World News

Thursday, September 1, 2011

STUNNING THREE MINUTES ..

HI my American cousins

As some of you know I am a Canadian. This video was sent to me from a Brit friend from Bangkok. He was sent it by a friend in Britain,

My point is. It is not only you that are worried about your county's future. We all are.

If the U.S. can't be that beacon of freedom and keep it's roll as world policeman. Someone else will step into the vacuum,

If the U.S. keeps on it's present course. Showing weakness at home and abroad. More countries will take advantage of that. China and Russia are just licking their lips over the prospect of a post American world. A world where the power of the U.S. is killed from within without a single shot being fired.

Your economic and political turmoil threatens the very existence of western liberal democracy.

So, please view this post with that in mind. Your future and the future off all of us who value the ideals of a liberal democracy are at stake. more so than any time in our lives.

Bear

Your Canadian cousin. Literally.

This is an eye opening video that should wake the U.S. up.

Let us get our heads out of the sand.

Only three minutes but it will blow you away.

Sit down and fasten your safety belt. You will not

believe this.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/VtVbUmcQSuk

--
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.

The Decade's Biggest Scam

Harold | August 30, 2011 at 8:08 am | Categories: CIA, Corruption, Criminal Activity, Executive, FBI, Government, Legislative, NeoConservatives, PATRIOT Act, Pentagon, Police State, Privacy Rights, Progressives, Propaganda, Sovereignty, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-6uk

Glenn Greenwald, Salon 8/29/2011 The Los Angeles Times examines the staggering sums of money expended on patently absurd domestic "homeland security" projects: $75 billion per year for things such as a Zodiac boat with side-scan sonar to respond to a potential attack on a lake in tiny Keith County, Nebraska, and hundreds of "9-ton BearCat armored vehicles, complete [...]

Perry Is Right about Social Security

Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Perry Is Right about Social Security
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Not surprisingly, Governor Rick Perry is catching flack from mainstream statists over his calling Social Security "a Ponzi scheme." For statists, Social Security, as the crown jewel of the welfare state, is sacrosanct. Any challenge to the program or even an accurate description of how it works is, well, close to treason. Every red-blooded, patriotic American is expected to hew to the official line: People voluntary put their money into a federal trust fund and they have a right to get it out upon retirement.

So, for statists Perry has committed treason and even heresy by pointing out that Social Security is really nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, the type of scheme that federal officials criminally prosecute people for when they do this sort of thing in the private sector.

What exactly is a Ponzi scheme? How does it work? Who was Charles Ponzi? What ended up happening to him?

The answers to those questions are contained in a great article entitled " Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme" by Michael D. Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. The article appears on the website of the conservative publication National Review.

Tanner carefully documents the nature of Ponzi's scheme and why he was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

Ponzi would accept money from investors with the promise of paying high returns on the money. But Ponzi didn't invest the money. Instead, he would use money taken from later investors to pay high returns to early investors. The scheme went on until he was unable to find enough new investors to cover the payments that needed to be made to early investors. At that point, the system collapsed and Ponzi's massive fraud became apparent.

Social Security is based on the same fraudulent principles as Ponzi's scheme. Money that is taken from later taxpayers is used to pay off early taxpayers. As Tanner points out, over the decades the number of people from whom the money is being taken has sharply decreased compared to the number of people receiving Social Security. Tanner observes that "in 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two."

Tanner relates the fascinating story of Ida Mae Fuller, the first Social Security recipient. She paid $44 in Social Security taxes and ended up receiving $20,993 in benefits. How did she do that? In the same way that Ponzi's early investors received their high returns by being paid money from later taxpayers.

So, Perry is right to describe Social Security as a rotten, fraudulent system. But the obvious question arises: What is Perry's solution? He didn't say, but I think he'll soon realize that he's boxed himself in.

Like any other conservative politician, Perry is not about to call for repealing Social Security. He's too afraid of losing votes to do that. Yet, where does that leave him? It leaves him in the position of continuing to support a system that he himself knows is immoral, rotten, and fraudulent. How can the continued embrace of an immoral, rotten, fraudulent system be reconciled with Perry's deep commitment to moral and religious principles?

Of course, we libertarians don't face that problem. We hold that Social Security should be repealed, immediately and completely. It's a no-good, immoral, rotten, fraudulent system that should never have been enacted. It's based on taking money from people to whom it belongs in order to give the loot to people to whom it does not belong. It's the most anti-family program that's ever been conceived. And as most everyone now knows, it's one of the major causes of the federal government's out-of-control spending, debt, taxation, inflation, and impending bankruptcy.

