Monday, 5 August 2013

Re: U.S. Muslim cleric encourages Muslims to hate the kuffar (non-Muslims)

I'll play a song of peace for the dead muzzies, christians and jews.

Unlike the Q'uoran and Islam,  there's nothing in these sayings or beliefs that call for the violent death and murder of the Gentiles by Hasidic Jews
---
 In 1838, Gov. Lilburn Boggs declared that Mormons had made war on the state of Missouri, and "must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state." In 1976 the state of Missouri resended the order.

The Greek historian Antiochus Strategos writes that captive Christians were gathered near Mamilla reservoir and the Jews offered to help them escape death if they "become Jews and deny Christ". The Christian captives refused, and the Jews in anger had purchased the Christians from Persians and massacred them on spot.

Persecution of Catholics mostly, before and at the beginning, of the Spanish Civil war (1936–1939), involved the murder of almost 7,000 priests and other clergy, as well as thousands of lay people, by sections of nearly all the leftist groups because of their faith.

According to the World Evangelical Alliance, over 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights solely because of their faith. Of the 100-200 million Christians under assault, the majority are persecuted in Muslim-dominated nations.

On 7 May 1099 the crusaders reached Jerusalem, which had been recaptured from the Seljuks by the Fatimids of Egypt only a year before. On 15 July, the crusaders were able to end the siege by breaking down sections of the walls and entering the city. Over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning, the crusaders murdered almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem. Muslims, Jews, and even eastern Christians were all massacred. Although many Muslims sought shelter atop the Temple Mount inside the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the crusaders spared few lives. According to the anonymous Gesta Francorum, in what some believe to be one of the most valuable contemporary sources of the First Crusade, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles...."

don't complain about the way your enemy fights.


 "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend"
---
good luck with that.


On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:36:45 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
Here's Plain Ol's source for the Skvere Rebbe's purported quote:
 
 
This is nothing new.  The Hasidic Jews have long held beliefs such as this,  and have pretty much been up front with these beliefs.  A couple of points:
 
(A)  Unlike the Q'uoran and Islam,  there's nothing in these sayings or beliefs that call for the violent death and murder of the Gentiles by Hasidic Jews.....They just don't want to associate with us, which brings us to point "B";
 
(B)  "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend".
 
As some Plain Ol' folks have said here previously:  "Choose Sides Carefully"
 


On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM, plainolamerican <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:

A recently published book written by a Skvere hasidic rabbi and endorsed by the Skvere Rebbe himself tells Skvere hasidim and other Jews to hate all gentiles. Gentiles are wholly evil, the book says. They spiritually pollute the world, and even looking at their faces is harmful.

 

The book is called Yalkut Shaiylos u'Teshuvos. As the title indicates, it is a collection of questions and answers on halakhic topics. The questions were asked by young Skvere yeshiva students in New Square, New York. The answers are rabbinic.

The section translated below is titled, "Goyyim" and it explains the Skvere hasidic view of non-Jews, citing among other sources, the Skvere Rebbe himself.

The anti-gentile hatred is based on rabbinic sources. Those sources are heavily influenced by kabbalah and by hasidic thought.

A similar attitude toward non-Jews can be found in the Tanya, the so-called bible of Chabad hasidic thought written by the first rebbe of Chabad, Schneur Zalman of Liadi, and reprinted thousands of times by Chabad worldwide.

The translation was made by the noted filmmaker Menachem Daum, who sent it to me along with the scans of the book posted below and requested that I post it.

All remarks in square brackets [  ] are Daum's. All remarks in these brackets {  } are mine. All text within normal parenthesis (  ) are the book's author's.

Question:  Is it appropriate to not love, or to hate, a gentile?

Answer:  A Jew is intrinsically good.  A Jew is a part of God above.  Even if at times he strays it is not because he has become evil.  It is only that there is evil within him that he has to cleanse.


On Sunday, August 4, 2013 1:06:08 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




BareNakedIslam posted: "Yet, under Barack Hussein Obama, police surveillance of mosques is virtually impossible now. http://youtu.be/HGpfFz27ytA"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

U.S. Muslim cleric encourages Muslims to hate the kuffar (non-Muslims)

by BareNakedIslam

Yet, under Barack Hussein Obama, police surveillance of mosques is virtually impossible now.

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | August 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-WBP

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.barenakedislam.com/2013/08/04/u-s-muslim-cleric-encourages-muslims-to-hate-the-kuffar-non-muslims/




--
--
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.
 
 

Re: Martin Luther King's Flawed Dream

the day when alt God's children–black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics–will be able to join hands 
----
and fight the muzzies again!!!

