Congresswoman from Silicon Valley writes op-ed re net neutrality and broadband

[dick thompson]

+
| Congresswoman Writes On Broadband, Net Neutrality
|   from the listen-to-the-lady dept.
|   posted by samzenpus on Sunday February 06, @18:52 (United States)
|https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/06/228245/Congresswoman-Writes-On-Broadband-Net-Neutrality?from=newsletter
+

An anonymous reader writes "Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat
representing parts of Silicon Valley has written [0]an opt-ed defending
net neutrality and pushing the administration to take more steps to speed
up U.S. broadband. From the article: 'A climate of openness and
innovation has been the hallmark of the Internet. A decade ago, it's what
allowed a startup named Google to compete with better-funded, less
technologically advanced competitors. Today, Congress has the
responsibility to preserve this climate for the next Google, and for the
consumers and the economy that will benefit from its success.'"

Discuss this story at:

https://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/06/228245/Congresswoman-Writes-On-Broadband-Net-Neutrality?from=newsletter#commentlisting

Links:

0.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/06/INEI1H56JG.DTL&tsp=1


Copyright 1997-2010, Geeknet, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.



--
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: Tea Party express event this week

[Bruce Majors]

 Tea Party Express Town Hall RSVP

 Tea Party Express is hosting a live and interactive Town Hall with Members
of Congress. The Town Hall will be held on Tuesday, February 8th from 7:00 -
9:00 pm at the National Press Club. Confirmed Members of Congress that will
be in attendance are Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator Mike Lee (UT),
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) and Congressman Steve King (IA). Seating
is limited, so we ask that you please RSVP on the form below. Please plan to
arrive by 6:45 pm in an effort to have the event begin promptly at 7:00 pm.
If you have any questions, please contact James Lyle at james@gmail.com.

 * Required
  First Name *
  Last Name *
  Email Address *
  Phone Number
  City *
  State *
  How many people will be attending with you? *
  Please provide the names of those attending. *
  Would you like to be added to our email list so that we can notify you in
the future of similar events? *

   -  Yes
   -  No

  Powered by Google Docs 

-- 
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.

How it should have been done

[dick thompson]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ETrr-XHBjE&feature=related

--
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.

Who’s Afraid of a Free Society?

[MJ]

"Thus Americans tolerate much
government predation because they have bought into the myth that state
intervention may be an irritant, but the alternative of a free society
would be far worse. They have been conditioned to believe that despite
whatever occasional corruption they may observe in politics, the
government by and large has their well-being at heart. Schoolchildren in
particular learn a version of history worthy of Pravda.
Governments, they are convinced, abolished child labor, gave people good
wages and decent working conditions; protect them from bad food, drugs,
airplanes, and consumer products; have cleaned their air and water; and
have done countless other things to improve their well-being. They truly
cannot imagine how anyone who isn’t a stooge for industry could think
differently, or how free people acting in the absence of compulsion and
threats of violence -- which is what government activity amounts to --
might have figured out a way to solve these problems. The history of
regulation is, in this fact-free version of events, a tale of righteous
crusaders winning victories for the public against grasping and selfish
private interests who care nothing for the common good."
Who’s Afraid of a Free Society?
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Today is the release date for my new book,

Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal
Collapse. It could just as easily have been called Everything
Needs to Be Abolished, and Here’s Why.
The book does two things. First, it lays bare the true fiscal position of
the U.S. government, and shows why some kind of default is not merely
possible but inevitable. But this is not a book full of numbers about the
impending collapse. The collapse is merely the jumping-off point. By far
the more central part of the book is this: the critical first step for
reversing this mess and checking the seemingly unstoppable federal
advance is to stick a dagger through the heart of the myths by which
government has secured the confidence and consent of the people.
We know these myths by heart. Government acts on behalf of the public
good. It keeps us safe. It protects us against monopolies. It provides
indispensable services we could not provide for ourselves. Without it,
America would be populated by illiterates, half of us would be dead from
quack medicine or exploding consumer products, and the other half would
lead a feudal existence under the iron fist of private firms that worked
them to the bone for a dollar a week.
Thus Americans tolerate much government predation because they have
bought into the myth that state intervention may be an irritant, but the
alternative of a free society would be far worse. They have been
conditioned to believe that despite whatever occasional corruption they
may observe in politics, the government by and large has their well-being
at heart. Schoolchildren in particular learn a version of history worthy
of Pravda. Governments, they are convinced, abolished child labor,
gave people good wages and decent working conditions; protect them from
bad food, drugs, airplanes, and consumer products; have cleaned their air
and water; and have done countless other things to improve their
well-being. They truly cannot imagine how anyone who isn’t a stooge for
industry could think differently, or how free people acting in the
absence of compulsion and threats of violence -- which is what government
activity amounts to -- might have figured out a way to solve these
problems. The history of regulation is, in this fact-free version of
events, a tale of righteous crusaders winning victories for the public
against grasping and selfish private interests who care nothing for the
common good.
But let’s suppose that the federal government has in fact been an enemy
of the people’s welfare, and that the progress in our living standards
has occurred quite in spite of its efforts. It pits individuals, firms,
industries, regions, races, and age groups against each other in a
zero-sum game of mutual plunder. It takes credit for improvements in
material conditions that we in fact owe to the private sector, while
refusing to accept responsibility for the countless failures and social
ills to which its own programs have given rise. Rather than bringing
about the "public good," whatever that means, it governs us
through a series of fiefdoms seeking bigger budgets and more power.
Despite the veneer of public-interest rhetoric by which it camouflages
its real nature, it is a mere parasite on productive activity and a net
minus in the story of human welfare.
Now if this is a more accurate depiction of the federal government, we
are likely to have a different view of the consequences of the coming
fiscal collapse. So an institution that has seized our wealth, held back
the rise in our standard of living, and deceived schoolchildren into
honoring it as the source of all progress, will have to be cut back?
What’s the catch? This is no calamity to be deplored. It is an
opp

Fwd: News Alert: AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal

[dick thompson]

Just what we need - they two deserve each other - schlock meet schlock

 Original Message 
Subject:News Alert: AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal
Date:   Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:06:57 -0500
From:   NYTimes.com News Alert 
Reply-To:   nytdir...@nytimes.com
To: rhomp2...@earthlink.net



Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Mon, February 07, 2011 -- 12:05 AM ET
-

AOL to Buy The Huffington Post in $315 Million Deal

The Huffington Post, which began in 2005 with a meager $1
million investment and has grown into one of the most heavily
visited news Web sites in the country, is being acquired by
AOL in a deal that creates an unlikely pairing of two online
media giants.

The two companies completed the sale Sunday evening and were
expected to announce the deal Monday morning. The deal will
allow AOL to greatly expand its news gathering and original
content creation, areas that its chief executive, Tim
Armstrong, views as vital to reversing a decade-long decline.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07aol.html?emc=na


About This E-Mail
You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
alerts from NYTimes.com.

To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
or other newsletters, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/email

NYTimes.com
620 Eighth Ave.
New York, NY 10018

Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company




--
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 Constitution Is on Life-Support

[MJ]

The Constitution Is on Life-Support
by Gary North
"This is a republic, not a democracy. Let's keep it
that way!"
When I was a teenager, that was a popular saying in conservative
circles. Conservative circles in 1958 were very few and very far between.
The movement lacked slogans. Every fringe movement needs a few slogans.
Slogans are like secret handshakes in a club. They identify one's true
colors to those in the know. 
That slogan was misleading then, and it is misleading today. 
America is an oligarchy of lawyers and the businessmen who hire them.

In no other nation do five lawyers determine what is lawful and what is
not. This supreme authority of five people is both a symbol and the legal
foundation of the political system that rules 310 million Americans. Yet
we are so used to it that we give it no thought. We assume that this is
normative: "the way things are 'sposed to be." Yet it is
neither normative nor Constitutional. It is merely traditional. 
On July 9, 1986, CBS television ran a show titled The Burger
Years. It was an interview with the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, Warren Burger. It was the most important interview ever granted by
a sitting Chief Justice. It was conducted by the former public relations
spokesman for Lyndon Johnson, Bill Moyers, who by 1986 had become a
respected media figure, a Voice of Disinterested Authority – the only
Establishment survivor of the sinking of the U.S.S. Lyndon. In that
interview, this exchange occurred. 

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Constitutional cases – constitutional
jurisprudence is open to the Court to change its position in view of
changing conditions. And it has done so. 

MOYERS: And what does it take for the Court to reverse itself?

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER: Five votes.
This may sound cynical. It was not cynical. It was a forthright
statement of judicial principle. Five people decide the meaning and
applicability of the foundational document of American civil government.
At any time, one of these five can change his or her mind, or be replaced
on the court by someone who does not share this view. Then the
Constitution is reinterpreted, and whatever was lawful before becomes
unlawful, or vice versa. 
When the court is divided 5 to 4, one vote decides what is lawful: the
swing vote. 
This is called republican government if you are a conservative
Republican, and democratic government if you are a liberal Democrat.
Every movement needs a few defining slogans. The more widely they are
believed, the less accurate they are. 

OBAMACARE 
The House passed a bill repealing Obamacare,
as expected. The
Senate voted it down, 51 to 47, as expected. 
Each side is jockeying for position in preparation for the elections of
2012. They know that. The press knows that. 
Senator Mikulski of Maryland spoke for the extreme Left of the Democrats
in the Senate, as she has for a quarter century. She was elected to the
Senate in 1986, two months after Burger retired and four months after he
gave his interview. Here is her assessment of the Republicans' strategy.
She identified it as "one more hollow, symbolic,
pander-to-the-masses amendment."
Who are the masses? Voters. Lots and lots of voters. For the moment, that
is a threat to the Democrats in the Senate. They have less than two years
to change the minds of the masses. 
Yet all this may turn out to be a sideshow. The real rulers of America
have begun to choose sides. Two Federal judges have said the law is
unconstitutional. Two have said that it is constitutional. 
The Florida challenge to the law was brought by 26 states. The
government's attorneys argued that states do not have legal standing to
bring the case before a Federal court. It was a weak defense. 
Congress is divided: House vs. Senate. States are divided: 26 to
(presumably) 24. The Federal district courts are divided: 2 to 2.

So, we are headed for a showdown in the halls of the United States
Supreme Court. A 5 to 4 decision is a real possibility. If the Court
rules that the section of the law that has been declared unconstitutional
by the judge in Florida – the section on the mandatory purchase of health
insurance – then the whole law is gutted. It loses its teeth. At that
point, it's dead for two years. Then the outcome will be decided by
Congress in 2013, when Republicans may have the Senate and the
Presidency. 
In a 5 to 4 decision, it's one man-one vote: the deciding vote. 
If it is declared constitutional, and Ms. Kagan votes in favor, then a
lawyer who served as an Obama administration lawyer is the swing vote. If
she recuses herself,

as the Wall Street Journal

says she should, then a 4 to 4 decision will create havoc. In two
Federal districts, parts of the law cannot be enforced. There may be more
district courts invalidating the section on mandatory purchase, if more
cases are introduced, which looks certain. 
Republican government? Hardly. Democratic government? Hardly. Judicial
oligarchy? Exactly! 

IT WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 
The United States C

Ron Paul to Ask Fed Why After Trillions in Free Money, Unemployment Is Still Sky High

[MJ]

Ron Paul to Ask Fed Why After Trillions in Free Money,
Unemployment Is Still Sky High
by Tyler Durden
ZeroHedge
While everyone is relishing the Fed's third and only mandate
these days, namely to send the Russell 2000 to 36,000 and cotton limit up
to infinity and beyond, while everyone else is terrified to short stock
in advance of what increasingly appears like near certain additional
quantitative easing, congressman Ron Paul has announced that the first
Monetary Policy subcommittee meeting will focus on one of those two now
forgotten Fed mandates, that of creating jobs.
Of course, the answer to all of these problems is simple: no debt ceiling
raise. If the Fed can't monetize any more debt and make the Primary
Dealers ever richer (now that the PD ranks have just been expanded from
18 to 20 to include SocGen and derivative (!) trader MF Global, and its
CEO Jon Corzine) from commissions on indirect debt monetization, its
power is gone. But that will mean doing something far less theatrical
than a few hearings, and far more responsible: such as preventing
rampaging inflation across America (see cotton chart posted
previously).


Paul Announces Subcommittee Hearing On The Federal Reserve’s Impact on
Unemployment
Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Ron
Paul announced today the Subcommittee will meet for a hearing to examine
the impact of Federal Reserve policies on job creation and the
unemployment rate. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, February 9th at
10 am in room 2128 Rayburn. 
Subcommittee Chairman Paul said, “I’m very pleased to hold our first
subcommittee hearing in the new Congress on a topic that could not be
more critical, namely unemployment. Despite enormous amounts of monetary
and credit expansion by the Federal Reserve in recent years, the nation’s
unemployment picture remains bleak. While many focus on the impact of
fiscal policies on employment, the effect of monetary policy often goes
unexamined. In my view we are now experiencing the bust that inevitably
results from the misallocation of capital and human resources in a period
of artificially cheap credit. It is important to understand the Federal
Reserve’s role in creating today’s unemployment crisis, while also
highlighting that high unemployment and low economic growth can persist
even in the face of tremendous monetary inflation.”
The Federal Reserve has taken unprecedented action to provide liquidity
to financial markets and some U.S. corporations; however, unemployment
remains above 9 percent. The hearing, entitled Can Monetary Policy Really
Create Jobs?, will focus on the Fed’s recent actions, the likelihood
those actions will reduce unemployment, and the critical role of the
private sector in job creation.
While the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress believe
increased government spending will improve the nation’s economy,
Republicans on the Financial Services Committee know economic growth
depends on providing the private sector, especially small businesses,
with the certainty they need to create jobs. The Fed’s policies, as well
as the Obama administration’s unsustainable debt and spending, continue
to prevent small business owners from growing and hiring because of
continued uncertainty over new taxes, higher interest rates, and the
expanding role of government in the economy. 
On November 3, 2010, the Federal Reserve announced that it planned to
purchase $600 billion in long-term Treasuries (dubbed “QE2”). This is the
second time since the 2008 financial crisis that the Federal Reserve has
engaged in quantitative easing. The latest round of quantitative easing,
along with the Fed’s action to bailout financial companies, has added
trillions of dollars to the government balance sheet.
Reprinted with permission from
ZeroHedge.





-- 
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.

Kleptocrats at Work

[MJ]

Kleptocrats at Work
by Paul Craig Roberts
Kleptocracy is as old as government. Exotic car broker
Michael Sheehan discovered an amazing case nine years ago when he was
invited to purchase rare Ferraris and McLaren F1s from a Brunei
collection. He writes about it in the current issue of Sports Car Market.

Brunei is a family-owned oil Sultanate of 400,000 people located on the
island of Borneo in southeast Asia. A brother of the sultan was finance
minister until 1997, when the Asian financial crisis hit Brunei. The
Arthur Anderson accounting firm was called in to audit the books. The
accountants found that between 1983 and 1998 $40 billion had disappeared
and that the finance minister himself had personally spent $14.8 billion.

The finance minister had a collection of 2,500 exotic cars, 500
properties, five yachts, and nine world-class aircraft. He had managed to
spend $900,000,000 in the London jeweler Asprey, apparently guaranteeing
the old age retirements of a number of attractive women who consort with
kleptocrats. 
The finance minister was allowed to keep 500 of the cars, but he had to
turn in the rest of his loot – to no avail as we shall see. 
Sheehan went to Brunei to view the cars. From his general description of
the collection, I estimate that the finance minister had paid six figures
for the least expensive car in the collection. Many cost much more.
McLaren F1s cost $1,000,000 new. They are more valuable now. In October
2008 one sold at a London auction for $4,100,000. Many of the cars were
custom built. Some of the high-speed Ferraris "were coated in
radar-absorbent matt-black coatings and fitted with infrared cameras for
night driving." Easily more than one billion dollars of Brunei’s oil
revenues had found their way into the finance minister’s car collection.

Sheehan reports that the cars were stored in about 12 buildings
"surrounded by a high wall topped with razor wire and with a
bomb-proof front gate" and patrolled by "armed Gurkhas with
very serious German shepherds." The security was for naught, because
"the air conditioning was off, but the tropical sun was not."
Years of heat and humidity had destroyed the cars. The storage facilities
had become a car tomb. 
Sheehan concluded that most of the cars were in such a state of ruin that
only a few of the cars had sufficiently high inherent values to support
commercially viable restorations. The best use of the rest, Sheehan
decided, would be to turn them into an artificial ocean reef. 
The careless waste is shocking and even more so to car buffs who consider
many of the ruined cars to be artistic masterpieces. This is the kind of
opulent waste that we associate with family-owned countries. But before
we Americans start feeling superior, consider that the U.S. government
puts the Brunei finance minister to shame. 
On January 29, 2002,

CBS Evening News reported that the Pentagon had lost track of $2.3
trillion, yes, $2,300 billion. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld admitted,
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in
transactions." "We know it is gone," said Jim Minnery of
the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, "but we don’t know what
they spent it on." 
Reported thefts from Iraq and Afghanistan reconstruction aid rival
Brunei’s missing billions. Pallets of cash stacked high have been flown
out of Afghanistan in plain view. The stories of corruption and missing
funds are so numerous that they are no longer reported. 
The U.S. Congress, at President Obama’s request, recently passed the
largest military spending bill of all time in behalf of the share prices
of the military/security complex, while many of the 50 states teeter on
bankruptcy and default on pensions and municipal bonds and slash
education, medical, and other services. For "our" government in
Washington, it is a no-brainer that the profits of the military-security
complex take every precedence over every need of the American people.

If the Brunei finance minister’s billion-dollar car collection becomes an
artificial reef, it will foster marine life. In contrast, Dick Cheney
seriously damaged, perhaps for many years to come, the Gulf of Mexico,
because Cheney believed a few extra bucks for the oil companies were more
important than safety standards. The missing safety standards have cost
British Petroleum $20 billion in clean-up and restitution costs.

U.S. taxpayers are paying the Orwellian Department of Homeland Security

$56,336,000,000 this year to porno-scan and grope them and otherwise
invade their privacy, while millions of Americans are foreclosed out of
their homes. 
How are the priorities of the U.S. government superior to those of the
Brunei finance minister? When it comes to waste and corruption, lies and
deception, the U.S. government has no equal. 

http://vdare.com/roberts/110206_kleptocrats.htm 




-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our o

Re: The poor are not getting poorer

[studio]

On Feb 6, 3:06 pm, Wes  wrote:
> it's a morality thing actually,

What may be morality to you, is ethics to someone else.

> more people are willing to have more
> people working for them for less than it takes to make a living, i
> call it ungainfull employment.

Not exactly.
Productivity rates have continually increased over many years, meaning
less people are needed to produce the same amount they would have
before.

> we don't need more jobs we need the
> jobs we have to actually pay our bills so we don't turn to socialism
> to supply our needs.

