Re: This is hilarious, and plaino especially should watch it

[Keith In Tampa]

Once again Studio,  you are the one that proves you don't have a clue.
Black's little diatribe is  ludicrous.   Beck doesn't see Nazi's,  he mocks
those on the left that constantly refer to conservatives as Nazis.   Like I
told ya,  it seems that it is only those who don't listen to Beck, (and
Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Boortz,  FOX News, etc.)  that cannot seem to
tolerate them.




On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 4:29 AM, studio  wrote:

> On May 14, 8:55 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> > No, Glenn Beck is a thinking American.  Thinking Americans makes folks
> like
> > you get to where you couldn't get a needle up your ass, because they are
> > learning the truth, and exposing yours and your socialist brethren's
> > fraud
> >
> > Lewis Black is the imbecile..Is Keith Olbermann still on the air?
>
> lol yeah right! Glenn Beck thinks!
> Lewis Black tore Glenn Beck a new one.
> The only thing Glenn Beck thinks is about Nazi's, he sees them
> everywhere except where they really are...in his mirror!
>
> THE FUCKING PEACE CORPS!!! are Nazis in his eyes.
> Empathy is a bad word.
>
> You gotta be kidding.
> Glenn Beck is a moron.
>
> Folks don't be fooled by Conservative non-sense.
> Republicans should rename themselves The Paranoia Party because that's
> everything they have to offer.
>
> --
> 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.

-- 
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.

This one is truly ridiculous - talk about not having a clue!!

[dick thompson]

   

*Tea party: Dark side of conservatism*
By: Charles Postel
May 14, 2010 04:14 AM EDT

Tea partiers proudly proclaim themselves conservatives. And rightly so. 

Tea party protesters repeat the conservative catchwords of Barry 
Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, who built their careers fighting the 
"creeping socialism" of civil rights legislation, Social Security and 
Medicare.
Tea partiers also have echoes of a well-known grass-roots movement of 
the 1950s and '60s --- the John Birch Society. The JBS organized in 
upper-middle-class neighborhoods and among business groups for 
anti-Communist and conservative causes. 

In tone and substance, tea partiers even sound like the JBS did. When 
they claim that a moderate American president is a "Communist," it 
recalls the old JBS attacks on "Communist" President Dwight Eisenhower.
As today's tea partiers shout their slogans to end the Federal Reserve, 
abolish the Internal Revenue Service and restore the gold standard, they 
seem to be lifting a page from the old JBS playbook. 

For its part, the JBS followed in the tradition of the Liberty League, a 
right-wing citizens' group organized by the DuPont family in the 1930s 
to overturn President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. 

Yet commentators resist linking tea parties to this radical right. 

Perhaps this is because of the Liberty League's association with shadowy 
corporate conspiracies. Or it could be because of the John Birch 
Society's reputation for secrecy and extremism. But the lineage of 
today's tea parties doesn't change just because they parade in the glare 
of a major TV network. 

Instead, commentators prefer to call the tea partiers "populists." 
Exactly what links tea parties and historic populism usually goes 
unexplained. But part of the logic is that the tea partiers have angrily 
taken to the streets --- like pitchfork-wielding Populists of old. 

But the original populism of the 1890s had little to do with that 
pitchfork stereotype. Populist farmers and workers listened to lectures, 
read reform literature, joined associations and voted for independent 
candidates.
They rarely marched. 

The one exception offers a useful lesson for today. The nation's first 
march on Washington was in the spring of 1894. The country was gripped 
by a terrible depression. Jacob Coxey, an Ohio Populist, led a march of 
the unemployed, some from as far as the West Coast. "Coxey's Army" 
arrived at the Capitol on May 1. 

These Populists sought to petition Congress for help. With local and 
state governments in fiscal ruin, only the federal government had the 
resources to keep millions of working families in their homes. 

Coxey petitioned for a Good Roads Bill to create jobs and build the 
infrastructure of prosperity. 

As for funding it, Coxey proposed that the Treasury literally print 
money. The Populists believed --- with good reason --- that inflating 
the currency would reduce the weight of mortgages and debts, stimulate 
investment and pull the economy out of its deflationary death spiral. 

Now, let's turn to the recent big tea party march. The Tea Party Express 
spent three weeks crossing the country, arriving in Washington on tax 
day, April 15. 

As in 1894, the economy is mired in a deep recession. But real parallels 
end there.


The tea partiers came to protest federal action. Today, local and state 
governments are hemorrhaging jobs and slashing essential services. The 
tea partiers are boiling mad because of the stimulus bill meant to stop 
the bleeding. They are punishing politicians who supported it, like Bob 
Bennett, Utah's conservative GOP senator.
Like the conservative "gold bug" enemies of populism past, the tea 
partiers are more concerned about possible inflation in the future than 
with the current ordeal of the unemployed. The one issue that unites the 
diverse coalition, according to a New York Times/CBS poll, is hostility 
to federal spending to create jobs.


Most tea party supporters also tell pollsters that too much has been 
made of problems facing blacks. This is striking, given how both the 
Bush and Obama administrations have tiptoed around the economic 
catastrophe that has hit black America during the financial crisis.


In much of the country, the jobless rate in black communities is at 
Great Depression levels --- 27 percent in Michigan and nearly 19 percent 
in the District of Columbia.


Again, the contrast with Coxey's Army is telling. Most white Populists 
embraced the racist dogmas of the late 19th century. But in the 1894 
depression, the Populists did something new. Instead of making 
scapegoats of the Chinese or other ethnic groups for taking jobs, they 
looked for ways to create more jobs.


