Wednesday, 14 August 2013

The Blow That Killed America 100 Years Ago


Aug 13th, 2013
The Blow That Killed America 100 Years Ago
Paul Rosenberg

"There is a lot of ruin in a nation," wrote Adam Smith. His point was that it takes a long time for nations to fall, even when they're dead on their feet. And he was certainly right.

America took its fatal blow in 1913, one hundred years ago; it just hasn't hit the ground yet. This is a slow process, but it's actually fast compared to the Romans. It took them several centuries to collapse.

The confusing thing about our current situation is that America – and by that I mean the noble America that so many of us grew up believing was real – has long been poisoned. Its liver, kidneys, and spleen have all stopped functioning. Its heart beats slowly and irregularly. But it still stands on its feet and presents itself as alive to all those who would let their eyes fool them.

And I'm not without sympathy for those who want to believe. They find themselves in a world where politics is almighty, and where their comfort, prosperity, and perhaps their survival all hang in a delicate balance. They don't want to upset anything, and questioning the bosses is a good way to get yelled at.

But just because someone wants to believe doesn't make it so. We are not children and we are not powerless. We Producers should never be intimidated by those who live at our expense. So let's start looking at the facts.


1913: The Horrible Year

For all the problems America had prior to 1913 (including the unnecessary and horrifying Civil War), nothing spelled the death of the nation like the horrors of 1913.

Here are the key dates:


February 3rd:
The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, authorizing the Federal government to impose income taxes on individuals. An amendment to a tariff act in 1894 had attempted to do this, but since it was clearly unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck it down. As a result – and mostly under the banner of bleeding the rich – the 16th amendment was promoted and passed.

As a result, the Revenue Act of 1913 was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in October. Income taxes began in 1914, with the government swearing (as in, "only a crazy person would say otherwise!") that the rate would never, ever go higher than one or two percent.

And, by the way, the amendment was introduced by Senator Aldrich of Rhode Island, to whom we'll come again shortly.


April 8th:
The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, taking the powers of the states and transferring them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.

Previously, senators were appointed by state legislatures, restraining the power of the national government. This change gave political parties immediate and massive power, nearly all of which was consolidated in the city of Washington.

The amendment was ratified in the name of restraining the rich and making government into a force for good. It was true that state governments were often corrupt, but the implied idea that Washington was pristine was and remains a bad joke. A structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which oceans of money are gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:

It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.


December 23rd:
Woodrow Wilson signs the Federal Reserve Act, which had passed Congress just the previous day. This system – called the Aldrich Plan, and promoted by Senator Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island – gave a monopoly on the creation of dollars to a consortium of large banks.

The Act was passed, by the way, in the name of financial stability.

And Senator Aldrich? Wikipedia says this about him:

He… dominated all tariff and monetary policies in the first decade of the 20th century… Aldrich helped to create an extensive system of tariffs that protected American factories and farms from foreign competition, while driving the price of consumer goods artificially high… Aldrich became wealthy with insider investments in streets, railroads, sugar, rubber and banking… His daughter, Abby, married John D. Rockefeller, Jr., the only son of John D. Rockefeller.

I'll leave you to connect the dots on Aldrich, his family, the Rockefeller banking empire (Chase Manhattan and others), high political offices (such as Governor and Vice President Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller) and so on.


The Combination

Here is why I say that these three changes of 1913 killed America:


They robbed every producer in America of their money and handed it to politicians.

Until 1913, ordinary people kept their money. Carpenters, grocers, and repair men were able to make business loans and to retire on stock dividends. Once the income tax came in, however, politicians were empowered to skim off more and more of their money, which is precisely what happened. While the modern skim is multi-faceted, the average producer is now stripped of half his or her earnings every year, leaving politicians to spend it.


They consolidated all power in Washington DC.

This is precisely what James Madison wished to avoid when writing the US Constitution. (Again, note the Jefferson quote above.) By depriving the states of their remaining power, the City of Washington had no opposition. Since then, the Washington government has taken over practically everything on the continent and is choking it to death… a lot like the city and empire of Rome before it.


They created a money empire that took over almost everything.

When you start talking about the immense power of central banking, people generally turn away from it, because it's just too much to take. So, let me say it this way:

How much money could you make, if you knew precisely when interest rates would go up or down?

