Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Soros-Funded Alinsky Smear Machine Invades Congress

Soros-Funded Alinsky Smear Machine Invades Congress

Posted By Matthew Vadum On May 14, 2012

Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion

George Soros is behind a newly uncovered effort to teach Democratic congressmen how to smear their opponents as racist.

Last week House Democrats invited the radical, left-wing, Soros-financed group called the Center for Social Inclusion "to address the issue of race to defend government programs," according to documentation reviewed by Joel Gehrke of the Washington Examiner.

"The prepared content of a Tuesday presentation to the House Democratic Caucus and staff indicates that Democrats will seek to portray apparently neutral free-market rhetoric as being charged with racial bias, conscious or unconscious," Gehrke writes.

According to Gehrke, trainer Maya Wiley of the Center for Social Inclusion blasted "conservative messages [that are] racially 'coded' and had images of people of color that we commonly see used" and suggested ways to combat Republicans' supposedly racially-coded rhetoric.

Facts don't matter in Wiley's estimation. "It's emotional connection, not rational connection that we need," she said.

Wiley offered that Newt Gingrich calling Obama a "food stamp president," cannot be "a race-neutral statement, even if Newt Gingrich did not intend racism." In other words, all criticism of Obama is rooted in racism.

Wiley, a so-called civil rights attorney, is the daughter of the late George Wiley, the leader of the now-defunct National Welfare Rights Organization. NWRO created ACORN in 1970 and President Obama worked for ACORN in his community organizing days, as I note in my book, Subversion Inc.: How Obama's ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers.

Maya Wiley also did consulting work for two of Soros's philanthropies, the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Foundation, and now chairs the board of the Tides network of nonprofits.

The radicalism of Wiley shines brightly on the website of the Center for Social Inclusion. "For more than a quarter century, right-wing rhetoric has dominated debates of racial justice – undermining efforts to create a more equal society, and tearing apart the social safety net in the process," the propaganda portal opines. Of course only a Marxist with an agenda would argue that "right-wing rhetoric" has somehow torn apart the ever-expanding social safety net. About $16 trillion has been spent on the doomed War on Poverty since it was launched in the mid-1960s and President Obama wants to waste another $10 trillion more.

The Center for Social Inclusion, an Orwellian name if ever there was one, practices the same pathological mixture of Marxism and identity politics that President Obama was raised on. The group was founded based on the assumption that America is an evil structurally racist country that systematically oppresses everyone who is not Caucasian.

The Center's involvement with left-leaning politicians shouldn't be all that surprising given that the Democratic National Committee is now headed by the Alinsky-loving Patrick Gaspard, a longtime SEIU-ACORN operative. Gaspard, not titular DNC head Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), runs the DNC's everyday operations as executive director. Gaspard was previously the Obama White House political affairs director, the same title Karl Rove held in President Bush's administration.

Gaspard comes from the same world of radical in-your-face left-wing community organizing that shaped Barack Obama. Like Obama he is well schooled in the brutal, street-smart organizing tactics taught by the late Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals. Wiley's training session has Gaspard's fingerprints all over it. It is inconceivable that she moved forward without his permission. In fact, Gaspard almost certainly invited her to Capitol Hill.

Wiley's group gets its money from anti-American philanthropists such as Soros. The Soros-funded Tides Foundation has given $879,800 to the group since 2005. Soros's Open Society Institute has donated at least $75,000 to the group since 2002. Other hard-left institutional donors to the group include the Public Welfare Foundation Inc. ($308,355 since 2010) and the Surdna Foundation ($60,000 since 2008).

The Center for Social Inclusion may also be hiding something. The group's tax returns, which are supposed to be publicly available at the Guidestar.org disclosure website, are not available. This may be a violation of federal law.

It has long been axiomatic that when left-wingers are worried about losing power they shriek "racist!" ad nauseam as if sheer repetition of the malicious lie will somehow make it true. The mainstream media has long let leftist politicians such as Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) get away with accusing Republicans of racism based on, well, nothing. Instead of hurling racial epithets, Republicans "say, 'Let's cut taxes,'" the corrupt Harlem congressman has said. And when Republicans proposed reforming aspects of the welfare system, Rangel said they were worse than Nazis. "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things," he insisted, advancing the ahistorical position that the genocidal German dictator was somehow a champion of small government.