We do need more jobs because the population is always increasing and
there are many people not employed and out of work for quite a long
time.
Socialism to supply needs?
You use it to supply the military's wants and needs all the time.

What does your Bible say about that?

-- 
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.

Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishment

[MJ]

Five False Predictions of the AIDS Establishment
by Liam Scheff
1. We're All At Risk: 
In 1987, the fear-and-death hyperbole machine that is the engine of
'public health' pandemania was in such ferocious motion, that
Oprah Winfrey
issued this warning: 
"Research studies now project that one in five – listen to me, hard
to believe – one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end
of the next three years. That’s by 1990. One in five." Although
Americans have grown larger, not thinner, Oprah has never apologized for
her wild-eyed hyperbole. But the mainstream has, issuing warnings in the
press that "the threat of a global heterosexual pandemic
has disappeared,"
and that worldwide AIDS numbers are over-inflated, needing to be halved
or more, because the AIDS public relations machine has created a
"House of
Numbers."
2. AIDS is an Incurable Disease:
AIDS is, in fact, what it always was – a variety of different
illnesses manifesting very differently in different people and
populations. It's been no 'one size fits all' diagnosis. It has proven
best-treatable by a multilateral approach – a combination of
nutritional
, pharmaceutical, and lifestyle interventions which have done best to
leave the harder, sanctified "AIDS Drugs" behind. Notably,
those who jumped on the FDA-approved bandwagon, with high-dose
AZT, or
those who "hit early and hit hard" with drug
"cocktails," died fastest, and died horribly,
poisoned by the
pharmaceutical establishment.
3. AIDS Is a Sexually Transmitted Disease:
From 1987 to 1997, a team of researchers in Northern California at
the University of California, Berkeley, conducted the longest study on
heterosexual transmission on record. They studied 175 sexually-active
long-term couples, one person in each twosome testing HIV positive, one
HIV negative. The pairs entered the study having every kind of sex
imaginable, up, down, front and back, with a majority not using condoms.
Over six years, they were encouraged to use latex, but a large percentage
continue not to. The results? 
At the end of the study, of the 175 negative partners, a very low number
had converted from HIV negative to HIV positive, despite regular sexual
exposure to their positive partner. A very low number, indeed….In fact,
the number was so low, that

Wikipedia, the guardian of all populist junk science, has censored
"The Padian
Study," as it's known, from its "AIDS" and
"HIV" pages. The number? Zero. No one, nobody, not a single
person who tested negative became positive, despite years of sex with a
positive partner. This is a heck of a thing for a presumed
"STD," and has more to do with the realities of HIV testing
than the mainstream cares to admit…
4. HIV Testing Stops the Spread of AIDS:
"AIDS" has, through the constant loosening of official
definitions and expansion of symptoms and illnesses, been turned into a
brand-name worldwide for any disease of poverty, drug abuse,
pharmaceutical poisoning or environmental intoxication. "AIDS"
functions as a blanket term laid heavily on the backs of limited but
massive populations, mostly in Africa, who suffer endemic poverty, and
all that accompany it – dangerously polluted water, no food, and chronic
bacterial and parasitic infection. But the AIDS industry has not stopped
the call for more and more
toxic drugs, given to people who don't even have enough food to keep
down, or clean water to swallow with. These are the very people who are
considered "at risk" for AIDS, therefore they are most heavily
targeted for HIV testing internationally. "AIDS" prefigures HIV
testing, and HIV testing is problematic…
5. HIV Tests are Ethical and Accurate, and Everybody Should Take
One:
The medical literature accumulated over 25 years of antibody and
genetic testing "for HIV" have revealed that HIV tests are good
at one thing: Testing for every disease, non-disease, medical condition
and non-medical condition on the planet. These tests
come up positive for flu
vaccination, alcoholism, drug use, parasitic infection and pregnancy; for
"reasons that are unclear," and for cross-reaction with the
materials in the test kit themselves. After 25 years, the tests still
have "no
gold reference standard," that is, they refer to no particular
particle, and they find no particular set of antibodies or genetic
material, despite the massive public relations of the pharma-machine that
has grown in South Africa and North America to promote their use. HIV
tests, in a word, stink. They're unethical, they give a death sentence
without cause, and because they are targeted at populations assumed to
have "AIDS," they CAUSE the spread of "HIV," by
giving false results to populations already in crisis.
But despite these insurmountable failures, the AIDS machine rages on,

waging war on critics and patients alike. 
Here's what you can do to stop it: Talk about it. Promote open
discussion of the definition of AIDS and the critical appraisal of HIV
testing. And most of all, be kind to people given the 

Questioning HIV/AIDS, Human-Caused Global Warming, and Other Orthodoxies in the Biomedical Sciences

[MJ]

Questioning HIV/AIDS, Human-Caused Global Warming,
and Other Orthodoxies in the Biomedical Sciences
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
March 4, 2008
Six paradigms in the biomedical and climate sciences have become
established orthodoxies. Some of them, like HIV/AIDS and the lipid
hypothesis of coronary artery disease have achieved the status of dogma.
Nevertheless, skeptics have raised valid questions about them. With the
real cause, truth, or more probable hypothesis for the disease or
phenomenon in question added, along with selected references, they
are:
Cholesterol and saturated fats cause coronary artery disease (the
lipid hypothesis) 
Coronary atherosclerosis is an inflammatory response to arterial
injury. Things that can injure the inner lining (endothelium) of coronary
arteries include chronic stress, smoking, and a lack of physical
exercise.
Injurious nutritional causes include excessive consumption of sugar (and
white flour), Omega-6 polyunsaturated vegetable oils (which promote
inflammation), and any amount of trans fatty acids. Cholesterol and
saturated fats are innocent. 
Nutrient deficiencies that predispose to vessel injury include
insufficient intake of Omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins (particularly B6,
B12, C and E), amino acids (particularly arginine and L-carnitine),
minerals (selenium, magnesium, iodine, copper), and other free
radical-quenching antioxidants (alpha lipoic acid and coenzyme Q10) and
flavonoids (plant phenols). 
Increased iron and homocysteine blood levels and microbial infection
(Chlamydia pneumoniae) play a causative role in atherosclerosis. Impaired
nitric oxide release, and depletion, also plays a role (nitric oxide
relaxes blood vessels and blocks the release of inflammatory cytokines).


Uffe Ravnskov.

The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the fallacy that saturated fat and
cholesterol cause heart disease (2000), 304 pages, 350
references.

Anthony Colpo.

The Great Cholesterol Con: Why everything you've been told about
cholesterol, diet and heart disease is wrong! (2006), 348 pages,
1,400 references.

Mary Enig and Sally Fallon.
The Oiling
of America. Nexus Magazine, Dec 1998­Jan 1999 and Feb­Mar 1999
issues. (Also
posted
on the Weston A. Price Foundation website.)
Genetic mutations cause cancer
The real cause is aneuploidy, an abnormal number and/or structure of
chromosomes, in concert with replicative telomere (the caps on the ends
of chromosomes) erosion and epigenetic maturation arrest of tissue stem
cells (due to methylation of DNA). 

Peter Duesberg.

Chromosomal Chaos and Cancer. Scientific American, May 2007, pg
53­59.

Reinhard Stindl.

Defining the steps that lead to cancer: Replicative telomere erosion,
aneuploidy and an epigenetic maturation arrest of tissue stem cells.
Medical Hypotheses (2008), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.01.010 (in press,
corrected proof available online February 27, 2008).

Harvey Bialy.

Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life & Times of Peter
H. Duesberg (2004).

See my article,
"A
Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg" (2006). 
Human activity is causing global warming through increased CO2
emissions
Variations in solar intensity and the sun's magnetic effect on celestial
cosmic rays cause global warming (and cooling), not CO2 emissions,
natural or human-generated.

Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder.

The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change (2007), 256 pages.
You can be sure Al Gore won't read this book.

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007), 276 pages. He
won't read this one either.

Willie Soon and Sally Baliunas.
Lessons and
limits of climate history: Was the
20th century
climate unusual? George C. Marshall Institute, April 17, 2003. 

See my articles, 


"Solar
and Celestial Causes of Global Warming" (2007).

"Toro!
Toro! Michael Crichton" (2005).

"
Finding Truth in Phoenix" (2003). 

HIV causes AIDS
The real cause: Lifestyle (receptive anal intercourse), heavy duty
recreational drugs (cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, and
amphetamines), anti-viral chemotherapy, and nutrition. In the West, 98
percent of AIDS cases occur in gay men and IV drug users.

Henry Bauer.

The Origin, Persistence, and Failings of HIV/AIDS Theory (2007). Dr.
Bauer is a professor emeritus of chemistry and science studies and former
dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Virginia Tech. This is
perhaps the best single reference to date questioning the HIV/AIDS
theory.

Duesberg P, Koehnlein C, Rasnick D.
The chemical bases
of the various AIDS epidemics: Recreational drugs, anti-viral
chemotherapy and malnutrition. Journal of Bioscience 2003;28:383­412.


See my articles,

"A
Modern-Day Copernicus: Peter H. Duesberg" (2006)

"
Finding Truth in Phoenix" (2003) 
The linear no-threshold hypothesis
This hypothesis says that the damaging effects of toxins are
dose-dependent in a linear fashion down to zero. Even a tiny amount of a
toxin, such as radiation or cigarette smoke, will harm some people. 

The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out

[MJ]

The Discoverer of HIV Speaks Out
by James Foye
The new film House Of Numbers (reviewed by me
here)
contains excerpts of interviews with almost everyone of significance in
the debate about whether or not HIV causes severe immune deficiency (aka
AIDS). In a true scientific debate, the defenders of AIDS orthodoxy would
jump at every chance to engage in debate with HIV skeptics, in the hope
of either clearly refuting their arguments, or else learning something
from them. But instead their

mantra is:

"We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS
denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support
AIDS denialist causes." 
Some of the people interviewed by filmmaker Brent Leung didn’t
realize that his final product was not going to be a one-sided rehash of
the nonsense that has been fed to us for the last 25 years by the AIDS
establishment, but rather would feature both sides of the story. They
therefore regret their participation in the film, and are trying to
explain away the comments they made and to portray Mr. Leung as being
deceptive. But, had he stormed into their offices telling them that he
had doubts about HIV, by their own admission, they wouldn’t have given
him the time of day. In any event, is there one question they would have
answered differently had they then granted an interview? The answer, one
must presume, must be "No." So what difference does it
make?



Cheryl Nagel at the Rethinking AIDS conference in Oakland, California,
November 2009. Cheryl, who appears in the movie House Of Numbers, carries
a copy of my recent review of the film with her in her purse wherever she
goes, so she is always ready to show it to people. Without the
intervention of Peter Duesberg her daughter Lindsey would not be alive
today, but instead would be dead of AZT poisoning.

Particularly problematical for the orthodoxy is the interview with Luc
Montagnier, the French scientist who discovered HIV (if you accept that
he discovered something). You can watch this interview today on
YouTube. The
most interesting part of the exchange goes like this:

Montagnier "We can be exposed to HIV many times without being
chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus in a
few weeks, if you have a good immune system."

Leung "If you have a good immune system, then your body can
naturally get rid of HIV?"

Montagnier "Yes."
Montagnier goes on to say that a neglected point in battling
sickness in Africa is that nutrition and hygiene are very important, and
people are only thinking of drugs and vaccines.
The significance of such comments coming from, of all people, the man who
supposedly discovered the HIV virus, cannot be overstated. To understand
why, you must understand that the whole problem of HIV boils down to one
very simple concept: people get sick – why? If five gay men in California
get sick enough to die, then what made them sick? Did they destroy their
immune systems with a decade of hard drug use and nightly visits to the
bathhouses? Or, was it an exotic new deadly retrovirus, something not
previously known to exist among humans?
In sub-Saharan Africa, a land where malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis,
and diarrhea (due to unsanitary water) are not uncommon, and in many
places modern health care is not available, why do people get sick? Is it
the retrovirus?
In North America why did so many people get sick and die in the years
following 1987 when AZT was approved? Was it because AZT inhibits DNA
synthesis and in high dosages inevitably leads to death? Or was it the
retrovirus?
The simplest answer is the best answer; where there are obvious
explanations for why people get sick, we don’t need to invent a new one.
But the simple and the obvious can’t be patented. You can’t build a
multi-hundred-billion dollar taxpayer-funded industry on it. So the
retrovirus it is.



Professor Luc Montagnier being interviewed by Brent Leung for House Of
Numbers.

Montagnier’s comments call for some damage control, and over at
Inside House of Numbers, a
website devoted to debunking Leung’s movie, we get some. Let’s look at
the page entitled

Montagnier: No Denial. (Though this particular page is anonymous, the
site is affiliated with
AIDSTruth.org, so presumably it was
written by one of their regular contributors.) In response to this
criticism, Brent Leung has released an extended, unedited version of this
portion of the interview. Whereas the original clip (linked to above) is
about one minute, this one is four minutes. You can now view this longer
clip
here.
Having just watched the new clip myself, I would like to go through
several points made in the "rebuttal":

"Unedited footage of Luc Montagnier's interview with Brent Leung
is not available, so there is as yet no way to identify the context for
his short clips. He speaks a total of 212 words in the film, on several
different subjects, and is led by Leung on the question of whether
nutrition can prevent HIV seroconversion."
In th

Re: I Think, Therefore I am Not

[frankg]

Tommy,

As previously noted, the responses from this poll are absolutely no
different than the responses given by Democrats during Bush's final
six years. The problem is you're so blinded by your bias that you
can't even tell you're looking into a mirror.

On Feb 6, 9:13 pm, Tommy News  wrote:
> Well, around here, it's sort of all part of the vast
> evangelical-church-Republican-politics-"America"-first rightwing
> thing.  People learn from their ministers that God tolerates only
> Republican politics and FOX News, and that "America" is exceptional,
> so it's fully equipped--nay, required--to protect Israel so that Jesus
> can return and they can be raptured before the really bad stuff
> happens; then, they get to come back with Jesus and throw all the
> "unperfected" Jews into the pit of fire, along with all the rest of us
> who tolerated and cared for our fellow humans.  I could go on, but I
> already feel bad just for writing that much, and all it is is the
> truth.  But people who watch it believe FOX because they want to, and
> because they believe it's the right thing to do.
>
> On 2/6/11, MJ  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > And yet MORE fallacy.
> > Whether or not the Author is this, that or the other is MEANINGLESS as far
> > as the veracity of his claim.
> > Similarly, with what group he may or may not be aligned (or purported so) is
> > equally MEANINGLESS.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > Since World War II, and especially since the 1950s, the function of the
> > Republican Party has been to be the "loyal, . . . . moderate,"
> > "bi-partisan," pseudo-opposition to the collectivist and leftist program of
> > the Democratic Party. Unlike the more apocalyptic and impatient Bolsheviks,
> > the Mensheviks (or social democrats, or corporate liberals, or "responsible"
> > liberals, or "responsible" conservatives, or neo-conservatives -- the labels
> > change, but the reality remains the same) try to preserve an illusion of
> > free choice for the American public, including a two-party system, and at
> > least marginal freedom of speech and expression.
>
> > The goal of these "responsible" or "enlightened" moderates has been to
> > participate in the march to statism, while replacing the older American
> > ideals of free markets, private property, and limited government with cloudy
> > and noisy rhetoric about the glories of "democracy," as opposed to the
> > one-party dictatorship of the Soviet Union.
>
> >  -- Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense
>
> > At 08:49 AM 2/6/2011, you wrote:
>
> >> Here's a little about the author, Jonathan Kantrowitz,  from which Tom
> >> cites his purported "poll":
>
> >> Founder, Chief Executive Officer. Queue, Inc., an educational publisher.
> >> 1981-present; Assistant General Counsel. Touche Ross & Co. 1977-1981;
> >> Coordinator, Fairfield Over-30 Men’s Soccer, 1987-present; Member,
> >> Fairfield Board of Education, 1992-1994; Member, Fairfield Board of
> >> Recreation, 1998-1999; Member, Fairfield TV Access Committee, 2008-2009,
> >> Economic Development Administrator, Town of Fairfield (consultant) 2002;
> >> Chairman, Fairfield Temporary Pool Committee, 2004, Chairman, Fairfield TV
> >> Access Committee, 2008; Member, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee,
> >> 1972-2002; Vice-Chairman, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee, 1994-2000;
> >> Democratic Candidate, U.S. Congress, 1994, 1998, State Senate 1972, 1984;
> >> Education:; Brown University: B.A. Economics (1966); Harvard Law School:
> >> JD (1969).
>
> >> A couple of thoughts come to mind.  First, Kantrowitz is a prime example
> >> of an "Academian" and the reason that our schools and universites are in
> >> such a mess.  I would bet that Kantrowitz is a socialist also, but there
> >> can be no doubt that Kantrowitz has posted a hate filled prevaricate
> >> rhetorical post, and this is an example of what he teaches his pupils.
>
> >> Who took this poll?   Who were the participants of the poll?  Note that
> >> Kantrowitz does not reference any of these most important aspects.  The
> >> poll is basically not at all reliable and is another example of the hate
> >> coming from the far left extremist Anti-American socialistic movement that
> >> is very vocal, but still nevertheless a small minority of our Nation.
> >> They should not be in charge of our schools and universities of higher
> >> education.
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 AM, frankg  wrote:
> >> Tommy,
>
> >> Change the names of the talking heads and politicians, replace ACORN
> >> stealing the election to simply stealing the election, replace
> >> socialist with communist, impeached can stay in there, replace "wants
> >> the terrorists to win" with "9/11 was an inside job", etc., and we
> >> could be discussing what the Democrats were saying about Bush a few
> >> years ago. This type of hateful rhetoric solves nothing, is not unique
> >> to either party and generally just proves there are a lot of
> >> intolerant idiots in both political parties.
>
> >> On Feb 

Re: The Truth:

[studio]

On Feb 6, 3:28 pm, Wes  wrote:
> I think we are friendly on another thread, this is neat.

I don't think so unless you go by another handle?

> Polystrate
> fossils throw a severe wrench into the common understanding of
> evolution and lend much needed credibility to the question of
> religion. to be more specific, my question to u and anyone else is
> this,

It's been proven more than once in courts of law (some presided over
by Conservative judges)
that creationism (or it's cousin Intelligent Design) as currently
defined is not demonstrable.
Demonstrable = fact.

> The Bible claims to have been written because Jesus actually
> existed and was very much like what the bible says about him.

Lots of religious books make lots of religious claims. Some true, some
not true.
The Bible is no different than all the others written.

> My question is what would you have me believe these two things are
> true or do you have another explaination, because the Bible didn't
> just appear for no reason.