Thus, there is only one solution to Social Security that is consistent with moral and religious principles. Get rid of it, fully and immediately.

We libertarians also have a firm belief in freedom. We believe that God's gift of free will and the principles of a free society entitle people to reject their parents and others if that's their choice. By the same token, however, we place unwavering faith in ourselves, in the free market, and in other people. We have no doubts that most children honor their mother and father on a purely voluntary basis when the need arises. The same holds true for brothers, sisters, friends, neighbors, and people who believe in helping out people in need with their own money.

That is the distinguishing characteristic between libertarianism and statism. We believe in freedom of choice and voluntary action. Statists believe in force and coercion. There is no better example of this difference than with the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-08-31.asp

Obama Promoting Treason Using Criminal Banks

Volubrjotr | August 31, 2011 at 03:13 | Tags: BarackObama, Cenk Uygur, Eric Schneiderman, new york, New York Attorney General, obama administration, The Young Turks (talk show), United State | Categories: bailout, barack obama, government, obama, political, politics, soetoro, subversion, treason, video, yes we can | URL: http://wp.me/psXSG-bRM

Efforts by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman have motivated AG's in other states to investigate banks for questionable mortgage practices. Why is the Obama Administration interfering? The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur explains. RonPaul

DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit Subverts Free Enterprise, Job Creation

Contact:
Nicole Ciandella, 202.331.2773

DOJ Antitrust Lawsuit Subverts Free Enterprise, Job Creation

Gov't Regulators Jeopardize Pro-Competitive AT&T, T-Mobile Deal

Washington, D.C., August 31, 2011 – This morning, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust lawsuit seeking to block the proposed acquisition of T-Mobile by AT&T. Telecommunications analysts at the Competitive Enterprise Institute blasted the suit, arguing that it will negatively impact consumers, innovation, and the economy.

Statement of Ryan Radia, CEI Associate Director of Technology Studies:

The Department of Justice's lawsuit amounts to a subversion of the evolution of free enterprise and economic progress. Federal regulators and their arbitrary "merger guidelines" are woefully ill-equipped to judge the merits of proposed business deals, particularly in dynamic modern markets such as the wireless sector. To be sure, no business deal is ever guaranteed to benefit consumers or the economy. But market participants, including upstream suppliers, customers, potential entrants, and capital markets, stand ready to check detrimental concentration in telecommunications if it arises.

The suit is also further evidence of this administration's antipathy toward the job-creating sector. AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs by accelerating the rollout of advanced wireless networks nationwide. Indeed, 4G mobile broadband is expected to generate tens of billions of dollars in economic growth in coming years, as a new Deloitte report concluded.

Statement of Luke Pelican, CEI Policy Fellow:

Contrary to the Justice Department's assertions, competition would likely thrive as a result of the proposed deal. A more robust AT&T would increase pressure on Sprint and Verizon Wireless to compete against the combined company, while allowing competitors to cull dissatisfied customers from AT&T should the company increase prices. On the other hand, the cell towers and spectrum AT&T will gain as a result of the deal will bring greater coverage for its customers, especially in dense urban areas. AT&T's move to LTE-based technology would also benefit T-Mobile users who are currently served by that company's HSPA+ network.

As it stands today, T-Mobile is in a compromised position, as it lacks a viable path forward in the competitive wireless market. Deutsche Telekom has emphatically stated its intention not to invest in overhauling T-Mobile's network to offer LTE technology. Should the Justice Department succeed in blocking the deal, it will leave millions of consumers with obsolete technology and inferior service. Together, AT&T and T-Mobile will provide consumers with greater benefits than the two firms will if they go it alone.

The federal government's chronic inability to bring additional spectrum to the market makes this deal all the more important. With emerging mobile applications and growing wireless broadband usage, efficient spectrum utilization is crucial. By denying AT&T access to T-Mobile's spectrum, the DOJ's lawsuit will harm consumers and industry by forcing them to wait for Congress and the FCC to liberalize more spectrum – a process that could take over a decade.

>>For more, see CEI's Comments on the AT&T -- T-Mobile Merger Before the Federal Communications Commission

CEI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest group that studies the intersection of regulation, risk, and markets. For more about CEI, visit www.cei.org/about-cei.

Competitive Enterprise Institute | 1899 L Street NW 12th Floor | Washington, DC 20036

Email Marketing by