Wednesday, 7 August 2013

Fwd: 2013 . nominations now open!

Please help us get some local libertarians into the list of people nominated.

Here are some suggestions:

Straight ally - Nick Gillespie (who covers gay issues in reason magazine) or Robert Sarvis (Virginia gubernatorial candidate).  Nick has been nominated already by me

Most committed activist - Bruce Majors (you actually got me into this category last year by nominating, so I was in the list of the 5 nominees people then voted on; Barney Frank won)

Gay politician - Laura Delhomme, Libertarian for Delegate (Arlington, VA) (a little bit gay will do)

Best realtor - Bruce Majors will appreciate a nod here too


http://www.washingtonblade.com/best-of-gay-d-c-nominations/#formBuilderCSSIDBest_of_Gay_DC_2013_Nomination_Form



-

Best of Gay D.C. Nominations

Best of Gay DC 2013

Best of Gay DC 2013

Nominate your favorites in any or all of the Best of Gay D.C. categories below. Come back once a day to nominate the people and businesses you think deserve recognition. Nominations are open until Aug. 16. The top five nominees in each category will move on to final voting to be held Sept. 8-Oct. 1. Check back for updates regarding the 2013 Best of Gay D.C. Awards party to be held Oct. 24.


Best of Gay DC 2013 Best Local People Categories
Best local LGBT musician
 ?
Best Bureaucrat
 ?
Our local heroine
 


--
--
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: Time Magazine Promotes A Childless Lifestyle As The Path To The Good Life For U.S. Couples

less white people


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:


 


Time Magazine Promotes A Childless Lifestyle As The Path To The Good Life For U.S. Couples

Posted: 05 Aug 2013 05:13 PM PDT

Childfree LifeThere is a relentless assault on the family in America today unlike anything that we have ever seen before.  For decades, the entertainment industry and the mainstream media have been portraying marriage as the time "when your fun is over" and they have been encouraging young adults to put off marriage for as long as possible.  So now the marriage rate in the United States is at a record low and the average age for a first marriage is at a record high.  Meanwhile, the entertainment industry and the mainstream media have been heavily promoting the philosophy that having fewer children is better, and they have been teaching our young people that abortion is a really good option if an unwanted pregnancy comes along.  The whole idea is that children are going to keep you from enjoying the kind of life that you really deserve to have.

This philosophy is taken even further in a new Time Magazine article.  The article is entitled "The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children", and it openly promotes a "childless lifestyle" as the path to the good life for young U.S. couples.  The following is how the article begins…

One evening when she was 14 years old, Laura Scott was washing dishes in the kitchen with her mother when she decided she didn't want to have a child. At 26, Scott got married and waited for her mind to change. "It never happened," she says. "And I realized I was going to be fine." Now 50, Scott is more than fine: she's fulfilled. And she's not alone. The birthrate in the U.S. is the lowest in recorded American history. From 2007 to 2011, the most recent year for which there's data, the fertility rate declined 9%. A 2010 Pew Research report showed that childlessness has risen across all racial and ethnic groups, adding up to about 1 in 5 American women who end their childbearing years maternity-free, compared with 1 in 10 in the 1970s.

The article goes on to point out that the average cost of raising a child born in 2011 to adulthood will be approximately $234,900, and it suggests that women should think long and hard before making such a commitment.

Well, what is a woman to do if she gets pregnant and she decides that raising that child will ruin her life?

According to the entertainment industry and the mainstream media, abortion is a very simple answer to that problem.

In America today, the vast majority of abortions are done for the sake of convenience.  Abortion is essentially a human sacrifice to our own selfishness, and there are millions upon millions of Americans that will go to any lengths to justify the murder of their own children.

In fact, it has gotten so bad that now many liberal thinkers are even postulating that life may not even begin at birth unless parents decide that it does.

Yes, that sounds absolutely insane, but that is apparently what MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry believes…

MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry thinks she has the answer to the ages old question of just when life begins. Her answer: life begins whenever parents "decide" it does.

Practically since the beginning of the national abortion debate the most fought over question between the pro-abortion and pro-life sides is just when does life begin? In an attempt to avoid the arbitrary, most try to utilize some sort of scientific reasoning to decide when life is life. The pro-life side says life begins as soon as the egg is fertilized while the pro-abortion side often contends that life isn't life until it is self-sustaining, meaning a fetus isn't "life" until it can survive outside the womb.

But here comes extreme left-winger Harris-Perry to offer the most arbitrary criteria of all: whenever anyone feels like life begins, then that is "life."

"When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling–but not science," Harris-Perry said on her July 21 MSNBC show.