It appeared because multiple people wrote and contributed to it after
much thought and deliberation about what it should and should not
contain over hundreds of years.
It appeared out of a political movement as much as a religious one of
the time.
It appeared because there was money to be made from it.
It appeared because leaders always need something more to control
people.
It appeared because people needed comfort to live and die in a world
that was full of mistreatment, death, disease, suffering, unfairness,
cruelty and hate. Yet at the same time be forgiven for committing the
very sins they seek comfort from.

The reasons are many, but that still doesn't make it the truth.
What it does make it is a great literary work of art, that has been
technically far surpassed by more modern methods.

Yeah if were to take all the great authors (Shakespere, Poe, Whitman,
Hemingway, Dante, Faulkner, Kafka, Shaw, Swift, Heinlein, Eliot,
Twain, Shelly, Orwell, Dickens...etc. etc. etc.  and have them all
concentrate on one story through dogma... it would be beyond
amazing... but it wouldn't mean it's any truer.

The various books of the Bible were the work of many persons over many
centuries.
Very few of them are the work of the individuals whose names have been
attached to them by tradition
(the major exception being a number of the letters of Paul in the New
Testament),
and the majority have been heavily edited to the point where their
original form and history of composition are today uncertain.

They were edited in order to make them better... not that that makes
any difference to a believer, nothing would; which means it's not just
faith in their mind, that it's a fact... which is wrong and has been
proven wrong multiple times.

-- 
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.

Egyptian Military’s ‘Neutrality’ Wavers , Crackdowns Begin

[MJ]

Egyptian Military’s ‘Neutrality’ Wavers,
Crackdowns Begin
Military Detaining Activists, Journalists
Without Charges
by Jason Ditz, February 06, 2011
When the uprising in Egypt began last month and the military took to the
streets, protesters greeted them with open arms. Even now, they continue
to receive praise for their comparative neutrality, having not gone on
the sort of killing sprees that some feared would be called to keep
Mubarak in power.
But as the unrest continues and as the end-game negotiations begin, it
seems the military’s neutrality has wavered and now they have taken to
arresting human rights activists, journalists, and organizers of
protests, detaining all without charges.
Summary and open-ended detentions are a long-standing part of the Mubarak
regime’s SOP, and also a major reason why there is a revolt against it
now.

The military’s role is such detentions is growing, leading to fear it is
building up to a full-on crackdown on dissent.
But the military isn’t just a bottled water company
(
though it surely is that too), and it has long had designs on

moving against a lot of these opposition factions as “threats to national
security.” It may well be this, more than anything else, that is
driving them away from the protests and back toward Mubarak-style summary
justice.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/02/06/egyptian-militarys-neutrality-wavers-crackdowns-begin/
 




-- 
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: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

[studio]

If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times...
I liked Ronald Reagan.

He was an optimist and lifted the US up after many years of being
stagnant.
His policies created more jobs than any other modern President, and he
didn't get the US into unending foreign wars.

Like Jimmy Carter before him, he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty
working like a common man.

Was he perfect?
No. You can find fault with anyone if you look hard enough.
But as far as Presidents go, he was one of the better ones.

A few neo-cons ask the ridiculous question;
"Do you miss Bush Jr. yet"?

Not at all; but we do miss Ronald Reagan.

-- 
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: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Jonathan Ashley]

Is being "prompted by cue cards" anything like Obama using his favorite 
tool - a teleprompter?


On 2/6/2011 5:05 PM, Tommy News wrote:

Worst part is, Reagan's failure to act on the AIDS crisis was only one
of the many ways he was a terrible president. Ronnie Jr. states in his
new book that his dad had Alzheimers while he was presisdent, and was
prompted by cue cards, Nancy, and her fortune tellers.

On 2/6/11, Mark  wrote:

Tommy,tommtom,

Just which of the posted statistics from the neutral but gay friendly,
international HIV/AIDS treatment and advocacy site is incorrect ??

Please be specific and cite your "proofs". Anecdotal or editorialized
sources are not reliable.

The numbers are true which means your cause is bullshit.

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Tommy News  wrote:


Wrong again, Markie Mark.

Your misinformed homophobia is showing again.

On 2/6/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE  wrote:

Tommy,

Now that there is enough attention drawn to this problem in the US and
there are treatments available one would think that the male Gay
community would have learned something but NO, they are as
(actually MORE) irresponsible today as they were then (81-86) with a
small minority of the US population (approx. 6%) being male gays they
equal (at last count...2008) over 75% of the HIV/AIDS cases.

Maybe Reagan was right for the wrong reasons. How long must the
general population pay for STUPIDITY ???

Basically this is reflective of ALL Gay positions...politically. They
want want want and obviously don't care about themselves or the
society in which they live. HIV/AIDS is obviously more rampant now
than ever amongst these IDIOTS.

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

On Feb 6, 9:50 am, Tommy News  wrote:

Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White

As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
and will die of AIDS.

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
-- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
mean-spirited hostility.

Sponsored Links
Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
(www.a1hearing.com)
Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
advertisement | your ad here
  A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
revenge on gay men."

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising
that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that
he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his
staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have
raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."

Sponsored Links
Strategic Management Cornell Uni

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Jonathan Ashley]

Tommy,

Show us some factual evidence that Reagan caused the death of even one 
AIDS victim.


On 2/6/2011 5:00 PM, Tommy News wrote:

On the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan please remember that 30,000
people had died of AIDS before he even mentioned it, in 1987. Shameful
silence and willful negligence. No one should be celebrating this man
who did NOTHING about the AIDS health crisis and caused so many
deaths.


On 2/6/11, Keith In Köln  wrote:

Tom,

I hope that you will take the time to read this article, as well as my
comments below, which I wrote several years ago in another thread.

Again, you are being hoodwinked by a militant secular, (I dare say
Anti-American)  movement, with a revisionist history slant:


October 23, 2003, 8:35 a.m.
CBS’s Fictionalized History
Reagan treated AIDS as a “handicap,” not a “sin.”

By Douglas W. Kmiec

Next month, CBS will air *The Reagans*, a new mini-series, and there is
growing concern, based on circulating scripts, that the portrayal will be
biased or, worse, inaccurate. The *New York Times* has
reported<
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html?ex=1067...>,

for example, that "the script . . . accuses Mr. Reagan of having no interest

in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS
essentially deserved their disease."
This is historical distortion. Indeed, if uncorrected, it may well fit the
very definition of libeling a public figure: reckless disregard for the
truth.

How Ronald Reagan viewed AIDS was of particular importance to me, since the
former president tasked me with advising him on certain legal aspects of
AIDS policy. In the late 1970s and 80s, AIDS was not well known to the
general public, and there was considerable uncertainty in the medical
community about how AIDS was transmitted. Researchers at Harvard had
suggested that transmission by saliva was possible, and there was a good
deal of public hysteria driven by the thought that the fatal illness could
be spread by such casual contact. Schools were denying entrance to children
with the disease, and some hospitals even declined to treat AIDS patients.

It was the Reagan administration that cut through this misinformation and,
after careful deliberation, concluded that AIDS patients were entitled to be

treated as "handicapped" under federal laws that protect such individuals
from discrimination.

This would have been a courageous act for any president, but it was even
more so for President Reagan. Given the medical uncertainty and the fact
that AIDS was transmitted largely through sexual promiscuity, President
Reagan not only needed to educate the public, but also to encourage his core

political base to have charity toward those who consciously engage in
morally questionable behavior.

He didn't hesitate to do so. When an initial legal inquiry suggested that
those with AIDS might not be eligible for civil-rights protection because
employers and others could assert a legitimate "fear of contagion," whether
or not that fear was reasonable or scientifically verifiable, it was
President Reagan who appointed a commission on AIDS that ultimately asked
for that legal thinking to be re-examined.

As the former president's constitutional legal adviser, this was primarily
my responsibility, but President Reagan also appointed many other helpful
and intelligent voices that helped bring about the right result. C. Everett
Koop, President Reagan's surgeon general, readily conceded the medical
uncertainties of the time, but in typical Koop style, he also rendered a
medical judgment free of political bias. Said Dr. Koop: Those with AIDS,
even those in the earliest stages of the disease, have abnormalities or
impairments of the immune system which could affect a major life activity,
such as the prospect for giving birth to a healthy baby.

Having obtained the best available medical information, the president
concurred with my legal opinion that, as a matter of law, individuals with
AIDS were entitled to existing civil-rights protections and could be
excluded from those protections only where they could be shown, on an
individual basis, to pose a threat to the health or safety of others or to
be unable to perform their required jobs.

As anticipated, this result was not uniformly embraced. Yet president Reagan

and his White House staff saw it as so important that they convened a major
press conference at the Justice Department to highlight the opinion. The
conference took place in October 1988 — not an ideal time to be announcing
controversial news, as President Reagan was then campaigning for the
election of his then-vice president, George H. W. Bush.

When a reporter at the conference demanded to know "Why is it good to extend

protection to people with AIDS?" and "Why is it good to include this grou

Re: I Think, Therefore I am Not

[Tommy News]

Well, around here, it's sort of all part of the vast
evangelical-church-Republican-politics-"America"-first rightwing
thing.  People learn from their ministers that God tolerates only
Republican politics and FOX News, and that "America" is exceptional,
so it's fully equipped--nay, required--to protect Israel so that Jesus
can return and they can be raptured before the really bad stuff
happens; then, they get to come back with Jesus and throw all the
"unperfected" Jews into the pit of fire, along with all the rest of us
who tolerated and cared for our fellow humans.  I could go on, but I
already feel bad just for writing that much, and all it is is the
truth.  But people who watch it believe FOX because they want to, and
because they believe it's the right thing to do.



On 2/6/11, MJ  wrote:
>
> And yet MORE fallacy.
> Whether or not the Author is this, that or the other is MEANINGLESS as far
> as the veracity of his claim.
> Similarly, with what group he may or may not be aligned (or purported so) is
> equally MEANINGLESS.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> Since World War II, and especially since the 1950s, the function of the
> Republican Party has been to be the "loyal, . . . . moderate,"
> "bi-partisan," pseudo-opposition to the collectivist and leftist program of
> the Democratic Party. Unlike the more apocalyptic and impatient Bolsheviks,
> the Mensheviks (or social democrats, or corporate liberals, or "responsible"
> liberals, or "responsible" conservatives, or neo-conservatives -- the labels
> change, but the reality remains the same) try to preserve an illusion of
> free choice for the American public, including a two-party system, and at
> least marginal freedom of speech and expression.
>
> The goal of these "responsible" or "enlightened" moderates has been to
> participate in the march to statism, while replacing the older American
> ideals of free markets, private property, and limited government with cloudy
> and noisy rhetoric about the glories of "democracy," as opposed to the
> one-party dictatorship of the Soviet Union.
>
>  -- Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense
>
>
> At 08:49 AM 2/6/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Here's a little about the author, Jonathan Kantrowitz,  from which Tom
>> cites his purported "poll":
>>
>>
>> Founder, Chief Executive Officer. Queue, Inc., an educational publisher.
>> 1981-present; Assistant General Counsel. Touche Ross & Co. 1977-1981;
>> Coordinator, Fairfield Over-30 Men’s Soccer, 1987-present; Member,
>> Fairfield Board of Education, 1992-1994; Member, Fairfield Board of
>> Recreation, 1998-1999; Member, Fairfield TV Access Committee, 2008-2009,
>> Economic Development Administrator, Town of Fairfield (consultant) 2002;
>> Chairman, Fairfield Temporary Pool Committee, 2004, Chairman, Fairfield TV
>> Access Committee, 2008; Member, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee,
>> 1972-2002; Vice-Chairman, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee, 1994-2000;
>> Democratic Candidate, U.S. Congress, 1994, 1998, State Senate 1972, 1984;
>> Education:; Brown University: B.A. Economics (1966); Harvard Law School:
>> JD (1969).
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple of thoughts come to mind.  First, Kantrowitz is a prime example
>> of an "Academian" and the reason that our schools and universites are in
>> such a mess.  I would bet that Kantrowitz is a socialist also, but there
>> can be no doubt that Kantrowitz has posted a hate filled prevaricate
>> rhetorical post, and this is an example of what he teaches his pupils.
>>
>> Who took this poll?   Who were the participants of the poll?  Note that
>> Kantrowitz does not reference any of these most important aspects.  The
>> poll is basically not at all reliable and is another example of the hate
>> coming from the far left extremist Anti-American socialistic movement that
>> is very vocal, but still nevertheless a small minority of our Nation.
>> They should not be in charge of our schools and universities of higher
>> education.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 AM, frankg  wrote:
>> Tommy,
>>
>> Change the names of the talking heads and politicians, replace ACORN
>> stealing the election to simply stealing the election, replace
>> socialist with communist, impeached can stay in there, replace "wants
>> the terrorists to win" with "9/11 was an inside job", etc., and we
>> could be discussing what the Democrats were saying about Bush a few
>> years ago. This type of hateful rhetoric solves nothing, is not unique
>> to either party and generally just proves there are a lot of
>> intolerant idiots in both political parties.
>>
>> On Feb 4, 8:40 pm, Tommy News  wrote:
>> > I Think, Therefore I am Not
>> > Glenn Beck...Sarah Palin.Ann CoulterRush
>> > LimbaughMichelle Bachmann.Christine O`DonnellJohn
>> > McCainJohn Boehner...Newt Gingrich...Ron Paul.Mitt
>> > Romney..Mitch McConnell.The Tea Party Sheeple..A
>> > Faux Noise Pundit.A Republican Obstructionist..A Libertarian
>>

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Tommy News]

Worst part is, Reagan's failure to act on the AIDS crisis was only one
of the many ways he was a terrible president. Ronnie Jr. states in his
new book that his dad had Alzheimers while he was presisdent, and was
prompted by cue cards, Nancy, and her fortune tellers.

On 2/6/11, Mark  wrote:
> Tommy,tommtom,
>
> Just which of the posted statistics from the neutral but gay friendly,
> international HIV/AIDS treatment and advocacy site is incorrect ??
>
> Please be specific and cite your "proofs". Anecdotal or editorialized
> sources are not reliable.
>
> The numbers are true which means your cause is bullshit.
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Tommy News  wrote:
>
>> Wrong again, Markie Mark.
>>
>> Your misinformed homophobia is showing again.
>>
>> On 2/6/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE  wrote:
>> > Tommy,
>> >
>> > Now that there is enough attention drawn to this problem in the US and
>> > there are treatments available one would think that the male Gay
>> > community would have learned something but NO, they are as
>> > (actually MORE) irresponsible today as they were then (81-86) with a
>> > small minority of the US population (approx. 6%) being male gays they
>> > equal (at last count...2008) over 75% of the HIV/AIDS cases.
>> >
>> > Maybe Reagan was right for the wrong reasons. How long must the
>> > general population pay for STUPIDITY ???
>> >
>> > Basically this is reflective of ALL Gay positions...politically. They
>> > want want want and obviously don't care about themselves or the
>> > society in which they live. HIV/AIDS is obviously more rampant now
>> > than ever amongst these IDIOTS.
>> >
>> > http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
>> >
>> > On Feb 6, 9:50 am, Tommy News  wrote:
>> >> Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White
>> >>
>> >> As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
>> >> his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
>> >> History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
>> >> and will die of AIDS.
>> >>
>> >> Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
>> >> national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
>> >> was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
>> >> Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
>> >> -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
>> >> mean-spirited hostility.
>> >>
>> >> Sponsored Links
>> >> Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
>> >> (www.a1hearing.com)
>> >> Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
>> >> Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
>> >> Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
>> >> Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
>> >> advertisement | your ad here
>> >>  A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
>> >> identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
>> >> group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
>> >> men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
>> >> Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
>> >> communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
>> >> revenge on gay men."
>> >>
>> >> With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
>> >> frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
>> >> professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
>> >> response of the Reagan administration was indifference.
>> >>
>> >> By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
>> >> died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
>> >> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
>> >> cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
>> >> department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
>> >> That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
>> >> San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
>> >> research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
>> >> marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.
>> >>
>> >> With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
>> >> Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
>> >> House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
>> >> guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
>> >> American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.
>> >>
>> >> With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
>> >> who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
>> >> President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
>> >> Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
>> >> late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Tommy News]

On the 100th birthday of Ronald Reagan please remember that 30,000
people had died of AIDS before he even mentioned it, in 1987. Shameful
silence and willful negligence. No one should be celebrating this man
who did NOTHING about the AIDS health crisis and caused so many
deaths.


On 2/6/11, Keith In Köln  wrote:
> Tom,
>
> I hope that you will take the time to read this article, as well as my
> comments below, which I wrote several years ago in another thread.
>
> Again, you are being hoodwinked by a militant secular, (I dare say
> Anti-American)  movement, with a revisionist history slant:
>
>
> October 23, 2003, 8:35 a.m.
> CBS’s Fictionalized History
> Reagan treated AIDS as a “handicap,” not a “sin.”
>
> By Douglas W. Kmiec
>
> Next month, CBS will air *The Reagans*, a new mini-series, and there is
> growing concern, based on circulating scripts, that the portrayal will be
> biased or, worse, inaccurate. The *New York Times* has
> reported<
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html?ex=1067...>,
>
> for example, that "the script . . . accuses Mr. Reagan of having no interest
>
> in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS
> essentially deserved their disease."
> This is historical distortion. Indeed, if uncorrected, it may well fit the
> very definition of libeling a public figure: reckless disregard for the
> truth.
>
> How Ronald Reagan viewed AIDS was of particular importance to me, since the
> former president tasked me with advising him on certain legal aspects of
> AIDS policy. In the late 1970s and 80s, AIDS was not well known to the
> general public, and there was considerable uncertainty in the medical
> community about how AIDS was transmitted. Researchers at Harvard had
> suggested that transmission by saliva was possible, and there was a good
> deal of public hysteria driven by the thought that the fatal illness could
> be spread by such casual contact. Schools were denying entrance to children
> with the disease, and some hospitals even declined to treat AIDS patients.
>
> It was the Reagan administration that cut through this misinformation and,
> after careful deliberation, concluded that AIDS patients were entitled to be
>
> treated as "handicapped" under federal laws that protect such individuals
> from discrimination.
>
> This would have been a courageous act for any president, but it was even
> more so for President Reagan. Given the medical uncertainty and the fact
> that AIDS was transmitted largely through sexual promiscuity, President
> Reagan not only needed to educate the public, but also to encourage his core
>
> political base to have charity toward those who consciously engage in
> morally questionable behavior.
>
> He didn't hesitate to do so. When an initial legal inquiry suggested that
> those with AIDS might not be eligible for civil-rights protection because
> employers and others could assert a legitimate "fear of contagion," whether
> or not that fear was reasonable or scientifically verifiable, it was
> President Reagan who appointed a commission on AIDS that ultimately asked
> for that legal thinking to be re-examined.
>
> As the former president's constitutional legal adviser, this was primarily
> my responsibility, but President Reagan also appointed many other helpful
> and intelligent voices that helped bring about the right result. C. Everett
> Koop, President Reagan's surgeon general, readily conceded the medical
> uncertainties of the time, but in typical Koop style, he also rendered a
> medical judgment free of political bias. Said Dr. Koop: Those with AIDS,
> even those in the earliest stages of the disease, have abnormalities or
> impairments of the immune system which could affect a major life activity,
> such as the prospect for giving birth to a healthy baby.
>
> Having obtained the best available medical information, the president
> concurred with my legal opinion that, as a matter of law, individuals with
> AIDS were entitled to existing civil-rights protections and could be
> excluded from those protections only where they could be shown, on an
> individual basis, to pose a threat to the health or safety of others or to
> be unable to perform their required jobs.
>
> As anticipated, this result was not uniformly embraced. Yet president Reagan
>
> and his White House staff saw it as so important that they convened a major
> press conference at the Justice Department to highlight the opinion. The
> conference took place in October 1988 — not an ideal time to be announcing
> controversial news, as President Reagan was then campaigning for the
> election of his then-vice president, George H. W. Bush.
>
> When a reporter at the conference demanded to know "Why is it good to extend
>
> protection to people with AIDS?" and "Why is it good t

Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies, 1774–2004

[MJ]

Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies, 1774–2004
Monday, July 26, 2004 
by H.A. Scott
Trask 
As an American historian who knows something of economic law, having
learned from the Austrians, I became intrigued with how the United States
had remained prosperous, its economy still so dynamic and productive,
given the serious and recurring economic fallacies to which our top
leaders (political, corporate, academic) have subscribed and from which
they cannot seem to free themselves­and alas, keep passing down to the
younger generation.
Let’s consider ten.