A lot, right? Well, that's exactly the power that these bankers have -- because they're the ones who set the rates.

Then, with that money, and with that foreknowledge, how many politicians could you pay off? How many pieces of legislation could you buy? Through all the financial problems of the past few years, which is the one group that has been protected at every step? Ever wonder why?

I could add more, but I think my point is made. America, as we grew up thinking of it, is dead. Whether the carcass hits the ground in days or decades is almost irrelevant; it's over.

The question that remains is what we'll do about it.

http://www.freemansperspective.com/1913-america/

Fwd: Cocktails and Self-Segregated Black Liberals









Cocktails and Self-Segregated Black Liberals

Aug14

Culture, Email Featured 59 comments

Talk about an incestuous relationship:  President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama attended a cocktail party this evening at the Martha's Vineyard home of National Public Radio host/serious journalist/dear friend and ally, Michele Norris.

After flying into the Vineyard this weekend and patiently awaiting the arrival of dozens of the president's basketballs and Bo the family dog, both of which arrived with a security detail on a Marine chopper the following day, the Obamas got all gussied up and moseyed on over to a cocktail party hosted by friends in the unbiased media.

Michele Norris is the race-obsessed journalist and former co-host of NPR's "All Things Considered."

Norris, her husband Broderick Johnson, and her family have been coming to racially segregated Martha's Vineyard for over 20 years.

To avoid a conflict of interest during the 2012 presidential campaign, ever the unbiased journalist, Norris took a leave of absence from NPR while her husband, Broderick Johnson, worked as a key adviser on Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.

Commenting on the self-imposed Martha's Vineyard racial segregation, black radio executive Skip Finley, who started vacationing in Oak Bluffs in 1954 and lives there full-time, said, "I don't think anybody's insulted by it. I'm certainly not."

According to Mr. Finley, "It's an arrangement that springs largely from the self-segregating impulse among black Vineyarders, who have come to the island to connect with each other."

Finley also claims that "We have people here who are black and upscale and racist. They don't want to be around white folks, and they don't have to."

In an interview with the Vineyard Gazette in 2011, Michele Norris said, "the family enjoys beach days at Long Point, swims at Seth's Pond in West Tisbury and biking," and that her memoir, The Grace of Silence, was sparked by "eavesdropping on conversations about race after the President's election in 2008."

That's precisely why the Obamas and their motorcade, after leaving Bo, Sasha and Malia and their huge entourage behind in the $7.6 million vacation compound, made their way to Nat's Farm Lane to the humble West Tisbury home of yet another minority couple segregating themselves in a nation that deprives blacks advantages all white Americans currently enjoy.

While at Michele and Brodrick's place, Shelley and Barry likely tossed back a couple of cocktails, discussed unbiased issues like the Trayvon Martin tragedy and Michele's Race Card Project, and before heading home, distributed air kisses all around.

So 'all things considered' it's safe to say that when listening to NPR, unlike that dreadful right-wing ideologue-infested Fox News, Americans always get a "fair and balanced" version of stories like Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS, and the NSA from personal friends and cocktail party hostesses to the First Couple.

 



__._,_.___







__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Nidal Hasan Soldier of Allah - Self Proclaimed: SOA Compounds Near Hasan in Washington, DC




 

New post on Maggie's Notebook

 

Nidal Hasan Soldier of Allah – Self Proclaimed: SOA Compounds Near Hasan in Washington, DC

by Maggie

Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan has repeatedly said he was a Soldier of Allah. Soldiers of Allah are not just a follower of Islam or even just a lone jihadi. Also known as SoA or SOA, Soldiers of Allah are an American-born, Pakistan-supported-group founded by Sheikh Mubarak Ali Gilani, who was the iman of a Brooklyn, New York mosque at one time. SOA has terrorist cell compounds located throughout the United States - some 31 locations (see the map below) - multiple of them located near Hasan's Washington DC location before moving to Fort Hood. His murders of 14, one unborn, is wholly protected by the Obama administration DOJ which determined the massacre was "workplace violence," not terrorism. This insanity and obscenity prevents Military victims from receiving valuable medical benefits they desperately need - while Hasan, now paralyzed from the waist down, gets the best care the Military can provide. Washington, D.C. is purposefully ignoring the threat of the Soldiers of Allah in the U.S. 