On Monday, August 5, 2013 5:51:42 PM UTC-5, MJ wrote:

Martin Luther King's Flawed Dream
By Anne Wortham
August 3, 2013

From: Anne Wortham, The World and I, June 1998, 66-71

Annually, throughout the month of February, known as Black History Month, Martin Luther King Jr.'s voice punctuates the airwaves like a public-service announcement, delivering his "I Have a Dream"' speech at the 1963 March for Jobs and Freedom in Washington, D.C.

What listeners usually hear is the speech's rousing "Let freedom ring!" finale, which begins with King's invocation of the patriotic hymn "America" and ends with the vision of

the day when alt God's children–black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics–will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, ,Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Although this climax receives the most airplay and seems to be most often included in film documentaries, it is the preceding "Dream" sequence that is most often quoted. King told a quarter of a million people at the Lincoln Memorial that "even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream."

Dreams Past, Present, and Future

The rhetorical flourish that followed, in which he wished that his children "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," was but an abbreviated portrayal of his vision of the Beloved Community.

Three years earlier, in a speech he delivered on the golden anniversary of the National Urban League and which appeared in the December 1960 issue of the YWCA Magazine, he presented his most succinct conception of the dream, as follows:

The dream is one of equality of opportunity, of privilege and property widely distributed; a dream of a land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few; a dream of a land where men do not argue that the color of a man's skin determines the content of his character; a dream of a place where all our gifts and resources are held not for ourselves alone but as instruments of service for the rest of humanity; the dream of a country where every man will respect the dignity and worth of all human personality and men will dare to live together as brothers–that is the dream. Whenever it is fulfilled, we will emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man's inhumanity to man into the bright and glowing daybreak of freedom and justice for all of God's children.

King's dream was "no private vision, nothing esoteric," observes biographer William Robert Miller in Martin Luther King, Jr: His Life, Martyrdom, and Meaning for the World (1968). Rather, it was "a personalized translation of the American heritage taught to every schoolboy, forged anew in a context of the Negro experience."

The words of the speech, which invoked the patriotic symbolism of the Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Emancipation Proclamation, "came right out of elementary school civics," Miller concludes. Indeed, as King stated in the Washington speech and asserted several years later, in the May 1968 issue of Negro History Bulletin,

It is a dream of a land where men of all races, of all nationalities and of all creeds can live together as brothers. The substance of the dream is expressed in these sublime words, lifted to cosmic proportions: "We hold these these truths to be self-evident–that all men are created with inalienable fights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is the dream."

A New American Dream

But as Richard Lescher points out in The Preacher King: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word That Moved America (1995), King meant to convey more than a civics lesson; the speech was a rhetorical strategy that identified black aspirations with the traditional consensus ideals of America and "assured his hearers that history and universal moral law are aligned with the black quest for freedom."

As King stated in a 1967 Playboy article, "A Testament of Hope," he believed that blacks could provide "a new expression of The American Dream that need not be realized at the expense of other men. around the world, but a dream of opportunity and life that can be shared with the rest of the world."  His aim was to expand the dream and give blacks a central role in its fulfillment.

That the speech was more than rhetoric for King is clearly documented by Ira Zepp in his study The Social Vision of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1989).      As Zepp shows, through the use of a synthesis of biblical and civil-religious rhetoric, King expressed his preoccupation with the establishment of the Beloved Community–a completely integrated society, a community of love and justice, based on what he called the "solidarity of the human family" and the "inescapable network of mutuality" with which we are tied together. He believed the Beloved Community would be the ideal corporate expression of the Christian faith and was the only form of association that could foster an egalitarian approach to wealth and property.

King's abiding faith, as he said in the Washington speech, was that "the glory of the Lord shall be revealed," that God had the power to achieve His purpose among mankind within history. And it was with this faith that Americans

will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to play together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

Life in the Beloved Community

King understood the American dream as belief in the "dignity and worth of all human personality," but he was no individualist. The primary purpose of life in the Beloved Community is self-giving, not self-realization. That is, he saw self-realization as a derivative of self-giving.

As Ervin Smith points out in The Ethics of Martin Luther King, Jr. (1981): "King came to believe that only through losing one's self for the Beloved Community does one really find himself." The self is never thought of in detachment from the community. The good of the community is not really served where the chief concern is self-realization. Neither did he believe that the good of the community was served by giving primacy to private property.

King saw his dream as rooted in the American dream. His dream is more properly seen, however, as a collection of conflicting premises borrowed from the American creed and its corollary, the American dream. In his powerfully argued book, American Exceptionalism (1996), sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset quotes G.K. Chesterton, who observed that "America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence."