Myth #1: The Broken Window
One of the most persistent is that of the broken
window­one breaks and this is celebrated as a boon to the economy: the
window manufacturer gets an order; the hardware store sells a window; a
carpenter is hired to install it; money circulates; jobs are created; the
GDP goes up. In truth, of course, the economy is no better off at
all.
True, there is a sudden burst of activity, and some persons have surely
gained, but only at the expense of the proprietor whose window was
broken, or his insurance company; and if the latter, the other
policyholders who will pay higher premiums to pay for paid-out claims,
especially if many have been broken.
The fallacy lies in a failure to grasp what has been foregone by repair
and reconstruction -- the labor and capital expended, having been lost to
new production. This fallacy, seemingly so simple to explain and grasp,
although requiring an intellectual effort of some mental abstraction to
comprehend, seems to be ineradicable.
After the horrific destruction of the Twin Towers in September 2001, the
media quoted academic and corporate economists assuring us that the
government’s response to the attacks would help bring an end to the
recession. What was never mentioned was that resources devoted to repair,
security, and war-fighting are resources that cannot be devoted to
creating consumer goods, building new infrastructure, or enhancing our
civilization. We are worse off because of 9-11.

Myth #2: The Beneficence of War
A second fallacy is the idea of war as an engine
of prosperity. Students are taught that World War II ended the
Depression; many Americans seem to believe that tax revenues spent on
defense contractors (creating jobs) are no loss to the productive
economy; and our political leaders continue to believe that expanded
government spending is an effective way of bringing an end to a recession
and reviving the economy.
The truth is that war, and the preparation for it, is economically
wasteful and destructive. Apart from the spoils gained by winning (if
it is won) war and defense spending squander labor, resources, and
wealth, leaving the country poorer in the end than if these things had
been devoted to peaceful endeavors.
During war, the productive powers of a country are diverted to producing
weapons and ammunition, transporting armaments and supplies, and
supporting the armies in the field.
William Graham Sumner described how the Civil War, which he lived
through, had squandered capital and labor: "The mills, forges, and
factories were active in working for the government, while the men who
ate the grain and wore the clothing were active in destroying, and not in
creating capital. This, to be sure, was war. It is what war means, but it
cannot bring prosperity." 
Nothing is more basic; yet it continues to elude the grasp of our
teachers, writers, professors, and politicians. The forty year Cold War
drained this country of much of its wealth, squandered capital, and
wasted the labor of millions, whose lifetime work, whether as a soldier,
sailor, or defense worker, was devoted to policing the empire, fighting
its brush wars, and making weapons, instead of building up our
civilization with things of utility, comfort, and beauty.
Some might respond that the Cold War was a necessity, but that’s not the
question -- although we now know that the CIA, in yet another massive
intelligence failure, grossly overestimated Soviet military capabilities
as well as the size of the Soviet economy, estimating it was twice as
large and productive as it really was. The point is the wastefulness of
war, and the preparation for it; and I see no evidence whatever that the
American people or their leaders understand that, or even care to think
about it. An awareness and comprehension of these economic realities
might lead to more searching scrutiny of the aims and methods that the
Bush administration has chosen for the War on Terror.
Only a few days after 9-11, Rumsfeld declared that the war shall last as
long as the Cold War (forty plus years), or longer -- a claim the
administration has repeated every few months since then -- without
eliciting the slightest notice or questioning from the media, the public,
or the opposing party. Would that be the case, if people understand how
much a second Cold War, this time with radical Islam, will cost us in
lives, treasure, and foregone comfort and leisure?

Myth #3: The Bes

Obama’s Egypt Plan: Mubarak-ism Without Mubarak

[MJ]

Obama’s Egypt Plan: Mubarak-ism Without
Mubarak
Justin Raimondo, February 03, 2011
With the Obama administration trying to impose Mubarak-ism with Mubarak,
easing the old lizard-headed dictator out and

ushering in Omar Suleiman – recently appointed Vice President and
formerly Egypt’s top intelligence official
and
torturer-in-chief –  there may be a slight glitch. Aside, that
is, from the fact that the protest movement will never agree.
The glitch is that the Egyptian Constitution has very specific provisions
for the permanent disability of a President. If Egypt’s chief executive
is temporarily unable to fulfill his duties, but will eventually return
to office, the constitution says the Vice President takes over. However,
if, as in the case of Mubarak’s departure, a President is
permanently out of office, for some reason, then the Speaker of
the People’s Assembly takes over the top spot. Here are the relevant
passage from

the Constitution:
“In case of the vacancy of the Presidential office or the permanent
disability of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the People’s
Assembly shall temporarily assume the Presidency. In case the People’s
Assembly is dissolved at such a time the President of the Supreme
Constitutional Court shall take over the Presidency on condition that
neither one shall nominate himself for the Presidency.
“The People’s Assembly shall then proclaim the vacancy of the office of
President .
“The President of the Republic shall be chosen within a maximum period of
sixty days form the date of the vacancy of the Presidential
office.”
By law, the transition period everyone is talking about must be no
longer than 60 days ­ no waiting until September. Not that they’re
sticklers for the law in Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt.
So who is the Speaker of the faux-Parliament known as the “People’s
Assembly”? He’s one Ahmad Fathi Sorour, a ruling party hack who has held
the position since 1998. If you go to
his
 Facebook page, it reads:
“Ahmad Fathi Sorour (born 9 July 1932) is an
Egyptian
politician who has been the speaker of the
People’s
Assembly since 1991. Until January 29, 2011, when Hosni Mubnarak
appointed Omar
Suleiman as
Vice
President, he was the first in the
line of
succession to become
President of
Egypt if Mubarak died or became incapacitated.”
As we can see from the above-cited passages from the Egyptian
Constitution, this interpretation is quite incorrect, but I guess Mr.
Sorour thinks discretion is the better part of valor in this case. In any
event, he wouldn’t want to stand between Egypt and the inauguration of a
new era of “democracy” and respect for the rule of law.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/02/03/obamas-egypt-plan-mubarak-ism-without-mubarak/
 




-- 
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.

Egypt a Wake Up Call for US Empire

[MJ]

Egypt a Wake Up Call for US Empire
by
Kevin B.
Zeese, February 05, 2011
Egypt is an alarm that highlights the urgent need for change in U.S.
foreign policy. It provides President Obama an opportunity to transform a
foreign policy that has often

had the opposite effect that was sought and is undermining U.S.
economic and national security. 
The list of recent policy failures in the Middle East is quite
astounding: 
The Iraq War, intended to create a western style democracy and a base of
operations for the U.S. in the region has weakened U.S. influence. U.S.
military vulnerability to local resistance fighters was exposed. A wide
range of abuses of civilians were reported. Perhaps the most damaging
were the indelible mark left from the images of Americans torturing
Iraqis.  The war put in place a Shi’a government that is closely
allied with Iran. The war and occupation have weakened U.S. economic
security

by costing $3 trillion, much of which will be spent over the next
decade taking care of injured soldiers. 
The U.S. has escalated the war in Afghanistan where once again local
insurgents are holding the world’s only super power at bay, and according
to some reports defeating the U.S. military. Last year saw increasing
civilian and military casualties and
2011 is expected
to be worse.  The Afghan war-quagmire has the U.S. spending
$1 million per
year to keep each soldier in Afghanistan.  
A third front, the CIA-led undeclared war in Pakistan, is escalating.

Drone attacks have increased from 35 in 2008 to 124 in 2010. They
killed 1,184 people in 2010, creating increasing hatred and new enemies
for the United States.  Pakistan has also become an area to attack
the supply lines to troops in Afghanistan.  As a nuclear-armed state
the stakes in Pakistan are very high

and its stability is becoming more fragile in part due to these U.S.
policies. 
The special relationship with Israel continues to undermine the
reputation of the U.S. in the region.  Israel has continued to build
illegal settlements, the illegal separation wall and Israeli only roads
on Palestinian land all of which make a viable Palestinian state more
difficult to achieve.
Recently released
documents showed Israel as inflexible in peace negotiations, while
the Palestinians were will to compromise on almost every important issue.
Israel’s brutal attack on Lebanon, which the U.S. failed to criticize,
has strengthened Hezbollah. Democracy brought Hamas to power in response
to Israeli abuse, PLO corruption and U.S. intransigence. 
These are some recent examples, but the mistaken policies in the region
are long term dating back to the 1953 coup in Iran removing elected Prime
Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh with disastrous consequences.  The
attack on the World Trade Center should have been a wake-up call that led
to a re-examination of Middle East policy.  The U.S. was attacked
because of U.S. policy in the region especially on Palestine-Israel, U.S.
military bases in the region and support of autocrats. Much of the energy
for al Qaeda came out of the prisons of Hosni Mubarak where torture is
all too common.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, a medical doctor who is Osama bin Laden’s closest
adviser and often described as the brains of al Qaeda, was tortured in
Mubarak’s jails and left determined to destroy the United States for
keeping Mubarak in power. And, the alleged 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta,
an Egyptian engineer who was radicalized because of Mubarak’s domestic
policies. 
These mistakes have been costly not only in lives but in treasure.
Hundreds of billions have been spent on war and trillions will be spent
taking care of the injured. Israel and Egypt are the two largest
recipients of U.S. foreign aid, each receiving billions annually. Egypt
has received

more than $50 billion in aid, mostly military support, since the Camp
David’s accords.  The U.S. provides Israel

with 20% of its military budget.  And, the wars in Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan are bleeding the U.S. treasury at a time when
the nation is in economic collapse and austerity measures are creating
hardship across the nation. 
The fall of Mubarak could be the beginning of massive change across the
region.  Tunisia has revolted and replaced its government. The
government of Jordan has been replaced.  The president of Yemen has
announced he will not seek another term, nor will his son run for
office.  The people of the region are on the edge of massive change
that will further undermine U.S. interests unless the mistakes of U.S.
policy are acknowledged and Obama leads transformational change.

Egypt is one example among many of the U.S. being on the wrong
side.  Giving billions of dollars and selling sophisticated weapons
to the regime of Hosni Mubarak, despite his abusive, autocratic rule of
Egypt, is now coming back to haunt America.  Tear gas canisters with
“Made in the USA” printed on them and U.S.-made jets flying overhead to
intimidate Egyptians all demonstrate the mistakes of U.S. foreig

Re: FYI

[Bruce Majors]

Tea Party Express Town Hall RSVP

Tea Party Express is hosting a live and interactive Town Hall with Members
of Congress. The Town Hall will be held on Tuesday, February 8th from 7:00 -
9:00 pm at the National Press Club. Confirmed Members of Congress that will
be in attendance are Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator Mike Lee (UT),
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) and Congressman Steve King (IA). Seating
is limited, so we ask that you please RSVP on the form below. Please plan to
arrive by 6:45 pm in an effort to have the event begin promptly at 7:00 pm.
If you have any questions, please contact James Lyle at james@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: The Myths of Reaganomics

[MJ]

The bottom line is, that
President Reagan's  economic policies stimulated our economy,
cutting inflation, creating over 20 million new jobs.  Over a
quarter of these new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black
unemployment was cut in half, and all Americans
prospered!
The 1980 dollar was worth 73 cents by the time Reagan left office. 
What inflation do you imagine Reagan cut (and how)?
Government does not create (meaningful -- ie. private sector) jobs. It
can HINDER their creation.
"All" is an unprovable assertion AND is in all likelihood
false.
xxx
The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs
by Daniel J. Mitchell 
Dan Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and co-author of
Global Tax Revolution: The Rise of Tax Competition and the Battle to
Defend It
Added to cato.org on December 5, 2008
This article appeared on
Pajamas Media on December
5, 2008 
President-elect Obama has announced that he wants a big
"stimulus" package to create 2.5 million jobs by 2011. Many of
the details are unclear, including how much new government spending he
will propose and how he is measuring job creation. Press reports suggest
the incoming administration is looking at $400 billion-$500 billion over
the next two years, but the Washington Post reports that Democrats
are talking about as much as $700 billion during that time
period.
Not surprisingly, the prospect of all this new spending (above and beyond
the record spending increases during the past eight years) has triggered
a feeding frenzy among special interests. Home builders, auto companies,
road builders, state and local governments, the education establishment,
the food stamp lobby, the green lobby, and alternative energy companies
are among the groups fighting for a place at the public trough.
It would be easy to dismiss this orgy of new spending as the spoils of
war. The Democrats won the election, after all, and now they intend to
reward the various special interests that supported them. But that's not
a complete explanation. Some supporters of this new spending seem
genuinely convinced that the federal government can create jobs.
In part, this is a debate about Keynesian economics, which is the theory
that the economy can be boosted if the government borrows money and then
gives it to people so they will spend it. This supposedly "primes
the pump" as the money circulates through the economy. Keynesian
theory sounds good, and it would be nice if it made sense, but it has a
rather glaring logical fallacy. It overlooks the fact that, in the real
world, government can't inject money into the economy without first
taking money out of the economy. More specifically, the theory only looks
at one-half of the equation ­ the part where government puts money in the
economy's right pocket. But where does the government get that money? It
borrows it, which means it comes out of the economy's left pocket. There
is no increase in what Keynesians refer to as aggregate demand.
Keynesianism doesn't boost national income, it merely redistributes it.
The pie is sliced differently, but it's not any bigger.
The real world evidence also shows that Keynesianism does not work. Both
Hoover and Roosevelt dramatically increased spending, and neither showed
any aversion to running up big deficits, yet the economy was terrible all
through the 1930s. Keynesian stimulus schemes also were tried by Gerald
Ford and George W. Bush and had no impact on the economy. Keynesianism
also failed in Japan during the 1990s.
To be fair, the inability of Keynesianism to boost growth may not
necessarily mean that government spending does not create jobs. Moreover,
the argument that government can create jobs is not dependent on
Keynesian economics. Politicians from both parties, for instance, argued
in favor of pork-filled transportation bills earlier this decade when the
economy was enjoying strong growth ­ and job creation generally was their
primary talking point.
Unfortunately, no matter how the issue is analyzed, there is virtually no
support for the notion that government spending creates jobs. Indeed, the
more relevant consideration is the degree to which bigger government
destroys jobs. Both the theoretical and empirical evidence argues against
the notion that big government boosts job creation. Theory and evidence
lead to three unavoidable conclusions: 

The theory of government-instigated job creation overlooks the
loss of resources available to the productive sector of the economy.
Frederic Bastiat, the great French economist (yes, there were admirable
French economists, albeit all of them lived in the 1800s), is well known
for many reasons, including his explanation of the "seen" and
the "unseen." If the government decides to build a "Bridge
to Nowhere," it is very easy to see the workers who are employed on
that project. This is the "seen." But what is less obvious is
that the resources to build that bridge are taken from the private sector
and thus are no longer available for oth

Re: The Myths of Reaganomics

[MJ]

 
Here are some exerpts from
another thread that I wrote several years ago, when I saw Moonbats start
to try and revise history, as you have done the last two days with your
"cut and paste" articles.  I suggest that you start trying
to support some of these wackos' who you are quoting, and their 
purported "Facts".  I think you will soon learn that you
won't be able to do so.  You are posting "revisionist
history".
Of course NONE of this addresses what any of the authors actually stated,
but then that appears to be your standard effort.
The pieces I provided measured Reagan's TALKING against how he
'delivered' (or failed to do so) on those ideals.
Maybe I should insert "Dumbfucks" every so often?  Do you
imagine that will make an effort *magically* more meaningful?
 

Reagan did so much for this
Nation, at a time when most Americans felt despondent and abysmal after
the Carter years; as previously stated, after being encouraged by
President Carter to,  "live on less, to buckle our belts and to
prepare for scarcity"
Meaningless subjectivism
 
The truth is, that during
President Reagan's tenure,  the middle class grew, under the
greatest peacetime prosperity ever recorded!  By example, middle
class income increased 11 percent, while nearly 20 million new jobs were
created. 
"Social class is a contradiction in terms.
Socialists must explain why individuals, before merging into social
classes, as is alleged to happen, have different interests than the
future collective ones. But socialists never managed to overcome this
theoretical hurdle. All they did was to further stress that individual
interests exist and that they are corruptive." -- Cristian
Gherasim 
Government does not create jobs.  Government CAN make it difficult
for jobs to be created.


Based on Census Bureau data,
(I wrote this several years ago, and occasionally dig the facts out when
challenged by Moonbats) the evidence is incontrovertible, and shows that
the percentage of households in the low income category declined during
the 1980s, while the proportion of high income households increased.
Furthermore, while the middle class shrank as a share of all households,
thus, the reason for this is upward, not downward, mobility.