Coxey himself went further. He defied the color line and recruited black 
marchers. In the frightful winter of 1894, the black citizens of D.C. 
froze and starved. But they found hope in Coxey's Army. For example, the 
Vermont Avenue Baptist Chur

Re: Self-Regulation in the Corporate State: The BP Spill

[studio]

On May 15, 9:31 am, "M. Johnson"  wrote:
> "In this context there’s less to the contrast between government regulation 
> and corporate self-regulation than meets the eye. Self-regulation in a 
> corporate state does not constitute the free market. When companies are 
> sheltered in any substantial way from the competitive market’s disciplinary 
> forces, incentives turn perverse. Moreover, “state capitalism” and 
> thecorporate form (pdf)– with itsagency problem– can produce the temptation 
> to cut costs imprudently in order to make the next quarterly report look 
> attractive to shareholders.
> "“Putting profits before people” is a feature of state, or crony, capitalism 
> not the free market."

It's a product of greed, which is exactly what free market capitalism
is.

> Why did BP have problems? The Times goes on: “Some analysts say the safety 
> problems indicate that BP has not yet reined in the culture of risk that 
> prevailed under Mr. Hayward’s predecessor, John Browne…. Mr. Browne set 
> aggressive profit goals, and BP managers drastically cut costs to meet their 
> quarterly targets. After the 2005 explosion in Texas City [killing 15 
> workers], investigators found that routine maintenance that might have 
> averted the accident had been delayed because of pressure to reduce expenses.”

So that they may contribute more to Republican candidates?

> What we seem to have is a company that, in pursuit of short-term profits, was 
> less than meticulous about safety (other people and their property, that is) 
> while it and its industry effectively vetoed government safeguards that might 
> have prevented the explosion that killed 11 workers and caused the damaging 
> spill.

> Some will defend BP in the name of the “free market” or minimize the event, 
> protesting that the Obama administration’s remedial measures will “undermine 
> our capitalist system.” Meanwhile, the “progressive” statists will declare 
> that once again the free market has failed.

I suspect those that minimize it and blame Obama will be Republicans.
The "free market" does fail occasionally, and I doubt that
"progressives" are saying "the entire free market is a failure".

> The coziness between government and the oil industry is also apparent in 
> thecap on liabilityfor damages – a paltry $75 million from offshore oil 
> spills (not including cleanup costs). The interesting question is whether 
> BP’s dubious conduct would have been different without the cap. Hayward, 
> theWall Street Journalreports, “admitted the U.K.-based oil giant had not had 
> the technology available to stop the leak, and said in hindsight it was 
> ‘probably true’ that BP should have done more to prepare for an emergency of 
> this kind.”

The coziness is far more cozy when it's a Republican in power.

> Transocean, owner and operator of the rig, is petitioning tolimit its own 
> liabilityto $26.7 million.

Good luck with that!

> (Moral hazard matters, but the story is complicated. Oil spills have 
> beendecreasing, and no energy development is without its risks.)

Oil spills have not been decreasing at all. It's the *reporting* of
oil spills that decreased under Bush Jr.
I would even venture to guess that if Bush Jr. was still President, he
probably would have made it very difficult for reporters to
investigate the matter. And the media most likely would have gotten
very conservative numbers in as far as how many gallons were leaking.
And possibly even blamed a fictitious source of the oil spill in part
or entirety.

-- 
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: Hawaii rejects Birther requests

[studio]

Hey, is this another RINO?

Actually, all Republicans are RINO's.

Being a Republican must be awfully embarrassing.
I mean look at the guy who heads the RNCwhat an embarrassment.
He spends Republican donations giving Republican operatives money to
go to Bondage Clubs.

Yeah Bondage Clubs are good Conservative values. lol
R-I-N-O E-M-B-A-R-R-A-S-S-M-E-N-T.

-- 
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: This is hilarious, and plaino especially should watch it

[studio]

On May 14, 8:55 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> No, Glenn Beck is a thinking American.  Thinking Americans makes folks like
> you get to where you couldn't get a needle up your ass, because they are
> learning the truth, and exposing yours and your socialist brethren's
> fraud
>
> Lewis Black is the imbecile..Is Keith Olbermann still on the air?

lol yeah right! Glenn Beck thinks!
Lewis Black tore Glenn Beck a new one.
The only thing Glenn Beck thinks is about Nazi's, he sees them
everywhere except where they really are...in his mirror!

THE FUCKING PEACE CORPS!!! are Nazis in his eyes.
Empathy is a bad word.

You gotta be kidding.
Glenn Beck is a moron.

Folks don't be fooled by Conservative non-sense.
Republicans should rename themselves The Paranoia Party because that's
everything they have to offer.

-- 
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 Law of Stupid Stupid Dumb Consequences

[dick thompson]

http://pajamasmedia.com/vodkapundit/2010/05/15/the-law-of-stupid-stupid-dumb-and-unintended-consequences/#more-15968 


--
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.

Phriday Night Photo Phun

[dick thompson]

http://massbackwards.blogspot.com/2010/05/phriday-night-photo-phun.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.

Good story about a school administrator in California - where do they find these people anyhow!!

[dick thompson]

http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/archives/007716.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.

Zionism is Not the Jewish Tzionut

[Visual Purple]

Zionism is Not the Jewish Tzionut

Glorious things of thee are spoken,
Zion, city of our God
is the opening lines of the German national anthem.

Read the rest of the hegemonic and megalomaniacal poem here:
http://www.seanet.com/~raines/nazis.html

-and- read Jerusalem by Wm. Blake

http://www.poetry-archive.com/b/jerusalem.html

So, if you've got a problem with "Zionism", talk to the Germans and
British about it.
It's their Gothic Zionism, not our Tzionut.

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
doreendo...@gmail.com

-- 
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: Start the Revolution! Government is out-of-touch with the People!

