Tuesday, 18 June 2013

What It Feels Like Being a Conservative in the Republican Party





Sard posted: "Hat Tip: Joshuapundit You have a scion of a political family chiding you for not breeding enough You want more of this old guy You get more of this old guy instead You're subjected to constant abuse and name calling: "Hobbit" "Wacko Birds" and "Ridicul"

New post on therightplanet.com

What It Feels Like Being a Conservative in the Republican Party

by Sard

Hat Tip: Joshuapundit You have a scion of a political family chiding you for not breeding enough You want more of this old guy You get more of this old guy instead You're subjected to constant abuse and name calling: "Hobbit" "Wacko Birds" and "Ridiculous" This guy. Again. You're told to like a guy who […]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/06/what-it-feels-like-being-a-conservative-in-the-republican-party/




--
--
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

A Ham Sandwich





burkasrugly posted: "Fellow infidels, Constantine comments on an attack on an infidel who was merely eating a ham sandwich in front of Muslim savages.  Their attacks are getting tiresome - Burkasrugly From the Truth is Stranger than Fiction Department, comes this bona f"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on actjonesboroar

A Ham Sandwich

by burkasrugly

Fellow infidels,

Constantine comments on an attack on an infidel who was merely eating a ham sandwich in front of Muslim savages.  Their attacks are getting tiresome - Burkasrugly

From the Truth is Stranger than Fiction Department, comes this bona fide incident from France:

"It sounds incredible but it is being treated with great seriousness by the police in the Reims police station (Marne). A 23-year-old man filed a complaint on the 8th of June after having been attacked the previous evening at 9:30 pm in a city tramway by two strangers. They struck him several times on the face because he was eating a ham sandwich. The two attackers who claimed to be Muslims, said they were OFFENDED by this consumption of pork in front of their eyes before attacking the young man. A witness, friend of the young man who was present when the incident occurred, has been interviewed by the investigators and has confirmed the reality of the attack.

Offended ? The Muslims were offended. They were offended by a simple ham sandwich being eaten by a dirty infidel. Offended ? These sorry low life's offend me. I am mad as H*ll and I am not going to take it anymore.

I am offended ! Let me count the ways.

I am offended every time these 7th Century barbarians torture a woman to death on some trumped-up rape charge by stoning her.

I am offended every time some Islamic idiot throws acid into some young woman's face.

I am offended when Stone Age savages seek to impose Sharia on some freedom loving Western democratic country.

I am offended when an uncultivated Muslim moron executes an apostate.

I am offended by every polio worker killed by some insane imam.

I am offended every time the Saudi government beheads some woman on the charge of witchcraft.

I am offended every time some illiterate Islamic baboon has the audacity to lecture civilized people on the virtues of Sharia.

A simple ham sandwich pales beside a severed human head or an amputated hand. Where is the moral equivalency ? In short there is none.

If you don't like it in France, or England, or the United States get the H out. There are hundreds of planes leaving every day for your country of origin, better known as Muslim sewers. As the 85-year-old British Granny put it so succinctly, "Go home!"

You sorry sons of Allah deeply offend me. Go ! Leave now !

In hoc sign vinces,

Constantine

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://actjonesboroar.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/a-ham-sandwich/

Thanks for flying with 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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Shooting disbands swarm of Obama’s sons





Dr. Eowyn posted: ""If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon." -Barack Hussein Obama, March 23, 2012. Jodie Jackson Jr. reports for the Columbia Daily Tribune, that at 12:26 am on June 15, 2013, according to Columbia police Capt. Jill Schlude, a "crowd" of some 30 peop"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Shooting disbands swarm of Obama's sons

by Dr. Eowyn

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

-Barack Hussein Obama, March 23, 2012.

Jodie Jackson Jr. reports for the Columbia Daily Tribune, that at 12:26 am on June 15, 2013, according to Columbia police Capt. Jill Schlude, a "crowd" of some 30 people were "gathered" in the area of Tenth and Broadway in downtown Columbia, MO, when several loud gun shots were heard.

Officers later found a "person" near 920 E. Broadway with multiple gunshot wounds to the lower body. A second victim, who was dropped off at University Hospital by personal vehicle, had a gunshot wound to the hand. A third victim was found during a traffic stop. Police don't have information about the third victim's injuries.

Eight spent shell casings on the west sidewalk on Tenth between Broadway and Walnut Street.

Police do not have a suspect description and are continuing to investigate, Officer Latisha Stroer said. A video of the incident has gone viral (see above), though it is unclear who recorded it and posted it. Police declined to comment on the video.

Sgt Shultz2

H/t The Mad Jewess

~Eowyn

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/shooting-disbands-swarm-of-obamas-sons/

Thanks for flying with 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.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Everything Americans Think They Know About Drugs Is Wrong: A Scientist Explodes the Myths


Everything Americans Think They Know About Drugs Is Wrong: A Scientist Explodes the Myths
Columbia University scientist Carl Hart combines research and anecdotes from his life to explain how false assumptions have created a disastrous drug policy.
June 13, 2013

What many Americans, including many scientists, think they know about drugs is turning out to be totally wrong. For decades, drug war propaganda has brainwashed Americans into blaming drugs for problems ranging from crime to economic deprivation. In his new book High Price: A Neuroscientist's Journey of Self-Discovery That Challenges Everything You Know About Drugs and Society, Carl Hart blows apart the most common myths about drugs and their impact on society, drawing in part on his personal experience growing up in an impoverished Miami neighborhood. Hart has used marijuana and cocaine, carried guns, sold drugs, and participated in other petty crime, like shoplifting. A combination of what he calls choice and chance brought him to the Air Force and college, and finally made him the first black, tenured professor of sciences at Columbia University.