Again with your socialist claptrap.
Regard$,
--MJ
Since World War II, and especially since the 1950s, the
function of the Republican Party has been to be the "loyal, . . . .
moderate," "bi-partisan," pseudo-opposition to the
collectivist and leftist program of the Democratic Party. Unlike the more
apocalyptic and impatient Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks (or social
democrats, or corporate liberals, or "responsible" liberals, or
"responsible" conservatives, or neo-conservatives -- the labels
change, but the reality remains the same) try to preserve an illusion of
free choice for the American public, including a two-party system, and at
least marginal freedom of speech and _expression_.
The goal of these "responsible" or "enlightened"
moderates has been to participate in the march to statism, while
replacing the older American ideals of free markets, private property,
and limited government with cloudy and noisy rhetoric about the glories
of "democracy," as opposed to the one-party dictatorship of the
Soviet Union.
 -- Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense





-- 
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: The Myths of Reaganomics

[MJ]

 
The truth is, that during
President Reagan's tenure,  the middle class grew, under the
greatest peacetime prosperity ever recorded!  By example, middle
class income increased 11 percent, while nearly 20 million new jobs were
created. 
What always intrigues me is that
we seem to take for granted, without too much scrutiny, the things
government officials tell us, especially those in highest office. This
speech is no exception. How many of us have really questioned the
validity of expressions like "middle class"? Is there really a
middle class? What's behind this terminology so beloved by our leaders? I
shall try to answer the last question first."
The Myth of a Middle Class
Tuesday, January 25, 2011 
by Cristian
Gherasim 
Almost a year ago, during the State of the Union address, President Obama
came up with another plan to ease the economic burden on middle-class
families. No news here. In fact, he gave that same do-or-die case for big
government we have heard over and over: "The middle class has been
under assault for a long time. … We've just come through what was one of
the most difficult decades the middle class has ever
faced."
What always intrigues me is that we seem to take for granted, without too
much scrutiny, the things government officials tell us, especially those
in highest office. This speech is no exception. How many of us have
really questioned the validity of expressions like "middle
class"? Is there really a middle class? What's behind this
terminology so beloved by our leaders? I shall try to answer the last
question first.
There are two known and tested theoretical designs that can shape a
political community: contractualism and market liberalism. They vary
greatly in how they envisage political power and the way it should be
organized. But they both agree that the individual stands as the
cornerstone of every political arrangement, and he alone is the
repository of the rights and obligations that define a societal
existence.
This was the dominant belief until the rise of theoretical socialism and
the beginning of modern statist rhetoric. Marx and his followers can only
reason in terms of groups of people. They believe that history is
commanded by the interests and ambitions of social classes and not by
individual wills.
On the other hand, classical liberals reckon social order to be the
outcome of individual action, and society to be the result of individual
acts coming together. Society evolves because individual purposes,
interests, and passions change every so often. To think of this evolution
as something taking place only among socials classes destroys the balance
and gives way to silly ideas like the ones backing the current US
administration.
It is with utmost confidence that President Barack Obama believes that
with the stroke of a pen he can change for the better the economic
wellbeing of tens of millions of Americans: "We're fighting to build
an economy in which middle-class families can afford to send their kids
to college, buy a home, save for retirement, and achieve some measure of
economic security when their working days are done."
Social class is a contradiction in terms. Socialists must explain
why individuals, before merging into social classes, as is alleged to
happen, have different interests than the future collective ones. But
socialists never managed to overcome this theoretical hurdle. All they
did was to further stress that individual interests exist and that they
are corruptive.
In contrast, classical liberals believe that society evolves when
individual interests change. They don't need to know what particular
interests exist at any given time. It is the result that counts, and
things always work out when society remains free and human action
unplanned. You can't have social classes because people are just plain
unpredictable and evolution remains an individual affair. Any reference
to social classes, including the much-hailed middle class, is just a
political scam.
When socialists realized that their theoretical concepts go nowhere, they
switched to a more hands-on approach -- moving from a revolutionary and
anarchic perspective to a theory of acquiring power and establishing
absolute control in their effort to curb individual freedom. The
successors of 19th-century socialism, totalitarianism, and welfare-state
interventionism continued to pose as defenders of the oppressed social
groups whose interest they vowed to protect. But classical liberals saw
that when socialists and communists took power they set in motion a
mechanism of dictatorial rule based solely on one man's decision and not
on collective agreements.
The concept of "middle class" implies that there are collective
interests resting in the middle ground of a social hierarchy that never
change and have to be preserved by a political authority. We know all too
well that people change, but not all, nor a great bunch of them, at the
same time.
For most people, I believe, there are dramatic shift

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Keith In Köln]

Tom,

I hope that you will take the time to read this article, as well as my
comments below, which I wrote several years ago in another thread.

Again, you are being hoodwinked by a militant secular, (I dare say
Anti-American)  movement, with a revisionist history slant:


October 23, 2003, 8:35 a.m.
CBS’s Fictionalized History
Reagan treated AIDS as a “handicap,” not a “sin.”

By Douglas W. Kmiec

Next month, CBS will air *The Reagans*, a new mini-series, and there is
growing concern, based on circulating scripts, that the portrayal will be
biased or, worse, inaccurate. The *New York Times* has
reported<
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/arts/television/21REAG.html?ex=1067...>,

for example, that "the script . . . accuses Mr. Reagan of having no interest

in addressing the AIDS crisis, but of asserting that the patients of AIDS
essentially deserved their disease."
This is historical distortion. Indeed, if uncorrected, it may well fit the
very definition of libeling a public figure: reckless disregard for the
truth.

How Ronald Reagan viewed AIDS was of particular importance to me, since the
former president tasked me with advising him on certain legal aspects of
AIDS policy. In the late 1970s and 80s, AIDS was not well known to the
general public, and there was considerable uncertainty in the medical
community about how AIDS was transmitted. Researchers at Harvard had
suggested that transmission by saliva was possible, and there was a good
deal of public hysteria driven by the thought that the fatal illness could
be spread by such casual contact. Schools were denying entrance to children
with the disease, and some hospitals even declined to treat AIDS patients.

It was the Reagan administration that cut through this misinformation and,
after careful deliberation, concluded that AIDS patients were entitled to be

treated as "handicapped" under federal laws that protect such individuals
from discrimination.

This would have been a courageous act for any president, but it was even
more so for President Reagan. Given the medical uncertainty and the fact
that AIDS was transmitted largely through sexual promiscuity, President
Reagan not only needed to educate the public, but also to encourage his core

political base to have charity toward those who consciously engage in
morally questionable behavior.

He didn't hesitate to do so. When an initial legal inquiry suggested that
those with AIDS might not be eligible for civil-rights protection because
employers and others could assert a legitimate "fear of contagion," whether
or not that fear was reasonable or scientifically verifiable, it was
President Reagan who appointed a commission on AIDS that ultimately asked
for that legal thinking to be re-examined.

As the former president's constitutional legal adviser, this was primarily
my responsibility, but President Reagan also appointed many other helpful
and intelligent voices that helped bring about the right result. C. Everett
Koop, President Reagan's surgeon general, readily conceded the medical
uncertainties of the time, but in typical Koop style, he also rendered a
medical judgment free of political bias. Said Dr. Koop: Those with AIDS,
even those in the earliest stages of the disease, have abnormalities or
impairments of the immune system which could affect a major life activity,
such as the prospect for giving birth to a healthy baby.

Having obtained the best available medical information, the president
concurred with my legal opinion that, as a matter of law, individuals with
AIDS were entitled to existing civil-rights protections and could be
excluded from those protections only where they could be shown, on an
individual basis, to pose a threat to the health or safety of others or to
be unable to perform their required jobs.

As anticipated, this result was not uniformly embraced. Yet president Reagan

and his White House staff saw it as so important that they convened a major
press conference at the Justice Department to highlight the opinion. The
conference took place in October 1988 — not an ideal time to be announcing
controversial news, as President Reagan was then campaigning for the
election of his then-vice president, George H. W. Bush.

When a reporter at the conference demanded to know "Why is it good to extend

protection to people with AIDS?" and "Why is it good to include this group
with people in wheelchairs and crutches?", Reagan gave a straightforward
answer: Because that is the law as we believe Congress wrote it. "We have
fairly interpreted the statute," he said.

The historical record is plain: Ronald Reagan was not indifferent toward
those who suffered with AIDS; rather, having taken an oath to "take care
that the laws are faithfully executed," he did just that — even when it was
of no discernible political benefit to

Liberty and the Warfare State

[MJ]

Liberty and the Warfare State
Tuesday, September 05, 2006 
by David
Gordon 
Robert Higgs has a well-deserved reputation as an eminent economic
historian, but in this collection of essays and interviews, he shows
himself an adept moral philosopher as well.
He subjects the "humanitarian" case for the Iraq War,
unfortunately professed by some self-styled libertarians, to withering
scrutiny.
According to the argument Higgs rejects, the justification of the Iraq
War does not rest on the supposed presence of WMD. Humanitarian
considerations supported the overthrow of the tyrannical regime of Saddam
Hussein. True enough, the American invasion has killed innocent people.
But their deaths have been accidental, and these must be weighed against
those who would have suffered and died had Saddam's government continued
in power.
Higgs rejects completely this sort of moral calculation.

In the present case, making such a judgment with anything approaching
well-grounded assurance calls for powers that none of us possess.

How does anybody know, for example, what the future harms caused to
innocent parties by Saddam or his henchmen would have been, or that those
harms, somehow properly weighted and discounted, would be greater than
the harms caused by the U.S. armed forces in the invasion of Iraq? (p.
167)
If these calculations cannot be carried out, how can we determine
the morally proper course of action? One thing we can know is that we
ourselves should not directly kill or injure the innocent; but this is
just what the United States has done in Iraq.

Scattering cluster bomblets about areas inhabited by civilians … was
inexcusable: doing so was in no sense necessary to oust Saddam's
government. Nor was the use of very high-explosive bombs (two thousand
pounds and bigger) in densely populated urban areas a means one can
defend morally. (p. 168)
How can defenders of the Iraq War maintain that these deaths were
accidental?

When U.S. forces employ aerial and artillery bombardment ­ with huge
high-explosive bombs, large rockets and shells, including cluster
munitions ­ as their principal technique of waging war, especially in
densely inhabited areas, they know with absolute certainty that many
innocent people will be killed. To proceed with such bombardment,
therefore, is to choose to inflict these deaths. (p. 173)
Higgs's point here is a valuable riposte to the effusive praise of
so-called "smart" weapons by some apologists for the Iraq War.
James Turner Johnson, who views Bush as a latter-day St. Augustine in his
grasp of the just war tradition, remarks:

PGMs [precision guided missiles] give the American military (and at
this point only the American military) the ability to fight in the way
moralists have long been saying they should fight: in a way that avoids
harm to noncombatants and minimizes overall destruction to the society.
(James Turner Johnson, The War to Oust Saddam Hussein, Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005, pp. 20–21)
Johnson might with profit read Higgs on the bombing of
Baghdad.
A last ditch supporter of the
"humanitarian" argument might appeal to the doctrine of double
effect.[1] In crude terms, the American forces did not aim to kill
innocents: they just happened to be unavoidably in the way of targets
that were proper objects of attack.
But Higgs has already given us the resources to answer this argument.
According to the doctrine of double effect, the injury to the innocent
must be proportionate: you cannot, e.g., blow up a crowded football
stadium as a side effect of your justified response to someone in the
stadium who is shooting at you.
We need not here consider the vexed question of how many innocent deaths
qualify as a proportionate side effect. For this defense of killing even
to be considered, it must first be shown that one's original purpose is a
just one. The United States cannot plead in excuse, "We want to
attack the Iraqi army, but this means that some civilians will
suffer" unless the attack on the Iraqis was in the first place
justifiable. And what Higgs has called to our attention is that there is
no good "humanitarian" argument to justify the original
assault: we cannot know the consequences of intervention.
If the humanitarian argument fails, the claim that Iraq threatened
America fares even worse. Who can seriously believe that a nation long
subjected to a devastating blockade and bombing posed a danger to
America?
In the months that preceded the invasion, much was made of Saddam's
supposed plans to obtain nuclear weapons. Of course we now know that the
intelligence reports that alleged such plans were false. But even if they
had been true, an Iraq with nuclear arms was a minor matter.

[N]otwithstanding the tens of thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads
and their sophisticated delivery vehicles kept in constant readiness, the
United States was not "blackmailed" by the USSR. Odd that the
United States should quake at the prospect of a single Iraqi softball of
fissionable material. (p. 1

Re: The Truth:

[Wes]

> Evolution?
> How did it get there?
> The same way everything else that didn't exist before now got there.
> There are multitudes of things that didn't exist before now.
> Your computer you use to communicate with me for example.
> How did it get here?
> By thousands of people thinking about the problem and advancing the
> issue to overcome shortcomings.

I think we are friendly on another thread, this is neat. Polystrate
fossils throw a severe wrench into the common understanding of
evolution and lend much needed credibility to the question of
religion. to be more specific, my question to u and anyone else is
this, The Bible claims to have been written because Jesus actually
existed and was very much like what the bible says about him. Another
actual person is Apostle Paul whowrote like 2/3 of the new testament.
My question is what would you have me believe these two things are
true or do you have another explaination, because the Bible didn't
just appear for no reason.

On Feb 5, 2:07 am, studio  wrote:
> On Feb 4, 9:03 pm, Wes  wrote:
>
> > You wrote so much i feel bad to say i didn't read it. (pleasee repeart
> > if you wish to repeat what you said)  > Now ask yourself;
>
> > > does a scientist really care about something inside that quark? yes see 
> > > here
>
> Wes I meant in a literal sense, not the figurative sense of the word.
> Care as in love?
> Care as in care about what happens to it?
> Care as in care about it's welfare?
>
> The answer is and always will be no.
>
> > > does a scientist really care about something inside that quark?
> > > I mean literally care about the well being of a particular quarks
> > > contents, and not figuratively speaking.
>
> ---Wes wrote:
> > everything that is is in religion was once not includeedd in the
>
> religin. pleaease explain jow it got there. <
>
> Evolution?
> How did it get there?
> The same way everything else that didn't exist before now got there.
> There are multitudes of things that didn't exist before now.
> Your computer you use to communicate with me for example.
> How did it get here?
> By thousands of people thinking about the problem and advancing the
> issue to overcome shortcomings.

-- 
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: The poor are not getting poorer

[MJ]

At 03:06 PM 2/6/2011, you wrote:
it's a morality thing actually,
more people are willing to have more
people working for them for less than it takes to make a living, i
call it ungainfull employment. we don't need more jobs we need the
jobs we have to actually pay our bills so we don't turn to socialism
to supply our needs.
Huh?
"Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product,
should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of
transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in
exchange the object of his desires. To 
deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the convenience of
another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the
law of justice." -- Frédéric Bastiat
The "problems" you seem to be alluding to exist BECAUSE
of the
Government's intervention.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Public service is my motto. Ninety percent of the
people of Cook County drink and gamble and my offense has been to furnish
them with those amusements." -- Al Capone
[There would have been no Al Capone without the nanny state]





-- 
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: The poor are not getting poorer

[Wes]

it's a morality thing actually, more people are willing to have more
people working for them for less than it takes to make a living, i
call it ungainfull employment. we don't need more jobs we need the
jobs we have to actually pay our bills so we don't turn to socialism
to supply our needs.

 5And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift
witness against... those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the
widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his
right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+3:4-6&version=KJV

 14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying,
Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute
judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of
all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed,
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jude+1:13-15&version=KJV

2But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he
appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Malachi+3:1-3&version=KJV



On Feb 5, 1:48 am, studio  wrote:
> On Jan 30, 3:49 pm, Wes  wrote:
>
> > You can never save enough to counter an insufficient income. I believe
> > more and more people are falling into that catagory. The title of this
> > thread is the poor are not getting poorer, that may be true but more
> > people are getting poorer. i once had an almost middle class job and i
> > felt pretty normal. now i wonder if i fit the poverty guidelines and i
> > feel pretty fortunate to be as well off as i am.
>
> And you're right.
> The best indicator is not what anyone say's about it, but what you see
> with your own eyes.

-- 
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.

You Are Invited to the 1st Ron Paul Monetary Hearing

[MJ]

You Are Invited to the 1st Ron Paul Monetary
Hearing 
Posted by
Lew Rockwell on February 6, 2011
10:35 AM 
The historic first hearing of Chairman Ron Paul’s monetary committee, to
expose the Federal Reserve as the prime creator of unemployment and so
much human suffering, will take place at: 10:00AM on Wednesday, February
9, 2011, in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the main
hearing room of the Financial Services Committee. The witnesses include
the eloquent Austro-free-market stars Thomas DiLorenzo of Loyola
University Maryland and Richard Vedder of Ohio University.
The Fed itself, and at least three
big banks, lobbied against Ron’s chairmanship. Republicans who share
their fear of the truth worked with Paul Ryan, chairman of the “Budget”
Committee, to schedule hearings with Bernanke at the exact same time as
Ron’s, to try to diminish the significance of Ron’s. Ryan, btw, is the
fair-haired boy of the Republican leadership who gave the boring and
lying response to Obama’s boring and lying State of the Empire oration.
Like the Republican leadership, Ryan talks about cutting spending, but
that is only a ruse. Ryan is a big-government neocon, and so naturally
supported TARP, Bush’s prescription drug welfare, his wars, and the
empire.
I don’t believe this insider trick will work against
Ron, because his support comes not from the regime or the Republican
leadership, but from the grassroots. I think the Paulians will pack Ron’s
hearings, and not only to show their support for him against the power
elite. These hearings will have huge significance in the fight against
the Fed, the fractional-reserve banksters, and other destroyers of our
prosperity and freedom. It will also be a huge amount of fun!





-- 
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.

Limited Common Sense on Political Terms

[MJ]

Limited Common Sense on Political Terms
February 6, 2011 by
S.M. Oliva
Thirty-six states presently limit the number of terms a person may serve
as governor. The most common form is a two-consecutive-term limit.
Virginia is the only state where a governor may not serve two consecutive
terms. Some claim this limit is “antiquated,” including the editors of
the Charlottesville Daily Progress, who opined
today:

There are several things wrong with this practice.

Foe one thing, it denies the voters a chance to make their own
decision whether or not to return a governor to office. If voters want to
continue a governor’s programs, they should have an opportunity to do so.
If not, they can vote him out of office. Refusing them the option is
patronizing, at best.
Of course, that’s true of any term limit, even the more conventional
two-term limit that applies to most governorships and the presidency. And
while it’s true term limits restrict the potential candidates available
to voters, it’s just one of many. In Virginia, for example, a governor
must be at least 30 years old and a registered voter in the state for the
preceding five years. A resident of Maryland cannot be governor of
Virginia no matter how many he votes he receives.
Nor do term limits prevent voters from “continuing a governor’s
programs.” If the programs are popular and successful, no doubt other
candidates will rush to emulate them. Politicians are notorious copycats.
And for that matter, there’s no guarantee that a governor’s programs will
remain consistent from year to year, much less from one term to another.
It’s not unusual for a governor or president to embrace one set of
programs in his first term ­ casting an eye towards reelection ­ only to
shift policies completely in a second or third term. 
Is it “patronizing” to deny voters a chance to reelect their favorite
governor? Perhaps. But it’s equally patronizing for term limit opponents
to cavalierly state, “You can always vote them out of office.” This
ignores the substantial advantages of incumbency. Eighteen of the 28
sitting presidents who sought re-election won another term (I’m only
counting FDR once here). In 2010 over 86% of House incumbents won
re-election, and that was the low end of the historical spectrum. Is it
the case that people are generally satisfied with incumbents, or is it
more likely that incumbents use their position to reward supporters and
“gerrymander” the election rules in their favor? I think it’s the latter
more often than the former.
Historically, term limits was the social norm in the American system.
Washington voluntarily limited himself to two terms when he could have
easily won re-election for life. “Rotation in office” was a guiding
principle of pre-Civil War government. Most 19th century state
constitutions provided terms of only one or two years for governors.
Antipathy towards term limits is a modern invention, a byproduct of the
Progressive notion of the “civil service” as a permanent bureaucracy and
elevating the appearance of “democratic” choice to the point where now we
have a popularly elected Senate that routinely allows incumbents to
retain seats for upwards of 20 or 30 years.
But I digress. I’m not here to defend term limits so much as I wish to
debunk this second, more dangerous argument of the Daily Progress
editorial:

A governor’s four-year term provides little time to devise and
execute long-term planning for the state. Economic development is a prime
example: Efforts such as recruiting major new businesses or reforming
state policies to benefit the economy can require a long time horizon.
Four years is just too short.