The two values at the core of the American creed are individualism and egalitarianism, or freedom and equality. As Lipset points out, "Americans believe strongly in both." But one consequence of a perceived contradiction between the two is that

political debate often takes the form of one consensual value opposing the other. Liberals stress the primacy of egalitarianism and the social injustice that flows through unfettered individualism. Conservatives enshrine individual freedom and the social need for mobility and achievement as values "endangered" by the collectivism inherent in liberal nostrums. Both sides treat as their natural constituency the entire American public.

King's dream of the Beloved Community was partially grounded in a distorted version of the egalitarian element of the American creed, not in its individualism. Had he been an advocate of individualism, he would have possessed a conceptual basis for a far more inspiring dream speech, the thrust of which would have served both blacks and whites better than the speech he delivered.

For the country surely could have used a good dose of back-stiffening rational individualism rather than the sugarcoated collectivism that was ladled out that day. Such a speech would have had as its central feature not compulsory social egalitarianism in racial matters but the primacy of individual freedom, achievement, and equality of opportunity and their dependence on a competitive market economy.

What about Talent and Hard Work?

The American dream is based on a belief in upward mobility through talent and hard work. Even those whose hard work has not made them millionaires believe that upward mobility is possible for their children. Our folklore and children's books are filled with stories of upward mobility through thrill, clean living, self-discipline, self-responsibility, the training and cultivation of our talents, and, above all, the cultivation of reason–qualities that define the work ethic.

We warn the young against laxness and wastefulness, lest they fall in status. As Katherine Newman points out in Falling From Grace(1988), downward mobility–that is, losing social rank–is portrayed as a disgrace to one's family and a denial of the meaning of our society. If success in life is a sign of God's grace, then failure to maintain social rank can be interpreted as withdrawal of divine approval, a "falling from grace."

"It cannot be stressed enough that much in contemporary attitudes and behavior may be explained by the cultural emphasis on achievement," argues Lipset. "Most Americans believe that hard work, rather than 'lucky breaks or help from other people,' is what enables people to move up." Lipset provides thorough documentation of this assertion, including his citation of a 1991 Gallup poll which found that "69 percent of whites and 68 percent of blacks say that African-Americans should focus their energy on improving education"

Had King's dream been a more consistent reflection of the American dream, there would have been less talk about the table of brotherhood and more about the table of plenty. He would have done better by us to insist not on a Beloved Community (which can hardly be taken as an irreducible primary) connected by the most unrealistic quality of "disinterested love" but on a pluralistic community of achievers connected by the very real requirement of individual rights. Harold Cruse points out in Plural but Equal (1989) that King was the first black leader in over 70 years who possessed the charisma, moral authority, and broad-enough community base to tell blacks in the wake of civil rights gains "how they might reorganize their lives to cope with the demands of freedom in a pluralistic society."

King came close to doing so, even to the extent of using the words of Booker T. Washington to say in Where Do We Go From Here? that "[the Negro] must not wait for the end of the segregation that lies at the basis of his own economic deprivation; he must act now to lift himself up by his own bootstraps."  But, as Cruse demonstrates, in the end King foundered and dissipated his moral authority in the interests of the "brotherhood of man" and the redemption of America's soul.

A Civics Lesson Was Needed

In the years following the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, King should have "turned his moral authority back on the black minority itself," says Cruse, and delivered a secular message of self-determination that said, in effect, "get your own minority house in order." Unfortunately, this was not King's message. It would not have been a new message. Variations of its perspective have been voiced by blacks since the antebellum period, most notably by Booker T. Washington at the turn of the century and later by W.E.B. DuBois. But it has gone unheeded.

The Martin Luther King who is lionized by intellectuals, theologians, the media, civic organizations, and professional black activists is not the potential bootstraps King but the "I have a dream" King. One wishes that if he could not have strategically delivered a bootstraps speech during the March on Washington, that he could have at least delivered a "civics lesson" which more accurately depicted the American creed and the American dream.

I truly believe that my life would be different and my country would be a better place had Martin Luther King been the kind of man who could insist on the whole of the American creed and merge his voice not only with Jefferson and Lincoln and Isaiah but with John Locke, Adam Smith, and Booker T. Washington. And not just these, but with the voices of ordinary blacks like my working-class, achievement-oriented father–a true yeoman of black progress–who, by the time of King's emergence as a black leader, had already taught me those commonsense sayings of Benjamin Franklin's Poor Richard (some of which can also be found in Saint Paul):

God helps them that help themselves.  Lost time is never found  again. Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today .If you would know the value of money, go and try to borrow some; for he that goes a borrowing goes a sorrowing.

Imagine hearing words like these punctuating the airwaves during Black History Month!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/anne-wortham/a-flawed-dream/

--
--
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: SKOKIE, ILLINOIS: First the Neo-Nazis, now the IslamoNazis

surrounded by muzzies and nazis again ... this time in America.