As a result of our national obsession with selfishness, our population growth has now fallen below replacement rate.  The following is from a recent article by Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton

Meanwhile most Western nations are now facing a "baby bust," with population growth falling well below the replacement rate. The global fertility rate has fallen to 2.42 births in 2011 numbers (with 2.1 needed for statistical replacement, or, an equilibrium of human births). The United States, like other Western nations, has already fallen below replacement rate, with a population growth rate of 0.9% and falling, insufficient for continuity, which in turn affects the possibilities for economic growth.

Today we look around and wonder where we will get the trillions of dollars of retirement benefits that we have promised to the Baby Boomers.

Well, if we had not aborted more than 50 million babies since Roe v. Wade was decided, perhaps we would have enough workers to pay the bills.

And as I mentioned earlier in this article, our obsession with selfishness has also resulted in the U.S. marriage rate dropping to an all-time record low

The marriage rate has fluctuated in the past, with dips in the 1930s and 1960s, but it has been in steady decline since the 1970s. Now, researchers report that the marriage rate has dropped to a new low of 31.1, meaning there are about 31 marriages in the U.S. for every 1,000 unmarried women, researchers found. In 1950, that number was 90.2. In 1920, it was 92.3.

In America today, young men and young women are both taught that they need to put off marriage until their educations are done and their careers have started.

So instead of entering into committed relationships at a young age like previous generations did, our young people are being encouraged to embrace "the hookup culture".  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Mona Charen entitled "The New Brainwashing: Women Like Hookups"…

Fifty years on, we have this dispatch from the University of Pennsylvania: "Sex on Campus: She Can Play That Game Too," a New York Times account of the way women at one Ivy League school are supposedly "hooking up" in preference to having relationships. It's not that the sexual revolution actually favored men, the Times reassures its readers, it's just that women are too focused on careers to make time for men. They pursue sex with "hookup buddies" without a flicker of regret.

This is the new brainwashing. Women have been sold (and sold and sold) on the notion that happiness and fulfillment are to be found in careers. Marriage and children are items to be calendared after the MBA, J.D., or Ph.D. Sex is recreation. Getting attached to the human being behind the sex organ can limit your internship options.

Cheerleading articles like Hanna Rosin's 2012 Atlantic piece, "Boys on the Side," argue that far from enduring the "hook-up culture," women are enjoying their promiscuous freedom. The New York Times piece is in that mold.

In this type of environment, anyone that embraces the "old ways" is considered to be abnormal.

In fact, MTV plans to do a new "freaks on display" reality show about virgins that they hope will get very high ratings…

This as-yet-untitled show follows the lives of several abstinent young people (ages 18 to 25) trying to handle their love lives, parental sex talks, sexually active friends, and the pressure to give in to their temptations. Throughout each episode, MTV chronicles v-card-carrying cast members from across the country, all "plagued with the overwhelming question of keeping their virginity… or losing it."

Sadly, our entire society is rapidly rejecting traditional values regarding marriage, sex and family.  If you can believe it, Barack Obama recently even nominated someone for a federal judge position that believes that abstinence education is "unconstitutional".

Our nation is rapidly changing, and not for the better.  For much more on the all-out assault on the family in America, please see my previous article entitled "27 Facts That Prove That The Family In America Is In The Worst Shape Ever".

And whenever I post an article about marriage, sex or the family, it always provokes some very strong reactions.  Please feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…

Childfree Life

You are subscribed to email updates from The American Dream
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610


--
--
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.
 
 

Obama's Creeping Authoritarianism




 

 

Definition of AUTHORITARIAN

 

1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority <had authoritarian parents>

2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people <an authoritarian regime>

 

 

[No one can say the Wall Street Journal doesn't evolve. After years of treating this President like a run-of-the-mill liberal failure, they are belatedly coming to terms with the radical leftist that is Barack Obama. The irony is that denizens of the Internet (that is, not polite circles) have been saying this from Day One, or before. But since they/we use direct language that isn't in the stylebook, our observations aren't fit to repeat. Anyway, I'll take it: the WSJ is finally catching on. Time to take the gloves off, ladies and gents. No need to pull punches when the man in the White House is undermining the Constitution and tearing our great country apart. The American Street already knows. So what's taken you so damn long? df]

 

WSJ, WONDER LAND, July 31, 2013

Daniel Henninger: Obama's Creeping Authoritarianism

Imposed law replaces checks and balances.

 

If we learned anything about Barack Obama in his first term it is that when he starts repeating the same idea over and over, what's on his mind is something else.