[NoEinstein]

Dear Keith In Tampa:  Thanks for reading my post!  During the 2008
campaign, Barack Obama verbally assaulted "Joe the Plumber" about
spreading the 'opportunities' to those less fortunate (i.e.,
SOCIALISM).  He repeatedly created class-against-class division by
stating that "the middle class" is having a hard time and needs breaks—
such as not seeing tax increases for those with incomes below
$200,000.00.  In his mind, people with any level of wealth are fair
game to finance his socialist, redistributive agenda.  Obama,
effectively, BRIBED senior citizens by promising to give them all a
"cost of living" increase, even when the cost of living didn't go up
during the previous year.

The exact 'time line' for the $600.00 (supposed) stimulous rebate is
something for the historians to determine.  My statement was intended
to be a generalized assessment.  Obama selected the largest segment of
the population—the middle class as his constituency—then, he vilified
every business and capitalist interest, simply because the latter were
successful.  In short, he was PROMOTING hatred for capitalism and
those who succeed.  In Obama's mind, he was informing the voters that
he would be... "the President" of the middle class, only, and would
exploit the business interests, and those who are successful.

I recall from TV, a Black woman who was rejoicing in the streets after
Obama "won" the election.  When she was asked why she voted for Obama,
she kept saying: "To get some of the money."  When she was asked where
the money would come from, she said she didn't know.  Then she called
it... "Obama’s Money!"  Folks, Barack Obama got elected by continually
promising to give economic favoritism to those voting for him.  And
Obama KNEW that he would be paying for those votes with money that he
would STEAL (taxation without representation, and the over-printing of
currency) from others whom he expected to oppress.

Barack Obama’s form of government is: "To the Victor Belongs the
Spoils."  When his poll ratings dropped to 40% or so, he continued to
push for his campaign objectives, even though such no longer had the
support of the majority.  Obama is from Illinois—probably the most
corrupt state in the nation.  Bribing, cheating and lying are the
mechanisms for ’winning elections’ that he learned in Chicago.  Now,
Obama is a proclaimed outlaw—wanted... by every Constitution-
respecting, law-abiding citizen in this country.  Pray that all of the
socialist tendencies in the USA can be stopped, before it is too
late.  The sky won't always be... blue.

— John A. Armistead —  Patriot

>
On May 14, 8:36 pm, Keith In Tampa  wrote:
> Interesting thoughts...You lost me with the $600.00 bribe
> however.When did President Obama promise this?
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:56 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
> > The Sky is Blue; so, things must be… good in the USA, until…
>
> > There are three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: Our
> > broken government; our controlling, elitist media; and our overly
> > large and pathetically ineffectual public and higher education
> > systems.  This week a CA teacher chastised a student for painting a
> > remarkably good, stylized picture of the American Flag.  Under my New
> > Constitution, every public employee will be required to take the
> > following oaths:
>
> > “Before taking a public office or job, representatives, members of the
> > legislatures, all executive and judicial officers—of the United States
> > and of the several states and local governments—and all employees of
> > those who regularly deal with the Public, shall be bound by oath or
> > affirmation *** to have read the entire New Constitution within the
> > last 30 days and to support such.  No religious oath or action shall
> > be used as part of the qualification for any office, public trust or
> > job.”
>
> > and… “I, (Name), promise to serve and be deferential to the People,
> > and to be unbiased toward any group with a pro democracy, pro fairness
> > ideology.  I swear to honor and uphold the full civil rights of the
> > citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I shall expect my
> > coworkers and superiors to do the same.   I understand that my
> > employment in or by government is conditional upon my adherence to
> > this oath.”
>
> > Very importantly: “The Will of the People is the foundation of
> > government.  So, Citizens’ votes shall have parity without
> > compromise.  Principles of fair play and democracy shall reign supreme
> > in the USA.  Any public office holder who disavows or manifests
> > disagreement with the latter shall be guilty of treason.  Those found
> > guilty can be punished up to and including the death penalty.  *** Any
> > government employee, media figure or private person(s) who uses the
> > authority or influence of their job, or their celebrity, to argue
> > against democracy and fair play shall be guilty of a felony.”
>
> > Since that CA public school teacher would be required to 

tea parties

[Bruce Majors]

The Roots of the Tea
Parties

Posted by David Boaz 

The sight of middle-class Americans rallying to protest overtaxing,
overspending, Wall Street bailouts, and government-directed health care
scares the bejeezus out of a lot of people. The elite media are full of
stories declaring the Tea Partiers to be
racists
, John Birchers , Glenn
Beck 
zombies,
and God knows what. So it’s a relief to read a sensible
discussion
(subscription
required) by John Judis, the decidedly leftist but serious
journalist-historian at the *New Republic*. Once the managing editor the
journal *Socialist Revolution*, Judis went on to write a biography of
William F. Buckley Jr. and other books, so he knows something about
ideological movements in the United States. Judis isn’t happy about the Tea
Party movement, but he warns liberals not to dismiss it as fringe,
AstroTurf, or a front group for the GOP:

But the Tea Party movement is not inauthentic, and—contrary to the
impression its rallies give off—it isn’t a fringe faction either. It is a
genuine popular movement, one that has managed to unite a number of
ideological strains from U.S. history—some recent, some older. These strains
can be described as many things, but they cannot be dismissed as passing
phenomena. Much as liberals would like to believe otherwise, there is good
reason to think the Tea Party movement could exercise considerable influence
over our politics in the coming years.

Judis identifies three strains of American thinking that help to define the
Tea Party movement:

The first is an obsession with decline. This idea, which traces back to the
outlook of New England Puritans during the seventeenth century, consists of
a belief that a golden age occurred some time ago; that we are now in a
period of severe social, economic, or moral decay; that evil forces and
individuals are the cause of this situation; that the goal of politics is to
restore the earlier period; and that the key to doing so is heeding a
special text that can serve as a guidebook for the journey backward.