Intertwined with his story about the struggles of families and communities stressed by lack of capital and power over their surroundings is striking new research on substance use. Hart uses his life and work to reveal that drugs are not nearly as harmful as many think. For example, most people who use the most "addicting" drugs do not develop a problem. Rather, Hart says, drugs are scapegoated for problems related to poverty. The policies that result from this misconception are catastrophically misguided. AlterNet spoke with Hart about his life and research.

Kristen Gynne: What are some of the false conclusions about drugs you are challenging?

Carl Hart: There are multiple false conclusions. There is a belief, for example, that crack cocaine is so addictive it only took one hit to get hooked, and that it is impossible to use heroin without becoming addicted. There was another belief that methamphetamine users are cognitively impaired. All of these are myths that have have been perpetuated primarily by law enforcement, and law enforcement deals with a limited, select group of people­people who are, in many cases, behaving badly. But to generalize that to all drug users is not only shortsighted and naive, it's also irresponsible. The impact of that irresponsible behavior has been borne primarily by black communities. Nobody really cares about black communities, and that's why this irresponsible behavior has been allowed to continue.

It's also true that we've missed critical opportunities to challenge our basic assumptions about drugs. If drugs really were as damaging as we are led to believe, a respectable society should do something to address that problem. But the thing is, the very assumptions driving our drug policy are wrong, and must be questioned.  

KG:How does the lack of people of color in academia or research affect our understanding of drugs?

CH: I'd just like to be clear, I don't say people of color, I say black people, because people of color can mean a number of other [races]. I'm talking about black people who, like me, when we go back to our communities and we ask about people who we grew up with, the response is, "Well, they got caught up with a drug charge, they're upstate. They're doing some time" or, "Oh, he's doing better now that he got out of jail. He can't really find a good job, but he's doing his best."  

It would be nice if we had black scientists, more black people in science, to incorporate these kinds of experiences as they think about the questions they investigate. The problem is it's so homogenous that critical questions about our community are ignored because they're not seen as being important.

KG:And the result is that they don't comprehend environment, or the other variables that are affecting someone's decisions or behavior, and miss the mark?

CH: That's exactly right. It's that if you don't contextualize what is happening with drugs in the country you might get the impression that drugs are so bad they're causing all these people to go to jail: "Let's find out how drugs are exerting these awful effects." Now, you have just completely disregarded context in which all of these things occur, and that is what has happened in science. If you don't fully appreciate the context, and you think that drug users are awful, then you don't think about how a person takes care of their kid, takes care of their family, goes to work, but they also use drugs. If you don't think about all of those contextual factors, you limit the picture and that's what we've done.

It's not that science lies. Science doesn't lie. But when you look at your research with a limited view, you may erroneously draw conclusions about drugs, when in fact other variables you might not understand are what's really at play.

KG:You talk about how people are always blaming problems on drugs, when those issues really spring from the stress of poverty. What are some examples?

CH: I think crack cocaine is the easiest example  In the 1980s, as I was coming of age in my teens and my early 20s, people­black people, white folks, a number of people in the country­said crack was so awful it was causing women to give up their babies and neglect their children such that grandmothers had to raise another generation of children.

Now, if you look at the history in poor communities­my community, my family­long before crack ever hit the scene, that sort of thing happened in my house. We were raised by my grandmother. My mother went away because she and my father split up. She went away in search of better jobs and left the state, but it wasn't just her. This sort of thing, this pathology that is attributed to drugs, happened to immigrant communities like the Eastern European Jews when they came to the Lower East SIde, but people simply blamed crack in the 1980s and the 1990s. 

Another example is that, since the crack era, multiple studies have found that the effects of crack cocaine use during pregnancy do not create an epidemic of doomed black "crack babies." Instead, crack-exposed children are growing up to lead normal lives, and studies have repeatedly found that the diferences between them and babies who were not exposed cannot be isolated from the health effects of growing up poor, without a stable, safe environment or access to healthcare.

KG:What about the idea that drugs can turn people into criminals?

CH: The pharmalogical effects of drugs rarely lead to crime, but the public conflates these issues regardless. If we were going to look at how pharmalogical drugs influence crime, we should probably look at alcohol. We know sometimes people get unruly when they drink, but the vast majority of people don't. Certainly, we have given thousands of doses of crack cocaine and methamphetamine to people in our lab, and never had any problems with violence or anything like that. That tells you it's not the pharmacology of the drug, but some interaction with the environment or environmental conditions, that would probably happen without the drug. Sure, new markets of illegal activity are often or sometimes associated with increased violence, or some other illegal activity, but it is not specific to drugs like people try to make it out to be.