 

The first term's over-and-over subject was "the wealthiest 1%." Past some point, people wondered why he kept beating these half-dead horses. After the election, we knew. It was to propagandize the targeted voting base that would provide his 4% popular-vote margin of victory—very young voters and minorities. They believed. He won.

 

The second-term over-and-over, elevated in his summer speech tour, is the shafting of the middle class. But the real purpose here isn't the speeches' parboiled proposals. It is what he says the shafting of the middle class is forcing him to do. It is forcing him to "act"—to undertake an unprecedented exercise of presidential power in domestic policy-making. ObamaCare was legislated. In the second term, new law will come from him.

 

Please don't complain later that you didn't see it coming. As always, Mr. Obama states publicly what his intentions are. He is doing that now. Toward the end of his speech last week in Jacksonville, Fla., he said: "So where I can act on my own, I'm going to act on my own. I won't wait for Congress." (Applause.)

 

The July 24 speech at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., has at least four references to his intent to act on his own authority, as he interprets it: "That means whatever executive authority I have to help the middle class, I'll use it." (Applause.) And: "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress."

 

Every president since George Washington has felt frustration with the American system's impediments to change. This president is done with Congress.

 

The political left, historically inclined by ideological belief to public policy that is imposed rather than legislated, will support Mr. Obama's expansion of authority. The rest of us should not.

 

The U.S. has a system of checks and balances. Mr. Obama is rebalancing the system toward a national-leader model that is alien to the American tradition.

 

To create public support for so much unilateral authority, Mr. Obama needs to lessen support for the other two branches of government—Congress and the judiciary. He is doing that.

 

Mr. Obama and his supporters in the punditocracy are defending this escalation by arguing that Congress is "gridlocked." But don't overstate that low congressional approval rating. This is the one branch that represents the views of all Americans. It's gridlocked because voters are.

 

Take a closer look at the Galesburg and Jacksonville speeches. Mr. Obama doesn't merely criticize Congress. He mocks it repeatedly. Washington "ignored" problems. It "made things worse." It "manufactures" crises and "phony scandals." He is persuading his audiences to set Congress aside and let him act.

 

So too the judiciary. During his 2010 State of the Union speech, Mr. Obama denounced the Supreme Court Justices in front of him. The National Labor Relations Board has continued to issue orders despite two federal court rulings forbidding it to do so. Attorney General Eric Holder says he will use a different section of the Voting Rights Act to impose requirements on Southern states that the Supreme Court ruled illegal. Mr. Obama's repeated flouting of the judiciary and its decisions are undermining its institutional authority, as intended.

 

The three administration nominees enabled by the Senate's filibuster deal—Richard Cordray at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Thomas Perez at the Labor Department and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy—open a vast swath of American life to executive authority on steroids. There won't be enough hours in the day for Mr. Obama to "act on my own."

 

In a recent Journal op-ed, "Obama Suspends the Law," former federal judge Michael McConnell noted there are few means to stop a president who decides he is not obligated to execute laws as passed by Congress. So there's little reason to doubt we'll see more Obamaesque dismissals of established law, as with ObamaCare's employer mandate. Mr. Obama is pushing in a direction that has the potential for a political crisis.

 

A principled opposition would speak out. Barack Obama is right that he isn't running again. But the Democratic Party is. Their Republican opponents should force the party's incumbents to defend the president's creeping authoritarianism.

 

If Democratic Senate incumbents or candidates from Louisiana, Alaska, Missouri, Arkansas, North Carolina, Montana and Iowa think voters should accede to a new American system in which a president forces laws into place as his prerogative rather than first passing them through Congress, they should be made to say so.

 

And to be sure, the other purpose of the shafted middle-class tour is to demolish the GOP's standing with independent voters and take back the House in 2014. If that happens—and absent a more public, aggressive Republican voice it may—an unchecked, unbalanced presidential system will finally arrive.

 

A final quotation on America's system of government: "To ensure that no person or group would amass too much power, the founders established a government in which the powers to create, implement, and adjudicate laws were separated. Each branch of government is balanced by powers in the other two coequal branches." Source: The White House website of President Barack Obama.



 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

Obama's national security silence is unacceptable





August 7, 2013

Obama's national security silence is unacceptable

Silvio Canto, Jr.

 

Day 3 of the embassy closings and now we are evacuating US personnel from the region. The UK, too! Again, we are not second guessing the US government. It's better to be safe than sorry.

Nevertheless, it's fair to criticize a mind set - the idea that somehow terrorists will go away if we stop thinking about them, announce early withdrawals or promise to close GITMO. This mind set has not made us stronger, safer or more respected, whatever "more respected" means.