 

Nidal Hasan - Fort Hood Jihadist

With just days before he heads to trial, the accused Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Hasan, renounced his citizenship with the United States, repudiated his Army oath and publicly embraced — once again — his affiliation as a "Soldier of Allah."

The term Soldier of Allah is used by Gilani, but media are not tying the two together. Gilani's group worldwide is known as Jamaat al-Fuqra. "Al-Fuqra" and is the name also attached to the U.S. camps. Hasan spent years in Washington, D.C. where he had plenty of access to the Muslims of America (MoA) al-Fuqra compounds and influence before moving to Fort Hood and mowing-down U.S. soldiers with a gun in each hand.

 

Muslims_of_America (Jamaat al-Fuqra) in America

Jamaat al-Fuqra = al-Fuqra = Muslims of America = Soldiers of Allah

His beliefs were revealed on Thursday, via personal writings about American and Islam that were released to Fox News.

The documents included the acronym "SoA," widely believed to stand for "Soldier of Allah." In one Oct. 18, 2012, document, Maj. Hasan said it's not "permissible" for someone to choose America's political system over Shariah law, Fox News said. He also wrote that Muslims shouldn't "compromise their beliefs" for those who don't follow the tenets of Islam. Source: Washington Times

Nidal Hasan's radicalism was known to the U.S. Military, yet 14 died, many wounded critically and maimed. This movement of American-born and bred jihad is huge. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) freely walks the halls of Congress, places interns in Democrat lawmaker's offices, and drives the public fight to keep the DHS, FBI and Congress looking the other way. Combine that with the Military, the Executive branch and the DOJ protecting Muslims from scrutiny, and America, we have a bigger problem than jihadis overstaying their Visa.

Related (also see Fort Hood Jihad here): 

Just Another Guy in the Neighborhood

Nidal Hasan's Beard – Still Against Military Regs – He Still Gets Paid: Fear of Military Retrial and Appeals

Nidal Hasan Trial Details: 8-2-13: Verdict Must Be Unanimous or Two-Thirds Vote of the Jury Panel – Panel Must Outrank Hasan

 



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: [New post] CAIR demands Obama act to stop massacre of “pro-democracy” Muslim Brotherhood terrorism supporters





BareNakedIslam posted: " FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CAIR Says Obama Must Act Against Massacre of "Pro-Democracy" Protesters in Egypt (WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/14/13) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organizatio"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

CAIR demands Obama act to stop massacre of "pro-democracy" Muslim Brotherhood terrorism supporters

by BareNakedIslam

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CAIR Says Obama Must Act Against Massacre of "Pro-Democracy" Protesters in Egypt (WASHINGTON, D.C., 8/14/13) -- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization, today called on the Obama administration to take concrete steps to end the ongoing massacre of "pro-democracy" protesters in Egypt and […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | August 14, 2013 at 4:28 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-X00

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/2013/08/14/cair-demands-obama-act-to-stop-massacre-of-pro-democracy-muslim-brotherhood-terrorism-supporters/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Obama Promises to Act UnConstitutionally on Climate Change; Senator Says Obama should be sued




 

 

Kerry: Obama Will Act on Climate Change Without Congressional Approval

August 14, 2013 - 7:10 AM


By Susan Jones

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry adjusts his earphone during a joint press conference with Brazil's Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota at Itamary Palace in Brasilia, Brazil, Tuesday, Aug. 13, 2013. (AP Photo/Evaristo Sa, Pool)

(CNSNews.com) - At a joint news conference with his Brazilian counterpart on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry praised Brazil for its commitment to climate change initiatives, and he promised that the Obama administration also is determined to do something about it.

"So the challenge is ahead of us, for all of us, and I know that the United States has a great commitment under President Obama to take our own initiatives, not even to wait for congressional action, but to move administratively in order to do our part. I know we can continue to work with Brazil on this issue of climate, and we look forward to doing so."

President Obama repeatedly has said he won't wait for Congress to act -- on jobs, recess appointments, immigration, gun control, and other issues -- where "we can act administratively without additional congressional authorization, and just get it done," as he said in October 2011.