But teaching sitting lawmakers whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers how to utilize the Left's favorite smear in order to shut down open debate over government spending is a fascistic frontal assault on freedom of thought and expression that takes Alinskyite sliminess to new depths.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/05/14/soros-funded-alinsky-smear-machine-invades-congress/

--
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.

Military Police Manual on Internment Camps

http://tinyurl.com/7gtsy9s

Military Police Manual on Internment Camps

Written by Gary North on May 14, 2012

· 0diggsdigg

The U.S. Army has issued a manual to its military police. It is aimed at operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and other areas where Muslims resist occupation by U.S. forces.

The interesting fact is that these techniques are universal. They can be applied anywhere. Examples:

8-1. Issues of apprehension, incarceration, recidivism, and programs to curb violent behavior in released persons is a long-studied subject by generations of scholars. Entire organizations are built around these issues and take years of in-depth analysis to reach conclusions for policy application. This is further complicated by the conditions in a combat zone.

8-2. Detention provides military police with an opportunity for interaction and positive influence on U.S. military prisoners and detainees. Military police provide humane and even-handed treatment to prisoners and detainees in their care. These persons are within the control of military police under circumstances that, unchecked, could cause military police to regard them great animosity. It is the professionalism and discipline of military police that facilitates impartial conduct toward prisoners and detainees and prevent animosity from manifesting itself. This, in turn, sends a clear message of fairness and impartiality toward the indigenous people. Military police internment operations in support of long-term stability operations, particularly within the context of counterinsurgency, must be deliberately and professionally conducted
with an understanding of the impact of perception and subsequent negative information operations used by the threat to discredit the U.S. military.

8-3. Detention or imprisonment can be a period of transitory idleness where the U.S. military prisoner or detainee simply endures the period of his internment and contemplates the humiliation or perceived injustice of his condition. Conversely, it can be one of the most productive and auspicious rehabilitative measures that society can provide the individual and his respective society. Rehabilitative measures have resulted in decreased recidivism and should begin the moment the individual is apprehended or captured and fully implemented upon transfer to a fixed facility.

The section of forced resettlement is illuminating.

10-74. The exact location of the military police station depends on the facility layout and needs of the commander. Internal and external patrols are necessary; however, security for a resettlement facility should not give the impression that the facility is a prison.

Lessons learned abroad can be applied at home.

What are these lessons? First, people don't like to be pushed around. Second, they will resist. Third, for every measure, there is a counter measure.

As Saul Alinksy said a generation ago: "The action is the reaction." The resistance movement provokes an action. The action creates more resistance.

This manual tells us that the U.S. military expects to keeps boots on the ground for the indefinite future.

SEE:

http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

Insanity: Federal law makes it a crime to violate any foreign law

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Insanity: Federal law makes it a crime to violate any foreign law

by Dr. Eowyn

Conservatives are jubilant that last Friday, as reported by the AP, a bill designed to prevent Kansas courts or government agencies from making decisions based on Islamic or other foreign legal codes has cleared the state Legislature. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn't said whether he'll sign or veto the measure.

Though the bill was prompted by concerns about Islamic Shariah law being used in U.S. courts, it does not specifically mention Shariah. Instead, the bill says that Kansas' courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can't base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

The Kansas legislature must not have known about the Lacey Act -- a Congressional law that makes it a federal offense to violate any foreign law when it comes to fish, wildlife, or plants.

In 1900, illegal commercial hunting threatened many game species in the United States. So Congress passed the Lacey Act to protect and preserve game and wild birds by making it a federal crime to poach game in one state with the purpose of selling the bounty in another. It was also concerned with the potential problems of the introduction of non-native, or exotic species of birds and animals into native ecosystems.

Since 1900, the Act has been amended several times, the result of which is to expand the Act's coverage to include fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans, plants (including trees), as well as the products made from the preceding.

Although the original Lacey Act was concerned with the trafficking of illegally captured or prohibited animals and birds across state lines within the United States, by the 1960s, according to Robert S. Anderson in his 1995 article for the Public Land Law Review, the Lacey Act had shifted in importance from a domestic anti-poaching statute to one that would address the problems of international trade -- which means violations of foreign laws.