The Washington Post makes this point today:

"From the beginning of his tenure, the president has been reluctant to build a legal framework that would assume that the fight against al-Qaeda and like-minded groups might go on for a long time. He not only proposed closing the prison at Guantanamo, rightly given its poisonous effect on the United States' image, but he also opposed options to hold prisoners taken in future operations. That may be one reason so many alleged terrorists have been killed during his time in office and so few captured. It also helps explain the quandary the United States faces with its non-Afghan prisoners when it transfers control of the Bagram prison to Afghanistan. The United States is holding prisoners of war without fully acknowledging the war.

The president also has sought to minimize U.S. involvement in dangerous countries as much and as quickly as possible. He failed to negotiate a follow-on force in Iraq, where violence is again spiraling out of control. He has resisted engagement in Syria, where vicious brigades associated with al-Qaeda are establishing beachheads. He has provided little assistance to Tunisia or Libya, where emerging democracies are struggling to contain Islamist militias. He surged troops to Afghanistan but simultaneously announced a timetable for their withdrawal, which is underway."

Add to this fine editorial that President Obama has not addressed the American people about any of these events.

We have a president who went out of his way to talk to the press about the Martin/Zimmerman verdict. He is now on an economic speaking tour as well. He will speak to Jay Leno again.

Do you recall the last time that a modern US president was so silent about issues of national security? I can't.

 


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/08/obamas_national_security_silence_is_unacceptable.html at August 07, 2013 - 04:04:08 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.
 
 

Al Qaeda Conference Call Intercepted by U.S. Officials Sparked Alerts




 

Exclusive: Al Qaeda Conference Call Intercepted by U.S. Officials Sparked Alerts by Eli Lake, Josh Rogin Aug 7, 2013 4:45 AM EDT It wasn't just any terrorist message that triggered U.S. terror alerts and embassy closures-but a conference call of more than 20 far-flung al Qaeda operatives, Eli Lake and Josh Rogin report.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/07/al-qaeda-conference-call-intercepted-by-u-s-officials-sparked-alerts.html

 

 

The crucial intercept that prompted the U.S. government to close embassies in 22 countries was a conference call between al Qaeda's senior leaders and representatives of several of the group's affiliates throughout the region.

130806-ayman-al-zawahri-lake-tease

 

This file image from video the AP obtained Feb. 12, 2012, from the SITE Intel Group, an American private terrorist threat analysis company, shows al-Qaeda's leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in a web posting by al-Qaeda's media arm, as-Sahab.

 

The intercept provided the U.S. intelligence community with a rare glimpse into how al Qaeda's leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, manages a global organization that includes affiliates in Africa, the Middle East, and southwest and southeast Asia.

 

Several news outlets reported Monday on an intercepted communication last week between Zawahiri and Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al Qaeda's affiliate based in Yemen. But The Daily Beast has learned that the discussion between the two al Qaeda leaders happened in a conference call that included the leaders or representatives of the top leadership of al Qaeda and its affiliates calling in from different locations, according to three U.S. officials familiar with the intelligence. All told, said one U.S.

intelligence official, more than 20 al Qaeda operatives were on the call.

 

To be sure, the CIA had been tracking the threat posed by Wuhayshi for months. An earlier communication between Zawahiri and Wuhayshi delivered through a courier was picked up last month, according to three U.S.

intelligence officials. But the conference call provided a new sense of urgency for the U.S. government, the sources said.

 

Al Qaeda members included representatives or leaders from Nigeria's Boko Haram, the Pakistani Taliban, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and more obscure al Qaeda affiliates such as the Uzbekistan branch.

Also on the call were representatives of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates such as al Qaeda in the Sinai Peninsula, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The presence of aspiring al Qaeda affiliates operating in the Sinai was one reason the State Department closed the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, according to one U.S. intelligence official. "These guys already proved they could hit Eilat. It's not out of the range of possibilities that they could hit us in Tel Aviv," the official said.

 

Al Qaeda leaders had assumed the conference calls, which give Zawahiri the ability to manage his organization from a remote location, were secure. But leaks about the original intercepts have likely exposed the operation that allowed the U.S. intelligence community to listen in on the al Qaeda board meetings.

 

On Tuesday's "Tonight Show," President Obama addressed the al Qaeda terrorist threat, saying it is "significant enough that we're taking every precaution."

 

    "This was like a meeting of the Legion of Doom."

 

"This was like a meeting of the Legion of Doom," one U.S. intelligence officer told The Daily Beast, referring to the coalition of villains featured in the Saturday morning cartoon Super Friends. The official said Zawahiri announced to the broader organization during the meeting that Wuhayshi had been promoted to "Ma'sul al-Amm," an Arabic term that roughly translates as "general manager." The promotion effectively gave the leader of al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen operational control of al Qaeda's many affiliates throughout the Muslim world, the official said, a key factor that led the State Department to close embassies, missions, and consulates throughout the region. "All you need to do is look at that list of places we shut down to get a sense of who was on the phone call," the official said.

