1st Tuesday in November, each voter
selects their 1st & 2nd choices—points 4 and 3 respectively.  The
President and Vice President Elect receive the highest and the 2nd
highest total points.

Results of the election in November will not be like announcing the
winner of a four-year-long "game" being played out on the media.  The
voters get to fairly decide who they want to elect without all of the
group-against-group fisticuffs.  The Founding Fathers never intended
to allow groups to have any influence above one-person-one-vote of the
members.  There shall be no "powerful" leaders speaking for any group
and no lobbyists for any groups allowed, because lobbying shall be a
crime.  The result will be that CAPITALISM will be the only game in
town, and based on the sports-mentality of the masses, that game
should become a hot one, indeed!  — John A. Armistead —

On Sep 13, 9:26 am, Keith In Tampa <> wrote:
> Apart from your thesis on political parties,  I agree with most of what you
> wrote John.
> No question the "two party" political system that we have currently has
> been corrupted.   Nevertheless, it is clear that the victor of the
> presidential nomination process has a great deal of influence in writing
> the party platform.  The National Party Platform differs from the
> State(s)'  Party Platform, as I can personally attest to.  I have been
> involved in both North Carolina's and more recently Florida's platform
> writing process.  This again takes away from your "Weak govern the Strong"
> theory,  but another conversation for another time.
> The "Mob Mentality"  is a tool currently being used by the Democrats.   I
> would disagree that Christians in general utilize this mentality or
> process;  but again, if you can point to examples,  I am all ears.
> Good to hear from you!
> Keith
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:56 AM, NoEinstein <>wrote:
> > MJ:  Please read my reply to Keith on this same question.  — J. A. A.
> > —
> > On Sep 10, 12:10 pm, MJ <> wrote:
> > > At 07:46 AM 9/10/2012, you wrote:Yes, Studio, but "the two major
> > political parties" are 100%
> > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution! Much of what the
> > parties *do* is certainly unconstitutional, but the parties, themselves,
> > are certainly not.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of demand.
> > -- Josh Billings
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help see
> > * Visit our other community at
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see

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

Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any group , to dictate to others.

Dear plainol...: You seem to be "arguing" with yourself. No one has
ever claimed that "Free Speech" requires anyone to speak up! — John
A. Armistead —