On Monday, August 5, 2013 6:51:31 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




BareNakedIslam posted: " The old home to the Holocaust Museum on Main Street in Skokie could become the town's first mosque if approved by the Village Board. In 1978, neo-Nazis asked the Skokie Park District for permission to hold a rally. The choice of Skokie was no accident a"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

SKOKIE, ILLINOIS: First the Neo-Nazis, now the IslamoNazis

by BareNakedIslam

The old home to the Holocaust Museum on Main Street in Skokie could become the town's first mosque if approved by the Village Board. In 1978, neo-Nazis asked the Skokie Park District for permission to hold a rally. The choice of Skokie was no accident as it is home to an estimated 40,000 Jews, some […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | August 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-WEW

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.barenakedislam.com/2013/08/05/skokie-illinois-first-the-neo-nazis-now-the-islamonazis/




--
--
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: Oh, BOO HOO! Muslim woman (who won’t give her name) claims she was harassed for wearing a bag on her head during Massachusetts bar exam




On Monday, August 5, 2013 4:45:14 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote:
Please find me an Amish woman who has sued the State and federal Governments for discrimination over her right to be photographed in her religious head gear.  

 

Also, there's a big distinction in this:
 
 

Inline image 1

 

 
And this:
 

Inline image 2

 

Kind of a stretch there huh Plain Ol'?

 

 



On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM, plainolamerican <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote:
how dare women wear religious shit on their head in America.




On Sunday, August 4, 2013 3:44:46 PM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




BareNakedIslam posted: "It is school policy that bans hats, hoods, scarves, and visors from being worn during the bar exam. But religious headgear is permitted, as long as special written approval has been obtained before the test from a state's board of bar examiners. A proctor"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Oh, BOO HOO! Muslim woman (who won't give her name) claims she was harassed for wearing a bag on her head during Massachusetts bar exam

by BareNakedIslam

It is school policy that bans hats, hoods, scarves, and visors from being worn during the bar exam. But religious headgear is permitted, as long as special written approval has been obtained before the test from a state's board of bar examiners. A proctor in Massachusetts passed a 'distasteful' note (below) to a Muslim law graduate […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | August 4, 2013 at 2:08 pm | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-WC3

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.barenakedislam.com/2013/08/04/oh-boo-hoo-muslim-woman-who-wont-give-her-name-claims-she-was-harassed-for-wearing-a-bag-on-her-head-during-massachusetts-bar-exam/




--
--
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.
 
 

Small Empires feat. ZocDoc on The Verge!



----

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

I'm so excited to announce the first epsiode for my Verge show, SMALL EMPIRES, is out.

It arrived on July 30th and episode 2 is set to debut tomorrow, August 5th!

I'd pitched this show for a couple years to traditional TV production companies until I appeared on On The Verge and realized how much the video production world had changed -- it was as professional as any set I'd been on, but Verge was doing it all on their own terms. This was the perfect home for my show.

I want to humanize founders, but also show the users who power these new platforms -- amazing startups changing the world from my hometown of New York City. Small Empires are being built all over thanks to the free internet and instead of needing to open a factory, you need only open a laptop.

Watch! And as always, let me know what you think.

-Alexis

small empires with alexis ohanian: zocdoc

PS Here's a gif of me dancing between takes:

unsubscribe | update info | privacy policy | forward email

Alexis Ohanian sent this message to Majors.bruce@gmail.com
Questions? Contact Alexis Ohanian
c/o FanBridge, Inc. - 14525 SW Millikan Way, #16910, Beaverton, Oregon 97005, United States
This message powered by:
FanBridge

--
--
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.
 
 

“I Go Pogo!”


MUST READ --- THINK -- long and hard about it and then ...THINK some more.


"In this simple phrase [we have met the enemy, and they is us!], Pogo Possum encapsulated the essence of statism. "

"I Go Pogo!"
By Butler Shaffer
August 5, 2013

   He that would speak truth must first have one foot in the stirrup. -- Turkish proverb

It was during my freshman year of college that I first encountered the works of that most eminent American political philosopher, Pogo Possum. Channeled through cartoonist, Walt Kelly, Pogo provided an alternative to the "Ozzie and Harriet" mindset that kept most Americans from engaging in those twin towers of political sin: asking questions and speaking truth. In those post-World War II years in which the state had to hurriedly find a new threat with which to keep Americans under its control – lest they mistakenly think that the end of that war presaged a world at peace – the Cold War bogeyman was put together.

