World News

Friday, August 19, 2011

Fwd: Coil of Rage

Any thoughts?

From: "john robertson" <lawjkr@me.com>
To: "Tracey home" <droblaw@comcast.net>, "kevin robertson" <hakawenterprises@mac.com>, "Philip O'Halloran" <editrel@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2011 11:07:54 PM
Subject: Fwd: Coil of Rage

Begin forwarded message:

From: anne m simoneau <annemsimoneau@gmail.com>

Date: August 18, 2011 9:22:56 PM EDT

To: audrey.amberg@yahoo.com

Subject: Coil of Rage

-----

Coil of Rage

THIS SHOULD IRRITATE SOME PEOPLE.

When you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.

A Coil of Rage

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass .... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future..... I rest my case.

I bought and read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It was difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he use to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE".. His words, not mine.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT -- HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW! Is anyone out there awake?

Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father:

"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams From My Father :

"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams From My Father:

"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."

From Dreams From My Father:

"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams From My Father:

"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY .............. and most scary:

From Audacity of Hope:

"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation! Keep your eye on him and don't blink.

I don't care whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Conservative or a liberal; be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

Spread the word!

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The US had no investment in oil in the 1950's a few corporations did. Iran had no naval or armed forces to speak of in the 1950's nor did any other country in the area. Egypt, who had and has no oil had the cat by the tail... the Suez... and they closed it by sinking a few ships in it due to undue western "influence" over oil in the area.

There is never anything prudent about interfering in the internal policies of another nation over oil. Iraq who produces more and exports more oil than Iran then and again now was shut down for 8 years with little to no effect on the price of oil and the US ended up with squat... including the mysterious WMDs.

The question of oil imports presented U.S. policymakers with a strategic dilemma. If what would be needed in an emergency was a rapid increase in production, oil in the ground was of little use, and even proved reserves would not be particularly helpful. The need could only be filled by spare productive capacity. Too high a level of imports would undercut such capacity by driving out all but the lowest cost producers. Moreover, reliance on imports, especially from the Middle East, was risky from a security standpoint because of the chronic instability of the region and its vulnerability to Soviet attack. However, restricting imports and encouraging the increased use of a nonrenewable resource would eventually under-mine the goal of maintaining spare productive capacity and preserving a national defense reserve.

Rising oil imports led to demands by domestic producers and the coal industry for protection against cheaper foreign oil. In contrast, the President's Materials Policy Commission, appointed by President Truman in January 1951 and headed by the chairman of the Columbia Broadcasting System, William S. Paley, had called for a policy of ensuring access to the lowest cost sources of supply wherever located. The commission's report, issued in June 1952, rejected national self-sufficiency in favor of interdependence, arguing that the United States had to be concerned about the needs of its allies for imported raw materials and about the needs of pro-Western less developed countries for markets for their products. Although the commission admitted that self-sufficiency in oil and other vital raw materials was possible, it argued that it would be very expensive, that the controls necessary to make it possible would interfere with trade, that it would undercut the goal of rebuilding and integrating western Europe and Japan under U.S. auspices, and that it would increase instability in the Third World by limiting export earnings.

Nevertheless, after attempts to implement voluntary oil import restrictions failed, the Eisenhower administration, in March 1959, imposed mandatory import quotas, with preferences given to Western Hemisphere sources. Although the Mandatory Oil Import Program (MOIP) seemed to be a victory for advocates of national self-sufficiency, the result, ironically, was to make the United States more dependent on oil imports in the long run because the restrictions meant that increases in U.S. consumption were met mainly by domestic production.

Great policies that are contingent first on the needs of others without assuring their own position continues to be the US policy today.

Read more: Coping with change - Oil http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Coping-with-change.html#ixzz1VUL0Frou

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:50 AM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.

--
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.

--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
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.

Walmart Has Added a Sign to Speed Checkout Service

lowtechgrannie | August 17, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Tags: Walmart | Categories: Humor | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8Mr

H/T Kelleigh

~LTG

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

Podcast interview re the aridification of the American Southwest w/ Dr. Richard Seager

Posted this morning at Electric Politics, a podcast interview about
the aridification of the American Southwest with Dr. Richard Seager of
Columbia University, a leading climate scientist who is especially
expert on the causes behind and the history of rainfall in the region.
The short version is this: People living in the American Southwest are
in for a rude shock. They're not experiencing a "drought" (and they
haven't yet even experienced the equivalent of the record-setting dry
spell of the 1950s). Instead, what's happening is that the climate in
the Southwest is permanently changing into a more arid state. Not
quite a desert, but close enough. It's one more proof, if you will, of
anthropogenic climate change. And in this case the science is
extraordinarily robust.

Policy makers in the region and in Washington had better pay attention
if they're to avoid or ameliorate vicious political struggles over
water rights, particularly between population centers and agriculture.
Most likely, however, those in power only will recognize what's
happening with 20/20 hindsight, long after the Southwest has dried up.

Thanks very much for listening! If you think the podcast is worthwhile
please forward the link.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podcast/2011/08/permanent_aridification_transf.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.

Re: Who Schooled Whom?

The United States has not only a duty, but an inherent right to "intervene" when its interests or citizens are threatened or somehow placed in jeopardy. Collectively, our Nation has used great restraint, and its not as if the United States is known for sticking its nose in other Nations' business or affairs, unless our liberty interests are somehow affected.

The support of the Shah and his family was a prudent political move and kept stability in that Nation for almost thirty years. A Nation that America had an abundance of interests in, (as did Great Britain) as Iran supplied the bulk of crude oil to the West in the 1950s, and we had a ton of money invested in that oil, its exploration, the technology to retrieve it, and the supply chain to get the product to market. Just as important, geopolitically, Iran sits at the Straights of Hormuz, and it was critical especially during the 1950s and 1960s that the Persian Gulf and the Straights of Hormuz remain a viable shipping lane.