A position paper by the NCBFAA (National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America, Inc.) points out that:

"The sweeping scope of the product coverage takes on added meaning when you consider that the Lacey Act offenses include not just violations of U.S. laws or treaties, but violation of any foreign law that protects or regulates plants or trees. There are almost 9,000 such laws in Indonesia alone. Moreover, a list of all the relevant foreign laws with which an importer is responsible for compliance does not exist. The penalties for violations of the Lacey Act offenses range from civil administrative penalties to forfeiture of the goods to criminal fines and imprisonment. In effect, the Lacey Act Amendments criminalize U.S. citizens involved in importing a wide range of products far removed from the logging process as a substitute for stronger enforcement by foreign governments in timber rich countries."

Paul Larkin writes for the Heritage Foundation, March 11, 2012, that the Lacey Act violates one of the fundamental tenets of Anglo–American common law: that 'men of common intelligence' must be able to understand what a law means.

Not only has the recent explosion of U.S. federal criminal law rendered this standard a mere fiction, the problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Lacey Act makes it a crime to violate a foreign nation's law. If Americans don't even know the dizzying profusion of U.S. laws, how would we know the laws of foreign countries?

An example is what happened to Abner Schoenwetter. In the case of United States v. McNab, Schoenwetter and several other individuals were convicted of several federal offenses in connection with their importation of Caribbean spiny lobsters from Honduras. The federal government charged the defendants with violating the Lacey Act by importing Honduran lobsters in violation of Honduran law: The lobsters were too small to be taken under Honduran law; some contained eggs and so could not be exported; and the lobsters were packed in boxes rather than in plastic as required by Honduran law.

The jury convicted the defendants, and both the district court and the court of appeals upheld the convictions. The circuit court even refused to give any weight to the opinions of the Honduran courts and the Honduran Attorney General that the regulations were invalid under Honduran law and could not serve as a predicate violation under the Lacey Act. The result was that Schoenwetter was sentenced to eight years in a federal prison—a term longer than what some violent criminals could spend in lockup—for domestic regulatory offenses that did not even violate foreign law.

Larkin points out:

"Foreign nations may have very different allocations of governmental power, bureaucracies, and enforcement personnel. Some will speak and write in English; some will not. Some will make their decisions public; some will not. Some will have one entity that can speak authoritatively about its own laws; some will not. And different components of foreign governments may change their interpretations of their own laws over time, perhaps nullifying the effect of a prior interpretation, or perhaps not.

It is sheer lunacy to assume that the average citizen can keep track of such laws, let alone do so by him- or herself without a supporting cast of lawyers—that is, assuming that the average citizen could find a lawyer knowledgeable about the intricacies of a particular foreign nation's law. Domestic lawyers and judges are not even familiar with foreign law, let alone qualified as experts."

Adding to the nightmare is the fact that, as pointed out by Robert Anderson, the Lacey Act violator need not be the same person who took, possessed, transported, or sold the wildlife in violation of the underlying law. Culpability attaches to anyone who imports, exports, transports, receives, acquires, or purchases the wildlife, and who knows, or in exercise of due care should know, that it was illegally taken, possessed, transported, or sold. The degree of the accused's knowledge regarding the status of the tainted wildlife is one of the factors that distinguishes a felony from a misdemeanor violation.

Did you get that?

Let me emphasize:

"Culpability attaches to anyone who...purchases the wildlife" or plant or tree or products made from the wildlife or plant or tree, in violation of some foreign nation's law(s).

Which means you and me. And that, of course, is insanity.

Senator Rand Paul (R–KY) and Representative Paul C. Broun (R–GA) have introduced two bills in Congress—each one called the FOCUS Act (Freedom from Over-Criminalization and Unjust Seizures Act of 2012 )—to defang the Lacey Act. FOCUS would amend the Lacey Act in several ways, one of which would make it enforceable only through the civil process.