Other than crime, you have myths that drugs cause cognitive impairment, make people unable to be productive members of society, or tear families apart. If the vast majority of people are using these drugs without problems­and a smaller proportion of users do have problems­what that tells you if you're thinking critically is it can't be only the drug, or mainly the drug. It tells you it is something about the individual situations, environmental conditions, a wide range of factors.

KG:What about addiction? Won't some people who use drugs inevitably become dependent on drugs?

CH: Given the large percentage of people who are not addicted and try these drugs, it's something other than the pharmacology of the drugs that's causing addiction. We find that 85% of the people, for example, who use cocaine are not addicted, even though they use the same cosmetological substance as those who are. Somebody could say there may be something biologically predisposing people who get addicted, but there is no evidence to support that position. Certainly, that idea should be investigated, but there is far more evidence to support the view that there are other things going in the lives of people who are predisposed to addiction, that can predict their addiction as well as other problems.

KG:What kinds of environmental factors matter?

CH: Well, let's think about drug use. Drug effects are predictable, and some drugs are really good at increasing euphoria and feelings of positive reinforcement. Now, if you don't have anything competing with drugs for pleasure and happiness, all you have is deprivation. Why wouldn't you get high?

If you have competing reinforcers or alternatives, like the ability to earn income, learn a skill, or receive some respect based on your performance in some sort of way, those things compete with potentially destructive behavior. And so as a psychologist, you just want to make sure people have a variety of potential reinforcers. If you don't have that, you increase the likelihood of people engaging in behaviors that society does not condone. 

Skills that are employable or marketable, education, having a stake or meaningful role in society, not being marginalized­all of those things are very important. Instead of ensuring that all of our members have these things, our society has blamed drugs, said drugs are the reasons that people don't have a stake in society, and that's simply not true.

KG:So if drugs aren't the problem, why do we say they are?

CH: They're just an easy scapegoat. You can imagine if so few people have engaged in an activity, you can make up some incredible stories about that activity, and be believed. And that's what's happened with drugs. Note that you can't make up those incredible stories about marijuana today, but there was a time when we could: the 1930s. That has passed because more people have tried marijuana, but you can make up those incredible stories about methamphetamine because so few people have used methamphetamine. 

Well, I should say so few people actually know that they use methamphetamine. All those people who use Adderall and those kinds of drugs, they are using methamphetamine, basically. It is the amphetamine, not the "D" [like Adderall] or "meth" in front of it, that creates the effects.

KG:What is actually responsible for problems often linked to drugs?

CH: Poverty. And there are policies that have played a role, too. Policies like placing a large percentage of our law enforcment resources in those communities, so that when people get charged with some petty crime, they have a blemish on their record that further decreases their ability to join mainstream, get a job that's meaningful, and that sort of thing.

The policy decisions that we make play a far bigger role than the drugs themselves. When I turned 14, for example, there was a federal government program that, in order to keep kids like me out of the streets, gave us jobs. Under these federal government programs, we had money for the summer, for clothing­it was great. When we cut these types of programs and kids have nowhere to go what do you expect to happen? It doesn't take rocket scientists to figure this out. 

Now, I have an 18-year-old who, this summer, won't have anything to do. I'm trying to find him some sort of work. Having a federal government program for underpriveleged children, that was great. That let kids know that the society might care about you. We teach them work skills, we teach them something about responsibility, we make sure they have money in their pockets. Now, you take away all of this, and you miss the chance to teach them about responsibility. You miss the opportunity to help them put food on the table, to put clothes on their backs.

KG:In your acknowledgements, you thank Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which you call "welfare as we once knew it."

CH: All of my childhood, we were on welfare. My mom received aid for families with dependent children­welfare. Without that, we wouldn't have had subsidized housing. Most of my childhood we had a two-bedroom apartment, but eventually we got into the projects, where we had four bedrooms. That was great.

We got food stamps that helped make sure we had something to eat, even though it was little. Without that program, I wouldn't have developed physically. There would have been a lot more stress in the household.

Now, the interesting thing about it is that all of my sibling were all on that program because of my mom, and all of my siblings now have jobs and they're responsible, taxpaying citizens. That's the typical story on that program, but the conservatives, under Reagan, they began to perpetuate this narrative of the welfare queen, when in fact, we know who the biggest welfare kings are: the people on Wall Street. The federal government gives far money to them than to poor families, but welfare became so villified that we essentially got rid of it.

KG:How does institutional racism affect policy? In your book, you talk about how crack, which is pharmacologically almost identical to cocaine, is punished with an 18-1 (and once 100-1) sentencing disparity because of racially coded language linking the "crack scourge" to bad behavior in poor, black communities. There was also a recent ACLU report, which found that blacks are an average of four times more likely to be arrested for pot than whites.

CH: I often testify as an expert witness to help women who have used marijuana while pregnant to keep their children. Case after case is a black woman. Security in the court is all black; the judges are all white; and the lawyers are young and white, building careers. It's just slavery all over again. 

When you have a group that's already identified as an "other," or a villified group that is a minority, it's easier to associate a behavior with them. But people don't see black people as being fully human. That's what happens in the US, although people won't tell you that.

Because when we think about Trayvon Martin, when we think about Ramarley Graham, Sean Bell, these black kids who were killed at the hands of some security or law enforcement person­that almost never happens with white kids. If it did, it would be a national crises. But it's not a national crises because we really don't value black men and boys in the same way we value white boys and men. We don't see them as being equal.