I’ve offered a 
dissent
from
the common libertarian perception that we have declined from a golden age of
liberty, but declinism is certainly a strong theme in conservative thought.
(Not to mention in Club of Rome environmentalist thought.) Judis suggests
that declinism often takes conspiratorial form and wonders “how could a
movement that cultivates such crazy, conspiratorial views be regarded
favorably by as much as 40 percent of the electorate?”

That is where the Tea Party movement’s second link to early U.S. history
comes in. The Tea Partiers may share the Puritans’ fear of decline, but it
is what they share with Thomas Jefferson that has far broader appeal: a
staunch anti-statism.

And the final historical strain that Judis identifies:

They are part of a tradition of producerism that dates to Andrew Jackson.
Jacksonian Democrats believed that workers should enjoy the fruits of what
they produce and not have to share them with the merchants and bankers who
didn’t actually create anything….

During the 1970s, conservatives began invoking producerism to justify their
attacks on the welfare state, and it was at the core of the conservative tax
revolt….

Like the attack against “big government,” this conservative producerism has
most deeply resonated during economic downturns. And the Tea Parties have
clearly built their movement around it.Producerism was at the heart of
Santelli’s rant against government forcing the responsible middle class to
subsidize those who bought homes they couldn’t afford…. Speaking to cheers
at the April 15 rally in Washington, Armey denounced the progressive income
tax in the same terms. “I can’t steal your money and give it to this guy,”
he declared. “Therefore, I shouldn’t use the power of the state to steal
your money and give it to this guy.”

Judis could have cited Ayn Rand’s analysis of “producers” and “looters” in
influencing this strain of Tea Party thought. Not to mention a much older
classical liberal version of class analysis, one that predated Marx’s
theory, which focused on  “conflict
between producers, no matter their station, and the parasitic political
classes, both inside and outside the formal state,” or “between the
tax-payers and tax-eaters.”

Judis concludes on a note of despair:

their core appeal on government and spending will continue to resonate as
long as the economy sputters. None of this is what liberals want to hear,
but we might as well face reality: T

Truly Remarkable

[dick thompson]

TRULY   REMARKABLE



I THINK IT IS REMARKABLE THAT THE PRESS CAN FIND EVERY WOMAN WITH WHOM 
TIGER HAS HAD AN AFFAIR IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, WITH PHOTOS, TEXT 
MESSAGES, RECORDED PHONE CALLS,  ETC.
THEY  KNOW NOT ONLY THE CAUSE OF THE FAMILY FIGHT, BUT  THEY EVEN KNOW 
IT WAS A  WEDGE FROM HIS GOLF BAG THAT SHE USED TO  BREAK OUT THE  
WINDOWS IN THE ESCALADE.  NOT ONLY THAT, THEY KNOW WHICH WEDGE!!!


THIS IS THE SAME PRESS (OR IS IT?)  THAT CANNOT LOCATE OBAMA'S OFFICIAL 
BIRTH CERTIFICATE  ... OR ANY OF HIS PAPERS WHILE IN COLLEGE.. 


(or Michelle Obama 's Princeton  thesis on  racism.)

TRULY REMARKABLE!


   


--
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.

American Thinker: The Health Insurers' Faustian Bargain

[Bruce Majors]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_health_insurers_faustian_b.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.

Fwd: American Thinker: The Health Insurers' Faustian Bargain

[Bruce Majors]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/the_health_insurers_faustian_b.html

---
This message was sent by majors.br...@gmail.com via http://addthis.com.
 Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.

Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar:
http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em

-- 
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.

Looks like Obama kicks another one under the bus - Sen Arlen Specter who converted from Rep to Dem to support Obama

[dick thompson]

 Guess this is an example of Obama's pragmatism in action.



 Arlen Specter Abandoned by Obama, Imploding in Pa. Senate Race

Thursday, 13 May 2010 07:34 PM
Article Font Size



*By: John Mercurio*

In his increasingly uphill bid for reelection, Sen. Arlen Specter, 
D-Pa., can't seem to catch a break. He's a five-term incumbent during a 
time of fierce anti-establishment sentiment. He's running as a Democrat, 
for the first time in four decades, in a year when the party is on the 
defensive.


And less than one week before a tightening Democratic primary, the White 
House announced that President Obama will not travel to Pennsylvania to 
campaign for him.


If that wasn't bad enough, Specter also must maneuver carefully around 
Obama's choice for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, whom he opposed for 
solicitor general last year. As his primary challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak, 
reminds Democrats, Specter's 2009 vote is one on a long list of 
party-line votes he cast as a Republican.


New polls show Specter's once-formidable lead in Tuesday's primary has 
vanished. Despite a sizable financial advantage, the 80-year-old senator 
now is locked in a dead heat with Sestak, 58, a retired two-star Navy 
admiral who ousted a 10-term Republican in 2006 in the moderate 
Philadelphia suburbs and then won re-election by 20 points.


Specter started the race last year as a formidable front-runner. He 
lined up key support from the White House, organized labor, and 
Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell, who predicted that, if Sestak ran, "he would 
get killed," then quickly fade "into political obscurity."


Sestak is, to be sure, an unorthodox campaigner. He's a lackluster 
fundraiser and doesn't have a formal campaign manager. But Specter has 
failed to put to rest questions about his 2009 party switch, which he 
defends by noting the GOP's rightward shift.


"I returned to the party of my roots. What's wrong with that?" he said 
this week in Pennsylvania. "Look at what is happening to moderate 
Republicans around the country. You have Florida Governor [Charlie] 
Crist getting kicked out of the Republican Party."


Sestak has won over party loyalists with a simple recitation of key 
Specter votes before he switched parties: He voted to confirm Supreme 
Court Justice Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, for example, and he 
supported the Iraq War. He backed the Bush tax cuts and, of course, he 
endorsed the GOP presidential tickets of Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin.