The same problem affects agencies and their direction from Richmond.
Institutions such as the University of Virginia could better manage their
own long-term planning if they at least had the possibility of working
with the same administration for eight, rather than, four years.

Allowing a governor to succeed himself improves the odds for
stability, consistency and quality of decision-making. There would be no
impulse to “rush things” to meet a four-year deadline. There would be
more time for planning and deliberation.

Virginia’s current constraint stands in the way of these
benefits.
Okay, first off, notice how the authors don’t provide a single
example of another state that was able to engage in responsible long-term
planning because of the presence of a second-term governor. California
just had Arnold Schwarzenegger for seven-plus years. How’s that state’s
long-term future looking right now? Michigan just had eight years of
Jennifer Granholm. I don’t think state agencies there are grateful for
the “stability, consistency, and quality of decision-making” that she
brought.
Virginia is far from the worst-governed state in the Union. It seems
ludicrous to embrace a managerial practice that’s failed to provide any
benefit to the failing states.
The larger flaw in this argument, however, is that long-term planning ­
specific

Re: I Think, Therefore I am Not

[MJ]

And yet MORE fallacy.
Whether or not the Author is this, that or the other is MEANINGLESS as
far as the veracity of his claim.
Similarly, with what group he may or may not be aligned (or purported so)
is equally MEANINGLESS.
Regard$,
--MJ
Since World War II, and especially since the 1950s, the
function of the Republican Party has been to be the "loyal, . . . .
moderate," "bi-partisan," pseudo-opposition to the
collectivist and leftist program of the Democratic Party. Unlike the more
apocalyptic and impatient Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks (or social
democrats, or corporate liberals, or "responsible" liberals, or
"responsible" conservatives, or neo-conservatives -- the labels
change, but the reality remains the same) try to preserve an illusion of
free choice for the American public, including a two-party system, and at
least marginal freedom of speech and _expression_.
The goal of these "responsible" or "enlightened"
moderates has been to participate in the march to statism, while
replacing the older American ideals of free markets, private property,
and limited government with cloudy and noisy rhetoric about the glories
of "democracy," as opposed to the one-party dictatorship of the
Soviet Union.
 -- Murray Rothbard, Making Economic Sense

At 08:49 AM 2/6/2011, you wrote:

Here's a little about the
author, Jonathan Kantrowitz,  from which Tom cites his purported
"poll":  
 
Founder, Chief Executive Officer.
Queue, Inc., an educational
publisher. 1981-present; Assistant General Counsel. Touche Ross
& Co. 1977-1981; Coordinator, Fairfield Over-30 Men’s Soccer,
1987-present; Member, Fairfield Board of Education, 1992-1994;
Member, Fairfield Board of Recreation, 1998-1999; Member,
Fairfield TV Access Committee, 2008-2009, Economic Development
Administrator, Town of Fairfield (consultant) 2002; Chairman,
Fairfield Temporary Pool Committee, 2004, Chairman, Fairfield TV Access
Committee, 2008; Member, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee,
1972-2002; Vice-Chairman, Fairfield Democratic Town Committee,
1994-2000; Democratic Candidate, U.S. Congress, 1994, 1998, State Senate
1972, 1984; Education:; Brown University: B.A. Economics (1966);
Harvard Law School: JD (1969).

 
A couple of thoughts come to
mind.  First, Kantrowitz is a prime example of an
"Academian" and the reason that our schools and universites are
in such a mess.  I would bet that Kantrowitz is a socialist also,
but there can be no doubt that Kantrowitz has posted a hate filled
prevaricate rhetorical post, and this is an example of what he teaches
his pupils.   

Who took this
poll?   Who were the participants of the poll?  Note that
Kantrowitz does not reference any of these most important aspects. 
The poll is basically not at all reliable and is another example of the
hate coming from the far left extremist Anti-American socialistic
movement that is very vocal, but still nevertheless a small minority of
our Nation.   They should not be in charge of our schools and
universities of higher education.

 
 

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 AM, frankg

wrote:


Tommy,

Change the names of the talking heads and politicians, replace
ACORN

stealing the election to simply stealing the election, replace

socialist with communist, impeached can stay in there, replace
"wants

the terrorists to win" with "9/11 was an inside job",
etc., and we

could be discussing what the Democrats were saying about Bush a
few

years ago. This type of hateful rhetoric solves nothing, is not
unique

to either party and generally just proves there are a lot of

intolerant idiots in both political parties.

On Feb 4, 8:40 pm, Tommy News

wrote:

> I Think, Therefore I am Not

> Glenn Beck...Sarah Palin.Ann CoulterRush

> LimbaughMichelle Bachmann.Christine
O`DonnellJohn

> McCainJohn Boehner...Newt Gingrich...Ron
Paul.Mitt

> Romney..Mitch McConnell.The Tea Party
Sheeple..A

> Faux Noise Pundit.A Republican Obstructionist..A
Libertarian

> Loon..etc.

>

> Republican Intelligence – an Oxymoron?

>

> by Jonathan Kantrowitz

>

> A new poll of self-identified Republicans released Tuesday shows
a

> large slice of the GOP believes President Barack Obama is a

> “socialist” who was not born in this country, should be
impeached,

> wants the terrorists to win and only won the 2008 election
because

> ACORN “stole” it for him.

>

> According to the poll, 63 percent of Republicans believe Obama
is a

> socialist; 39 percent think Obama should be impeached; 24
percent said

> Obama wants “the terrorists to win”; and 31 percent agreed with
the

> statement that Obama is “a racist who hates white people.”

>

> According to the survey, 36 percent of respondents do not
believe the

> president was born in this country, and 21 percent think the
liberal

> advocacy group ACORN stole the election for Obama.

>

> Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of the Republicans polled, 23
percent,

> want

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Mark]

Tommy,tommtom,

Just which of the posted statistics from the neutral but gay friendly,
international HIV/AIDS treatment and advocacy site is incorrect ??

Please be specific and cite your "proofs". Anecdotal or editorialized
sources are not reliable.

The numbers are true which means your cause is bullshit.

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Tommy News  wrote:

> Wrong again, Markie Mark.
>
> Your misinformed homophobia is showing again.
>
> On 2/6/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE  wrote:
> > Tommy,
> >
> > Now that there is enough attention drawn to this problem in the US and
> > there are treatments available one would think that the male Gay
> > community would have learned something but NO, they are as
> > (actually MORE) irresponsible today as they were then (81-86) with a
> > small minority of the US population (approx. 6%) being male gays they
> > equal (at last count...2008) over 75% of the HIV/AIDS cases.
> >
> > Maybe Reagan was right for the wrong reasons. How long must the
> > general population pay for STUPIDITY ???
> >
> > Basically this is reflective of ALL Gay positions...politically. They
> > want want want and obviously don't care about themselves or the
> > society in which they live. HIV/AIDS is obviously more rampant now
> > than ever amongst these IDIOTS.
> >
> > http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
> >
> > On Feb 6, 9:50 am, Tommy News  wrote:
> >> Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White
> >>
> >> As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
> >> his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
> >> History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
> >> and will die of AIDS.
> >>
> >> Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
> >> national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
> >> was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
> >> Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
> >> -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
> >> mean-spirited hostility.
> >>
> >> Sponsored Links
> >> Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
> >> (www.a1hearing.com)
> >> Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
> >> Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
> >> Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
> >> Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
> >> advertisement | your ad here
> >>  A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
> >> identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
> >> group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
> >> men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
> >> Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
> >> communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
> >> revenge on gay men."
> >>
> >> With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
> >> frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
> >> professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
> >> response of the Reagan administration was indifference.
> >>
> >> By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
> >> died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
> >> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
> >> cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
> >> department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
> >> That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
> >> San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
> >> research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
> >> marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.
> >>
> >> With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
> >> Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
> >> House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
> >> guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
> >> American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.
> >>
> >> With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
> >> who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
> >> President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
> >> Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
> >> late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising
> >> that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that
> >> he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his
> >> staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have
> >> raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."
> >>
> >> Sponsored Links
> >> Strategic Management Cornell University Certificate Online: Series in
> >> Ex

Re: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Tommy News]

Wrong again, Markie Mark.

Your misinformed homophobia is showing again.

On 2/6/11, THE ANNOINTED ONE  wrote:
> Tommy,
>
> Now that there is enough attention drawn to this problem in the US and
> there are treatments available one would think that the male Gay
> community would have learned something but NO, they are as
> (actually MORE) irresponsible today as they were then (81-86) with a
> small minority of the US population (approx. 6%) being male gays they
> equal (at last count...2008) over 75% of the HIV/AIDS cases.
>
> Maybe Reagan was right for the wrong reasons. How long must the
> general population pay for STUPIDITY ???
>
> Basically this is reflective of ALL Gay positions...politically. They
> want want want and obviously don't care about themselves or the
> society in which they live. HIV/AIDS is obviously more rampant now
> than ever amongst these IDIOTS.
>
> http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm
>
> On Feb 6, 9:50 am, Tommy News  wrote:
>> Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White
>>
>> As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
>> his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
>> History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
>> and will die of AIDS.
>>
>> Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
>> national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
>> was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
>> Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
>> -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
>> mean-spirited hostility.
>>
>> Sponsored Links
>> Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
>> (www.a1hearing.com)
>> Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
>> Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
>> Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
>> Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
>> advertisement | your ad here
>>  A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
>> identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
>> group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
>> men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
>> Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
>> communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
>> revenge on gay men."
>>
>> With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
>> frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
>> professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
>> response of the Reagan administration was indifference.
>>
>> By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
>> died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
>> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
>> cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
>> department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
>> That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
>> San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
>> research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
>> marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.
>>
>> With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
>> Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
>> House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
>> guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
>> American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.
>>
>> With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
>> who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
>> President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
>> Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
>> late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising
>> that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that
>> he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his
>> staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have
>> raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."
>>
>> Sponsored Links
>> Strategic Management Cornell University Certificate Online: Series in
>> Executive Leadership (ecornell.com/leadership)
>> Develop Leadership Skills A Series of 24 Programs. Free Previews.
>> (www.businesstrainingexperts.com)
>> Make $7590 Per Month Local Mom Reveals How She Makes $7590/Mo - And
>> How You Can Too. (News24Reporting.com)
>> advertisement | your ad here
>>  Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president.
>> His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at
>> the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he
>> spoke, 36,058 Americans had 

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

[NoEinstein]

Dear Folks:  Two years ago I saw the ”fix” the USA would be in with
Barack Obama… President.  By CONSTITUTIONAL standards, that Manchurian
Candidate has never been President, because Felons (or those guilty of
high crimes and misdemeanors) are prohibited from holding office.  To
get elected, Obama promised $100.00 ‘energy cost’ checks to the
voters.  That constituted a mass CRIMINAL buying-of-votes—a clear
disqualification to hold office.  Our corrupt Chief Justice, John G.
Roberts, Jr., was quite alright with swearing-in a man to be President
without taking into account that Obama had said on numbers of
occasions that …“The Constitution erred by stating limits to
government rather than stating the powers of government to make…
redistributive changes (socialism).”  Since socialism is the anti-
thesis of a Representative Republic—as in our free enterprise nation—
Obama was disqualified to be President.  But Roberts was all smiles as
he acquiesced to the notion of changing the USA into a socialist
nation.  NOTE: Changing our TYPE of government isn’t something
Congress can vote on.   It requires a revamping of the Constitution,
tantamount to forming a new nation, completely unlike what the
founding fathers had envisioned.

As the 2008 Democratic Party Convention date drew closer, people like
Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, Colin Powel, and Jimmy Crater made their
“pivotal” late endorsements.  Oprah Winfrey, Barbara Walters, Larry
King, and dozens of celebrities did the same thing, to use their
’media power’ to slant our weak political processes.  That has been…
“how things are done” for generations…Here is what my New
Constitution says:

“It shall be a felony for any government official or employee, or any
celebrity or media idol—past or present—to publicly endorse or
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job.
Exhibiting ideological bias in a job terminates the employment.
Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new
voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the
transportation of voters to the polls.”

Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton (and husband Bill Clinton) were
clearly taken aback when Obama selected Joe Biden to be Vice
President.  Both Hillary and Bill Clinton made shifts to the Obama
side at the convention, when what they should have done was to point
out that Obama isn’t even an American!  The force of DEMOCRACY was on
Hillary’s side, but she chose not to use it.  Why?  Because she
expected Obama would choose her to be Vice President.  Obama had
visited with the Clintons in her NYC senate offices.  Deals were made
to be sure Hillary would not insist that her supporters NOT vote for
Obama under any circumstances.

Bill Richardson was considered to be on Obama’s “short list” for Vice
President.  His smiles disappeared after the convention when talking
about the Democratic Party Ticket: Obama and Biden.  Note: Soliciting
glowing endorsements with promises of government jobs, is something
Obama did at every turn, and that is CRIMINAL bribery!  Of course, one
cannot expect the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to care about
bribery, because most of that court‘s decisions… are determined by the
BRIBE they each accepted from the President who nominated them, to
NEVER vote counter to the God-damned ideology of that President.
Every member of the US Supreme Court is guilty of accepting their JOB
in exchange for voting along party lines!!  Here is what my New
Constitution says:

“Article III:

Section 1:  The lesser Judicial Branch consists of a Supreme Court and
such inferior courts as the House establishes.  Its major duty is to
interpret laws.  It has no power to command enforcement of any of its
rulings unless so mandated in prior, formally stipulated and apt
laws.  Judges and justices are technicians of the law and of this New
Constitution.  They shall perform their duties as individuals, never
as part of any perceived culture of the lesser Judicial Branch, nor
from any consultation whatsoever with past or present members of
such.  Additionally, they shall not have held state or federal
executive or legislative office.  The President shall nominate new
justices who are between the ages of 50 and 60 years old, and may on
good behavior, serve a single term of up to 10 years.  The President,
or his agents, shall not work to win the confirmation of any
nominee.   Judges and justices shall be selected for their intellect,
high moral character, compassion, knowledge of the law, likable
nature, and for their proficiency and expediency in office.  Such
shall not be aloft nor considered infallible in all their judgments,
yet shall be respected if they right injustices quickly.  They shall
make decisions based on apt laws and this New Constitution—never on
their personal ideologies.  Every two years an unbiased review panel
shall apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of
seated judges and justices.  With the assent of 60% of the vo

Short History of the Tea Parties

[Bruce Majors]

National Review Online
To: 
kmul...@comcast.net

A Short History of the Tea Parties

Yesterday's D.C. meeting was spurred by a foreign lawmaker who wanted to get
a sense of how the Tea Parties came about (with, I suspect, an interest in
facilitating a similar movement in his home country). What follows is the
gist of what I told him, from an unfinished article idea:
The modern incarnation of the Tea Parties is a spectacularly sober movement,
inspired by animating spirits that seemed dormant for the better part of a
generation.
For decades, conservatives watched large rallies in Washington for gay
rights, opposition to Middle Eastern wars, the Million Man March, gun
control, and dozens of other trendy lefty causes, and consoled themselves
with the idea that the grassroots of the Right just weren't the kind of
folks who attended big rallies. (Pro-lifers, with their annual March for
Life held in bitter January weather, made a striking exception.) Unions
often secure the day off for their members; college students and professors
find it all too easy to skip or cancel class. If you didn't see the
demographics that make up the GOP base -- small businessmen, parents,
members of the military -- marching and waving signs, it's because they were
too busy working for a living.
The libertarian magazine Reason has noted that Americans who subscribe to a
socially liberal, fiscally conservative philosophy are the ideological
demographic most likely to own jacuzzis and hot tubs. Couple this with a
preference for individualism over broad-based group action, and one can
quickly understand why you don't often see giant libertarian rallies:
They're mostly at home having fun in their hot tubs. In fact, it takes a
dire threat to their liberties to get them out of their hot tubs.
Enter the Obama administration.
Like most successes, at least a thousand figures are claiming fatherhood of
the Tea Party phenomenon, but certainly a key moment came Feb. 19, 2009,
from an unlikely source: CNBC correspondent Rick Santelli, who launched into
an off-the-cuff rant when asked to evaluate the initial moves from the Obama
administration to deal with a housing market that had plummeted. "The
government is promoting bad behavior!" Santelli shouted, accusing the
administration of a plan that amounted to "subsidizing the losers'
mortgages."
 "This is America!" Santelli shouted. "How many of you people want to pay
for your neighbors' mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their
bills? . . . President Obama, are you listening?"
He articulated the concern that drove welfare reform, the most significant
policy achievement of Bill Clinton's presidency: Government was taking from
the responsible in order to save the irresponsible from the consequences of
their own bad decisions. Americans are a charitable people, but they quickly
anger when they suspect they're being played for a sucker.
The first national "Tea Party" day, held April 16, 2009, ran into the usual
trouble; if you're trying to rally big crowds of squeezed and harried
taxpayers, it's probably a mistake to hold the rally the day that federal
taxes are due. But a Tea Party skeptic, liberal blogger Nate Silver, went
through accounts of crowds from Denver (5,000) to Bound Brook, New
Jersey(20) and came up with a minimum number of estimated attendees
nationwide:
111,899, a number he granted was "reasonably impressive."
Listen to a discussion of the debt and deficit at a Tea Party meeting, and
you won't hear a lot of numbers; instead, it is articulated as a moral
issue, and a national moral failure. The spending spree of TARP and the
stimulus -- and a deficit exacerbated by plummeting tax revenues -- is
spurring Americans to look at the debt as a great horror inflicted upon
their children and grandchildren. Occasionally, you'll hear a bit of
denunciation of the Chinese holding American debt, but by and large this is
seen as an American failure to practice thrift, impulse control, and
responsibility -- or more specifically, American lawmakers' failure to do
so.
It's fairly standard for a conservative lawmaker to encounter angry liberal
crowds. But during the summer of 2009, as Congress took up a massive
health-care bill after passing massive spending bills, Democrat lawmakers
returned to their districts to find huge angry crowds turning out at their
public meetings. Democrats had never seen anything like it: overflow crowds,
angry chants, and in one case, a lawmaker hung in effigy. Inside-the-Beltway
veterans like David Broder of the Washington Post predicted a backlash, but
none arrived. Americans concluded if you want to enjoy the relatively
pampered life of a congressman, you had better be ready to listen to a
constituent tell you why you're doing such a lousy job. Democrats largely
responded to the challenge by refusing to hold additional public meetings.
Coverage of the Tea Parties mostly focused on the inevitable o

Fwd: Must read: Obama's new message to Mubarak

[Bruce Majors]

[image: Andy Borowitz Live in
NYC]
  [image:
Borowitz Report] February 3, 2011 Obama Says He Will Resend
Message to Mubarak, This Time in All Caps White House Mulls Change in Font

WASHINGTON (*The Borowitz
Report*)
- Concerned that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak did not receive his
message to begin a peaceful transition to democratic reforms, President
Barack Obama said today that he would resend the message "but this time in
all caps."

