World News

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Fwd: Tomorrow: GMU Lecture: Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DC Objectivist Salon (DCOS)
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Subject: Tomorrow: GMU Lecture: Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com

Meetup Reminder
DC Objectivist Salon (DCOS)
<http://www.meetup.com/t/img/md1p/logo_92_no_r.gif>
GMU Lecture: Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction
is happening tomorrow
When: Where: RSVP:
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
8:00 PM
George Mason University, SUB II, Ballroom
4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA
Fairfax, VA 22030
Yes
No
Who's going:
10 Students of Objectivism
<http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/d/0/1/7/thumb_10913271.jpeg>
<http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/7/c/3/a/thumb_22651802.jpeg>
<http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/1/f/6/5/thumb_9668037.jpeg>
<http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/b/5/e/9/thumb_10726569.jpeg>
<http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/member/5/e/4/c/thumb_9384140.jpeg>
See all
"Ayn Rand's Ideas: An Introduction"
A talk at George Mason University
Who: Elan Journo is a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute, and the director of ARI's Policy division.
What: A talk introducing the fundamentals of Ayn Rand's phi...
Learn more

More Meetups from this group

Jan
22

10:00 AM

DCOS Book Discussion: Objective Economics by Northrup Buechner

Panera Bread

8191 Strawberry Lane, Merrifield, VA 22042

Join us for a discussion of the first book on economics that explicitly uses induction and Ayn Rand's philosophy. The book is Objective Economics: How Ayn Rand's Philosophy Changes Everything About Economics. Published in 2011, the book presents ...… MORE

RSVP →

More Meetups:

3 upcoming Meetups

Add info@meetup.com to your address book to receive all Meetup emails

To manage your email settings, click here

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668

Meetup HQ in NYC is hiring! http://www.meetup.com/jobs/

--
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.

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Re: Lesser of Two Evils

Last night's 60 Minutes featured a truly shameful story on the Justice Department's failure to investigate Wall Street, crony corporatism, and Countrywide. Steve Kroft pretended to be investigating while not asking the Obama Justice Department lackeys (former Clinton administration lackeys) ANY pointed questions at all. One wonders if he got slapped around for asking Nancy Pelosi about her insider trading profits a few weeks back and was told to make atonement.

He was skewered for it today for an hour by radio host Chris Plante on DC's WMAL (which is usually rebroadcast on the weekend, since I can't find it for you on-line). But all one need do is repair to Wikipedia (George Soros has not bought it yet) to find that everyone from Nancy Pelosi's son to Congressman James Clyburn to former Senator Chris Dodd to many other Clinton and Obama hireling were given favorable loan terms for keeping the party going:

"Friends of Angelo (FOA)" VIP program

Further information: Countrywide financial political loan scandal

In June 2008 Conde Nast Portfolio reported that several influential lawmakers and politicians, including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, and Fannie Mae former CEO Jim Johnson, received favorable mortgage financing from Countrywide by virtue of being "Friends of Angelo."^[13]^[14]

Senator Dodd received a $75,000 reduction in mortgage payments from Countrywide at allegedly below-market rates on his Washington, D.C. and Connecticut homes. Michael Moore'sCapitalism: A Love Story shows on film that this was actually over a million dollars of a sweet-heart mortgage deal.^[13]^[15] Dodd nonetheless called for stronger regulation of mortgage lenders and proposed that predatory lenders should face criminal charges.^[16]

Clinton Jones III, senior counsel of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity, and "an adviser to ranking Republican members of Congress responsible for legislation of interest to the financial services industry and of importance to Countrywide." was given special treatment. Jones is now state director for federal residential-mortgage bundler Freddie Mac. Alphonso Jackson, acting secretary of HUD at the time and long time friend and Texas neighbor of President Bush, received a discounted mortgage for himself and sought one for his daughter. "In 2003, using V.I.P. loans for nearly $1 million apiece, Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and C.E.O. from 1999 to 2004, twice refinanced his seven-bedroom home, which has a pool and movie theater."^[16]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's son, Paul Pelosi, Jr., also received a loan with Countrywide. Barbara Boxer, Adam H. Putnam, Richard C. Holbrooke, James E. Clyburn, and Donna Shalala are also among those with mortgages from Countrywide.