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | May 14, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Tags: Abner Schoenwetter, FOCUS Act, Kansas anti-Shariah bill, Lacey Act, NCBFAA, Paul Broun, Rand Paul, US v McNab | Categories: Animals, Congress, crime, Insanity, Islam, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-ejC

Comment

See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/insanity-federal-law-makes-it-a-crime-to-violate-any-foreign-law/

Thanks for flying with

WordPress.com

Re: Rubio - Unfit for Vice President

mm hmm

Like Elizabeth Warren, Rubio uses his minority status for an
advantage. He is something other than an American.

On May 14, 4:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I started having serious misgivings about Rubio, when Plain Ol' and I got
> into this discussion last December......Turns out, Rubio is just another
> RINO:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
> Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:26 PM
> Subject:
> To: politicalforum <PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com>
>
> As always, Pat Buchanan makes one stop and think....."Thought Provoking"
> to say the least.....
>
> Marco Rubio Versus Rand Paul By Pat Buchanan12/9/2011
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2011/12/09/creators_oped/p...
>
> In August 2008, as the world's leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic
> games, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, hot-headed and erratic, made
> his gamble for greatness.
>
> It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny
> South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi
> broke free of Russia. As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the
> Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into Russia.
>
> Saakashvili's blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.
>
> Until, that is, Russian armor, on Vladimir Putin's orders, came thundering
> down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili's army reeling. The
> Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province
> that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.
>
> The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of
> Joseph Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases
> for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on Iran.
>
> The humiliation of Saakashvili was total, and brought an enraged and
> frustrated John McCain running to the microphones.
>
> "Today, we're all Georgians," bawled McCain.
>
> Well, not exactly.
>
> President Bush called Putin's response "disproportionate" and "brutal," but
> did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to
> dictate when the fisticuffs stop.
>
> What made this war of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had
> long sought to bring Georgia into NATO. Only the resistance of Old Europe
> had prevented it.
>
> And had Georgia been a member of NATO when Saakashvili began his war, U.S.
> Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to
> confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S.
> interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.
>
> A U.S war with Russia -- over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- would
> have been an act of national criminal insanity.
>
> Days later, there came another startling discovery.
>
> McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by
> the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia
> into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on
> Georgia's side in any clash with Russia.
>
> What makes this history relevant today?
>
> Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on
> everyone's short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate,
> on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia's plan for
> membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.
>
> Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking
> Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be
> obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.
>
> Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed
> this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a
> role in drafting it.
>
> And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed
> to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war
> with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars
> in the Caucasus that are none of our business?
>
> The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked
> it -- Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected,
> defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote.
>
> The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are
> indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S.
> soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.
>
> Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the
> excesses of Russia's response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous
> rage and ready for military action.
>
> In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia
> had conducted an "invasion," that Georgia had been a "victim of
> aggression," that America had "fiddled while Georgia burned," that we had
> played the "paper tiger"when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.
>
> As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved
> results "approaching Neville Chamberlain's moment in the spotlight at
> Munich."
>
> But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?
>
> "This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury's
> rule in South Ossetia," scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this "rape" because
> brave little Georgia refused to be "Finlandized."
>
> Restoring America's credibility, said Bolton, now requires "drawing a clear
> line for Russia" in the Caucasus and elsewhere.
>
> And who is John Bolton?
>
> Newt Gingrich told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary
> of state.
>
> With Newt appointing as America's first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes
> Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney's foreign policy team
> crawling with neocons primed for war with Iran, a vote for the GOP in 2012
> looks more and more like a vote for war.
>
> Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned
> nothing and forgotten nothing.
>
>
>
> buchanan.jpg
> 50KViewDownload

--
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.

Rubio - Unfit for Vice President

I started having serious misgivings about Rubio, when Plain Ol' and I got into this discussion last December......Turns out, Rubio is just another RINO:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 4:26 PM
Subject:
To: politicalforum <PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com>

As always, Pat Buchanan makes one stop and think....."Thought Provoking" to say the least.....

Marco Rubio Versus Rand Paul

By Pat Buchanan

12/9/2011

http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2011/12/09/creators_oped/page/2

In August 2008, as the world's leaders gathered in Beijing for the Olympic games, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, hot-headed and erratic, made his gamble for greatness.