Mr. Obama said that while he hoped sending a capitalized version of the
message would be effective, "we have a variety of other options at our
disposal, including resending it in bold."

In the days since it became clear that Mr. Mubarak did not receive the White
House's initial message, Mr. Obama has been huddling with advisors to
discuss a range of more drastic options, including changing the message's
font altogether.

"We are fully prepared to go to a stronger font if that will help make our
point to Mubarak," said one aide who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Right
now every font is on the table except Comic Sans."

On the Republican side, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said that she
would refrain from commenting on the situation in Egypt until she learned
how to pronounce "Mubarak."

Meanwhile, at the National Prayer Breakfast, Speaker of the House John
Boehner (R-Ohio) led all Americans in praying that they never need
healthcare.

*Get the Borowitz Report delivered to your inbox for free
**here*
*.*

*The Los Angeles Times says Andy Borowitz has “one of the funniest Twitter
feeds around.”  Follow Andy on Twitter
here
.*
[image: Andy's Upcoming Events]  Upcoming Events

* May 18, 2011* at 08:00 PM
 New York!

Andy's only scheduled New York show for 2011.  He'll be joined by a panel of
comedians, journalists, and assorted celebrity types to discuss current
events.  Tickets sell out fast so order yours today.

Location:
92nd Street Y, Lexington at 92nd, NYC
For tickets go to Borowitz in
NYC



 *The Borowitz 
Report*:
Waste Someone's Time: Forward to a
Friend.

Sign up today for your own *Borowitz
Reports*.

*Remove 
me*from
this list.
 [image: Delivered by
MailChimp]

-- 
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.

14 Banned Super Bowl Ads - The Daily Beast

[Travis]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-02-03/12-banned-super-bowl-ads/?om_rid=DXh0bv&om_mid=_BNTrVPB8YQpjhk

-- 
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: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: OPENLEAKS, WIKILEAKS RIVAL, LAUNCHES NEW SECRET-SPILLING SITE - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

[Travis]

I hope all their leaks are in their pants.

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Bruce Majors wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>  [image:
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4M5Nnrfq-bI/TRCoWNxxdxI/D34/bH2WzGv576I/s400/Openleaks.jpg]
> *(above) Openleaks' logo*
> **
>  *=*
> **
> *Hi Team!*
> **
> **? 2 ALL: *
> **
> *OPENLEAKS, WIKILEAKS *
> **
> *RIVAL, LAUNCHES NEW *
> **
> *SECRET-SPILLING SITE - *
>
> [image:
> http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/International/ht_julian_assange_daniel_domscheit_berg_101213_ms.jpg]
>  (above):
> Julian Assange, Daniel Domscheit-Berg
> Frank Jordans reports:
>
> "A former WikiLeaks spokesman launched a rival website Friday, saying he
> planned to give whistleblowers more control over the secrets they spill.
>
> "The new platform, called OpenLeaks, will allow sources to choose
> specifically who they want to submit documents to anonymously, such as to a
> particular news outlet, said Daniel Domscheit-Berg.
>
> "'We'd like to work with media outlets that have an interest in informing
> the public,' he told reporters on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum
> meeting of top business and political leaders in the Swiss resort of Davos.
>
> "The difference between his group and WikiLeaks, he said, would be that his
> group leaves reviewing the material up to the publication or advocacy group
> chosen by the source to receive the information."
>
> [image:
> http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQr6JxbcBtP0cSxmZkCx68Ov1tiHrZuhlxhYwZQOFqvyktnetg2]
> *Openleaks, WikiLeaks rival, launches new secret-spilling site - what are
> your comments?*
> *Greg Dempsey
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/
> Voice of the People*
>
> *===*
>  Openleaks, WikiLeaks rival, launches new secret-spilling site
>
> *FRANK 
> JORDANS*
> *   01/28/11 10:31 AM   AP*
>
> 
> **
> **
> *DAVOS, Switzerland — WikiLeaks has struggled to wade through the vast
> amounts of material it received – particularly the hundreds of thousands of
> U.S. diplomatic cables – and been criticized for sharing the data with only
> a handful of media outlets around the world.*
>
> *Domscheit-Berg said giving more professional journalists and analysts the
> opportunity to receive and sift through documents would speed up the process
> while making OpenLeaks less of a target, as it would not be publishing any
> of the material itself.*
>
> *"We are not going to get under the same kind of scrutiny from governments
> and big corporations as WikiLeaks is currently," he said.*
>
> *WikiLeaks and its 39-year-old Australian founder Julian Assange have come
> under increasing pressure since beginning to publish some 250,000 secret
> U.S. diplomatic cables in November.*
>
> *Domscheit-Berg, a former spokesman for WikiLeaks who fell out with
> Assange, said the two websites and others soon to be launched could
> complement each other, helping to "decentralize" the whistleblowing process.
> *
>
> *OpenLeaks will begin testing in several weeks and could be fully
> operational later this year, he said. So far it has received no outside
> funding, but should that ever be the case it would be done transparently, he
> added.*
>
> *Jeff Jarvis, who teaches journalism at the City University of New York
> and attended the launch, said the appearance of WikiLeaks, OpenLeaks and
> others points to a shift in control over information.*
>
> *"It used to be that he or she who held secrets held power," Jarvis told
> The Associated Press. "Now he or she who creates transparency holds power."
> *
>
> *"The inspiration that's occurring out of all this is very important," he
> added. "What it says to people in power and government and business is: 'you
> can't hide.'"*
>
>  __._,_.___
>  Reply to 
> sender|
>  Reply
> to 
> group|
>  Reply
> via web 
> post|
>  Start
> a New 
> Topic
> Messages in this 
> topic(
> 1)
> Recent Activity:
>
>
> Visit Your 
> Group
> [DailyKos]
> A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
> Group Email Addresses
> Post message:   daily...@yahoogroups.com

Fwd: Tea Party express event this week

[Bruce Majors]

 Tea Party Express Town Hall RSVP

 Tea Party Express is hosting a live and interactive Town Hall with Members
of Congress. The Town Hall will be held on Tuesday, February 8th from 7:00 -
9:00 pm at the National Press Club. Confirmed Members of Congress that will
be in attendance are Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator Mike Lee (UT),
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) and Congressman Steve King (IA). Seating
is limited, so we ask that you please RSVP on the form below. Please plan to
arrive by 6:45 pm in an effort to have the event begin promptly at 7:00 pm.
If you have any questions, please contact James Lyle at james@gmail.com.

 * Required
  First Name *
  Last Name *
  Email Address *
  Phone Number
  City *
  State *
  How many people will be attending with you? *
  Please provide the names of those attending. *
  Would you like to be added to our email list so that we can notify you in
the future of similar events? *

   -  Yes
   -  No

  Powered by Google Docs 

-- 
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: Reminder: Political Monday is tomorrow.

[Bruce Majors]

 Meetup Reminder
The Nashville Libertarian Party Meetup Group
 [image: Meetup]
  Political Monday

is happening tomorrow
 When:
Monday, February 7, 2011 5:00 PM
 Where:
 Spoken Word Cafe - 1801 Jefferson Street Nashville TN
 Who is going:
 1 Libertarians

Come join us and others interested in politics at Political Monday, hosted
by the Spoken Word Cafe. Political Monday features speakers from various
political perspectives and includes lively debate.
 Check out this Meetup
→

Add *i...@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.

Tea Party express event this week

[Bruce Majors]

 Tea Party Express Town Hall RSVP

 Tea Party Express is hosting a live and interactive Town Hall with Members
of Congress. The Town Hall will be held on Tuesday, February 8th from 7:00 -
9:00 pm at the National Press Club. Confirmed Members of Congress that will
be in attendance are Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator Mike Lee (UT),
Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN) and Congressman Steve King (IA). Seating
is limited, so we ask that you please RSVP on the form below. Please plan to
arrive by 6:45 pm in an effort to have the event begin promptly at 7:00 pm.
If you have any questions, please contact James Lyle at james@gmail.com.

 * Required
  First Name *
  Last Name *
  Email Address *
  Phone Number
  City *
  State *
  How many people will be attending with you? *
  Please provide the names of those attending. *
  Would you like to be added to our email list so that we can notify you in
the future of similar events? *

   -  Yes
   -  No

  Powered by Google Docs 

-- 
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: Reminder: GMU: Economic Lecture Series: David E. Bernstein is tomorrow.

[Bruce Majors]

 Meetup Reminder
The Northern Virginia Libertarian Meetup
 [image: Meetup]
  GMU: Economic Lecture Series: David E.
Bernstein
is happening tomorrow
 When:
Monday, February 7, 2011 5:30 PM
 Where:
 George Mason University - 4400 University Dr Fairfax VA
 Who is going:
 6 Libertarians

Topic: "Rehabilitating Lochner: Defending Individual Rights Against
Progressive Reform"

Description: Economic Liberty Lecture Series, Fairfax, Virginia
Pizza, Lecture, & Social Hour

Speaker: David E. Bernstein, Foundation Professor at the George Mason
University School of Law

5:30 p.m. -- Pizza
6:00 p.m. -- Lecture and Q&A
8:00 p.m. -- Libertarian Social Hour at Brion's Grille

Admission: FREE
Location: George Mason University - Student Union II, Rooms 5-7

Web Site: http://www.fff.org/whatsNew/index.asp
 Check out this Meetup
→

Check out our 12 other upcoming Meetups .

Check out our 2 Sponsors and Perks .


Add *i...@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.

Conservative 100: Most Popular Conservative Websites, January 2011 : DBKP REPORT

[Travis]

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/dbkpreport/2011/02/conservative-100-most-popular-conservative-websites-january-2011/

-- 
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.

Charles Krauthammer: 'If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It's Global Warming'

[Travis]

 Charles
Krauthammer: 'If Godzilla Appeared on National Mall Gore Would Say It's
Global 
Warming'
*Scotty Starnes
*| February
6, 2011 at 11:28 AM | Tags: Al
Gore , Charles
Krauthammer,
climate change , global
warming ,
Godzilla,
junk science  |
Categories: Political
Issues|
URL:
http://wp.me/pvnFC-4mj



Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post
by Email  feature.

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

Wikileaks Cables: US Agrees To Tell Russia Britain's Nuclear Secrets

[Jonathan Ashley]

*Wikileaks Cables: US Agrees To Tell Russia Britain's Nuclear Secrets
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8304654/WikiLeaks-cables-US-agrees-to-tell-Russia-Britains-nuclear-secrets.html#

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305116/GENEVA-AGREED-STATEMENTS-MEETING.html

--

"'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of 
saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk 
or sober.'"

- Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges 
and lawyers  yourself!*


--
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.

Documents Show FBI Warned Of Murrah Bombing

[Jonathan Ashley]

*Documents Show FBI Warned Of Murrah Bombing
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2011/02/documents-show-fbi-warned-of-murrah.html

--

"Most people don't want the responsibility of knowing the truth."

Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges 
and lawyers  yourself!*


--
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.

Unemployment Rate Down To 9% With Only 36,000 New Jobs Created?

[Jonathan Ashley]

*Unemployment Rate Down To 9% With Only 36,000 New Jobs Created?
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com/2011/02/unemployment-down-to-9-with-only-36000.html

"It really makes no sense when the general consensus is that 150,000 
non-farm payroll jobs needs to be added each month just to maintain the 
unemployment rate at the same level as the month before."


*

*
10 Reasons Why The Latest Unemployment Numbers Are No Reason To Cheer
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/find-a-job-good-luck-in-this-economy-10-reasons-why-the-latest-unemployment-numbers-are-no-reason-to-cheer

*

*
"A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth 
even if no one believes it."


Don't rely on an overpriced attorney. Learn how you can control judges 
and lawyers  yourself!*


--
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: Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[THE ANNOINTED ONE]

Tommy,

Now that there is enough attention drawn to this problem in the US and
there are treatments available one would think that the male Gay
community would have learned something but NO, they are as
(actually MORE) irresponsible today as they were then (81-86) with a
small minority of the US population (approx. 6%) being male gays they
equal (at last count...2008) over 75% of the HIV/AIDS cases.

Maybe Reagan was right for the wrong reasons. How long must the
general population pay for STUPIDITY ???

Basically this is reflective of ALL Gay positions...politically. They
want want want and obviously don't care about themselves or the
society in which they live. HIV/AIDS is obviously more rampant now
than ever amongst these IDIOTS.

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

On Feb 6, 9:50 am, Tommy News  wrote:
> Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White
>
> As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
> his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
> History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
> and will die of AIDS.
>
> Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
> national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
> was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
> Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
> -- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
> mean-spirited hostility.
>
> Sponsored Links
> Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
> (www.a1hearing.com)
> Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
> Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
> Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
> Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
> advertisement | your ad here
>  A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
> identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
> group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
> men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
> Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
> communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
> revenge on gay men."
>
> With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
> frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
> professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
> response of the Reagan administration was indifference.
>
> By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
> died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
> Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
> cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
> department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
> That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
> San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
> research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
> marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.
>
> With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
> Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
> House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
> guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
> American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.
>
> With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
> who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
> President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
> Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
> late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising
> that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that
> he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his
> staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have
> raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."
>
> Sponsored Links
> Strategic Management Cornell University Certificate Online: Series in
> Executive Leadership (ecornell.com/leadership)
> Develop Leadership Skills A Series of 24 Programs. Free Previews.
> (www.businesstrainingexperts.com)
> Make $7590 Per Month Local Mom Reveals How She Makes $7590/Mo - And
> How You Can Too. (News24Reporting.com)
> advertisement | your ad here
>  Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president.
> His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at
> the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he
> spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had
> died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000
> cases.
>
> As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he
> might have done. Today, th

Reject GOP Revisionist History: Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals death

[Tommy News]

Reagan's AIDS Legacy / Silence equals deathJune 08, 2004|By Allen White


As America remembers the life of Ronald Reagan, it must never forget
his shameful abdication of leadership in the fight against AIDS.
History may ultimately judge his presidency by the thousands who have
and will die of AIDS.

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a
national health crisis was developing. But President Reagan's response
was "halting and ineffective," according to his biographer Lou Cannon.
Those infected initially with this mysterious disease -- all gay men
-- found themselves targeted with an unprecedented level of
mean-spirited hostility.


Sponsored Links
Hearing Aids Sound Advice Since 1935 - 619.283.8400 or 760.632.8000
(www.a1hearing.com)
Hearing Aid Buyer's Guide Expert Advice with our Buyer's Guide-Compare
Models and Prices (HearingPlanet.com)
Hearing Aid Buying Guide Discover Hearing Aid Types. View Top Hearing
Aid Brands (HearingAidConsumerGuide.com)
advertisement | your ad here
 A significant source of Reagan's support came from the newly
identified religious right and the Moral Majority, a political-action
group founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell. AIDS became the tool, and gay
men the target, for the politics of fear, hate and discrimination.
Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals." Reagan's
communications director Pat Buchanan argued that AIDS is "nature's
revenge on gay men."

With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a
frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care
professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The
response of the Reagan administration was indifference.

By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had
died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported
cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health
department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.
That same year, 1984, the Democratic National Convention convened in
San Francisco. Hoping to focus attention on the need for AIDS
research, education and treatment, more than 100,000 sympathizers
marched from the Castro to Moscone Center.

With each diagnosis, the pain and suffering spread across America.
Everyone seemed to now know someone infected with AIDS. At a White
House state dinner, first lady Nancy Reagan expressed concern for a
guest showing signs of significant weight loss. On July 25, 1985, the
American Hospital in Paris announced that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

With AIDS finally out of the closet, activists such as Paul Boneberg,
who in 1984 started Mobilization Against AIDS in San Francisco, begged
President Reagan to say something now that he, like thousands of
Americans, knew a person with AIDS. Writing in the Washington Post in
late 1985, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, stated: "It is surprising
that the president could remain silent as 6,000 Americans died, that
he could fail to acknowledge the epidemic's existence. Perhaps his
staff felt he had to, since many of his New Right supporters have
raised money by campaigning against homosexuals."


Sponsored Links
Strategic Management Cornell University Certificate Online: Series in
Executive Leadership (ecornell.com/leadership)
Develop Leadership Skills A Series of 24 Programs. Free Previews.
(www.businesstrainingexperts.com)
Make $7590 Per Month Local Mom Reveals How She Makes $7590/Mo - And
How You Can Too. (News24Reporting.com)
advertisement | your ad here
 Reagan would ultimately address the issue of AIDS while president.
His remarks came May 31, 1987 (near the end of his second term), at
the Third International Conference on AIDS in Washington. When he
spoke, 36,058 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS and 20,849 had
died. The disease had spread to 113 countries, with more than 50,000
cases.

As millions eulogize Reagan this week, the tragedy lies in what he
might have done. Today, the World Health Organization estimates that
more than 40 million people are living with HIV worldwide. An
estimated 5 million people were newly infected and 3 million people
died of AIDS in 2003 alone.

Reagan could have chosen to end the homophobic rhetoric that flowed
from so many in his administration. Dr. C. Everett Koop, Reagan's
surgeon general, has said that because of "intradepartmental politics"
he was cut out of all AIDS discussions for the first five years of the
Reagan administration. The reason, he explained, was "because
transmission of AIDS was understood to be primarily in the homosexual
population and in those who abused intravenous drugs." The president's
advisers, Koop said, "took the stand, 'They are only getting what they
justly deserve.' "

How profoundly different might have been the outcome if his leadership
had generated compassion rather than hostility. "In the history of the
AIDS epidemic, President Reagan's legacy is one of silence," Micha

Re: OT: SUPER BOWL

[THE ANNOINTED ONE]

I was watching that game !! The biggest foul-up in Sports
broadcasting history.

