Thursday, 27 June 2013

Republican Party Won't Survive Amnesty Bill and Neither will America





June 27, 2013

Republican Party Won't Survive Amnesty Bill and Neither will America

By Karin McQuillan

The Republican Party won't survive the passing of the Democrat's illegal immigration amnesty bill. This shouldn't be too complex for the D.C. geniuses: if you betray your party's base to pander to the opposition's base, they win, you lose.

If you screw the white working class to pander to the Hispanic vote, whites will stay home.

If you destroy your base's trust in government, by passing yet another 2000 page bill no one has read, Republicans will stay home. Republicans are too busy working and raising a family to waste their time voting for a bunch of cynical, lying politicians.

President Bush let down his base by spending money like a drunken sailor. They stayed home.

Obama lost Democrat voters in 2012, but he won anyway because an estimated 6 million white voters stayed home compared to 2008. Who were these election drop-outs? Rural, working class Republicans. What issues did these voters care about? They are deficit hawks, and want to see government spending come under control - not a swelling of the welfare state to support illegals. They hate illegal immigration. They want good education and a solvent Medicare system. They want to feel listened to by their own party. And they will not vote for a party that betrays them, no matter how awful the other side is.

The Democrats want "comprehensive" immigration reform because it legalizes eleven (or is it twenty?) millionillegals, brings in their families and on top of that, doubles the number of legal immigrants. Plus the CBO says 75% of illegal immigration would continue. This will create a record number of foreign-born legals and illegals, mostly Spanish-speaking, mostly third world, mostly a net drain on taxpayers. We are talking about an estimated 56 million people within a decade. According to the Center for Immigration studies, "There has never been a period in American history when the foreign-born share grew this fast."

The immigration bill will permanently wipe away America as we know it. Democrats believe this will mean a permanent voting majority for their big government welfare state. They are right. We will become Republicans' worst nightmare: a nanny state with a permanent Democrat majority who feel entitled to live on taxpaying families.

Hopes for a good economic future for America's blacks and working class will be sunk, as they are forced to compete for low wage jobs. Hopes for constitutionally limited government will be sunk, as we get an unassimilated influx of third world people who do not understand our republic and the principals for which it stands.

Republican politicians, we are told, think the amnesty bill will be good for them personally. They have business and agribusiness lobbyists who profit from illegals and new immigrants' low wages and no benefits. The Republican leadership is willing to sell out America to fatten their own political coffers - and they think they can survive the voters' wrath?

The cost of illegal immigration to the taxpayers of Los Angeles County alone is $1 billion a year. For the country's taxpayers, it is already well over $100 billion a year. Most of the expense to support illegals is at the state and local government. We hear about the taxes paid by illegals, but that covers 5% of the local and state government spending on them, and only 30% of federal outlays.

Even low-skill, low-wage legal immigrants are a burden on their fellow citizens. According to the Heritage Foundation:

In 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. ...Lawful immigrants receive significantly more welfare... than U.S.-born households...with the same education level.

For the 11 million illegals who are about to be given amnesty, it is far, far worse:

Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. ... The typical unlawful immigrant is 34 years old...If amnesty is enacted, the average adult unlawful immigrant would receive $592,000 more in government benefits over the course of his remaining lifetime than he would pay in taxes.

Over a lifetime, the former unlawful immigrants together would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services and pay $3.1 trillion in taxes. They would generate a lifetime fiscal deficit (total benefits minus total taxes) of $6.3 trillion. (All figures are in constant 2010 dollars.) This ... understates real future costs because it undercounts the number of unlawful immigrants and dependents ... and underestimates significantly the future growth in welfare and medical benefits.

We are looking at crushing tax burden for Americans.

So why is the Republican leadership going along? Do their voters want higher taxes, a bankrupt safety net, a bigger government? Amnesty and an explosion of legal immigration betray every promise made during the election, and every interest of the majority of Republican voters.

Read our lips: we do not want amnesty.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/06/republican_party_wont_survive_amnesty_bill_and_neither_will_america.html at June 27, 2013 - 09:41:25 AM CDT



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

Re: All 292 Conservative given special treatment, only 6 out of 20 Liberal groups were

From a Boston.com liberal banana head:

"So far, all the reports from the IG concerning the 'targeting' of tpers were done at the direct request of Issa and the GOP to limit it to those groups so as to create the appearance of a scandal."

Yes, the Treasury dept is lying in writing at the orders of republicans to make the boss look bad.  Weeeeeeee!!!!!!  They're out their

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 2:52:22 PM UTC-5, jgg1000a wrote:
Is this proof enough for our Biff???   Or does the IRS have to say this in a letter...  Oops I am sorry Biff, they did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/150374099/TIGTA-Final-Response-to-Rep-Levin

--
--
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.
 
 

Islamophilia Unmasked




Islamophilia Unmasked

Posted By Bruce Bawer On June 27, 2013

There are few braver, wittier, and savvier commentators on the present confrontation between Islam and the West than Douglas Murray. A contributing editor of The Spectator and a familiar face on Britain's political chat shows – and an eloquent fellow panelist of mine at last November's Restoration Weekend – he has now written an e-book entitled Islamophilia: A Very Metropolitan Malady.