I look at how people behave, and it's clear. As long as you view this group that way, you can continue to put large percentage of law enforcement resources in those communities, but not so much to make them better. If you want to make it better, you give people jobs. Instead, we put police in those communities to pretend that they care, to pretend that you're doing something. But that's not helping.

Whereas drug reactions are predictable, interactions with police are not and too often become deadly. As a parent of a black youth, I'd much rather my kids interact with drugs than law enforcement. White people don't need to think about that. Police officers too often see young, black boys as less than human. It creates a mentality where black kids are supposed to "know your place," and it affects your psyche. Indignities become part of who you are.

KG:How is meth changing this conversation?

CH: Meth is the new crack. It is the same thing as Adderall, but we are told it causes people's faces and teeth to decay. There is no evidence to suggest meth alone, versus poor hygiene, makes people look ugly. At the same time, because most people who use or arrested for meth are white people­poor of course, people we don't like­it creates an opportunity to say the drug war is not racist.

In Montana, they have invested in sentencing alternatives, like a maximum one-year sentence and treatment, for meth users. Could you imagine that happening with crack cocaine? Hell no. It's interesting because, with meth, we are doing our job, trying to seek alternatives to help people. Still, in some places, like Oklahoma, they're still locking white people up.

KG:In your book, it seems as though you feel some guilt for being successful, as if you have abandoned your community. How has your life changed?

CH: In terms of where I'm at now, I have money and I don't have to worry about where my next meal is coming from, so that's a really good thing. Whereas, when I was an adolescent, it was a good day if I ate two meals. Now, I expect to eat three meals, and that sort of thing. But, on the other hand, when I think about family, friends andthat sort of thing, it was a lot better where I was previously because you knew where everyone stood, you knew everyone had your back, you didn't have to worry about people backstabbing you or trying to go after you for a variety of reasons. Mainly, you were just being who you are­that's one of the things I bring with me from the past. 

Whether I am there or here, I have this sense of community responsibility and I hope that will always be with with me. When it's no longer with me, perhaps it's time to die. 

KG:How do you navigate two different cultures?

CH: That's very difficult, because I deal in mainstream and my family, they don't as much. Not only do I deal in mainstream society, I deal in mainstream as a fucking professor at Columbia. Now, when I take that mask off to go home, and it takes me a few days to acclimate, to be like OK, I'm no longer in the shark pit, I can relax, and relax my vernacular. And then I have to leave again.

So, my family might see this Columbia personality, and they may take it as a personal affront. I feel like a fraud, oftentimes, at home, but it has nothing to do with how I feel about my family. It's just that I'm catching hell in the mainstream. In the mainstream, I'm suspect because I'm black, I have dreadlocks, I have a goatee. I mean, I'm just suspect. In my classroom and at Columbia, I'm not as suspect because it's clear I know what I'm doing, but I am still suspect. And people are curious; they don't know that I have the same dreams and aspirations as they do. They think that I may be different somehow.

This sort of issue would be a fascinating topic for research, particularly when we think about physical health or mental health, and how it manifests. But that will never be approved by National Institute of Health, because it's not of interest to white researchers. These are just things that I have to live my life with. 

KG:How does this book adress your experience in academia and black America?

CH: I speak the language of both. And as a result, I think it speaks to both. And I'm hoping in the process, maybe along the way, the people who are back home, whose stories I'm trying to share, will see themselves in my story. And the people in my mainstream­I'm trying to help them see themselves in my story.

At some point, I just hope that it merges, that they see we're not that different. We have the same hopes and dreams and aspirations. The expression of those hopes and dreams may be slightly different but we are very similar. That's what I'm hoping.

KG:What would policy that reflects reality look like, and how do we get there?

CH: That is complex, but quite simple to start. The first thing is we decriminalize all drugs. More than 80% of people arrested for drugs are arrested for simple possession. Wen you decriminalize, now you have that huge number of people­we're talking 1.5 million people arrested every year­that no longer have that blemish on their record. That increases the likelihood that they can get jobs, participate in the mainstream.

Number two is dramatically increase realistic education about drugs­none of this "this is your brain on drugs" stuff, but real education, which looks like making sure people understand effects of drugs they're using, particularly potentially medical affects. Don't use heroin with another sedative because it increases the likelihood of respiratory depression. Realistic education, telling people what to do, how to prevent negative effects associated with drugs. We do it with alcohol­you shouldn't binge drink, don't drink on an empty stomach­and could do it with other drugs.

Kristen Gwynne is an associate editor and drug policy reporter at AlterNet.  Follow her on Twitter: @KristenGwynne

http://www.alternet.org/drugs-addiction?paging=off

U.S. Constitutional History: The Non-P.C. Version

[]  

U.S. Constitutional History: The Non-P.C. Version

LibertyClassroom.com is happy to share the first fifteen lectures in our course on U.S. Constitutional History, taught by Kevin Gutzman, author of James Madison and the Making of America and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, and Brion McClanahan, author of The Founding Fathers' Guide to the Constitution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers.

Join LibertyClassroom.com and get access to all our courses, in both video and audio formats (so you can listen in your car), along with recommended readings to accompany the lectures, access to our Q&A forums where you can ask our faculty your questions, and a spot at our monthly live sessions, where we take your questions in real time.