Congressional Republicans have done little more than complain about the president exceeding his constitutional authority. One of the most vocal critics is Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, who told Fox News on Monday that he agrees with those who say that Republicans should sue the president to check his executive overreach:

"I would sue," Paul told Sean Hannity. "We did sue over the recess appointments (to the National Labor Relations Board). Remember, the president declared a (congressional) recess even though we said we weren't in recess? And the court has rebuked him severely on this. When it goes to the Supreme Court, I think they're going to once again say he usurped power that's not his. We should do the same thing here," Paul said, referring to Obama's decision to delay various elements of the new health care law.

On Tuesday, Sen. Paul told Fox News, "The way our country works is, legislation is written by Congress, passed by your representatives. The president doesn't get to write legislation. And it's illegal and unconstitutional for him to try to change legislation by himself."

'Phase down hydrofluorocarbons'

Back in Brazil, Kerry touted his longtime concern about climate issues, noting that he has "great memories" of his first trip to Brazil for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio -- where he met his wife Teresa.

Kerry said the mission now is "very clear."

"We need to inspire meaningful reform and action within the Major Economies Forum (on Energy and Climate Change). We need to lead the effort to phase down hydrofluorocarbons in the Montreal Protocol. (Hydrofluorocarbons are "greenhouse gases" used for refrigeration and air conditioning.) And together, Brazil and the United States need to join with other countries in an effort to negotiate a climate agreement in 2015 that is ambitious and flexible and that works for all of us."

The first question posed to Kerry at the news conference had nothing to do with climate change. A reporter asked him about "this issue of espionage -- and if by any chance...the United States will stop spying..."

Kerry told the Brazilian reporter he was prepared to take such a question, and that he would answer it. But first, he urged the people of Brazil to "stay focused on the important realities of our relationship."

In response to the spying question, Kerry said he wouldn't discuss "operational issues," but he did say that "all three branches of the American government have been involved in reviewing" the NSA surveillance program.

He said the Obama administration will continue to discuss the issue -- "with a view to making certain that your government is in complete understanding and complete agreement with what it is that we think we must do to provide security, not just for Americans but for Brazilians and for people in the world.

"So I would respectfully say to everybody that the United States, as the president said last Friday, the United States gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations in order to protect their citizens, in order to protect our citizens. And our activities are firmly based on law and they are subject to oversight by all of the branches of our government. We are convinced that our intelligence collection has positively helped us to protect our nation from a variety of threats, not only protect our nation but protect other people in the world, including Brazilians."

Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota called concerns about the NSA data-gathering program "legitimate," and said the "clarification process" is "not an end in itself."

Kerry, in response, said the U.S. "will guarantee that Brazil and other countries will understand exactly what we're doing, why and how, and we will work together to make sure that whatever is done in a way that respects our friends and our partners..."

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: You're invited to Who wants to do an Obama Mask Flash Mob Protest? When? Where?



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Washington D.C. Libertarian Meetup <info@meetup.com>
Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 5:23 PM
Subject: You're invited to Who wants to do an Obama Mask Flash Mob Protest? When? Where?
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


 
Meetup
 

Unsubscribe from similar emails from this Meetup Group

Add info@meetup.com to your address book to receive all Meetup emails

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163

Meetup HQ in NYC is hiring! meetup.com/jobs


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: The Unsavory Truth About Violent Young Blacks & the Media







http://clashdaily.com/2013/08/the-unsavory-truth-about-violent-young-blacks-the-media/

 

The Unsavory Truth About Violent Young Blacks & the Media

By Donald Joy / 14 August 2013 / 95 Comments

By now, many readers have seen the recent school bus video showing a bunch of black teenage drug-dealers savagely beating and stomping a 13-year-old white boy, breaking his arm and causing him other injuries, while the older black male bus driver stands right there and does nothing but watch (while radioing in vain to dispatch for help, which of course cannot possibly come in time).

Incidents of black-on-white violence like this have been epidemic in our society for years, but you wouldn't know it if you get your information from the establishment media.

Unfortunately for everyone, and contrary to what those holding most positions of power in our society would have you know, black males–especially younger ones–are extremely more likely than members of other demographic groups to be violent criminals who attack, rob, and even murder, for a few dollars or merely for sport.

According to FBI statistics, including Uniform Crime Reports and National Crime Victimization Surveys from across the country, young black males commit upwards of 50% of all murders and other violent crime in the United States. This is despite their representing only about 3% of the country's entire population.