It's about time that we started talking about Islamophilia as often as our opponents talk about Islamophobia. As Murray points out, while a healthy fear of Islam is certainly justifiable – given the events of 9/11 and 7/7, for example, and the murders of people like Theo van Gogh and Drummer Lee Rigby – the kind of extravagant praise of Islam that has become commonplace in the Western world in recent years is anything but justifiable. And yet the noxious eulogies for the religion of Muhammed keep coming – from authors and filmmakers and the news media, from "world leaders, diplomats and politicians," from "academics or scholars who lose all critical distance when it comes to the subject of Islam."

In my 2009 book Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom I went chapter by chapter through different categories of Westerners – journalists, academics, judges, etc. – who are censoring and self-censoring in order to pacify Muslims. Murray examines much the same phenomenon, and related phenomena, from a somewhat different angle – he's interested here not so much in the readiness to appease, or in the act of censorship or self-censorship itself, as he is in full-throated expressions of respect and admiration for Islam, whether sincere or feigned. Fake Islamophilia is, of course, nothing other than sheer dhimmitude; but genuine Islamophilia is something else again, and is a very real commodity. Britain especially has a long tradition of admiration for Islam (as exemplified by none other than the current Prince of Wales), but Murray doesn't go into that history here – and with good reason, for there's plenty of Islamophilia in the Western world nowadays to keep him busy.

Like Virgil guiding Dante through Hell in the Inferno, Murray takes us on a spin through contemporary Islamophilia. Some of his examples were familiar to me, others not. While I knew, for example, that British Prime Minister David Cameron had called the slaughter of Drummer Lee Rigby an assault on Islam – what else would he say? – I didn't realize that London Mayor Boris Johnson, who I had thought to be above such folderol, had insisted that the murder of Rigby surely had nothing to do with Islam. For those who have forgotten, or are too young to remember, Murray provides a useful wrap-up of George W. Bush's habit, during his presidency, of "forever hosting dinners for Muslim holy days and visiting mosques" and generally "going on about Islam," all of which began with his firm declaration, a few days after 9/11, that "Islam is peace."

Murray recounts a speech in which FBI Director John Brennan, addressing a Muslim audience, kept saying things like "as the Koran reveals," thus, as Murray notes, referring "to the origins of the Koran as though the orthodox Islamic tradition was not just an opinion, but in fact true." Murray observes that Brennan, a Catholic, evinced in that speech "a great symptom of the Islamophile" – namely, the tendency "to park your own actual beliefs to one side for a moment and then do a fair to middling job of pretending to any given audience that you do not believe what you believe but in fact believe what your audience (if they are Muslim) believe. I suppose people think this makes people warm to them. It doesn't always work. Usually people are left confused and wondering why, if the guy up there thinks Islam is that great, he doesn't become a Muslim himself."

Especially appalling to Murray – as it should be – is the institutionalization of Islamophilia among America's military brass. Recalling General John R. Allen's four-alarm response to the alleged mistreatment of a copy of the Koran on a base in Afghanistan (his speech began "To the noble people of Afghanistan: Salaam Aleikum…."), Murray suggests that the "solemn tone would not have been out of place for announcing an incoming nuclear strike on the American homeland." As a sign of just how far General Allen was willing to bend over to pacify Muslims, he had even "learnt how to provide extra glottals. Not just as in 'Qu'ran' but, it seemed, something like 'Q'u'r'a'n'. It sounded as if he was choking as he tried to swallow all the glottals."

Then there's Hollywood. I love some of director Ridley Scott's work, but Murray convincingly shows that Scott's movies Kingdom of Heaven (2005) and Robin Hood (2010) are pure Islamic propaganda. Among the other film-world Islam-boosters whom Murray skewers are Liam Neesen and Oliver Stone's Muslim-convert son, Sean. Moving on to the pop-music world, Murray makes the telling point – although this seems to be less a case of Islamophilia than of good, old-fashioned dhimmitude – that while Justin Bieber, on his current world tour, fought with paparazzi in Britain, made an ass of himself in the guest book at the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam, and let himself be caught in Sweden with drugs on his tour bus, when he arrived in Turkey he suddenly "behaved like one of those bad boys who knows just how to behave when he actually has to be good. In Istanbul, he halted his concert twice in order to observe the Muslim call to prayer." (Did you know that? I didn't.) As Murray sums it up: "In London you can keep your fans waiting so long that had they felt so inclined they could have packed in a whole day of prayer sessions. But in Istanbul you turn up on time, respect the local customs and remember you're dealing with Islam here, not any of those sappy European 'Beliebers.'"