In a new TV ad, Sestak attacks Specter's reasoning for his party switch 
("[it]will enable me to be re-elected"), as a narrator says the senator 
switched parties "to save one job: his, not yours." Perhaps even more 
damaging in the Democratic primary, the spot features footage of George 
W. Bush praising Specter in 2004 as a "firm ally."


Some of Specter's problems are also self-inflicted; for example, he 
occasionally slips up at Democratic events and refers to the audience as 
"Republicans." And, as The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza pointed out 
Thursday, Specter tripped up during his debut as a Democrat.


Specter "was badly off his game in the days immediately following his 
decision to switch parties last April," Cillizza writes. "In explaining 
his decision to switch, Specter didn't cite deep principles but rather 
his belief that his best chance to be re-elected was by running as a 
Democrat.


"His now-infamous quote --- 'My change in party will enable me to be 
re-elected' --- sums up the problem for Specter. (Sestak turned that 
quote into an absolutely devastating ad against Specter.)," Cillizza 
adds. "If he winds up on the short end on Tuesday, Specter may well look 
back to April 28, 2009 as the day he lost the race."


Adds liberal pundit Margret Carlson, "The Republican-turned-Democrat 
looks "like an incumbent of two parties in a year when it's better to be 
an incumbent of none."


Waiting in the wings after Tuesday is Republican Pat Toomey, a former 
congressman and former head of the conservative Club for Growth, who 
narrowly lost a 2004 primary challenge to Specter. Regardless of who 
wins the Democratic primary, polls suggest a tight race this fall.


For months, Toomey has been training his fire on Specter. This week, 
however, the Republican called Sestak an "extreme liberal." He released 
a web video criticizing costly legislation he has supported and dubbed 
him "Joe Saystax." The message: Toomey is preparing for a tough race 
this fall --- against either Democrat.



© Newsmax. All rights reserved.


http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/specter-sestak-senate-obama/2010/05/13/id/358990?s=al&promo_code=9E47-1

--
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.<><>

What a surprise!! Holder ducks and dodges questions

[dick thompson]

   *   Article
 

   * comments
 


/static/all/img
3f58b219d3398210VgnVCM10a0c1a8c0RCRD
/politics/2010/05/13/holder-stays-mum-allegation-illegal-white-house-job-offer/

Updated May 13, 2010


 Holder Mum on Allegation of Illegal White House Job Offer to
 Pennsylvania Rep.

FOXNews.com

Attorney General Eric Holder, grilled Thursday at a Capitol Hill 
hearing, would not say whether his Justice Department was looking into 
allegations that the White House illegally offered a job to Rep. Joe 
Sestak in exchange for him getting out of the Pennsylvania Senate race. 


   * print
 

   * email 
   * share 
   * Check recommend
 


Decrease Font 
 
A A A Increase Font 
 



Attorney General Eric Holder testifies before the House Judiciary 
Committee May 13 on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo)


Attorney General Eric Holder, grilled Thursday at a Capitol Hill 
hearing, declined to say whether his Justice Department was looking into 
allegations that the White House illegally offered a job to Rep. Joe 
Sestak in exchange for him getting out of the Pennsylvania Senate race. 

Sestak, a Pennsylvania Democrat, leveled the charge in February, telling 
a Philadelphia television anchor he was offered the federal job to drop 
out of the primary race against Sen. Arlen Specter. Sestak did not 
withdraw and is still competing against Specter in Tuesday's election -- 
but the congressman has not elaborated on his charge publicly since the 
February interview. 

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has taken up the case. He called on Holder 
in late March to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the matter 
and on Thursday, hours into a House Judiciary Committee hearing, got his 
chance to press the attorney general. 

Issa said the accusation would amount to "multiple felonies" and wanted 
to know what Holder was going to do about it. He said he was "deeply 
concerned," with the election just five days away. 

Issa grew visibly frustrated as the attorney general declined to respond 
to his questions. 

"It is the department's policy ... not to comment on pending matters," 
Holder said at the end of a tense back-and-forth. "That is not what we do." 

Issa suggested Holder's reluctance to answer meant there was no 
investigation. 

"You don't answer or apparently investigate. ... You're not 
investigating whether it's a false statement by a member of Congress or 
a crime by the White House. What are we to do?" he said. 

Issa, earlier in the hearing, expressed frustration that the White House 
has responded to the charges with "the opinion of a non-attorney, a 
press secretary, that these were not problematic." 

He was referring to a response from White House Press Secretary Robert 
Gibbs in March. 

Gibbs said he talked to "people" in the White House about the claim and 
that, "I'm told whatever conversations have been had are not 
problematic." Gibbs said the matter was "in the past." 

Issa also pressed Holder Thursday on why he apparently hadn't responded 
to his letter bringing the allegation to his attention. Holder insisted 
that he thought he had responded and apologized. 


"It could be in the mail. It's very slow sometimes," Issa said.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/13/holder-stays-mum-allegation-illegal-white-house-job-offer/

--
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 Wall Street Journal’s Surveillance Fantasies

[M. Johnson]

The Wall Street Journal’s Surveillance Fantasies
Posted by
Julian
Sanchez
There are too few periodical venues for good short fiction these days, so
I’d normally be enthusiastic about the Wall Street Journal’s
decision to print works of fantasy. Unfortunately, they’ve opted to do so
on their editorial page­starting with a