It began with a stunning artillery barrage on Tskhinvali, capital of tiny South Ossetia, a province that had broken free of Tbilisi when Tbilisi broke free of Russia. As Ossetians and Russian peacekeepers fell under the Georgian guns, terrified Ossetians fled into Russia.

Saakashvili's blitzkrieg appeared to have triumphed.

Until, that is, Russian armor, on Vladimir Putin's orders, came thundering down the Roki Tunnel into Ossetia, sending Saakashvili's army reeling. The Georgians were driven out of Ossetia and expelled from a second province that had broken free of Tbilisi: Abkhazia.

The Russians then proceeded to bomb Tbilisi, capture Gori, birthplace of Joseph Stalin, and bomb Georgian airfields rumored to be the forward bases for the Israelis in any pre-emptive strike on Iran.

The humiliation of Saakashvili was total, and brought an enraged and frustrated John McCain running to the microphones.

"Today, we're all Georgians," bawled McCain.

Well, not exactly.

President Bush called Putin's response "disproportionate" and "brutal," but did nothing. Small nations that sucker-punch big powers do not get to dictate when the fisticuffs stop.

What made this war of interest to Americans, however, was that Bush had long sought to bring Georgia into NATO. Only the resistance of Old Europe had prevented it.

And had Georgia been a member of NATO when Saakashvili began his war, U.S. Marines and Special Forces might have been on the way to the Caucasus to confront Russian troops in a part of the world where there is no vital U.S. interest and never has been any U.S. strategic interest whatsoever.

A U.S war with Russia -- over Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- would have been an act of national criminal insanity.

Days later, there came another startling discovery.

McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann had been paid $290,000 by the Saakashvili regime, from January 2007 to March 2008, to get Georgia into NATO, and thus acquire a priceless U.S. war guarantee to fight on Georgia's side in any clash with Russia.

What makes this history relevant today?

Last week, Sen. Marco Rubio, rising star of the Republican right, on everyone's short list for VP, called for a unanimous vote, without debate, on a resolution directing President Obama to accept Georgia's plan for membership in NATO at the upcoming NATO summit in Chicago.

Rubio was pushing to have the U.S. Senate pressure Obama into fast-tracking Georgia into NATO, making Tbilisi an ally the United States would be obligated by treaty to go to war to defend.

Now it is impossible to believe a senator, not a year in office, dreamed this up himself. Some foreign agent of Scheunemann's ilk had to have had a role in drafting it.

And for whose benefit is Rubio pushing to have his own countrymen committed to fight for a Georgia that, three years ago, started an unprovoked war with Russia? Who cooked up this scheme to involve Americans in future wars in the Caucasus that are none of our business?

The answer is unknown. What is known is the name of the senator who blocked it -- Rand Paul, son of Ron Paul, who alone stepped in and objected, defeating Rubio's effort to get a unanimous vote.

The resolution was pulled. But these people will be back. They are indefatigable when it comes to finding ways to commit the blood of U.S. soldiers to their client regimes and ideological bedfellows.

Back in 2008, however, as Bush was confining himself to protesting the excesses of Russia's response, his ex-U.N. ambassador was full of righteous rage and ready for military action.

In the London Telegraph, Aug. 15, 2008, John Bolton declared that Russia had conducted an "invasion," that Georgia had been a "victim of aggression," that America had "fiddled while Georgia burned," that we had played the "paper tiger"when faced by the snarling Russian Bear.

As for the European Union, in bringing about a ceasefire, it had achieved results "approaching Neville Chamberlain's moment in the spotlight at Munich."

But did not Georgia launch the attack that started the war?

"This confrontation is not about who violated the Marquis of Queensbury's rule in South Ossetia," scoffed Bolton. Russia planned this "rape" because brave little Georgia refused to be "Finlandized."

Restoring America's credibility, said Bolton, now requires "drawing a clear line for Russia" in the Caucasus and elsewhere.

And who is John Bolton?

Newt Gingrich told two groups Wednesday he intends to name Bolton secretary of state.

With Newt appointing as America's first diplomat an uber-hawk who makes Dick Cheney look like Gandhi, and Mitt Romney's foreign policy team crawling with neocons primed for war with Iran, a vote for the GOP in 2012 looks more and more like a vote for war.

Like the Bourbons of old, the Republican Party seems to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.