I wrote here recently about a traveling museum exhibit, "Sultans of Science," currently on display in Oslo, that exaggerates to the point of parody the debt that modern science owes to Islam. Murray describes about another exhibit, "1001 Islamic Inventions," that could be seen at London's Science Museum in 2010 and at the National Geographic Museum in Washington in 2012-13. It sounds even worse than "Sultans of Science." Talk about Islamic invention! The snake-oil salesmen behind the London installation claimed – and I'll quote this passage from Murray at length because it's all so thoroughly outrageous –

that it is only thanks to the Islamic world that we have universities, libraries and bookshops. All disciplines, including maths, chemistry, geometry, art, writing and agriculture come from Islam. So do dams, windmills, the concept of trade, textiles, paper, pottery, glass, jewels and currency. All medical knowledge also comes from Islam, including, strangely, inoculation and not forgetting the toothbrush. In its attempt to show that there is nothing that Islam has not given us the exhibition claims that Islam invented not just the countryside but the town as well, including everything about the buildings in towns, including vaults, spires, towers, domes and arches.

Now that's Islamophilia at its reality-defying worst. And while we're talking about science, let's mention Richard Dawkins, the fearless atheist, who in a recent interview on Al-Jazeera, as Murray reminds us, lustily savaged Judaism and Christianity but, when asked about Islam, hemmed and hawed and finally said, "Well, um, the God of the Koran I don't know so much about." Murray gives the pusillanimous Dawkins exactly what he deserves. And Murray also tells us – here's something else I didn't know – that Pope Francis, when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, chided Pope Benedict XIV for the Regensburg speech in which he dared to speak less than glowingly of Islam "and even called on fellow Catholics to criticise him – an extraordinary breach of authority." An interesting – and depressing – insight into the current pontiff.

For all the failings of presidents and pop stars, G-men and generals, Murray seems to be capable (as I am) of particular disappointment in – and contempt for – members of our own profession who play at being gutsy until something is actually on the line. Hence he singles out for special – and deserving – ridicule two highly celebrated British writers. Martin Amis, who for many years was the Justin Bieber of English fiction – a "bad boy" who made headlines tipping over sacred cows – made the mistake a while back of saying something critical of Islam in an interview, and, faster than you could say "Allahu akbar," he'd published a piece in the Observer that, in Murray's apt words, "set a new high-water mark in Prophetic prostration." Amis wrote, in part (and if you haven't already taken out the barf bag, do so now): "no serious person could fail to respect Muhammad – a unique and luminous historical being."

Novelist Sebastian Faulks had an almost identical experience: taken to task for being less than reverential of Islam in an interview, he rushed into print with his own nauseating mea culpa. In short, as Murray puts it, "at the slightest whiff of receiving a bit of Islamic opprobrium these two big beasts of letters folded. It's an interesting lesson in abjection. Our cultural and literary front-runners, like our film-makers and artists, forever portray themselves as fearless truth-tellers, willing to fight in the last artistic ditch to say what they think to whoever they like. And yet Islam comes along and it turns out that not only did they not stay around for the fight, they hauled down the flag and cleared out before any fighting had begun." Bingo. And bravo.

Murray's book is valuable not only for its accumulation of all this evidence (stomach-turning though it is) but for its lucid, no-nonsense analysis of the perverse phenomenon that gives his book its title. "Of all the reasons why people have become Islamophiles," he proposes, "perhaps the most common – apart from terror – is the combination of the desire to be nice with the knowing of very little." While many professed admirers of Islam are acting out of fear, and others out of ignorance, some, he insists, are genuinely driven by a fierce need to believe that Islam truly is "not just a peaceful religion but a wonderful religion – a religion to which we owe so much." Because the alternative to thinking this is – well, unthinkable.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.


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

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-bawer/islamophilia-unmasked/

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

More than 100,000 muslims have been killed since the start of the Syrian conflict, activists claim






[[ Best news of the day.  ]]


 

Thursday, Jun 27 2013 12PM  69°F 3PM 69°F 5-Day Forecast

More than 100,000 people have been killed since the start of the Syrian conflict, activists claim

  • The claim has been made by the Syrian Observatory for Human rights
  • They say that more than 36,000 of those killed were civilians
  • More than 25,000 government troops have been killed so far
  • Just over 13,000 rebels have lost their lives in the fighting

By Steve Nolan

PUBLISHED: 12:57 EST, 26 June 2013 | UPDATED: 03:42 EST, 27 June 2013

The death toll since the start of the Syrian conflict has exceeded 100,000, a group of activists have claimed.

The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it had tallied a total of 100,191 deaths over the 27 months of the conflict.

But it said that it expects that figure is a conservative one as neither President Bashar al Assad's troops or rebel forces have been forthcoming about the numbers killed.

Deadly war: Activists have claimed that the death toll in Syria has exceeded 100,000 since the conflict there started in March 2011

Bloody: More than 36,000 of those killed in the conflict so far are said to be civilians

Observatory chief Rami Abdul-Rahman claimed that of the dead, 36,661 were civilians, with 25,407 of Assad's troops killed and 17,311 pro government fighters.

The death toll also includes 13,539 rebels, 2,015 army defectors and 2,518 foreign fighters battling against the regime, according to the group.

The United Nations had claimed earlier this month that the death toll stood at 93,000 between March 2011 when the conflict started and the end of April this year.

The figures were revealed as a diplomat claimed that Britain and the U.S have notified the United Nations of 10 different incidents of alleged chemical weapon use by the Syrian government.

The diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity because all the incidents have not been made public, said Wednesday that the Americans and British have found no evidence that the opposition possesses or has used chemical weapons.