Right now we have seven courses, with an eighth on the way and more in the works. Join today and get access to everything!

And for a limited time, new members can take 50% off a year's subscription with coupon code NEW (all caps).

And now for the lectures:

1. German and British Antecedents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ss6-NHRegSU

2. Colonial Constitutionalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pGzkv-A28es

3. The Imperial Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BCs1mAp875k

4. The Declaration of Independence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Jg2DGQiETEQ

5. Articles of Confederation and the Critical Period
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uKWSwhycupk

6. To the Philadelphia Convention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0n1Y-2165rQ

7. The Philadelphia Convention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=y9FlfjWr60Q

8. Ratification
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rxBJTQicLt4

9. The Federalist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TEibeUEgJR0

10. State Constitutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rFMbIHdefaQ

11. The First Congress
Cabinet Departments, Judiciary Act, Bill of Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=flnxWU3ECns

12. At Swords' Point
Jefferson v. Hamilton in the Cabinet (Assumption, Bank Bill, Neutrality Proclamation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ScJDEtQPocw

13. Federalists Off the Rails
Chisholm v. Georgia, Alien and Sedition Acts, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mkQQ8pidDAw

14. Jeffersonians Take Command
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PNye4gRvYlo

15. The Marshall Court, Part I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WpdO-sbI7EY

For the rest of this course, and for access to all our courses, both in audio and video and downloadable at your convenience, along with recommended readings, Q&A forums, and live Q&A sessions with faculty, join us here at LibertyClassroom.com! And new members can take 50% off with coupon code NEW (all caps). Join today!

http://www.libertyclassroom.com/Constitution/

A brief history of government snooping (on citizens) since September 11th 2001, (Timeline from Washpo)


A brief history of government snooping (on citizens) since September 11th 2001, (Timeline from Washpo)
By Nick Sorrentino on June 18, 2013

The current NSA scandal has deep roots. They go back even further than the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, but it was then that we entered a new era. That is when fear descended .We took leave of our senses. America changed.

It is said that "war is the health of the state." Since 9/11 the state has been very healthy.The military industrial complex and the surveillance state have grown beyond comprehension nearly. Cronies expanded their power. Millions, in some cases billions, have been made by the connected over the last 12 years.

Meanwhile our liberties have been compromised.

This is how it happened.

Click here for the timeline.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/06/a-brief-history-of-government-snooping-since-september-11th-2001-timeline-from-washpo/

Motives Aside, the NSA Should Not Spy on Us


Motives Aside, the NSA Should Not Spy on Us
by Sheldon Richman June 18, 2013

You need not suspect the motives of those responsible for NSA surveillance to detest what they are doing. In fact, we may have more to fear from spies acting out of patriotic zeal than those acting out of power lust or economic interest: Zealots are more likely to eschew restraints that might compromise their righteous cause.

For the sake of argument, we may assume that from President Obama on down, government officials sincerely believe that gathering Americans' telephone and Internet data is vital to the people's security. Does that make government spying okay?

No, it doesn't.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence ­ it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Although often attributed to George Washington, that famous quotation was probably was not uttered by him. Nevertheless, its value lies in what it says, not in who said it.

At best, government represents a risk to the people it rules. Even under a tightly written constitution and popular vigilance ­ both of which are easier to imagine than to achieve ­ government officials will always have the incentive and opportunity to push the limits and loosen the constraints.

But if their purpose is to protect us, why worry?

It doesn't take much imagination to answer to this question. A purported cure can be worse than the disease. Who would accept the placement of a surveillance camera in every home as a way of preventing crime? By the same token, gathering data on everyone without probable cause in order to locate possible terrorists should be abhorrent to people who prize their freedom and privacy.

Since we're assuming pure motives, we'll ignore the specter of deliberate abuse. In our hypothetical case, no one would use the information in a way not intended to promote the general welfare. Pure motives, however, do not rule out error. So the danger remains that innocent people could have their lives seriously disrupted ­ or worse ­ by a zealous agent of government who sees an ominous pattern in someone's data where none in fact exists. Author Nassim Nicholas Taleb points out that human beings are more likely to see order in randomness than vice versa. As a result, a blameless individual could have his life turned upside down by a bureaucrat who goes the extra mile to ensure that no terrorist act occurs on his watch. Think of the turmoil created for those falsely accused of the bombing at the Atlanta Olympic games and of sending anthrax letters after the 9/11 attacks.

The odds of such an error for any particular individual may be slight, but they are big enough if you put yourself into the picture.

However, that is not the only reason to reject even a well-intentioned surveillance state.

Julian Sanchez, who specializes in technology and civil liberties, points out that a person who has nothing to hide from government officials ­ if such a person actually exists ­ would still not have a good reason to tolerate NSA surveillance, because the general awareness that government routinely spies on us has an insidious effect on society:

Even when it isn't abused … the very presence of that spy machine affects us and poisons us.… It's slow and subtle, but surveillance societies inexorably train us for helplessness, anxiety and compliance. Maybe they'll never look at your call logs, read your emails or listen in on your intimate conversations. You'll just live with the knowledge that they always could ­ and if you ever had anything worth hiding, there would be nowhere left to hide it.