 

Also during the meeting, the various al Qaeda leaders discussed in vague terms plans for a pending attack and mentioned that a team or teams were already in place for such an attack. For some leading members of Congress, the revelation that al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan is actively managing and directing the operations of several affiliates directly refutes the Obama administration's repeated assertion that the leadership of the core of the group has been decimated by American drone strikes and special operations forces while the affiliate groups have been strengthened.

 

"This may punch a sizable hole in the theory that al Qaeda is on the run,"

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told The Daily Beast on Tuesday.

 

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Obama often said that his administration's actions put al Qaeda "on its heels," although he later amended that claim to specify that he was referring to al Qaeda's core leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The administration continued to make that argument Monday.

 

"We've been clear that we have made a great deal of success against al Qaeda core in Afghanistan and Pakistan, that we have taken a number of steps to really decimate that group's leadership, including, of course, most importantly, Osama bin Laden," said State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf on Monday. "But at the same time, we've all made clear, from the president on down, that we remain very concerned about the affiliates, al Qaeda affiliates throughout the world. And in that-first on that list is always AQAP."

 

McCain said not only are the affiliates gaining strength but also that the core al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan is showing resilience, as evidenced by this latest news.

 

"The core seems to be able to able to reconstitute itself. The core also seems to be able to coordinate and manage the affiliates," he said. "There was a gross underestimation by this administration of al Qaeda's overall ability to replenish itself."

 

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

 

Eli Lake is the senior national-security correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously covered national security and intelligence for The Washington Times. Lake has also been a contributing editor at The New Republic since 2008 and covered diplomacy, intelligence, and the military for the late New York Sun. He has lived in Cairo and traveled to war zones in Sudan, Iraq, and Gaza. He is one of the few journalists to report from all three members of President Bush's axis of evil: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

Josh Rogin is senior correspondent for national security and politics for Newsweek and The Daily Beast. He previously worked at Foreign Policy magazine, Congressional Quarterly, Federal Computer Week magazine, and Japan's leading daily newspaper, The Asahi Shimbun. He hails from Philadelphia and lives in Washington, D.C.

 

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

(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with "Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.

The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

 

THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

 

 

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

Obama: An Obedient Saudi Servant To The End





Obama: An Obedient Saudi Servant To The End

August 7, 2013 by John Myers 

"(Saudi Arabia is) one of the worst, most draconian regimes in the world." — M. Zudhi Jasser, author of A Battle for the Soul of Islam: An American Muslim Patriot's Fight to Save His Faith

The news seemed shocking last week when the U.S. State Department announced that 19 embassies and consulates in the Mideast and Africa will be closed through this week.

The State Department said closures were out of an "abundance of caution" and "not an indication of a new threat." This is an abundance of caution? That is like saying you might not want to drive your car this week because it would be more cautious to stay home.

The truth is that if this Mideast mess keeps getting worse, you might not be able to drive your car because you might not have any fuel to fill it. One of the embassies that closed, just to be safe, is in Saudi Arabia — home to the largest conventional oil reserves in the world and the oil kingpin that has been dictating world oil prices since the Richard Nixon Administration.

And let us not forget the warning by our government to U.S. citizens that al-Qaida and extremist groups (who all just happen to be Muslim) may be planning terrorist attacks in the Mideast and North Africa.

Representative C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, D-Md., told ABC's "This Week" that the threat intercepted from "high-level people in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" was about a "major attack."

To date, there is not a mention by Washington of that evil empire to the north — the one that mines oil from oil sands, which, in turn, kills ducks. Apparently, the embassy in Ottawa, Ontario, is going to remain open. There are no travel warnings to Americans coming to Canada about blue-eyed sheiks.

Despite all this Mideast angst, President Barack Obama is dead set on supporting Arab oil exporters like Saudi Arabia while criticizing Canada's oil industry. It seems to the Obama Administration and his liberal green backers that it is worse to spew carbon into the atmosphere than it is to butcher Americans.

Obama is the worst to both worlds: a liberal and a neocon.

The United States continues to spend billions of dollars in Muslim kingdoms that, in turn, spend money to buy off al-Qaida. Better to pump up Islamic extremists than to trust Canadians, whom we fought in 1812.

It's not as though Obama is ignorant of the Mideast and Africa. He understands the region better than any President. For Pete's — I mean Muhammad's — sake, Obama had a Kenyan father who by all accounts was a die-hard Muslim.