Syria has refused to allow a U.N. investigation team led by Swedish chemical weapons expert Ake Sellstrom into the country to investigate allegations raised initially by Britain and France and then by the U.S.

Conservative estimate: The group expects the death toll to be even higher as neither President Assad's troops or rebel forces have been forthcoming with casualty figures

Sellstrom was in Turkey Sunday and Monday, reportedly talking to doctors who treated victims of chemical use, and is expected to produce an interim report on his findings, the diplomat said.

Abdul-Rahman said that the group's tally of army casualties is based on information from military medical sources, records obtained by the group from state agencies and activists' own count of military funerals in government areas of the country.

Another source for regime fatalities are activist videos showing dead soldiers killed in rebel-held areas who are later identified.

War torn: More than 13,000 rebel fighters have been killed in the 27 months of fighting so far

Abdul Rahman's claims came hours after the U.N.'s special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, said that an international peace conference proposed by Russia and the U.S. will not take place until later in the summer, partly because of opposition disarray.

The fighting has increasingly been taking sectarian overtones. Sunni Muslims dominate the rebel ranks while Assad's regime is dominated by Alawites, an offshoot sect of Shiite Islam.

It has also spilled over Syria's borders, especially into Lebanon, where factions supporting opposing sides have clashed in the northern city of Tripoli and in the eastern Bekaa Valley.

Lebanese are divided over Syria's civil war, with some supporting President Bashar Assad's regime and others backing the opposition. More than 550,000 Syrians have fled to neighboring Lebanon as a result of the fighting.

Earlier this week, sectarian tensions drew Lebanon's army into the fray. Eighteen soldiers were killed in a two-day battle between the army and supporters of a radical Sunni sheik in the southern city of Sidon.

Shocking: According to a UN source, the US and Britain have evidence of 10 instances where chemical weapons have been used by Assad's forces

The army had earlier reported 17 deaths and said today that another soldier died of his wounds in hospital.

The conflict reached the capital Beirut on Wednesday when masked men ambushed a bus and attacked the around 30 people aboard with knives, a Lebanese official said.

He said 10 people were wounded in the attack in the eastern part of the city, including five Syrians, two Palestinians and three Lebanese, the officials said. He spoke anonymously in line with regulations.

Lebanon's state-run National News Agency said the bus was carrying Syrians headed to a TV studio in the eastern Sunday Market district to take part in a cultural program. It said there were eight attackers, who fled the area.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2349034/More-100-000-people-killed-start-Syrian-conflict-activists-claim.html#ixzz2XPiiRr00



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

Fwd: OCON banquets and luncheons



------

Dear OCON 2013 Registrant:

Just a reminder that you can still enhance your conference experience by attending many more events. You don't want to miss the Opening and Closing Receptions and Banquets—both with surprises in store. 

And we would like to remind you about upcoming deadlines for signing up for banquet and luncheon events.

Banquet event registration deadlines:

  • Deadline for the Opening Reception and Banquet:  Friday, June 28.
  • Deadline for the Closing Reception and Banquet:  Friday, July 5.

Luncheon event registration deadlines:

  • Deadline for 21 Ways to Be an Activist:  Monday, July 1: Learn more about how you can help change the culture.
  • Deadline for Anthem 75:  Wednesday, July 3: Did you know how many things are happening around Anthem right now?
  • Deadline for Open Q&A with Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate:  Friday, July 5. Ask them anything about Objectivism! 

Please see our website for more details: Objectivist Conferences Events.

Also, we have added a long list of book signings.

And last, we recently added a short video touching on highlights of both the conference and Chicago, our host city. 

We look forward to seeing you there! 
 

—ARC Media

 

ARC on:

ARC on twitter ARC on facebook ARC Youtube Channel

ARC sites:

Ayn Rand Center

Voices for Reason

ARCTV

Principles of a Free Society


Copyright © 2013 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.

Op-eds, press releases and letters to the editor produced by the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights are submitted to hundreds of newspapers, radio stations and Web sites across the United States and abroad, and are made possible thanks to voluntary contributions.

If you would like to help support ARC's efforts, please make an online contribution at http://www.aynrandcenter.org/contribute.

ARC's media releases are solicitations sent to addresses obtained from individual subscription requests. You are subscribed as majors.bruce@gmail.com. If you prefer not to receive future releases, visit our Web site to change your e-mail preferences.

The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, 909 North Washington, Suite #320, Alexandria, VA, 22314


--
--
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.
 
 

Re: Bill Clinton's DOMA is dead

Good point, since I have asserted no such thing.  It does not exist.  Cool

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 10:51:48 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote:

Only when believing the fantasies of Chief Usurper Marshall as already shown for you.
You could have equally asserted that AIVS2C1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" supported your erroneous claim. One cannot support what does not exist.