long farrago of hypotheticals concerning the putative role of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in hindering the detection and
apprehension of failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. In fairness to
the editors, they acknowledge near the end of the piece that much of it
is unvarnished speculation, but their flights of creative fancy extend to
many claims presented as fact.
Let’s begin with the acknowledged fiction. The Journal editors
wonder whether Shahzad might have been under surveillance before his
botched Times Square attack, and posit that the NSA might have
intercepted communications from “Waziristan Taliban talking about ‘our
American brother Faisal,’ which could have been cross-referenced against
Karachi flight manifests,” or “maybe Shahzad traded seemingly innocuous
emails with Pakistani terrorists, and minimization precluded analysts
from detecting a pattern.”  Anything is possible. But it’s a leap to
make this inference merely because investigators appear to have had
fairly specific knowledge about his contacts with terrorists after
he had already been identified.  They would not have needed to
“retroactively to reconstruct his activities from other already-gathered
foreign wiretaps:” Once they had zeroed in on Shahzad, his calling
patterns could have been reconstructed from phone company calling records
whether or not he or his confederates were being targeted at the time the
communications occurred, and indeed, those records could have been
obtained by means of a National Security Letter without any oversight
from the FISA Court.
This is part of a more general strategy we often see deployed by
advocates of expanded surveillance powers. After the fact, one can always
tell a story about how a known terrorist might have been detected
by means of more unfettered spying authority, just as one can always tell
a story about how any particular calamity would have been averted if the
right sort of regulation were in place. Sometimes the story is even
plausible. But if we look at the history of recent intelligence failures,
it’s almost invariably the case that the real problem was the inability
to connect the right set of data points from the flood of data already
obtained, not insufficient ability to collect. The problem is that it’s
easy and satisfying to call for legislation lifting the restraints on
surveillance­and lifting still more when intelligence agencies fail to
exhibit perfect clairvoyance­but difficult if not impossible, certainly
for those of us without high-level clearances, to say anything useful
about the internal process reforms that might help make better use of
existing data. The pundit in me empathizes, but these just-so stories are
a poor rationale for further diluting civil liberties
protections.
Let’s move on to the unacknowledged fictions, of which there are
many.  Perhaps most stunning is the claim that “U.S.
intelligence-gathering capability has been substantially curtailed in
stages over the last decade.” They mean, one supposes, that Congress
ultimately imposed a patina of judicial oversight on the lawless program
of warrantless wiretapping and data program authorized by the Bush
administration in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. But the claim that
somehow intelligence gathering is more constrained now than it was
in 2000 just doesn’t pass the straight face test. In addition to the
radical expansion of the aforementioned National Security Letter
authorities, Congress approved

roving wiretaps for domestic intelligence, broad FISA orders for the
production of “any tangible thing,” so-called “sneak and peek” searches,
looser restraints on existing FISA wiretap powers, and finally, with the
FISA Amendments Act of 2008, executive power to authorize broad
“programs” of surveillance without specified targets. In a handful of
cases, legislators have rolled back slightly their initial grants of
power or imposed some restraints on powers the executive arrogated to
itself, but it is ludicrous to deny that the net trend over the decade
has been toward more, rather than less, intelligence-gathering
capability.
Speaking of executive arrogation of power, here’s how the Journal
describes Bush’s warrantless Stellar Wind program:

Via executive order after 9/11, the Bush Administration created the
covert Terrorist Surveillance Program. TSP allowed the National Security
Agency to monitor the traffic and content of terrorist electronic
communications overseas, unencumbered by FISA warrants even if one of the
parties was in the U.S.
This is misleading.  There was no such thing as the “Terrorist
Surveillance Program.”  That was a marketing term concocted after

The Political Economy of Health Care

[M. Johnson]

"Government involvement in the
financing of medical services and the provision of coverage has had
wide-ranging negative consequences for most people. By stimulating demand
and disconnecting it from cost, the state has created serious problems,
which in turn have prompted calls for more government intervention to fix
what the earlier intervention caused. (There has not been space to
discuss how government constricts the supply of services through
licensing and other measures, aggravating the problems even
more.)"
The Political Economy of
Health Care
by

Sheldon Richman,
Posted May 14, 2010
This article originally appeared in the February 2010 edition of
Freedom Daily

Trouble begins the moment “health care” becomes a matter of
government spending. From then on, unless the policy is reversed, society
is on the road to state intervention in people’s most personal decisions.

It’s easy to see why. If government starts picking up the tab for some
people’s medical services, those people will not face the full costs of
those services. As a result, they will overconsume and others will be
stuck with the expense, setting off a clamor for government controls and
even socialized medicine. 
It’s supply and demand, and, as the economists say, demand curves slope
downward. The lower the price, the more will be consumed. 
The demand for much “health care” (in truth a very broad category of
services), like many things, is responsive to price. If services appear
cheap or free, people can find many reasons to consume them. At a high
price a person might ignore a minor pain or a sneeze or take an
over-the-counter remedy. But at a very low price or no price at all, that
person might run to the doctor every time he has a pain or discomfort. He
would have no incentive to be cost-conscious. Most medical service is not
emergency care, so there is a great range for discretionary consumption.

This would not be a problem if medical services were found superabundant
in nature. But in our world medical services are scarce. They consist of
people ­ who have limited time and energy and who face opportunity costs
­ and resources, which, when used for one purpose, are unavailable for
another purpose. 
In a world of scarcity, wants are unlimited while resources are finite.
Even if all resources and people were directed to the production of
medical services, there would not be enough to satisfy a population’s
entire demand if the explicit price were free or nearly so. 
Thus, when medical care is an item in the government’s budget and the
state’s objective is to make that care universal, which means apparently
cheap or free, the result is fiscally unviable. The medical part of the
budget could easily overwhelm the rest if government officials don’t
impose limits. 
Look at Medicare, the medical program for people over 65. It began with
“modest” cost projections. At its inception in 1965, expenditures for
1990 were projected to be $9 billion. In fact, they were $66 billion
(adjusted for inflation). Today Medicare has a 75-year $37 trillion
unfunded liability. That is, the discounted present value of outstanding
promises exceeds the discounted present value of expected revenues by
that amount. Medicare dwarfs Social Security in this regard. Medicaid,
the government’s medical program for people below the “poverty line,” has
also exceeded cost projections. Medicare and Medicaid combined will cost
$742 billion in the current fiscal year, about a quarter of the total
budget. That’s more than President Obama proposed separately for total
military spending and for discretionary nonmilitary spending. When the
baby-boom generation goes on Medicare en masse, the budget will grow.