On Sep 15, 9:57 am, plainolamerican <> wrote:
> So,  there are no unalienable rights?
> ---
> no - they are perceived.
> You use the words 'unalienable rights' like an entitlement.
> That a "right"  to man's free thought; the exercise of speech is a
> fiction?
> ---
> we all want 'rights' (i.e. free speech) but they're not always
> 'available.'
> you choose to remain silent or not.
> On Sep 14, 5:11 pm, Keith In Tampa <> wrote:
> > So,  there are no unalienable rights?  That a "right"  to man's free
> > thought; the exercise of speech is a fiction?
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:54 PM, plainolamerican <
> > > wrote:
> > > they don't exist except in the mind of the relgious
> > > On Sep 13, 3:25 pm, Keith In Tampa <> wrote:
> > > > Again,  I ask you, where do they come from?
> > > > You've yet to answer.
> > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:54 PM, plainolamerican
> > > > <>wrote:
> > > > > Unalienable rights come from the moral consensus of
> > > > > the People.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > religious people
> > > > > On Sep 12, 6:02 pm, NoEinstein <> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 10, 1:26 pm, plainolamerican <>
> > > wrote:>
> > > > > All unalienable rights are from God.
> > > > > > No, plainol...:  Unalienable rights come from the moral consensus of
> > > > > > the People.  But such sounds more immutable, if the language refers
> > > to
> > > > > > 'God', or "Mother Nature', or more correctly, to all of the natural
> > > > > > laws of the Universe.  — J. A. A. —> ---
> > > > > > > speculation noted
> > > > > > > On Sep 10, 11:18 am, Keith In Tampa <>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hello John,
> > > > > > > > Although it was difficult to get through that long winded
> > > > > disortation,
> > > > > > > > (reminds me of someone who graduated from Clemson!)  and I agree
> > > > > that the
> > > > > > > > Obama Administration has by executive order installed
> > > > > unconstitutional,
> > > > > > > > communistic mandates upon "We, The People";   I am at a loss as
> > > to
> > > > > how you
> > > > > > > > believe that our two party system is unconstitutional.
> > > > > > > > Far from it.
> > > > > > > > There is nothing in the Constitution,  (or maybe you can point
> > > out
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Article and paragraph for us?)  that restricts the association of
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > > minded politically thinking individuals from forming
> > > associations or
> > > > > groups
> > > > > > > > to further their political cause.
> > > > > > > > I also take exception to your notion that the "weak govern the
> > > > > strong".
> > > > > > > > Examples please.  With regard to bias within the law.....Yes.
> > >  It's
> > > > > true,
> > > > > > > > and has been since the beginning of recorded history.  The United
> > > > > States is
> > > > > > > > no exception, and I can cite numerous instances within our 235
> > > year
> > > > > > > > history,  beginning with the "Shea's Rebellion"  of bias
> > > contained
> > > > > within
> > > > > > > > the law.   To some degree,  it is these "biases"  that you refer
> > > to,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > shape and form our "culture" and our "morals".
> > > > > > > > All unalienable rights are from God,  not government and they
> > > cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > stripped by government,  unless one "volunteers"  to waive his
> > > God
> > > > > given
> > > > > > > > unalienable right.
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 1:46 PM, NoEinstein <
> > > > >>wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Yes, Studio, but "the two major political parties" are 100%
> > > > > > > > > UNCONSTITUTIONAL under our present Constitution!  The USA
> > > isn't a
> > > > > > > > > democracy, but is supposed to be (but never has been) a
> > > > > Representative
> > > > > > > > > Republic.  The Founding Fathers were totally committed to the
> > > > > > > > > principle that the PEOPLE control government.  Nowhere in the
> > > > > > > > > Constitution is it sanctioned to allow political parties to
> > > > > substitute
> > > > > > > > > biased group power for the "close to a Democracy" power of the
> > > > > voters
> > > > > > > > > on election day.  Yes, there were Whigs and Tories in the 18th
> > > > > > > > > century.  But those were mechanisms for government control far
> > > > > > > > > different from a Representative Republic!  Note: That
> > > treasonous
> > > > > > > > > BASTARD in the White House, Barack H. Obama, still supposes
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > USA is "our great Democracy", while he acts as our
> > > > > communist-socialist
> > > > > > > > > dictator.  As numbers of you have pointed out a year or two
> > > ago,
> > > > > > > > > Democracies—if that's the only stipulated 'control' of
> > > > > government—will
> > > > > > > > > allow the weak to control the strong.  And that isn't just if
> > > it is
> > > > > > > > > like: two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for supper.
> > >  Having
> > > > > > > > > controls in the Constitution that mandate justice and fairness
> > > will
> > > > > > > > > allow the voters to decide controversial issues WITHIN the
> > > bounds
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > justice and fairness.  No biased group gets to define justice
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > fairness so as to allow them to exploit others for their own
> > > > > selfish
> > > > > > > > > gain.  The best route to saving the USA, as well as our entire
> > > > > > > > > socioeconomic system, is to strip all biased groups of power
> > > over
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > course of government.  Once that happens, there won't be any
> > > more
> > > > > > > > > pressure to have governments become all things for all people,
> > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > as we should know by now ( but Obama doesn't), doesn't work!  —
> > > > > John
> > > > > > > > > A. Armistead —
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 6, 11:48 am, studio <> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 5:39 pm, NoEinstein <>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Dear Studio:
> > > > > > > > > > >  Since both of those are issues of
> > > > > > > > > > > high controversy, the American People should be allowed to
> > > > > decide once
> > > > > > > > > > > and for all in direct referenda.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm in TOTAL agreement with that!
> > > > > > > > > > However, Republitards will remind you we live in a Republic,
> > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > Democracy.
> > > > > > > > > > And neither of the 2 major parties actually want people to
> > > > > decide by
> > > > > > > > > > referendum.
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > > > > > For options & help seehttp://
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > * Visit our other community at
> > > > > > > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > > > > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > > For options & help see
> > > > > * Visit our other community at
> > > > > * 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
> > > * Visit our other community at
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see

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