Regard$,
--MJ

It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments coequal and cosovereign within themselves. 
-- Thomas Jefferson to Jarvis, 1820



At 11:20 AM 6/27/2013, you wrote:
Its the judicial check on the legislature and quite clear in the constitution as I cited directly

On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:41:58 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote:
The Court has elevated itself OVER the Constitution ... what you cite denotes UNDER.
Furthermore, each Senate, Representative and President swear an oath to uphold the Constitution ... how can they uphold what the Court can declare by whim?
Regard$,
--MJ
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all Constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. ... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.
  -- Thomas Jefferson



At 10:30 AM 6/27/2013, you wrote:
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;
On Thursday, June 27, 2013 9:08:36 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote:
So ... if something is ONLY unconstitutional because the supreme Court says so ... then, in reality, the Constitution itself is meaningless.
Why 'revere' or follow it? Why be concerned about it at all?
We have a Government comprised of a Legislature and Executive that does as it pleases -- no limitations! On occasion, the Court (appointed by the Executive and affirmed by part of the Legislature) slaps at the Legislature and Executive using -- not the plain words of the Constitution, but incantations and whole cloth creations -- but that does not necessarily change anything.
Constitutional, of course, is of or by the Constitution and has NOTHING to do with proclamations and edicts by the Judiciary.
The Court USURPED this *magical* power to "say what the law is" in 1803 ... and Boobus Americanus has faithfully drop to his knees ever since.
Regard$,
--MJ
On this construction I have hitherto acted; on this I shall ever act, and maintain it with the powers of the government against any control which may be attempted by the judges, in subversion of the independence of the executive and Senate within their peculiar department. I presume, therefore, that in a case where our decision is by the Constitution the supreme one, and that which can be carried into effect, it is the constitutionally authoritative one, and that that by the judges was coram non judice, and unauthoritative, because it cannot be carried into effect. I have long wished for a proper occasion to have the gratuitous opinion in Marbury v. Madison brought before the public, and denounced as not law; and I think the present a fortunate one because it occupies such a place in the public attention. I should be glad, therefore, if in noticing that case you could take occasion to express the determination of the executive that the doctrines of that case were given extrajudicially and against law, and that their reverse will be the rule of action with the executive.
-- Thomas Jefferson Bergh 11:213. (1807.)




At 08:34 AM 6/27/2013, you wrote:
Notwithstanding ...
Republicans Voted this in ... Mr. Bill merely signed it. - He "merely" signed it after campaigning on it, writing section 3, and then signing it with much hoopla.  And, it passed the House 342-67, the Senate 85-14.  Yea, republicans . . . Yikes
Question(s):
YESTERDAY ... was DOMA constitutional?  - Yes
How about when it was passed? Signed?     -  Yes
Did it ONLY become unconstitutional ... taday? - Yes, because SCOTUS says so.  Thats what they do.  Congress could have repealed it a decade ago, yet all those dems (who voted for it) decried it, never lifted a fucking finger, including the great gay rights champion, Barney Frank, who refused to co-sponsor a bill to repeal it
--
--
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 politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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 politicalforu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
 

All 292 Conservative given special treatment, only 6 out of 20 Liberal groups were

Is this proof enough for our Biff???   Or does the IRS have to say this in a letter...  Oops I am sorry Biff, they did.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/150374099/TIGTA-Final-Response-to-Rep-Levin

--
--
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.
 
 

Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: MJ <michaelj@america.net>
Date: Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Subject: Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story
To: Politicalforum@googlegroups.com



Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story
by Sheldon Richman June 27, 2013

"Instead of being adversaries to government power … [the media of Washington, D.C., are] … servants to it and mouthpieces for it."

So said the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of Edward Snowden's disclosure of NSA spying on the American people, after Greenwald's confrontation with Meet the Press's David Gregory. Greenwald needn't have limited his observation to the D.C. media. Plenty of reporters and cable-news talking heads are playing the same role in the NSA drama.

Indeed, if they spent half the time investigating Obama's Big Brother operations that they spend sneering at Snowden and Greenwald, Americans might demand that the government stop spying on them.

But to much of the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media, Snowden and Greenwald -- not the NSA, the Obama administration, and the supine Congress -- are the story -- a story of villainy.

The examples are endless. The day after Snowden revealed himself as the whistleblower, Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, ordered his director to take the image of "that weasel" off the screen. The other day, his sidekick, Mika Brzezinski, asked, "Is there anything we can do to track him down?" (Emphasis added.) She meant the government.

Brzezinski went on to accuse Snowden of taking the job with NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton "to screw over our government." That's how one who speaks power to truth spins it. Snowden's service to the American people is hardly undercut by his having taken the job intending to expose government violations of the Fourth Amendment.

MSNBC's self-identification as a progressive network is hard to square with its unrelenting assaults on Snowden and Greenwald, and its de-emphasis of NSA surveillance. Andrea Mitchell, who functions as the network's chief diplomatic stenographer, wondered why the NSA was hiring contractors when it could be recruiting people with the "right value system" from the military. (She's forgotten that whistleblower Bradley Manning is in the military.) Chris Matthews of Hardball says that any foreign government that won't turn Snowden over to the U.S. government is "no buddy of ours."

MSNBC personnel routinely describe Greenwald as "defensive," which apparently is their code word for people who push back at stupid questions. For example, when Gregory asked Greenwald if he could be indicted for "aiding and abetting" Snowden, and Greenwald asked in return how a journalist could equate reporting with criminal activity, he was treated with disdain. Gregory even questioned Greenwald's journalistic credentials, as did Paul Farhi of the Washington Post.