Is that the kind of society we want, one in which we assume a government official is looking over our shoulders?

Because government is force ­ "a dangerous servant and a fearful master" ­ it must be watched closely, even ­ especially ­ when it does something you like. But eternal vigilance is hard to achieve. People outside the system are busy with their lives, and politicians generally can't be expected to play watchdog to other politicians. Therefore, at the least, we need institutional constraints and transparency: No secret warrants. No secret courts. No secret expansive interpretations of laws and constitutional prohibitions.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/motives-aside-the-nsa-should-not-spy-on-us/

No, the Bible Does Not Teach the Welfare State.


No, the Bible Does Not Teach the Welfare State.
Written by Gary North on June 18, 2013

Susan Hamill, a professor at the University of Alabama Law School, has argued in the Alabama Law Review that the Bible says the federal government should tax rich people at 50% of income, plus state and local taxes.

If this sounds like Left-wing propaganda to you, you're with me.

This is the Social Gospel, but updated for evangelicals. A century ago, only theological liberals believed such anti-biblical nonsense, but there are so few of them around these days that Prof. Hamill is targeting naive evangelicals who do not know their Bibles.

I have refuted Professor Hamill, assertion by assertion. I went to the Bible to show that not only does it not teach this, it regards a 10% income tax as a form of tyranny (I Samuel 8:15, 17). By this standard, Prof. Hamill is calling for tyranny times 5.

If you would like more information on this leftist infiltration of the churches, click the link.

If you have heard similar arguments in your church, click the link.

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/06/18/no-the-bible-does-not-teach-the-welfare-state/#ixzz2WaACeRuL

Usual Progression


[]  

The Emperor's New Clothes: Backlash, the Lost Chapter


The Emperor's New Clothes: Backlash, the Lost Chapter
by Jonathan Goodwin

You all know the tale by Hans Christian Anderson. I have recently discovered the lost chapter and conclusion to this tale. It always seemed to be missing something, as the tale ended with the emperor behaving as if no betrayal had occurred. This is not possible, of course. It is to be expected that when a subject points out something the emperor wants hidden – even if it is something hidden in plain sight – punishment is swift, and sure to follow.

Before I get to the lost chapter, perhaps a few highlights from the original story are in order – just for a refresher. We all know that this famous emperor loved his clothes very much. He would have a new coat for every hour of the day. He was so enamored with his appearance that he was easy prey for two swindlers who came to town:

They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable. Not only were their colors and patterns uncommonly fine, but clothes made of this cloth had a wonderful way of becoming invisible to anyone who was unfit for his office, or who was unusually stupid.
"Those would be just the clothes for me," thought the Emperor. "If I wore them I would be able to discover which men in my empire are unfit for their posts. And I could tell the wise men from the fools.

The swindlers, after receiving a substantial down-payment, went to work. They stuffed the fabric they bought into their bag, and went to work on the looms…without fabric.

The emperor, wanting to know how things were coming along, sent his most honest minister to check on the progress:

So the honest old minister went to the room where the two swindlers sat working away at their empty looms. "Heaven help me," he thought as his eyes flew wide open, "I can't see anything at all". But he did not say so.

Of course, he did not want to admit this as he might then be thought unfit for office. The swindlers, knowing this would be the reaction, worked to reinforce the minister's blindness:

"Don't hesitate to tell us what you think of it," said one of the weavers. "Oh, it's beautiful – it's enchanting." The old minister peered through his spectacles. "Such a pattern, what colors!" I'll be sure to tell the Emperor how delighted I am with it."

The minister dutifully reported to the emperor, who was delighted. More funds were advanced, as the work was progressing wonderfully.

After some time, the emperor sent another minister in order to check the further progress:

The same thing happened to him that had happened to the minister. He looked and he looked, but as there was nothing to see in the looms he couldn't see anything.

Of course, not wanting to admit that he saw nothing and might therefor be deemed unworthy of office, he could not admit this:

He declared he was delighted with the beautiful colors and the exquisite pattern. To the Emperor he said, "It held me spellbound."

By this time, the new clothes were the talk of the town – everyone just knew that the new coat would be the most splendid coat ever made. They also knew that only the unfit could not see it, due to the special fabric from which the coat was made.

The emperor next went to see the progress, along with his two ministers and a host of other advisors:

He found them weaving with might and main, but without a thread in their looms. "Magnificent," said the two officials already duped. "Just look, Your Majesty, what colors! What a design!" They pointed to the empty looms, each supposing that the others could see the stuff.
"What's this?" thought the Emperor. "I can't see anything. This is terrible! Am I a fool? Am I unfit to be the Emperor? What a thing to happen to me of all people! – Oh! It's very pretty," he said. "It has my highest approval." And he nodded approbation at the empty loom. Nothing could make him say that he couldn't see anything.
His whole retinue stared and stared. One saw no more than another, but they all joined the Emperor in exclaiming, "Oh! It's very pretty," and they advised him to wear clothes made of this wonderful cloth especially for the great procession he was soon to lead.

Finally, the clothes were finished. The swindlers dressed the emperor, in preparation for the procession through town:

The noblemen who were to carry his train stooped low and reached for the floor as if they were picking up his mantle. Then they pretended to lift and hold it high. They didn't dare admit they had nothing to hold.