CBS News has obtained the following list of then-Fannie Mae employees whose names have been turned over to investigators as having received VIP loans from Countrywide:^[17]

Sandra Adams: Fannie Mae Account Associate
Nitirwork Armstrong: Fannie Mae Director
Gregg Ayres: Fannie Mae Customer Acct Manager
Jeffrey Baker: Fannie Mae Business Analyst
Ingrid Beckles: Freddie Mac VP Default Mgmt
Cherry Billings: Fannie Mae Asst to CEO
Christine Buckley: Fannie Mae Sr Assistant
Sharon Canavan: Fannie Mae Govt Relations/Lobbyist
Delynn Conley: Fannie Mae Underwriter
Carla Corpuz: Fannie Mae Senior Underwriter
Tanguy De Carbonnieres: Fannie Mae Legal Counsel
Bernard Deane: Fannie Mae Director
Mollie Dougherty: Fannie Mae Sr Business Manager
Roy Downey: Fannie Mae Director
Cynthia Fatica: Fannie Mae Legal Counsel
Jamie Gorelick: Fannie Mae Vice Chair
Lizbeth Grant: Fannie Mae Director Tec/Secondary Mkt
Greta Hamilton: Fannie Mae Manager/Home Loans
Lester Handy: Fannie Mae Consultant
James Johnson: Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO
Jack King: Fannie Mae Manager
Karen King: Fannie Mae Credit Risk manager
Gerald Langbauer: Freddie Mac VP Sales
Derek Lowe: Fannie Mae Technician/Home Loans
Mary Lee Moriarity: Fannie Mae Sr Underwriter Consult/Lending
Daniel Mudd: Fannie Mae Vice Chair and COO
Paulette Porter: Fannie Mae Sr Proj Mgr/Mtg Securities
Alan Quirion: Freddie Mac Director
John Radwanski: Freddie Mac Sr Port Director
Franklin Raines: Fannie Mae Chairman and CEO
Robin Ramsay: Fannie Mae Customer Acct Manager
Rebecca Rosena: Fannie Mae Credit Risk manager
Irwin Rosenstein: Fannie Mae Ass. General Counsel
Robert Sanborn: Fannie Mae Vice President
William Shirreffs: Fannie Mae Director
Joseph Silva: Fannie Mae Servicing Portfolio Manager
Donna Simpson: Fannie Mae Customer Acct Manager
Michelle Sorensen: Fannie Mae Sr Business An/Mortgage
Mary Ann Staley: Fannie Mae Marketing Dir
Deborah Kay: Tretler Fannie Mae VP Risk Management
Kirk Willison: Freddie Mac VP Trade Relations/Dir Industry Relations
David Yoon: Fannie Mae Acct Associate

[edit]

Newt the hypocrite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jzi3HBCS2M&feature=youtu.be

You can't trust anybody with power. - Newt Gingrich

--
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: Families at Risk from Immigration Authorities

ok, continue calling me a crackpot and I'll continue to call you a
warmongering imperialist