With government (that is, taxpayers) picking up the tab, the consumption
of medical services at once becomes a “public matter.” Politicians,
always with an eye on the next election, will find advantage in expanding
the government’s medical budget ­ especially for the elderly, who vote
and have a strong lobby ­ but they have other constituencies to please
also. They can’t let medical programs swallow up all the government’s
revenues. Meanwhile, the taxpayers have a natural, if unrealized,
interest in limiting the medical consumption of people on the dole: the
taxation and government borrowing that would be required to finance ever
higher levels of consumption of medical services are harmful to economic
growth, not to mention personal liberty. 

Rationing
This tension is inherent in any third-party
payment system. Buyers disconnected from the full cost have a conflict of
interest with payers who are disconnected from the benefits. The former
have an incentive to get as much service as possible, while the latter
have an incentive to limit the choices of the buyers. 
Thus government is inevitably drawn toward rationing medical care as soon
as it takes on the job of financing such services to any part of the
population. Rationing does not need to be explicit, as occurred during

Self-Regulation in the Corporate State: The BP Spill

[M. Johnson]

"In this context there’s less to the
contrast between government regulation and corporate self-regulation than
meets the eye. Self-regulation in a corporate state does not constitute
the free market. When companies are sheltered in any substantial way from
the competitive market’s disciplinary forces, incentives turn perverse.
Moreover, “state capitalism” and the
corporate form
(pdf) – with its
agency
problem – can produce the temptation to cut costs imprudently in
order to make the next quarterly report look attractive to
shareholders.
"“Putting profits before people” is a feature of state, or crony,
capitalism not the free market."
The Goal Is Freedom
Self-Regulation in the Corporate State: The BP
Spill
Which system failed?
by
Sheldon
Richman
Posted May 14, 2010
With some 7,000 barrels of oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico each day
from BP’s exploded Deepwater Horizon well, offshore drilling and
oil-industry regulation have returned to the front pages.
The familiar old trap is set: Do you want unfettered markets and oil
spills or government regulation and safety?  The implied premise is
that the oil industry operates in a free market. So, the argument goes,
the only alternative is government regulation.
On first glance that story is plausible.
 From

USA Today:

The company that owns the offshore well spewing crude oil in the Gulf
of Mexico and other major oil companies spearheaded a campaign to thwart
a government plan to impose tighter regulations aimed at preventing
similar disasters, according to government records.

Tighter regulations would have required that drillers perform
independent audits and hazard assessments designed to reduce accidents
caused by human errors, but the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS)
has so far not imposed the rules in the face of near unanimous opposition
from oil companies.

Oil executives ­ including BP, which leased the rig that exploded
April 20 ­ argued that the industry had a solid environmental record and
most companies had voluntarily adopted similar safeguards to protect
against a major spill. They also said the new rules would have been too
costly.
So: the MMS wanted to regulate, but the industry said it could
regulate itself at lower cost, insisting it was a good steward of the
environment.
Yet, the
New York
Times reported, “Despite … repeated promises to reform, BP continues
to lag other oil companies when it comes to safety, according to federal
officials and industry analysts.” The Times said BP chief executive Tony
Hayward “conceded that the company had problems when he took over three
years ago. But he said he had instituted broad changes to improve
safety….”
Why did BP have problems? The Times goes on: “Some analysts say the
safety problems indicate that BP has not yet reined in the culture of
risk that prevailed under Mr. Hayward’s predecessor, John Browne…. Mr.
Browne set aggressive profit goals, and BP managers drastically cut costs
to meet their quarterly targets. After the 2005 explosion in Texas City
[killing 15 workers], investigators found that routine maintenance that
might have averted the accident had been delayed because of pressure to
reduce expenses.”
What we seem to have is a company that, in pursuit of short-term profits,
was less than meticulous about safety (other people and their property,
that is) while it and its industry effectively vetoed government
safeguards that might have prevented the explosion that killed 11 workers
and caused the damaging spill.
Some will defend BP in the name of the “free market” or minimize the
event, protesting that the Obama administration’s remedial measures will
“undermine our capitalist system.” Meanwhile, the “progressive” statists
will declare that once again the free market has failed. The respective
bases will be rallied.

Corporatist System
But BP’s defenders and statist critics both have
it wrong. This is not the story of a well-meaning or negligent firm
operating in the free market. Negligent or not, BP is a player in a
corporatist system that for generations has featured a close relationship
between government and major business firms. (It wouldn’t have surprised
Adam Smith.)
Prominent companies have always been influential at all levels of
government ­ and no industry more so than oil, which has long been a top
concern of the national policy elite, most particularly the
foreign-policy establishment. When state governments failed in the 1920s
to put a lid on unruly competition and low prices, the oil companies
turned to Franklin Roosevelt and the federal government, winning the
cartelizing Petroleum Code,

significant parts of which were revived after the National Recovery
Administration was declared unconstitutional. In the 1950s, when cheap
imports depressed prices, the national government imposed quotas on
Middle Eastern oil. (In 1960 OPEC, a “cartel to confront a cartel,” was
founded.) Republican or Democratic, energy policy is not made without oil
industry input.
In this conte

Did you see this one? What would you think should be done about the judge here

[dick thompson]

When I read that a judge treats a divorce involving split custody of a 
child, especially one where the father gets custody for the school year, 
I don't think "cut and dried" should be a consideration in the case.  
Anything with a child is not "cut and dried."


http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?ps=1011&rip_id=%3CD9FMOOA80%40news.ap.org%3E&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS&page=1

--
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.

Telepathy has taken a step closer to reality after British scientists developed a computer that can read your thoughts.

[Jack Sparrow]

Telepathy has taken a step closer to reality after British scientists
developed a computer that can read your thoughts.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7421180/Telepathic-computer-can-read-your-mind.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.