I've focused on MSNBC because it has so egregiously and persistently circled the wagons around the government. It's an old story: TV hosts and reporters need access to government officials, but access is jeopardized if they antagonize those officials. Better to play it safe and sneer at Snowden and Greenwald.

You don't have to work for MSNBC to suck up to power. Op-ed writers from conservative David Brooks to progressive Richard Cohen have tried to portray Snowden as an alienated oddball, as though no one could have a legitimate purpose in unmasking government surveillance. (Brooks thought it relevant to write that Snowden "has not been a regular presence around his mother's house for years." Really!) Pundits repeatedly refer to Snowden's having dropped out of high school, which apparently signals some serious moral or mental defect in the young man. More likely he was bored with the dull and regimented curriculum so typical of government high schools.

Others have tried to read much into Snowden's stops in Hong Kong and Moscow. He might be a spy, they suggest. But wouldn't a spy have kept his identity secret while selling his information to "the enemy"? It doesn't occur to the pundits that Snowden's priority right now is to stay out of the clutches of the U.S. government. Snowden has no moral obligation to be a martyr. Let's not forget how Bradley Manning has been treated for his disclosures of government wrongdoing. He faces life imprisonment.

Snowden and Greenwald have not "aided the enemy" ­ unless the American people are the government's enemy. What they have done is embarrass the Obama administration by exposing criminal activity.

For the media's defenders of power against truth, that's inexcusable.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/big-brother-is-the-story/

--
--
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.
 
 

--
--
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.
 
 

President Lucifer’s fingerprints found on Arab Spring





traildustfotm posted: " WND EXCLUSIVE STATE DEPARTMENT TRAINED EGYPT PROTEST ACTIVIST Army, riot police prep for expected showdown Sunday  AARON KLEIN JERUSALEM – A group that is one of the main youth movements helping to organize the anti-government protests planned for"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

President Lucifer's fingerprints found on Arab Spring

by traildustfotm

WND EXCLUSIVE

STATE DEPARTMENT TRAINED EGYPT PROTEST ACTIVIST

Army, riot police prep for expected showdown Sunday

author-image AARON KLEIN

egyptian_protesters-340x161JERUSALEM – A group that is one of the main youth movements helping to organize the anti-government protests planned for Egypt this weekend participated in a 2008 U.S. State Department-sponsored training summit on how to use social media to organize societal change, WND has learned.

The keynote speakers at the summit were three architects of the online component of President Obama's 2008 campaign. The Obama campaign's use of social media for grassroots community organizing in 2008 was considered a watershed development in political fundraising and movement building.

The protests are slated to take place this Sunday under a campaign called Tamarod, which formed the United 30 June Front, a body that includes a number of youth movements and political parties.

The Tamarod group is calling for the ouster of President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood from power and a transition period in which the chairman of the Supreme Constitutional Court would serve as acting president until new elections are held.

jihadMohamed Abdel Aziz, a founder of the Tamarod campaign, said: "Our vision is not a new revolution; our vision encompasses a bigger wave of the January Revolution."

Tamarod leaders are calling for Egyptian citizens to take to the streets Sunday to demand Morsi's departure.

………

- Notice the connections to Occupy? ~TD  

guy-fawkesSpeaking from Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said the protests are "spontaneous" and come "from the Egyptian people."

………

A PBS "Frontline" profile of the April 6 Movement reported one member visited the U.S. to participate in the State Department-organized "Alliance of Youth Movements Summit" in New York City.

………

The summit was sponsored by the State Department in conjunction with Facebook, YouTube, Hi5, Google, MySpace, Gen Next, Howcast Media, MTV, PepsiCo, Mobile Behavior, Univisión, Interactive Media Inc., WordPress.com and others.

- Remember those strangely familiar signs held by Arab Spring protesters? ~TD  

The keynote speakers were three directors of Obama's online campaign in 2008: Joe Rospars, the campaign's director for new media; Scott Goodstein, external online director of Obama for America; and Sam Graham-Felson, director of blogging and blog outreach for the campaign.

………

The 2008 summit led to the creation of Movements.org, a nonprofit organization dedicated to identifying, connecting and supporting digital activists.

Founders of Movements.org include Google director Jared Cohen, a former adviser to both Clinton and Condoleezza Rice; and Jason Liebman, CEO and co-founder of Howcast, the How-to website.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/state-department-trained-egypt-protest-activist/#foKoTwxlMHvL88gg.99

- Anyone detect the smell of sulfur? ~TD  

Pres. Lucifer

 

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/2013/06/27/president-lucifers-fingerprints-found-on-arab-spring/

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.
 
 

Pat Buchanan on National Unity


Pat Buchanan on National Unity
by Ryan McMaken

Pat Buchanan is again sounding the alarm about how immigration to the United States is leading to "balkanization" and will result in the United States being split into "two countries."