Even the townspeople were afraid to admit they could not see the clothes:

Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool.

Until, one boy, with courage, spoke out:

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said. "Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

The townspeople joined in chorus:

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

This did not stop the emperor:

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

And so ends the known portion of the tale by Hans Christian Anderson. I must say, this ending is not believable. Please consider: the emperor, his ministers, other trusted advisors, townspeople including shopkeepers and the local newsmen and many in the general public, all privately and publicly went along with the fiction of the invisible clothes. They then had to suffer humiliation at the hands of one little boy who said no – it is a lie.

Would the emperor really go on as if nothing happened – no condemnation or punishment for the swindlers? No beating for the boy? Would the ministers and the rest just sit back calmly, as if to say "well, the boy is right. Let's go have a beer."?

No, I could never believe this. And now I have evidence – the lost chapter:

After the procession, the emperor called the ministers for a meeting. "It cannot stand that we remain so embarrassed." I said I was clothed; you all said I was clothed; my best advisors said I was clothed; the weavers said I was clothed. Now here comes a boy, saying I was naked! We must make an example of him.

Of course, the emperor hardly had to give any instruction – every member of his staff as well as the key shopkeepers and newsmen also shared in the lie, and therefore in the embarrassment. Once word went out that the emperor was upset, they all went to work.

The so-called wise men were exposed as the fools that they were. Hell hath no fury like a gatekeeper scorned. Every possible means was found to discredit the boy. The anger was palpable. The entire community rose up against the boy, because they knew that it wasn't only the emperor that was naked – every minister, advisor, shopkeeper, newsman, and even common citizen was exposed for the lying degenerate that he was.

They could not allow themselves to be buried with their lie. So they decided to bury the boy.

The boy's name was Edward Snowden.

Inspired by " The Sickening Snowden Backlash," by Kirsten Powers

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-emperors-new-clothes-backlash-lost.html

Whose Folly? Whose Goodies?


THE FUTURE BELONGS TO LIBERTY
Whose Folly? Whose Goodies?
JUNE 18, 2013
by DOUG BANDOW

Washington is a place renowned for folly. But insiders and outsiders define "folly" differently. For denizens of D.C., folly means cutting the federal budget.

In his column, "Alzheimer Research Cuts Show Folly of Sequestration," Bloomberg's Al Hunt recently opined on folly in the capital: "With the sequestration-enforced cuts at the National Institutes of Health," he argues, "research to find a cure or better treatment is slowing."

Alzheimer's is an awful disease. Two of my close relatives suffered from it. Who wouldn't want to eradicate it? But the desire to eliminate Alzheimer's says nothing about how much the government should spend on research.

How effective would an additional dollar spent in this way be? Hunt offers no criteria for government research spending. Rather, he cites one senator, Susan Collins, who wants to quadruple outlays to $2 billion annually.

If there are no criteria, why stop there? Why not double expenditures again? And again? Is there any limit to what should be spent?

To answer such questions, one has to compare the benefits of Alzheimer's research to work on prostate and breast cancer, heart disease, and other medical killers. Moreover, what's the relative value of Alzheimer's research compared to other government spending­such as combating accidental deaths? Finally, one has to weigh medical research against the benefits of private spending, including spending on medical products and procedures.

Maybe Alzheimer's research would come out on top. Maybe not. Given all the stupid things on which the government spends money, there isn't a lot of competition. Even Hunt admitted that "for most federal programs, huge increases in spending would cause reckless waste and inefficiency. NIH is an exception."

Even if so, it is not enough to argue that there is a pressing need. It also is necessary to make the case that meeting that need is more important than alternative uses of money. And in Washington, even if you find someone who will admit most federal spending is wasteful, it's always someone else's spending.

Still, if one believes current funding levels constitute the bare minimum necessary, then how about the "folly" of the sequester?

It turns out to have had no discernible impact. After declaring that "the long-term consequences, in more than a few cases, are ominous," Hunt admitted: "Alzheimer's research, pre-sequestration, was slated for a healthy increase this year. By moving a few discretionary funds, the NIH has avoided cutbacks."

Dwell on that sentence a moment. Despite the ravages of the recent drive for "austerity," Alzheimer's research is actually getting more money than before. And despite the purported ravages of this year's sequester, that increase was unaffected.

So much for the "folly" of the sequester.

There is good reason to criticize the sequester as a ham-handed tactic. The federal government imposed an arbitrary across-the-board cut on a portion of the budget mid-year. It's a dumb policy.

But even dumber is Washington's inability to cut wasteful programs. In a $3.6 trillion budget, Congress and the president couldn't figure out how to trim $85 billion. That's 2.3 percent. Imagine telling your family that you've been borrowing 30 to 40 percent of your total annual spending, so you've got to make radical cutbacks. You're reducing outlays by … 2.3 percent.

Of course, there have been some recent media stories suggesting that everything is fine­that the fiscal problem is solved.

If only.

Uncle Sam ran $5 trillion in deficits during President Obama's first four years in office. The national debt approaches $17 trillion. Even folks on the Left had trouble denying that there was at least an itty-bitty budget problem. And maybe, just maybe, there would have to be a reduction or two in a program or two.