Threats to United States Remain, Northcom Commander Says

[Travis]

  Threats to United States Remain, Northcom Commander
Says
*Thu, 13 May 2010 13:21:00 -0500*
   Threats to United States Remain, Northcom Commander Says

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 13, 2010 - Lauding successes within North American Aerospace
Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command aimed at protecting the homeland,
the outgoing commander emphasized today that the threats confronting the
United States – both natural and manmade – will continue.

"It is important for us to understand that the threats have not gone away,"
Air Force Gen. Victor E. "Gene" Renuart said during his last news conference
before leaving the commands he has led for the past three years.

Northcom was formed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to oversee
the military's role in homeland defense. NORAD is a binational U.S.-Canadian
Command that provides aerospace warning and control for North America.

"Mother Nature, she is going to continue," Renuart said at his Peterson Air
Force Base, Colo., headquarters. "But even more importantly, the threats to
the defense of our nations are not going away. You need only to read the
papers to understand that terrorism is still alive and active out there.
Terrorists are focusing their attention on the United States, on Canada, and
on other Western nations as a place to target future activity."

Renuart also cited the challenges posed by cyber threats.

"Cyber continues to be an extraordinary threat, not just to the military,
but to our economic structure [and] our education systems," he said. "The
ability of cyber experts to infiltrate the networks we use and extract data
or put malware in place is significant, and the nation has to continue to
work that."

Just as cyber threats affect the entire nation, confronting them requires a
whole-of-government approach, he said. Citing "huge capability" within the
cybersecurity domain, Renuart said the challenge now is to ensure agencies
work together to eliminate gaps.

"We have to learn to integrate that in a way that looks across the spectrum
of diplomatic, military, economic issues for our nation," he said.

Renuart praised the members of both NORAD and Northcom and their
demonstrated commitment to the safety and security and defense of the United
States and Canada. "The mission of homeland defense is the most important
mission we have for our nation," he said.

Both commands have become increasingly interoperable, interdependent and
complementary as they carry out their unique but interrelated missions, he
said. Meanwhile, they have focused on building partnerships with interagency
partners, states and other nations to ensure they are prepared to respond to
short- or no-notice missions.

As he prepares to leave his post next week, Renuart cited aging systems that
support the NORAD mission as one nagging area of concern. While some radar
systems have been modernized and some temporary fixes are in place, he said,
the issue needs to be addressed for the longer term.

"The answer isn't just to fix radar systems," he said. "The answer is really
an integrated system of sensors that allows us to look from space to air to
the maritime, even to the land and our border security areas, in a seamless
fashion to create a common security picture."


*Biographies:*
Air Force Gen. Victor E. "Gene"
Renuart

*Related Sites:*
U.S. Northern Command 
North American Aerospace Defense Command 




__._,_.___


Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the
Web(Yahoo!
ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily
Digest|
Switch
to Fully 
Featured
Visit Your Group
|
Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


__,_._,___

-- 
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.

Tiny Tim, Global Warming Visionary

[Travis]

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2010/05/tiny-tim-global.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.

Clinton staff: "We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns."

[Travis]

Clinton staff: “We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to
capture a whole new class of guns.” Kagan wrote the Clinton ban on gun
imports.

David Kopel • May 11, 2010 4:01 pm

The Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant reports: “According to records at the
William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, Ark., she also
drafted an executive order restricting the importation of certain
semiautomatic assault rifles.”

When ban was announced, Clinton staffer Jose Cerda stated, “We are taking
the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of
guns.” [Los Angeles Times, Oct. 22, 1997].

The import ban was made permanent in the spring of 1998. Here’s an
explanation I wrote, as part of an article on Rahm Emanuel for America’s 1st
Freedom, which is a NRA member magazine:

In 1998, Clinton forbade the import of 58 types of firearms and their
accessories. . . .

Emanuel defended the ban on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, repeatedly
claiming that the banned guns were ‘military weapons, not sporting weapons.’

‘Those weapons were designed for one purpose—military—and they don’t belong
on our streets,’ he insisted.

Emanuel asserted that Clinton had banned “the AK-47,” which was pure
nonsense. The AK-47, which is a fully automatic rifle, was not covered by
the import ban. Indeed, not one of the guns banned was an automatic, nor
were any of the guns manufactured primarily for military use.

All the banned guns were used in target competitions. Some had names like
“Hunter” or “Sporter.” So how did Clinton and Emanuel get around the 1986
federal law requiring that imports must be allowed if the gun is
“particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”?

Emanuel argued that it was permissible to ban the guns because [a Treasury
study found that] comments from hunting guides showed that the guns were
rarely recommended for hunting trips. As if the only gun that is a
“sporting” gun is one used by people who can afford to take trips with a
professional guide.

Emanuel further contended that the guns should be banned because they
“accept rounds in the 20, 30, 40, in some cases 100 rounds at a case” [sic].
Of course, every gun that accepts a detachable magazine can accept a
detachable magazine of any size. So Emanuel’s theory would actually set the
stage for a ban on every gun that uses a detachable magazine.

Democratic Senator Pat Leahy, who was then the ranking member of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, wrote to President Clinton that he “strongly believes
that using a Presidential directive to avoid the normal legislative process
regarding any changes to the assault weapons ban is the wrong way to go.”

The list of banned guns is here, at page 16
http://volokh.com/2010/05/11/were-bending-the-law-as-far-as-we-can-to-ban-an-entirely-new-class-of-guns-kagan-wrote-the-clinton-ban-on-gun-imports/

-- 
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.

If you want something done right, call a Redneck «

[Travis]

http://angry.net/blog2/?p=2014

-- 
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.

good explanation of the oil industry practices and regulations

[dick thompson]

http://oilmatters.blogspot.com/

--
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.