The President addressed American policy on the Mideast two years ago:

Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.  Moreover, failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people will only feed the suspicion that has festered for years that the United States pursues our interests at their expense.  Given that this mistrust runs both ways –- as Americans have been seared by hostage-taking and violent rhetoric and terrorist attacks that have killed thousands of our citizens -– a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and the Arab world.

Speak whose mind, Mr. President? Not the people of Saudi Arabia, unless they want to be tied to the stake and lashed. No kidding, folks, the Saudis still embrace Middle Ages law and order. They proved it a couple of weeks ago when Raif Badawi, founder of the Free Saudi Liberals website, was sentenced to 600 lashes and seven years in prison.

No doubt, the king and royal princes think he had it coming. After all, he was convicted of insulting Islam, speaking ill of Saudi Arabia's religious police and, even worse, "parental disobedience."

It turns out Badawi is a brat that doesn't listen to dad. Keep in mind he is a 30-year-old man. When I was 30, I wasn't always making the choices in life my dad wanted; but he didn't have the religious police round me up and deliver the lash. In fact, the old man gave me my last spanking at age 11.

Hopefully, the lashes will be spread out over time; because if memory serves me from my days in history class, 100 of them delivered in one "sitting" will kill a person. Oh, well. That would be one less person to object to King Abdullah, the 80-year-old monarch, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques and a friend of Obama's.

Last month, King Abdullah and Obama met to discuss progress in the Mideast. What progress means to King Abdullah might be allowing women to ride a bicycle without being arrested and beaten. I am more interested in what Mideast progress means to Obama. I suspect it has something to do with locking in more oil from the region so he won't have to deal with those obnoxious Canadians and their obsession with beer and hockey.

Last week, CNNMoney ran this headline: "If Wall Street's right, Obama may nix Keystone."  The story, which is based on a Wall Street Journal article, reported that Obama is still on the fence regarding the passage of the Keystone oil sands pipeline and that he may turn it down because scientists have informed him that Canada's oil sands are thought to be some 17 percent more carbon intense than regular crude oil.

Seventeen percent! That is going to be the difference between getting oil from a dependable and civilized nation next door and getting it from the Mideast, which is imploding?

Note from the Editor: Hyperinflation is becoming more visible every day—just notice the next time you shop for groceries. All signs say America's economic recovery is expected to take a nose dive and before it gets any worse you should read The Uncensored Survivalist. This book contains sensible advice on how to avoid total financial devastation and how to survive on your own if necessary. Click here for your free copy.

The same month he meet with King Abdullah, Obama's Environmental Protection Agency said the pipeline was bound to have an impact on climate change.

At the end of July, the President gave an interview to The New York Times in which he pooh-poohed the number of long-term jobs that would be created by Keystone and said that if approved Keystone might actually cause gasoline prices to go up.

Obama said, "(O)il is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States. In fact, it might actually cause some gas prices in the Midwest to go up where currently they can't ship some of that oil to world markets."

That's a prime example of Marxist economic theory.

The Economist wrote that the President's comments amounted to a "kick in the teeth." A member of the government of Canada put it differently, saying that if Obama turns down Keystone it will be like a "kick in the balls."

It is starting to look like Obama will turn it down. It will create a deep divide between the United States and Canada, but perhaps Obama just wants to keep the greens happy and add to his liberal legacy. Another reason could be that he wants to stay on good terms with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Masjid al-Haram (The Sacred Mosque) in the city of Mecca. It seems what happens in Mecca stays in Mecca.

It also seems that Obama will remain an obedient Saudi servant to the bitter end. We'll have to see whether it is just to the end of his Presidency or if it's until the end of America.

Yours in good times and bad,

–John Myers

Filed Under: Conservative Politics, Personal Liberty Digest™

 

John Myers is editor of Myers' Energy and Gold Report. The son of C.V. Myers, the original publisher of Oilweek Magazine, John has worked with two of the world's largest investment publishers, Phillips and Agora. He was the original editor for Outstanding Investments and has more than 20 years experience as an investment writer. John is a graduate of the University of Calgary. He has worked for Prudential Securities in Spokane, Wash., as a registered investment advisor. His office location in Calgary, Alberta, is just minutes away from the headquarters of some of the biggest players in today's energy markets. This gives him personal access to everyone from oil CEOs to roughnecks, where he learns secrets from oil insiders he passes on to his subscribers. Plus, during his years in Spokane he cultivated a network of relationships with mining insiders in Idaho, Oregon and Washington

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.
 