While Pogo was decidedly a left-of-center person – Ayn Rand had yet to arrive on campuses to challenge collectivist thought and behavior – he was one of the remnants of the spirit of classical liberalism whose ranks were rapidly being conscripted into the service of statism. At a time when Sen. Joe McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee were doing their best to convince Boobus Americanus that "active agents of the communist conspiracy" were entrenched everywhere, Pogo went forth from his meager homesite in Okefenokee Swamp to find these "enemy" forces. Upon his return, he confided to his neighbors that "we have met the enemy, and they is us!"

In this simple phrase, Pogo Possum encapsulated the essence of statism. His words continue to inform those who desire to understand politics. Pogo became a popular presidential candidate, and I wore a campaign button that read "I Go Pogo!" to show my support for that most prominent example of a person eager to stick pins in established balloons. I later discovered that most effective social critic, Lenny Bruce, whose works laid the foundations for people like George Carlin. But that is another story altogether.

What Pogo helped us to see was something that Ms. Blodgett omitted from our high-school civics class lessons: all political systems – from Washington, D.C. to Mud Flats, Kansas – depend for their existence on the institutionalization of lies. Truth is as fatal to the state as oxygen was to earlier anaerobic life forms. It is not just that some politicians or government agencies occasionally lie to us: no political system can withstand the sunlight of truth. This is not because the politically minded are genetically-determined evildoers, but because of the very nature of politics.

Political systems exist because of the willingness of most people to participate in what economists call "externalities." We are, by nature, cost-avoiders. We love the benefits of our actions, and want to keep them for ourselves. But the costs of acquiring such desired ends we are eager to share with others. A factory owner may not want to incur the costs of disposing of the unwanted by-products of his business, and might resort to dumping such "wastes" into a river or the atmosphere, actions that force such costs to be transferred to others. Such property trespasses as a means of disposing of externalities, are also appropriately known as "socializing the costs." Physicists have a related term to describe this: "entropy," defined as "energy unavailable for productive work."

In a society grounded upon respect for the inviolability of individuals and their property interests, responsible people internalize these costs (e.g., dispose of the unwanted consequences of their actions at their own expense). For men and women of irresponsible dispositions, the state provides mechanisms for imposing such costs onto unwilling victims. Those who want schools, highways, parks, mail delivery, hospitals, or other services, will generally turn to the state to provide them, not because political systems have demonstrated any capability for more effectively creating such projects, but because the state can compel others – through its powers of eminent domain and taxation – to incur the costs involved.

How does the state get away with this? Why would otherwise intelligent people passively consent to being forced to provide "benefits" they do not want? One might exercise sound judgment and give an armed street-mugger his money, but what would motivate this same victim to stumble into a voting-booth every two years to anoint the mugger as his "elected representative?"

The operators of the political system, and those who benefit from the practice of imposing externalities/entropy upon others, are able to sustain their racket only through years of conditioning people to accept, as truths, what are demonstrable lies. It has been the purpose of schools and academia, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, and other institutional voices, to condition minds to accept, as true, whatever serves the interests of those who control the apparatus of the state. Those who expose the lies, or reveal deeper truths about the political system, become enemies of the state to be destroyed. This is why Ron Paul was so condemned: not for "speaking truth to power" – the slugs who exercise political power already know the nature of their well-organized fakery – but for speaking truth to the powerless. Ron's efforts even forced Rudy Giuliani to publically admit his ignorance of what most grade-schoolers know: Newton's Third Law of Motion!

The mountains of lies upon which citadels of power are built are comprised not of granite, but of glass, easily shattered by particles of truth. One need not go back into ancient history to confirm this: the "weapons of mass destruction" lie that led most Americans to approve of a war against Iraq, and the repeat performance being put together against an equally innocent nation, Iran, offer sufficient evidence. The statists now call for retaliation against Russia for having granted political asylum to Ed Snowden.  The politically-motivated have always been aware of the fragile nature of coercive power, and of how contagious the pursuit of truth can become. Truth and individual liberty represent entropy to the state; forms of energy that not only do not contribute to the ends sought by political systems, but often interfere with such purposes. As such, state power remains ever-vigilant to their threats.

We have been witnessing the institutional order's war against truth in the ongoing persecution of such men as Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Ed Snowden. The essence of the state's complaint – and that of its media lickspittles – is that these men (gasp!) dared to truthfully inform the public regarding what the state has been up to! Theocratic states once found the charges of "blasphemy" or "heresy" sufficient grounds for burning people at the stake. But a modern politicized society is too sophisticated for that, right? A different but equally vacuous charge had to be invented: the "threat to national security." Anything that anyone says or does that offends those in power is deemed a "threat to national security."