On Dec 5, 11:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love it when Crackpots disagree!!
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the bottom line is that Americans can't afford an open border
> > policy ... nor can we afford to be interventionists around the globe
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "After living for 21 years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was
> > > deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and
> > > son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them
> > > seven years ago." ( USA Today)
> > > This (above) was the lead for your "Story"... It is a lie, it is
> > > bullshit, it is irresponsible.
>
> > > When a parent is deported the children have every right to accompany
> > > him or her or them home... To be truly accurate in what transpires the
> > > headline would have to read:
>
> > > "Mother abandons children when deported, chooses to leave them behind"
>
> > > Since the premise is a lie, pure bullshit and irresponsible; so is the
> > > rest of the story.
>
> > > On Dec 5, 2:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Families at Risk from Immigration Authorities"After living for 21
> > years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was deported to Mexico in
> > September, separated from the two daughters and son she has raised as a
> > single mother since her ex-husband left them seven years ago." (USA
> > Today)Family values.The Source of RightsDean Russell
> > > > November 1984 • Volume: 34 • Issue: 11 •Dr. Russell, recently retired
> > from a full schedule of academic work, continues free-lance consulting,
> > lecturing and writing from his home in Westchester County, New York.
> > > > This is one of a series of articles examining current interventions of
> > the welfare state in the light of warnings from the French economist and
> > statesman, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
> > > > The prevailing justification for governmental action in the United
> > States today is this: The desires of the majority, as determined by
> > universal and secret ballot, shall become the law of the land. And once the
> > vote is in, everyone must obey, including those who think the law is
> > immoral or economically destructive. Even if a person thinks the law
> > violates individual freedom and the basic human rights of every person, he
> > must still conform. Here are three examples of this situation currently in
> > force.
> > > > 1. Some hospital administrators think abortions are immoral. Even so,
> > abortions must still be accommodated in their hospitals. If the
> > administrator refuses, the penalty for frustrating the legal right of a
> > woman to have an abortion in a hospital open to the general public will be
> > the loss of essential funds and certification for the hospital. This will
> > result in the almost-certain de-raise of that particular hospital.
> > > > 2. One of the few economic principles accepted by economists of all
> > persuasions is that tariffs cause higher prices, with a resulting decrease
> > in goods and services. Even so, we economists (along with everyone else)
> > must conform to that costly measure in practice, or suffer additional
> > penalties as law-breakers.
> > > > 3. If the idea of human rights has any validity at all, surely the
> > most fundamental one is the right of every peaceful human being to his own
> > life. Yet the majority of American people have voted time and again to give
> > to our government (the mechanism we use to enforce the collective will) the
> > right to sacrifice that life on a battlefield of its own choosing.
> > > > Since the majority of people claim they have a right to use legal
> > violence to compel dissenters to conform to those laws (and thousands more
> > just like them), surely they should feel some obligation to justify their
> > position with a rationale more acceptable than, "There are more of us than
> > there are of you; we're bigger."
> > > > Further, when there's a prior law (constitutional or common or
> > statute) that interferes with the current desires of the majority, then
> > that law can be repealed in precisely the same manner the new law is
> > passed, i.e., by majority vote in the customary way it's done in our
> > particular form of democracy and representative government. While our
> > unique Constitution (along with tradition) can delay the popular will, it
> > can't stop it.
> > > > Ask anyoneteacher, preacher, editor, or public officialhow
> > weshoulddetermine what is (and what is not) a proper function of
> > government. The answer is always, "Why, by a democratic
> > votetheAmericanway." If there's any other generally accepted way to
> > determine collective actions, I'm unaware of it.
> > > > This doesn't mean, of course, that this philosophy of government
> > causes the minority (the individual) to accept the decision of the majority
> > as right or just. And certainly it doesn't cause us to accept it as final.
> > In fact, this process of majority-rule automatically encourages the losers
> > to regroup and strive again to become a majorityand then, in turn, to
> > impose their desires on the former victors. While each group always claims
> > "right is on our side," neither is in a sound position to make that claimat
> > least, not as long as each group is striving to impose its will on the
> > other group by force of law that's based on nothing more acceptable than
> > sheer numbers.
> > > > This battle is never-ending. It's fought on the local level, the state
> > level, the national level, and the international level. And it will