In an interview with talk radio host Andrea Tantaros, Buchanan complained that new immigrants are not being sufficiently assimilated, and Buchanan and Tantaros agreed that people aren't being taught the right kind of American history:

"If you indoctrinate or teach kids different views about their country and how it began," Buchanan said, "what you get is a growing disintegration of the country, a fragmentation into different parts."

Apparently, Buchanan's position is that we need to "indoctrinate or teach" kids all the same views about the country and how it began. This should be done in the name of unity.

Buchanan received some support in this thesis of his from Barack Obama last week when Obama complained that different groups in Irish society send their children to different schools:
"If towns remain divided – if Catholics have their schools and buildings, and Protestants have theirs – if we can't see ourselves in one another, if fear and resentment are allowed to harden, that encourages division."

In other words, if we're not all culturally united and believing the same thing. That's a bad thing.

It's hard to see a significant difference between Buchanan's lament about too much variety in instruction producing disunity, and Obama's condemnation of diverse schooling for encouraging "division."

This should not surprise us. Pat Buchanan, while he often has many insightful observations about the state of political affairs in the country, is nonetheless a lifelong beltway political operative, politician, and a Nixon acolyte.

This is a man who believes that the modern nation-state should micromanage demographics and cultural affairs, invade foreign countries that don't do what The U.S. government says, and that the nation-state itself serves a hugely beneficial role in human society. In his 2001 book The Death of the West (which I reviewed here), Buchanan approvingly quotes Jacque Barzun's claim that the nation-state is "the greatest political creation of the west," and that most of cultural crises in the Western world today stem from insufficient loyalty to states. Buchanan then goes on to criticize secession and various kinds of political decentralization.

Buchanan points to the 1960s as his benchmark for the high point of American "unity." Buchanan notes that the 1960s came as a high point for the legitimacy of the American state. Following the New Deal, years of WWII propaganda, and the Cold War, Americans were primed by 1960 to provide the American state with virtually unquestioning allegiance and loyalty. The White Anglo-Saxon Protestant version of history was the only version of history being taught in public schools, and even in most private schools. For middle-class white people, like Pat Buchanan growing up in northern Virginia in the 1950s, it probably did seem like the United States was culturally united.

But even in the 1960s, Americans were not quite as unified as Buchanan imagines. It was during 1960 after all, that Americans were openly debating if a Catholic should be elected president, lest he enthrone the Pope on Capitol Hill. Where was that "one religion in common" Buchanan likes to refer to?

This cultural unity, to the extent that that it did exist in the 1960s, and which Buchanan so fondly remembers, was an aberration in America history, and depended on relentless pro-government propaganda through media, schools, and even religious institutions during the mid-twentieth century. The central government, through the FCC, essentially controlled broadcasting, and through its funding and regulation of educational institutions, created a uniform political ideology among formally-educated people which outlined the acceptable parameters of political debate and ideology.

In the 19th century, before mass media and widespread public schooling and public universities, one's ideology was shaped by one's wealth, race, ethnicity, religion and private formal instruction. Regional experiences and local institutions could produce wide variations in what ideologies dominated locally from place to place.

Political institutions by necessity were varied and local in the face of deep ethnic, economic and ideological divisions.

The Golden Age came at last (for people like Buchanan and Obama), when the federal government became skilled at using nation-wide media and public schooling as a means to "teach" the citizenry to be loyal to the local nation-state and to accept its laws, edicts, abuses, and lies. What the people learned in school was then reinforced in the evening news.

Thus Americans began to think that loyalty to the American state was better than loyalty to one's local government, or community, or family, or religious group. The old divisions were downplayed, eliminated, and ridiculed.

There was no way to fight it, as there was no other easy means of obtaining information outside of the approved channels. Knowledge was controlled by the regulated media and by the approved educational institutions. Everything else was firmly within crackpot territory, according to those with respectable opinions.

Today, however, with the proliferation of homeschooling in all its forms, the web, and the rise of alternative media, the days of "unity" are thankfully coming to an end.

While I'm not one who believes that the internet will by itself cause libertarianism to sweep the globe, it does appear that the variety of information offered by the web and by the home education movement will lead to division and dissent and variety where it has not existed in decades.

Buchanan looks upon this with horror. For the nationalists, widespread unity, uniformity and obedience are to be desired for that is what allows a vast nation-state like the United States to function. The suppression of cultural minorities by the cultural majority, along lines desired by the cultural elites, made the American leviathan state of the 20th and 21st century possible.

The conservative culture warriors who now complain about secularist left-wing control of schools and other cultural institutions are only suffering at the hands of a beast they created. The forces of conservatism created the public schools to teach watered-down American Protestantism, to beat the foreign languages out of students, and to above all, "assimilate." They got their assimilation machine, but now the shoe is on the other foot, and when we look at the speech codes, and the P.C. wars and propaganda coming out of the public schools, we should all thank the right-wing guardians of American culture who made it all possible.

That age of assimilation, however, whether to right-wing or left wing ideals, is coming to an end. The future is likely to look much different. The future will bring cultural division, and with it, political division, just as Buchanan predicts.

It had always been unnatural for the American central government to hammer into one polity the people of New Mexico and the people of Massachusetts, for example. To tell 300 million people of such diverse origin that they're all part of one giant nation-state, was always nonsensical except in only the loosest confederation. Centralization made assimilation to a centrally-determined ideal necessary, and by 1960, we got it. And it made Pat Buchanan happy.