Those who identify with the nation-state often find themselves embarrassed by revelations of the "dark side" forces that are inevitably attracted to the state's monopoly on the use of violence. What cannot be acquired through one's own efforts, or through trade or other voluntary dealings with one's neighbors, are often seduced into pursuing their interests through legalized coercion. But to create – and perpetuate – policies that depend on forcibly violating the will of others requires the suppression of truth. As our world becomes ever-more politicized, men and women implicitly embrace the idea that "a lie is as good as the truth, if you can get other people to believe it." Ed Snowden et al are the latest to uncover the lies upon which the state fabricates its scarecrows to "protect us" from our "enemies." Like Pogo, they also reveal to those who are not afraid to look that the "enemy is us!"

Any relationship – from the most personal to the more formal – that is grounded in lies will quickly perish. As my jurisprudence professor, Karl Llewellyn, was fond of saying, truth is like a beautifully spun spider's web. A lie is equivalent to throwing a rock into this web; it breaks up the interconnectedness that otherwise gives the web wholeness.

When those who speak truth are labeled "criminals," "traitors," or "threats to national security," you know that America finds itself in the same moral and intellectual sewer from which officials of Nazi Germany tried to extricate themselves with the plea "I was just following orders." While the Nuremberg Trials were doubtless an expression of "victor's justice," they nonetheless raised the very troubling question that most Americans prefer to ignore: can a person avoid being responsible for one's actions on the grounds that a governmental authority had ordered them to act? This question represents what has come to be known – and largely forgotten – as the "Nuremberg principle." Are we accountable for the consequences of our behavior when someone orders us to do something in violation of our moral principles?

Of course, Americans have put the kind of twist on this question that negates it as a problem at all: what "enemy" forces do are "war crimes" or acts of "terror"; what "our" troops and leaders engage in are "recognized" and "accepted" acts of war. Brendan Behan made this distinction: "the terrorist is the one with the small bomb." As much as anyone, George Orwell understood how the power of the state depends upon distorting and deforming reality to create whatever impressions will serve the interests of the ruling class.

To believe in and act upon lies results in the abandonment and/or transfer of responsibility for conduct. The liars who have crawled out from beneath their rocks to condemn Ed Snowden for speaking truth to the world, are doing no more than projecting onto this man wholly fabricated "consequences" which, even if they were true, derive from the cascade of lies, forgeries, and other corruptions that comprise the totality of governmental behavior. Ed Snowden has embarrassed the political elites in much the same way as did the young boy in The Emperor's New Clothes. Boobus Americanus – who has long identified his very sense of being with the nation-state – has begun taking down the flag from his house, and less-frequently plasters his car with "Support the Troops" bumper-stickers. This transformation wasn't caused by Ed Snowden: he is just the latest scapegoat upon whom the parasites of both wings of the bird of prey now descend.

The Hitler regime used the "due process" model that the post-9/11 despots long to squeeze into the Constitution. Republican Newt Gingrich defended the Obama administration's killing of an American, Anwar al-Awlaki on "due process" grounds. "The president signed an order to kill them. That was due process," he concluded. Sophie and Hans Scholl and other members of the White Rose – to whom I dedicated my most recent book, The Wizards of Ozymandiaswere summarily decapitated by the German Gestapo for having exercised their sense of responsibility by daring to criticize and expose to the German people the vicious criminality of the German state. The Obamas, Holders, McCains, Grahams, Kerrys, George W. Bush's, and such lesser weasels as Jay Carney, Michelle Bachmann, John Bolton, and the reptilian-brained members of the mainstream media, may secretly admire the swiftness with which their counterparts in the National Socialist German Workers party dispensed with those who embarrassed the regime. One doesn't have to be a Nazi to respect the resolve with which a dictator can act. George W. Bush admitted this in his comment, while president, "if this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier. . . as long as I'm the dictator." It is the political system itself – not the temporary puppets put in place by the owners to run the system – that insists upon the absoluteness of its rule, a purpose that is disrupted by truth-telling.

Those who babble the inanity that Ed Snowden should "come home" and "make his case" within the American legal system, reflect not only their own moral and intellectual bankruptcy, but that of those who share in such nonsense. "The law is the law," such empty-brained babblers mutter, a phrase befitting those who speak from beneath the bottom of the barrel of human intelligence and decency.