But then the Congressional Budget Office announced that the deficit was falling. Problem solved! No worries! We can go back to binge spending!

Precisely what was the good news?  Because of higher than expected revenues, the deficit this year is expected to be "only" $642 billion.

That's progress. But that's still 50 percent higher than the pre-financial crisis record, set in 2008 by George W. Bush. Moreover, the reduction is only temporary. CBO figured the deficit will decline through 2015 and then start back up again. By 2023 the annual deficit will be $1 trillion again. Total red ink over the decade will be $7 trillion.

Even if Washington keeps finding a little extra unexpected cash, its debts will keep piling up. Younger workers will pay the resulting interest for the rest of their lives.

However, the numbers are likely to worsen. If spending discipline­an oxymoron when it comes to Congress­loosens, outlays will race higher than expected. Moreover, there are more bailouts coming for agencies like the Federal Housing Administration and the Post Office, not to mention Obamacare, in which subsidies will increase to match rising health-insurance premiums.

Then there are Social Security and Medicare expenditures, which will grow dramatically in coming years as the baby boomers retire. The Congressional Budget Office noted, "Under current law, the aging of the population, the rising costs of health care, and the scheduled expansion in federal subsidies for health insurance will substantially boost federal spending on Social Security and the government's major health care programs, relative to GDP, for the next 10 years and for decades thereafter."

But don't worry. The problem is not spending. It is the sequester. Thus say the Washington elite that got us into the present mess.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whose-folly-whose-goodies#ixzz2WZdbOuTa

Bank of America whistle-blower’s bombshell: “We were told to lie”








--
--
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Ahmadinejad Signs On As Dean At Sarah Lawrence








--
--
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Your Moonbat Dream Job Awaits!








--
--
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Death and Fear is the Heart of Islam





   

 

Death and Fear is the Heart of Islam

 

 

 

June 17, 2013

When you have a religion that teaches that human beings are the executors of the wrath and vengeance of the supreme being, and that apostates and heretics should be murdered, this kind of thing is going to happen. "'Allah will punish you all!': Terror at mosque as worshipers and policeman slashed with machete by 'Taser-proof' madman after row over whether they were praying properly," by Paul Bentley and John Stevens in the Daily Mail, June 16:

A Somali Muslim allegedly stabbed a policeman and three mosque worshippers after screaming: 'Allah is going to punish you all.'

The 32-year-old is said to have tried to kill the worshippers during an argument over whether they were praying correctly.

It is thought the man, who was not a regular at the mosque in Birmingham, became upset because the prayers were not being performed in the manner of his denomination.

One witness, who asked not to be named, said: 'I heard shouting behind me as I was praying. I turned around and saw two men grappling with each other.

'Suddenly a man pulled out a knife and stabbed the other man in the leg, near the groin.

'Someone tried to intervene but the man just went for him and thrust a knife into his abdomen. It was absolutely terrifying.'

Minutes later two police officers, one male and one female, arrived at the Madrasah Qasim-ul-Uloom mosque in Ward End and the man allegedly ran at them with a large combat knife.

Despite the male officer shooting him with a Taser, the man is said to have stabbed him in his chest and stomach.

'The police tried to Taser the man but he didn't fall down,' the witness continued. 'Instead he just lunged at the officer after pulling out his knife again and stabbed him. There was blood everywhere.'

Despite his serious injuries the 31-year-old officer 'heroically' overcame the man.

The officer was with his family in hospital yesterday preparing for surgery. Two of the other men were being treated for multiple stab wounds following the attack just after 11pm on Saturday.

An off-duty surgeon who happened to be at prayers fought to keep them alive before paramedics arrived.

Another man, Dr Arshad Mahmood, who had his hand stabbed while trying to disarm the attacker, said: 'Everyone was frightened. It was so sudden.

'A man started stabbing one of the guys who was just sitting right next to him.

'We went to save him. He had multiple injuries, three or four wounds.

'A few of us went to stop him. One of the guys was strong enough to stop him. I held his hand. One also had an injury on his thigh.'

Another witness said: 'He shouted "Allah is going to punish you all". He stabbed two people then one guy restrained him and someone called the police.'

The suspect was being held yesterday in a mental health facility on suspicion of attempted murder.

The attack comes less than a month after soldier Lee Rigby was murdered in Woolwich, south London, allegedly by knifemen boasting they were avenging the death of Muslims by the military.

The male officer, who has not yet been named, was due to receive a bravery award this week for helping to save the life of a young child in a separate incident last year.

Chief Superintendent Alex Murray, of West Midlands Police, praised the policeman, saying: 'There was some real brave action going on inside that mosque.'

He added: 'There's no connection with any other incidents that we can see at the moment – for example, Woolwich or other incidents around the country.

'There's no information at this stage to suggest it was a hate crime.'

West Midlands Police would be 'looking into details' about why the Taser had no effect on the suspect.

Liam Byrne, MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill, said: 'This was not a hate crime, this was a tragic, sad, and isolated incident.'

Mohammed Shafiq, of national Muslim organisation the Ramadhan Foundation, said: 'We must be clear there should be no place for this sort of violence in our country.'

Yes, we must.

Posted by Robert on June 17, 2013 9:24 AM |



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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 received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.