 

Obama, NSA, Gulf of Tonkin, & Governing as Lying


Obama, NSA, Gulf of Tonkin, & Governing as Lying
By Jim on August 7, 2013

This is the 49th anniversary of Congress's passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, by which the Lyndon Johnson administration lied the nation into the Vietnam War.  The resolution was spurred by false assertions of multiple North Vietnamese attacks on U.S. ships.  At  a National Security Council meeting on the evening that the first report came in, Johnson asked, "Do they want war by attacking our ships in the middle of the Gulf of Tonkin?" CIA chief John McCone answered, "No. The North Vietnamese are reacting defensively to our attack on their off-shore islands. They are responding out of pride and on the basis of defense considerations." The fact was that the United States had orchestrated an attack by South Vietnamese commandos on North Vietnamese territory before the alleged conflict began. But Johnson lied and commenced bombing, and Congress rushed to cheer him on.

Last night, President Obama appeared on the Jay Leno show and declared: "We don't have a domestic spying program."  He explained: "What we do have are some mechanisms where we can track a phone number or an email address that we know is connected to some sort of terrorist threat."  Why would Obama continue to shovel such bilge?  Does he assume that no one has read a newspaper for the past 2 months, or what?

Here's a review essay I wrote for the American Conservative  in 2011 on how government lying has become pervasive.

Leviathan's Lies
Review of Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics, John J. Mearsheimer, Oxford University Press, 2011.
By James Bovard

Politicians nowadays treat Americans like medical orderlies treat Alzheimer's patients, telling them anything that will keep them subdued. It doesn't matter what untruths the people are fed because they will not long remember. But in politics, forgotten falsehoods almost guarantee new treachery.

This new book by John Mearsheimer, coauthor of the courageous masterpiece The Israel Lobby, is a step toward remedying the academy and media's disregard of political perfidy. Mearsheimer "concentrates on lies that are told in the service of the national interest. These strategic lies benefit the collectivity, unlike selfish lies, which benefit a particular individual or group of individuals." He explains that "strategic lies can do good things for a country, although there is always the possibility that they will do more harm than good." On the book's own evidence, there's more than a possibility.

Why Leaders Lie deals solely with foreign policy lies. Mearsheimer analyzes five different types: inter-state lies (to delude foreign governments), fearmongering (deceiving the citizenry by exaggerating a foreign threat), strategic cover-ups (such as denying military and other debacles), nationalist myths (dissimulating about the nation's sordid past), and "liberal lies" (such as denials about targeting foreign civilians).

Mearsheimer touts President Kennedy's deceits regarding the Cuban missile crisis as an example of a successful strategic lie. In a secret deal with Khruschev, JFK agreed to withdraw Jupiter missiles from Turkey to sway the Soviets to remove their missiles from Cuba. JFK vehemently denied that any such deal was made at the time, and the agreement was kept secret for 30 years.

But the lies had repercussions. The apparent U.S. triumph in the Cuban missile standoff sanctified JFK and increased the arrogance of the Best and the Brightest. The successful con on Cuba probably spurred more brazen lying by the Kennedy administration on Vietnam­with disastrous results for the United States.

Mearsheimer discovers that while national governments lie to each other much less often than readers might presume, rulers are far more likely to deceive their own people. This is especially troublesome because democracy is far more effective at breeding gullibility than at leashing politicians. Lord Bryce, author of The American Commonwealth, observed in 1921 that "State action became less distrusted the more the State itself was seen to be passing under popular control." The rise of democracy has enabled politicians to convince citizens that government poses no threat because they control its actions­or so the myth goes.

While some people regard political lies as negligible offenses, official deceits often prove fatal to foreigners. Mearsheimer quotes recent research concluding that "democracies are somewhat more likely than non-democracies to target [foreign] civilians" during wars. Why Leaders Lie examines the British government's brazen falsehoods about the intentional slaughter of German civilians in RAF bombing raids during World War II. "The British government did not want to tell its public that it was purposely killing civilians, because this was a gross violation of the laws of war."

Similarly, President Harry Truman told Americans in August 1945 that "the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians." But Hiroshima was actually a major city with more than a third of a million people prior to its incineration.

In recent times, the American media and Congress brushed aside almost all concerns about the slaughter of innocent people in Fallujah. Any cheery statement by a Pentagon spokesman was sufficient to prove that the U.S. military was blameless, regardless of how many Iraqi women and children were killed.