The future divisions that come, on the other hand, will simply be a matter of recognizing the cultural, economic, and ideological divisions which had always been there, but had been covered over by state "education." Immigration will contribute to this, but that factor is by no means the only one.

Unfortunately, there is a great downside to this as well. In the wake of political disintegration, the American nation-state will leave behind a huge government apparatus: the remnants of a federally-funded and militarized police forces, its subsidized agricultural systems, its military bases, and a political culture devoted to seizing power and control whenever possible. The destruction of the family as a central economic institution, and the hobbling of the market itself will all lead to impoverishment and a desire by different and disgruntled groups to control the machinery of power that the centralized nation-state will leave as it recedes.

With this will come conflict, unrest, and violence along economic, ethnic and racial lines. It will just be part of the legacy of the American nation-state which the nationalists still trumpet as our savior.

Buchanan thinks the best thing to do is to keep up the façade; to paper over the deep divisions with flag-waving American history classes for the indoctrination of the young into embracing "unity."

That's an idea for an age long past, and the time has come to abandon that failed experiment that is the centralized American state. But, as usual, we'll be left with cleaning up the messes the state will leave behind.

http://lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken157.html

Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story


Big Brother, not Snowden and Greenwald, Is the Story
by Sheldon Richman June 27, 2013

"Instead of being adversaries to government power … [the media of Washington, D.C., are] … servants to it and mouthpieces for it."

So said the Guardian's Glenn Greenwald, who broke the story of Edward Snowden's disclosure of NSA spying on the American people, after Greenwald's confrontation with Meet the Press's David Gregory. Greenwald needn't have limited his observation to the D.C. media. Plenty of reporters and cable-news talking heads are playing the same role in the NSA drama.

Indeed, if they spent half the time investigating Obama's Big Brother operations that they spend sneering at Snowden and Greenwald, Americans might demand that the government stop spying on them.

But to much of the mainstream (and not-so-mainstream) media, Snowden and Greenwald -- not the NSA, the Obama administration, and the supine Congress -- are the story -- a story of villainy.

The examples are endless. The day after Snowden revealed himself as the whistleblower, Joe Scarborough, the former Republican congressman and host of MSNBC's Morning Joe, ordered his director to take the image of "that weasel" off the screen. The other day, his sidekick, Mika Brzezinski, asked, "Is there anything we can do to track him down?" (Emphasis added.) She meant the government.

Brzezinski went on to accuse Snowden of taking the job with NSA contractor Booz Allen Hamilton "to screw over our government." That's how one who speaks power to truth spins it. Snowden's service to the American people is hardly undercut by his having taken the job intending to expose government violations of the Fourth Amendment.

MSNBC's self-identification as a progressive network is hard to square with its unrelenting assaults on Snowden and Greenwald, and its de-emphasis of NSA surveillance. Andrea Mitchell, who functions as the network's chief diplomatic stenographer, wondered why the NSA was hiring contractors when it could be recruiting people with the "right value system" from the military. (She's forgotten that whistleblower Bradley Manning is in the military.) Chris Matthews of Hardball says that any foreign government that won't turn Snowden over to the U.S. government is "no buddy of ours."

MSNBC personnel routinely describe Greenwald as "defensive," which apparently is their code word for people who push back at stupid questions. For example, when Gregory asked Greenwald if he could be indicted for "aiding and abetting" Snowden, and Greenwald asked in return how a journalist could equate reporting with criminal activity, he was treated with disdain. Gregory even questioned Greenwald's journalistic credentials, as did Paul Farhi of the Washington Post.

I've focused on MSNBC because it has so egregiously and persistently circled the wagons around the government. It's an old story: TV hosts and reporters need access to government officials, but access is jeopardized if they antagonize those officials. Better to play it safe and sneer at Snowden and Greenwald.

You don't have to work for MSNBC to suck up to power. Op-ed writers from conservative David Brooks to progressive Richard Cohen have tried to portray Snowden as an alienated oddball, as though no one could have a legitimate purpose in unmasking government surveillance. (Brooks thought it relevant to write that Snowden "has not been a regular presence around his mother's house for years." Really!) Pundits repeatedly refer to Snowden's having dropped out of high school, which apparently signals some serious moral or mental defect in the young man. More likely he was bored with the dull and regimented curriculum so typical of government high schools.

Others have tried to read much into Snowden's stops in Hong Kong and Moscow. He might be a spy, they suggest. But wouldn't a spy have kept his identity secret while selling his information to "the enemy"? It doesn't occur to the pundits that Snowden's priority right now is to stay out of the clutches of the U.S. government. Snowden has no moral obligation to be a martyr. Let's not forget how Bradley Manning has been treated for his disclosures of government wrongdoing. He faces life imprisonment.

Snowden and Greenwald have not "aided the enemy" ­ unless the American people are the government's enemy. What they have done is embarrass the Obama administration by exposing criminal activity.

For the media's defenders of power against truth, that's inexcusable.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/big-brother-is-the-story/