> > continue to be fought on all levels everywhere until this vital issue of
> > individual rights and group rights is based on a more acceptable and
> > fundamental principle than the law of large numbers.Individual Rights
> > > > In truth, if it's to be effective, the issue must be settled between
> > persons in the smallest possible unitjust two human beings deciding
> > together what rights each has as an individual, what rights the two of them
> > have collectively, and the source of those individual and collective
> > rights. Until that hoped-for. accomplishment is in place, how-ever, we must
> > continue to remain constantly alert for those persons (even the
> > well-intentioned ones) who are trying to use the law to force you and me to
> > conform totheirviewpoints. And please remember that those persons are to be
> > found in Washington rather than in Moscow. While the Russians are truly a
> > threat to our freedom, it's a threat of another kind.
> > > > In our heated discussions of this issue of "rights," all of us
> > actually do pay lip-service to the idea of rights for the individual, i.e.,
> > we constantly recite the word. But almost never do we use the concept of
> > individual rights to determine the validity of collective rights.
> > > > You'd think that would be the logical starting point. But when more
> > than two people are involved, it seems we just call for a show of
> > handswinner takes all. The losers then immediately prepare to continue the
> > battle in one way or another untiltheyfinally become the majority.
> > > > And why not; for once you move away from the idea of individual rights
> > to collective rights, what criterion is left except the law of large
> > numbers? The only principle I can find there is that, mathematically, 51
> > per cent is larger than 49 per cent. There's not even one individual right
> > to be found in that concept.
> > > > But since this law of large numbers (democracy in action) is the only
> > rationale we've ever been taught for determining proper governmental
> > actions in any area, it's not surprising we accept it without undue
> > protest. We simply don't know any other way to do it. And in the areas of
> > our most heated disagreements, e.g., taxing and spending and other matters
> > affecting our incomes, most of us appear to vote automaticallyagainstpaying
> > higher taxes and voteforgetting more subsidies of some kind.
> > > > As Frederic Bastiat said inThe Law:"When plunder is organized by law .
> > . . all the plundered classes try somehow to enterby peaceful or
> > revolutionary meansinto the making of laws."
> > > > If the American people (you and I and our neighbors) can legally get
> > money merely by voting for it, most of us will do so. Even if some of us
> > are hesitant to vote subsidies directly to ourselves, we feel real good
> > when we do the same thing indirectly by voting for more government housing,
> > education, and medical care for needy people. Whether we say so or not, we
> > know full well we'd have to do it with our own money if the government
> > didn't do it.
> > > > This process will continue with increasingly destructive consequences
> > until one of two solutions occurs. First (and most likely), a would-be
> > dictator will seize power by declaring an emergency and refusing to submit
> > his right to rule to the uncertain outcome of another election that
> > involves an opposition party. You need only glance casually around you to
> > discover scores of nations where that's happened. Or second, we'll finally
> > devise and accept a better rationale for collective (governmental) action
> > that's based on a principle more fundamental and permanent than a mere show
> > of hands.Life, Liberty, Property
> > > > I'm convinced that Frederic Bastiat devised that "better rationale"
> > for group action in his writings in 1850. In his short book devoted to this
> > issue,The Law,he offers a clear and simple method for determining the
> > justification of any collective (governmental) action. He starts with the
> > individual human being and never deviates from that universal base.
> > > > First he identifies the rights possessed by each and every person. He
> > follows this with a logical explanation of where those individual rights
> > come from. Finally, he demonstrates how the individual can logically and
> > legitimately and morally retain and use his individual rights in harmony
> > with his fellow humans in a viable social arrangement (government) designed
> > to
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
> Newt.2012..jpg
> 7KViewDownload

--
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: 2012 Krispy Kreme Lingerie Calendar (a/c)

I'm not going to look again ... even though she is your mother.

On Dec 5, 11:14 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I believe Ms. March could be the future Mrs. PlainOl'!!!
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:31 AM, plainolamerican
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > damn it, travis!!!
>
> > have some consideration for my eyes!
>
> > On Dec 4, 1:55 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > **
>
> > > *I know you've been waiting for your 2012 Krispy Kreme Lingerie
> > Calendar..**
> > > ***
>
> > > *[image: Description: cid:1.1835707...@web112709.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
> > ]*****
>
> > > *AND HERE** **IT IS ! *****
>
> > > *[image: Description: cid:2.1835707...@web112709.mail.gq1.yahoo.com
> > ]*****
>
> > > image001.gif
> > > 13KViewDownload
>
> > > image002.jpg
> > > 393KViewDownload
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://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.