The lies of conniving politicians are compounded by kowtowing experts. In Washington, power is the highest truth. Credibility depends on titles, not veracity. Blind deference to authority might be expected from semi-literate peasants in some mountain hollow. But it is more of a problem coming from the academic elite and establishment heavyweights. Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council for Foreign Relations, admitted: "My initial support for the [Iraq] war was symptomatic of unfortunate tendencies within the foreign policy community, namely the disposition and incentives to support wars to retain political and professional credibility." As Daniel Ellsberg declared in 1970, the Pentagon Papers provided thousands of pages documenting "twenty years of crime under four presidents. And every one of those presidents had a Harvard professor at his side, telling him how to do it and how to get away with it."

Much of the mainstream media has long been happy to partner with Washington in deceiving the American people. Flora Lewis, a New York Times columnist, writing three weeks before 9/11, commented in a review of a book on U.S. government lies about the Vietnam War: "There will probably never be a return to the discretion, really collusion, with which the media used to treat presidents, and it is just as well." But within months of her comment, the media was as craven as ever. The Washington Post and the New York Times made it easy for Bush to con the nation into an unnecessary war against Arabs.

Mearsheimer deftly recounts some of the premier Bush administration lies paving the way to attacking Iraq. The administration was staffed with whiz kids whose philosophical training persuaded them to rise above mere facts. Many of the most prominent advocates of the Iraq War, such as Paul Wolfowitz, were devotees of Leo Strauss, renowned as a "philosopher of the noble lie"­on the assumption that truth is only for the elite.

One of the primary sources of misinformation that spurred the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a newly created Pentagon policy shop called the Office of Special Plans. Its director, Abram Shulsky­who received his doctorate under Strauss­co-wrote a 1999 essay that declared that Strauss "alerts one to the possibility that … deception is the norm in political life." Professor Shadia Drury, author of Leo Strauss and the American Right, notes that Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right­'the right of the superior to rule over the inferior'."

Politicians get away with lies in part because Americans are taught that anyone who disbelieves the government must be crazy­the same view the KGB took of Soviet dissidents in the 1970s. This prejudice was canonized in the work of former communist and Ivy League professor Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics. Top-ranking government officials exploited that notion to help deceive Americans into submission. At the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara declared that it is "inconceivable that anyone even remotely familiar with our society and system of government could suspect the existence of a conspiracy" to take the nation to war on false pretenses.  (After his retirement, McNamara joined the Washington Post's board of directors. So much for telling "truth to power.")

Lies subvert democracy by crippling citizens' ability to rein in government. Citizens are left clueless about perils until it is too late for the nation to pull back. As Hannah Arendt noted, during the Vietnam War "the policy of lying was hardly ever aimed at the enemy but chiefly if not exclusively destined for domestic consumption, for propaganda at home and especially for the purpose of deceiving Congress." CIA analysts did excellent work in the early period of the Vietnam conflict. But "in the contest between public statements, always over-optimistic, and the truthful reports of the intelligence community, persistently bleak and ominous, the public statements were likely to win simply because they were public," she observed.

Unfortunately, Why Leaders Lie does not provide a clear standard for judging official deceit. Should we presume that "good government" is when politicians lie to the people for the public benefit and "bad government" is when politicians lie for selfish interests? How can we distinguish between the two? We have to trust politicians to tell us which is which. According to Mearsheimer, if a leader is not lying about foreign policy for "selfish purposes" (such as "their own personal interests or those of their friends"), then he may deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Political lies are far more dangerous than most political scientists recognize. Big government requires Big Lies­and not just about wars but across the board. The more powerful centralized administration becomes the more abuses it commits and the more lies it must tell. The government becomes addicted to the growth of its own revenue and power­and this growth cannot be maintained without denying or suppressing the adverse effects of Leviathan's growth.

The more power government seizes, the more easily it can suppress the truth. The Obama administration's aggressive use of the "state secrets" doctrine to cover up the U.S. government's involvement in torture and other high crimes is typical of how the game is played in Washington. WikiLeaks has proven that U.S. foreign policy is far more dishonest than was commonly believed. Unfortunately, Americans have no legal way to commandeer government files until long after most power grabs are consummated.

Even so, both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were re-elected long after their chicaneries became obvious to attentive observers. But if people are content to be deceived, elections become little more than patients choosing which nurses will inject their sedatives. If the citizenry does not punish liars, then it cannot expect the truth. And the more arbitrary power the U.S. presidency possesses, the more it attracts the type of politician who will not hesitate to lie to capture office.

There is no reason to expect government to be more honest in the future than it has been in the past. The Obama administration's lies on Libya are eerily akin to the Bush team's lies on Iraq and the Clinton administration's lies on Kosovo. But deceiving the American people should no longer be treated as a victimless crime. Why Leaders Lie is a potent reminder of the perils of letting politicians rule by deceit.

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2013/08/07/obama-nsa-gulf-of-tonkin-governing-as-lying/