For those of us who regard the speaking of truth as something more than just one of a number of available strategies; and who understand the unavoidable connection between truthfulness and responsibility, I direct attention to the film Judgment at Nuremberg. One of the trial judges – played by Spencer Tracy – is discussing with another judge the proposition that Nazi judges on trial before their tribunal might not be responsible for their judicial decisions. In Judge Haywood's (Tracy's) words: "You were saying that the men are not responsible for their acts. You're going to have to explain that to me; you're going to have to explain that to me very carefully."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/butler-shaffer/trust-the-state/

Obama Profile in Cowardice







August 5, 2013

Profile in Cowardice

By Mike Razar

Ah, the joys of political correctness! No matter how many times we get mugged, maimed or killed by individuals with identifiable characteristics, we must check the rulebook before taking precautions. Would anyone question the black American experience for a hundred years of post-bellum savagery at the hands of many white Americans? Would anyone question the mothers of African American girls as recently as 1960 warning their precious daughters to avoid places where white boys, drunk or sober might congregate or even drive by? Do you think European Jews in the 1930s might have benefitted from more realistic profiling of the Nazis? Yet look at the harm done by the paranoid antisemites unjustly profiling the Jews.

Profiling is the ultimate in double-edged swords. Nearly all human reasoning begins with some tentative generalization. Only rarely are generalizations completely accurate. Are all lions dangerous? Are most lions dangerous? Are individual wolves dangerous? How about wolfpacks? One often hears about the mythical "exception that proves the rule." A complete oxymoron; it never happened. Most general rules turn out to be statistical observations. So if "many" muggers share some characteristic, not implied by being a mugger, when does "many" actually take on statistical significance? How high must that significance be to generate justifiable fear rather than "mere" paranoia?

These questions are sometimes easy and sometimes not, as the examples show. When situations are complicated by racial or cultural differences, the danger of prejudice overtaking logical reasoning demands extra vigilance.

Here in America, one of the sadder legacies of centuries of racial prejudice is the confusion between racial profiling, which is based on DNA, and cultural profiling, which is based on current environmental factors. Hoodies and ghetto English have nothing to do with DNA. Yet there seems to be a strong correlation between certain dress and speech patterns and racial heritage. In the past, when mobility was insignificant, the ties between culture and DNA were strong. Why do they remain strong in an era of mass communication when moves of thousands of miles are routine? Whether it comes to private or police profiling, this is a problem which needs to be addressed openly and with compassion, if racial wounds are to be healed.

As bad as these racial/cultural wounds are, there is a danger which dwarfs them. That danger is barely allowed to be named in public discourse. The simplest name is Islamic terrorism. Before anyone accuses me of Islamophobia, I admit that I fear Islam. Islam is a religion. But it is also a culture and a political system. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the religion of Islam neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. The culture and geo-politics of Islam kill and rob me. A large percent of all Moslems view themselves as being at war with Jews, Christians, and Western Culture. So one question we must face is how much profiling of individual Moslems is justified? According to liberals, the answer is none. According to some conservatives, the answer is that all young Moslem males should be considered dangerous until proven otherwise. This conservative is in that camp. The war between Islam and the West is a topic for entire books. Arguably that war will be more easily won by the West in the long run if terrorists succeed more often in the short run. But the immediate price in human life is too high. If strict profiling can save lives, it should be the rule.

The blindness of the Obama administration on Islamic profiling is almost as threatening as the terrorists themselves. Usually they are unwilling even to discuss the need for Islamic profiling. They do not acknowledge that much of Islam is at war with us.

How strange it is then that suddenly they seem to have been seized with fear. Due to some unspecified chatter heard online and maybe other intelligence too, they have closed for business American embassies and consulates in some twenty Arab countries. Alone in the Middle East, the Embassy in Jerusalem (oops, I mean Tel Aviv, in defiance of U.S. law) remains open.

After the Benghazi fiasco (aka phony scandal), it is understandable that cowardly Obama political advisors have convinced their dear leader to fear the political fallout from a new attack in any Islamic country in the Middle East or beyond. No doubt it is just this one time that we will profile Islam. We will suspend the anti-profiling rules just this once in order to save those rules for the future. Meanwhile every American who gets on a plane is made less safe by TSA anti-profiling policies. Is there no limit to the hypocrisy the American people will stand for? What about the members of Congress we elected? What about the press? If you are reading this, at least AmericanThinker readers will have heard the question asked.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/08/profile_in_cowardice.html at August 05, 2013 - 05:50:02 PM 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.
 
 

Feds are Suspects in New Malware That Attacks Tor Anonymity





 

Return address = SAIC

===========================================================

 

Feds are Suspects in New Malware That Attacks Tor Anonymity

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/08/freedom-hosting/

 

    By Kevin Poulsen

    08.05.13

   

 

Security researchers tonight are poring over a piece of malicious software

that takes advantage of a Firefox security vulnerability to identify some

users of the privacy-protecting Tor anonymity network.

 

The malware showed up Sunday morning on multiple websites hosted by the

anonymous hosting company Freedom Hosting. That would normally be considered

a blatantly criminal "drive-by" hack attack, but nobody's calling in the FBI

this time. The FBI is the prime suspect.