On Feb 6, 6:42 am, Travis  wrote:
> I think I will watch "Heidi".
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Cold Water  wrote:
> >  From a friend:
>
> > “Just to let everybody know that newly elected Pennsylvania Sen.Pat Toomey
> > is going to be watching the Superbowl at the White House today, along with
> > that sleazebag Bob Casey and a variety of other politicans of both parties
> > from PA and Wisconsin. I have nightmares of what happened two years ago when
> > Arlen Specter attended the White House Superbowl party and agreed to be the
> > deciding vote for the stimulus. What will happen this time?”
>
> > --
> > 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.

Re: I Think, Therefore I am Not

[Keith In Köln]

Here's a little about the author, Jonathan Kantrowitz,  from which Tom cites
his purported "poll":


*Founder, Chief Executive Officer*. Queue, Inc. ,
an educational publisher. 1981-present; *Assistant General Counsel*. Touche
Ross & Co. 1977-1981; *Coordinator*, Fairfield Over-30 Men’s Soccer,
1987-present; *Member*, Fairfield Board of Education, 1992-1994; *Member*,
Fairfield Board of Recreation, 1998-1999; *Member*, Fairfield TV Access
Committee, 2008-2009,* Economic Development Administrator*, Town of
Fairfield (consultant) 2002; *Chairman*, Fairfield Temporary Pool Committee,
2004, Chairman, Fairfield TV Access Committee, 2008;* Member*, Fairfield
Democratic Town Committee, 1972-2002; *Vice-Chairman*, Fairfield Democratic
Town Committee, 1994-2000; Democratic Candidate, U.S. Congress, 1994, 1998,
State Senate 1972, 1984; *Education:; Brown University*: B.A. Economics
(1966); *Harvard Law School:* JD (1969).



A couple of thoughts come to mind.  First, Kantrowitz is a prime example of
an "Academian" and the reason that our schools and universites are in such a
mess.  I would bet that Kantrowitz is a socialist also, but there can be no
doubt that Kantrowitz has posted a hate filled prevaricate rhetorical post,
and this is an example of what he teaches his pupils.

Who took this poll?   Who were the participants of the poll?  Note that
Kantrowitz does not reference any of these most important aspects.  The poll
is basically not at all reliable and is another example of the hate coming
from the far left extremist Anti-American socialistic movement that is very
vocal, but still nevertheless a small minority of our Nation.   They should
not be in charge of our schools and universities of higher education.






On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 6:15 AM, frankg  wrote:

> Tommy,
>
> Change the names of the talking heads and politicians, replace ACORN
> stealing the election to simply stealing the election, replace
> socialist with communist, impeached can stay in there, replace "wants
> the terrorists to win" with "9/11 was an inside job", etc., and we
> could be discussing what the Democrats were saying about Bush a few
> years ago. This type of hateful rhetoric solves nothing, is not unique
> to either party and generally just proves there are a lot of
> intolerant idiots in both political parties.
>
> On Feb 4, 8:40 pm, Tommy News  wrote:
> > I Think, Therefore I am Not
> > Glenn Beck...Sarah Palin.Ann CoulterRush
> > LimbaughMichelle Bachmann.Christine O`DonnellJohn
> > McCainJohn Boehner...Newt Gingrich...Ron Paul.Mitt
> > Romney..Mitch McConnell.The Tea Party Sheeple..A
> > Faux Noise Pundit.A Republican Obstructionist..A Libertarian
> > Loon..etc.
> >
> > Republican Intelligence – an Oxymoron?
> >
> > by Jonathan Kantrowitz
> >
> > A new poll of self-identified Republicans released Tuesday shows a
> > large slice of the GOP believes President Barack Obama is a
> > “socialist” who was not born in this country, should be impeached,
> > wants the terrorists to win and only won the 2008 election because
> > ACORN “stole” it for him.
> >
> > According to the poll, 63 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a
> > socialist; 39 percent think Obama should be impeached; 24 percent said
> > Obama wants “the terrorists to win”; and 31 percent agreed with the
> > statement that Obama is “a racist who hates white people.”
> >
> > According to the survey, 36 percent of respondents do not believe the
> > president was born in this country, and 21 percent think the liberal
> > advocacy group ACORN stole the election for Obama.
> >
> > Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of the Republicans polled, 23 percent,
> > want their state to secede from the union.
> >
> > Fifty-one percent of those polled believe sex education should not be
> > taught in schools; 77 percent want creationism taught in schools; 31
> > percent want contraception outlawed; and 34 percent believe birth
> > control is “abortion.”
> >
> > More:
> http://blog.ctnews.com/kantrowitz/2010/02/04/republican-intelligence-...
> >
> > --
>  > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> --
> 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.

Freedom Is In Peril

[Travis]

 Freedom Is In
Peril
*twg2a PitBull * | February 3,
2011 at 10:09 | Categories:
Miscellaneous|
URL:
http://wp.me/pMJTI-KM

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be
restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. - John Adams, letter to
Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post
 







  [image: WordPress]

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

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

-- 
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.

Canada: Muslims don't want children in infidel music, mixed phys-ed classes

[Travis]

 Canada: Muslims
don't want children in infidel music, mixed phys-ed
classes
*creeping * | February
5, 2011 at 3:15 PM | Tags: Creeping
Sharia,
Education ,
islam,
law ,
Legal,
Life ,
Media,
Muslim ,
News,
Politics ,
Random,
Religion ,
Sharia| Categories:
Alerts ,
Canada,
Creeping 
Sharia,
Education ,
Media ,
News,
Politics ,
Religion ,
Sharia , Stealth
Jihad  |
URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-7Ow

Sharia and Islamic segregation...from infidels. When one adds up all the
tiny minorities of Muslims who are extreme about one thing or one-hundred,
it seems a growing majority of Muslims don't find Western life compatible
with Islam. So why come? More importantly, why does the West tolerate such
intolerance and the supremacist imposition of Islamic [...]

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post








  [image: WordPress]

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

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

-- 
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.

Anti-Empire Report: 'War can be seen as America's religion'

[Travis]

 Anti-Empire Report: 'War
can be seen as America's
religion'
*coto2admin * | February 3,
2011 at 9:42 pm | Tags: egypt ,
imperialism ,
obamalies,
racism ,
Resistance,
terror scare , war
mentality| Categories:
Land
Grab ,
Military,
MSM Shills ,
NWO,
Obama and Company,
War and Peace  |
URL: http://wp.me/pAnVO-3Gy

By William Blum Anti-Empire Report The events in Egypt cannot help but
remind me of Portugal. Here, there, and everywhere, now and before, the
United States of America, as always, is petrified of anything genuinely
progressive or socialist, or even too democratic, for that carries the
danger of allowing god-knows what kind of non-America-believer taking [...]

Read more of this
post

Add a comment to this
post
 







  [image: WordPress]

WordPress.com  | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage 
Subscriptions|
Unsubscribe|
Reach
out to your own subscribers with
WordPress.com.

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

How to Shovel Snow Like a Man

[Travis]

   Email not displaying correctly? View it in your
browser.



How to Shovel Snow Like a
Man

 *Editor’s note: This is a guest post from Simon
Grey.
Those of you in the perennially freezing parts of the US will know this
information as well as the back of your hand, but I thought this would be a
fun primer for those who got surprisingly dumped upon by this week’s big
storm. Tulsa got something like 15 inches…a new record! *

There are certain duties that almost invariably fall to men. Killing
spiders. Opening stuck jar
lids.
Unclogging 
toilets.
And especially this time of year, shoveling snow.

Snow shoveling is often a back-breaking, tiresome process. If you have a
driveway that is sixty feet long by twenty feet wide, and you get six inches
of snow, clearing off the driveway means moving six hundred cubic feet of
snow. It is thus a task that calls for some seriously manly brawn.

Shoveling snow is generally not a particularly fun activity, although it is
an excellent workout and a fine opportunity to get some crisp, fresh air.
And there are a few ways to mitigate the unpleasantness of this chore, which
we’ll discuss today.
*Dressing for the Occasion*

First, you need to dress for the job at hand. If it’s above twenty degrees
outside, you will want to dress in light layers. I recommend an outfit that
consists of leather boots, wool socks, jeans, an undershirt, a thermal
henley, a red plaid flannel shirt, and gloves. Maybe a cap, but only if it’s
really windy outside.

This outfit works best when it’s above twenty degrees outside, especially if
you have a decent amount of shoveling to do. You don’t want to be dressed
too warmly, because once you start getting into the swing of things, you’ll
heat up fast. This makes wearing at least a couple of layers essential;
you’ll want to strip one off as you get going and warm up.

Dressing in layers is encouraged...although maybe not a sweater vest.

If it’s below ten degrees, dress warmer. Add a second pair of socks and a
heavier coat. If the snow is deep enough, wear snow pants. And make sure to
wear thermal shirts and leggings.
*Methods of Snow Removal*

*For Short Driveways*

If you have a short driveway, a shovel will probably work best. Make sure to
pick the right shovel for the job. Do not get a plastic shovel; they are
poorly constructed and do not stand up to the rigors of moving any snow
heavier than a light dusting. They break easily and cannot handle ice.

Also, do not get an “ergonomically designed” shovel. They do not offer any
significant benefits to your lower back, at least compared to normal
shovels, and they are slightly harder to scoop snow with.

Instead, opt for a shovel with a straight wooden handle and a reinforced
metal blade. You will find that these are the easiest to work with and are
generally pretty sturdy as well.

The process for shoveling a driveway is pretty simple: first, shovel a line
along the edge of the driveway, on the side that the wind is coming from. Do
not try to shovel into the wind. After that, shovel snow from that path to
the opposite side of the driveway. If you need to toss snow across the
driveway, you will be aided by the wind.

*For Mid-Length Driveways*

If you have a mid-length driveway, you should probably use a snow blower.
There are a variety of different brands and types, and each will likely have
its own starting process. Consult the owner’s manual for instructions.

Also, remember that snow blowers can be very dangerous. Never stick your
hands in the snow chute or scoop while the snow blower is in operation.

Using a snow blower is fairly simple: plow down one side of the driveway and
work your way to the other side of the driveway. Make sure to blow all the
snow in the same direction. Also, make sure to blow the snow with the wind,
not against it. This is a very cold lesson to learn the hard way.

*For Long Driveways*

If you have a long driveway, use a truck with a snow blade attached. This
process is relatively simple as well: drive the truck onto the driveway,
lower the blade, and clear off the snow. Make sure that you warm up the
truck first, though; you don’t want to harm your engine or drive in a cold
cab. If the street on which you live has already been cleared, try to push
the snow either off to the side of the driveway or across the street. No one
wants to have to

Re: Proof and Documentation Refuting "The White House Jihadist, Obama, Stands by Muslim Brotherhood Endorsement"

[Keith In Köln]

Well said "Markie MarkMark"!!

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 10:13 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:

> Tommy,
>
> Since the response I wrote is Jefferson in his own words that support
> his own words (Declaration of Independence) I would say that your
> response leaves you looking rather STUPID.
>
> As to the sexual proclivities of Jesus or anyone else for that matter
> maybe you should learn from Jefferson that some things are meant to be
> kept personal and government should not interfere.
>
> What you do not seem to want to (it may also be a simple in/dis-
> ability) understand is that most Constitutionalists would favor the
> rollback of all Federal pro-marriage acts rather than see the
> constitution further bastardized by adding anyone to it.
>
> Healthcare, hiring quotas, telling me who I can or can not sell my
> house to, charging an income tax, are all things beyond the scope of
> said document and are the pervue of the states. The differences were
> and are what makes different states repugnant or attractive to the
> individual... and was the reason for the enumeration/limitation of
> Federal powers.
>
> On Feb 5, 2:32 pm, Tommy News  wrote:
> > Markie Mark-
> >
> > Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of The Bible, which included
> > ONLY the teachings and words of Jesus, eliminating all the allegorical
> > and often violence filled stories in the Old Testament.
> >
> > You should really learn about this, so you will appear to know what
> > you are talking about.
> >
> > In addition, Jesus may very well have been gay or bi.
> >
>  > On 2/5/11, Mark  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > MJ,
> >
> > > It is paraphrased from the Declaration of
> Independence."Nature's
> > > God"
> >
> > > He (Jefferson) stated this belief explicitly in a letter to John Adams
> in
> > > which he wrote that the moral code of Jesus was "the most sublime and
> > > benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man."[8]
> Jefferson
> > > even made a collection of Jesus' moral teachings from the Bible which
> seemed
> > > to be in their original simplicity. He used this collection as an
> ethical
> > > guide to his own life."
> >
> > >  In another letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that he believed in
> God
> > > because of the argument from design:
> >
> > > I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the
> > > Universe, in it's [sic] parts general or particular, it is impossible
> for
> > > the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design,
> consummate
> > > skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's [sic] composition. .
> . it
> > > is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is .
> . .
> > > a fabricator of all things.[13]
> > > After applying his faculty of reason, in which he placed much faith,
> > > Jefferson found that he had to believe in a creator.
> >
> > > "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
> ends, it
> > > is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
> new
> > > Government..."
> >
> > > I found it self explicative But here are the cites in the authors
> own
> > > words and definitions.
> >
> > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 12:16 PM, MJ  wrote:
> >
> > >>  Whenever any Government stops listening to the people (majority) and
> > >>> the will of the Christian God they have the right and duty to change
> > >>> or destroy it by any means possible...
> >
> > >> What does 'majority' or 'Christian God' have to do with it?
> >
> > >> Regard$,
> > >> --MJ
> >
> > >> "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or
> religious or
> > >> to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly.
> Government
> > >> should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by
> > >> protecting the equal rights of each from aggression...[when]
> governmental
> > >> prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating
> the
> > >> very ends they are intended to serve" --Henry George
> >
> > >> --
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > --
> > > Mark M. Kahle H.
> >
> > > --
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
> > Have a great day,
> > Tommy
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Goog

Re: OT: SUPER BOWL

[Travis]

I think I will watch "Heidi".

On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Cold Water  wrote:

>  From a friend:
>
>
>
> “Just to let everybody know that newly elected Pennsylvania Sen.Pat Toomey
> is going to be watching the Superbowl at the White House today, along with
> that sleazebag Bob Casey and a variety of other politicans of both parties
> from PA and Wisconsin. I have nightmares of what happened two years ago when
> Arlen Specter attended the White House Superbowl party and agreed to be the
> deciding vote for the stimulus. What will happen this time?”
>
>
>
> --
> 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.

Super Bowl Cheerleaders

[Travis]

 Nate Beeler's Editorial Cartoons
Digest
 Updated
Editorial Cartoons by Nate Beeler, the award-winning cartoonist for The
Washington Examiner.

*Today's Digest*

Super Bowl 
Cheerleaders

   [image: Twitter]  [image:
Facebook]
[image:
RSS feed]  [image: Local
News Digest] 

   Follow Nate Beeler on Twitter! 
  Nate Beeler's Editorial Cartoons on
Facebook!
  Sign up for the Nate Beeler's Editorial Cartoons
Digest
  Become a fan of the Washington Examiner on
Facebook
  Sign up for the Nate's 'Toons RSS
Feed
  Sign up for the Washington Examiner RSS
Feed



This email was sent to twmc...@gmail.com by d...@gettheexaminer.com |
Update Profile/Email
Address
| Instant removal with
SafeUnsubscribe™
| Privacy Policy .

The Washington Examiner | 1015 15th St. NW | Suite 500 | Washington, DC | DC
| 20005

-- 
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.

OT: SUPER BOWL

[Cold Water]

>From a friend:

 

"Just to let everybody know that newly elected Pennsylvania Sen.Pat Toomey
is going to be watching the Superbowl at the White House today, along with
that sleazebag Bob Casey and a variety of other politicans of both parties
from PA and Wisconsin. I have nightmares of what happened two years ago when
Arlen Specter attended the White House Superbowl party and agreed to be the
deciding vote for the stimulus. What will happen this time?"

 

-- 
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: Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge To Health Reform

[Keith In Köln]

This is actually an intersting perspective, however I surmise that
the writer is misplaced on several issuesFirst,  when the riter states
that there have been an overwhelming majority of judges who have tossed
challenges to the socialized medicine legislation based on Standing;  to
date, nothing of the sort has happened.

The write is correct in once sense,  "Standing"  is a major hurdle to
overcome,  and the Supremes have been known to look harshly on citizens (*
e.g.;*  individuals)  who bring forth claims that challenge some issue and
the premise is what "may"  happen; and/or some general purported harm to a
class of people or individuals.  There are a number of decisions that have
ruled accordingly, and been summarily dismissed.

What the writer misses here, is that the plaintiffs are States; representing
their citizenry;  and in general, claiming that the citizenry of their
respective state will be harmed if the law is enacted.  This is a much
different premise than what the writer is attempting to convey, and he
misses the crux of the lawsuit.

In my humble opinion,  this law does'nt have a snowball's chance in Hell of
surviving, at least in its current form.


KeithInKöln
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Tommy News  wrote:

> Bush-Appointed Federal Judge Tosses Out Challenge To Health Reform
>

-- 
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: Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

[Cold Water]

“A political legacy is not a prescription for a set of policies; it is a set
of values and principles. The challenge for today's leaders is not so much
hewing to what Reagan did in the 1980s, but figuring out where he might lead
in the 21st century.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020406
973_pf.html

 

From: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
[mailto:politicalforum@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Keith In Köln
Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 07:34
To: politicalforum@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Ronald Reagan: An Autopsy

 

Let me make sure this is coming from someone that I have a good bit of
respect for, and not a Moonbat:

 

Michael, you cut and paste a nasty, hateful (more importantly) untruthful
article from some Moonbat, and you are expecting me to do what?  

 

Address your cut and paste article from Lew Rockwell, a known Anarchist,
(who I tend to believe is a communist in disguise, but I digrress)

 

No, I will not address your, "cut and pastes" any longer.   I have spent
hours addressing them previously, with no response from you when I point out
the fallacies.

 

You start talking, and demonstrate why it is that you believe Ronald Reagan
was a (and I quote)  "DismalConcentration Camp"  story.

 

 

This article in and of itself ought to turn the light bulb on for you, that
Lew Rockwell is a hack

 



 

On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:48 PM, MJ  wrote:

Reagan’s Phony Revolution 
Posted by Lew Rockwell   on February 5, 2011
11:20 AM 

Writes David Stockman:

Thanks for reprinting Murray Rothbard’s classic take-down
  of the “Reagan
Revolution.” With the passage of time, the mythology only gets amplified­so
people need to be reminded about the truth. I took a modest crack at this in
the attached interview
  in which I reminded readers that the Reagan Revolution was a
Lincoln Day Dinner speech! It never actually happened in the real world of
fiscal policy. And as you might recall,  program after program was saved by
stalwart conservatives like Jesse Helms, Ed Meese, etc.

-- 
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.

  _  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3424 - Release Date: 02/05/11

-- 
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.