 

"It just sends identifying information to some IP in Reston, Virginia," says

reverse-engineer Vlad Tsrklevich. "It's pretty clear that it's FBI or it's

some other law enforcement agency that's U.S.-based."

 

If Tsrklevich and other researchers are right, the code is likely the first

sample captured in the wild of the FBI's "computer and internet protocol

address verifier," or CIPAV, the law enforcement spyware first reported by

WIRED in 2007.

 

Court documents and FBI files released under the FOIA have described the

CIPAV as software the FBI can deliver through a browser exploit to gathers

information from the target's machine and send it to an FBI server in

Virginia. The FBI has been using the CIPAV since 2002 against hackers,

online sexual predator, extortionists and others, primarily to identify

suspects who are disguising their location using proxy servers or anonymity

services, like Tor.

 

The code has been used sparingly in the past, which kept it from leaking out

and being analyzed or added to anti-virus databases.

 

The broad Freedom Hosting deployment of the malware coincides with the

arrest of Eric Eoin Marques in Ireland on Thursday on an U.S. extradition

request. The Irish Independent reports that Marques is wanted for

distributing child pornography in a federal case filed in Maryland, and

quotes an FBI special agent describing Marques as "the largest facilitator

of child porn on the planet."

 

Freedom Hosting has long been notorious for allowing child porn to live on

its servers. In 2011, the hactivist collective Anonymous singled out Freedom

Hosting for denial-of-service attacks after allegedly finding the firm

hosted 95 percent of the child porn hidden services on the Tor network.

 

Freedom Hosting is a provider of turnkey "Tor hidden service" sites -

special sites, with addresses ending in .onion, that hide their geographic

location behind layers of routing, and can be reached only over the Tor

anonymity network.

 

Tor hidden services are ideal for websites that need to evade surveillance

or protect user's privacy to an extraordinary degree - which can include

human rights groups and journalists. But it also naturally appeals to

serious criminal elements.

 

Shortly after Marques' arrest last week, all of the hidden service sites

hosted by Freedom Hosting began displaying a "Down for Maintenance" message.

That included websites that had nothing to do with child pornography, such

as the secure email provider TorMail.

 

Some visitors looking at the source code of the maintenance page realized

that it included a hidden iframe tag that loaded a mysterious clump of

Javascript code from a Verizon Business internet address located in eastern

Virginia.

 

By midday Sunday, the code was being circulated and dissected all over the

net. Mozilla confirmed the code exploits a critical memory management

vulnerability in Firefox that was publicly reported on June 25, and is fixed

in the latest version of the browser.

 

Though many older revisions of Firefox are vulnerable to that bug, the

malware only targets Firefox 17 ESR, the version of Firefox that forms the

basis of the Tor Browser Bundle - the easiest, most user friendly package

for using the Tor anonymity network.

 

"The malware payload could be trying to exploit potential bugs in Firefox 17

ESR, on which our Tor Browser is based," the non-profit Tor Project wrote in

a blog post Sunday. "We're investigating these bugs and will fix them if we

can."

 

The inevitable conclusion is that the malware is designed specifically to

attack the Tor browser. The strongest clue that the culprit is the FBI,

beyond the circumstantial timing of Marques's arrest, is that the malware

does nothing but identify the target.

 

The heart of the malicious Javascript is a tiny Windows executable hidden in

a variable named "Magneto". A traditional virus would use that executable to

download and install a full-featured backdoor, so the hacker could come in

later and steal passwords, enlist the computer in a DDoS botnet, and

generally do all the other nasty things that happen to a hacked Windows box.

 

But the Magneto code doesn't download anything. It looks up the victim's MAC

address - a unique hardware identifier for the computer's network or Wi-Fi

card - and the victim's Windows hostname. Then it sends it to the Virginia

server, outside of Tor, to expose the user's real IP address, and coded as a

standard HTTP web request.

 

"The attackers spent a reasonable amount of time writing a reliable exploit,

and a fairly customized payload, and it doesn't allow them to download a

backdoor or conduct any secondary activity," says Tsrklevich, who

reverse-engineered the Magneto code.

 

The malware also sends, at the same time, a serial number that likely ties

the target to his or her visit to the hacked Freedom Hosting-hosted website.

 

In short, Magneto reads like the x86 machine code embodiment of a carefully

crafted court order authorizing an agency to blindly trespass into the

personal computers of a large number of people, but for the limited purpose

of identifying them.

 

But plenty of questions remain. For one, now that there's a sample of the

code, will anti-virus companies start detecting it?

 

Update: 8.5.13 12:50 According to Domaintools, the malware's

command-and-control IP address in Virginia is allocated to Science

Applications International Corporation. SAIC is a major technology

contractor for defense and intelligence agencies, including the FBI.



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.