In 2010, young blacks committed homicide at nearly 14 times the rate young whites did.

Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice-versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.

Even though many in our society are already aware of these facts, the media and authorities are engaged in such a politically-correct coverup of the extent of the situation that there are still those millions and millions of brainwashed liberals who rush to join the hand-wringing over the number of black men in prison, alleging that such is the result of "institutional racism" in our criminal justice system, and endlessly bemoaning "the perpetuation of negative stereotypes" about black males.

Nowhere is it discussed on CNN, or ABC, or in the New York Times or People magazine, the phenomenon practiced by so many young black males known as "the knockout game" or "knockout king"–a widespread, sometimes deadly game wherein a group of young blacks stealthily approach a random, unsuspecting white or sometimes Asian person in a public place, and one or more of the group suddenly punching their victim in the face/head as hard as they can, to see if they can knock them unconscious, and thereby achieve "street cred" and bragging rights among their peers.

Often, the mob beatings aren't merely simple sucker-punch attacks, but take the form of all-out melees in which victims are struck with objects, stomped, and kicked in the face and head repeatedly by numerous, swarming "youths." Incidents sometimes feature random, innocent motorists being dragged out of their cars and beaten to a bloody pulp by large crowds of young blacks.

Then of course are the frequent, disturbing videos and reports of school bus attacks, wherein blacks often gang up on a solitary, defenseless white kid and beat/disfigure him or her mercilessly on the ride home, usually accompanied by official indifference, and outright rallying to the side of the attackers by members and leaders of the black "community."

Back in 2006, instead of being seen as criminals representing a failed subculture of violence and social breakdown, the "Jena Six" were treated as heroes by broader black society and by the white Left. Two of the them were brought onstage at the annual Black Entertainment Television Hip-Hop Awards show to a standing ovation, personally presenting Kanye West with the Video of the Year award.

Tragically, the "knockout game" not only frequently results in permanent, serious, debilitating injuries and comas for victims, but also sometimes instantaneous or eventual death. Multiple instances of white senior-citizen war veterans, elderly asian couples, and even younger and middle-aged innocents attacked by violent blacks have turned into murder cases when victims did not survive the onslaughts.

These activities are also known among young blacks as "polar bear hunting" (denoting the brutal stalking and attacking of whites for sport), and sometime take the form of flash-mob style rampages through shopping malls and state fairgrounds under the social media and text-message rallying tag, "beat whitey night." In cities across the land and almost everywhere blacks exist in any number, mobs of young blacks often swarm into convenience stores and retail shops, stealing ("flash-rob") and destroying everything in sight and attacking anyone who happens to be nearby, just for fun.

The videos of these swarming attacks often wind up on social media, on Facebook, Twitter, and on websites such as YouTube and WorldStarHipHop.com, frequently posted by the culprits themselves as a form of boasting about their exploits. There is no end to the daily, steady stream of countless videos and reports of mob attacks, some of them so gruesome and audacious that one wonders just how dishonest the media and authorities have to be to keep up the charade of concealment and denial about it all.

Usually, when local media reports are done on some incident which is impossible to ignore, the racial aspect is downplayed or denied outright by the editors and police. When some random, pregnant white woman is savagely beaten by a mob of violent blacks on a public bus or commuter train, the media and authorities refuse to treat it as a "hate crime." When an 11-year-old boy is doused with gasoline and set on fire on his own front porch by feral black teens shouting that it's "for Trayvon!!" the media and authorities are loathe to consider it a "hate crime" as they reflexively do in the occasional case of some white guy calling a black guy a name during a confrontation.

Instead, the young blacks are generally treated by media editors, mainstream organizations, and government officials as if they are merely acting out "social justice" ostensibly as a way of obtaining reparative vengeance for the long-past legacy of slavery and Jim Crow laws in America, or something. This is despite the fact that many of the online videos and incidents reported involve astonishing mayhem and wanton violence directed at not only whites, but also featuring appallingly savage and brutal behavior by blacks toward other blacks as well.

For the media editors and authorities to really accurately examine the thug-life propensities and evidence regarding Trayvon Martin, and to acknowledge the fact that young blacks like him deserve the fate that he met based on his attempted murder of Zimmerman, would mean that they'd have to dismantle their agenda and get down to the unpleasant and even offensive business of confronting the failures of Leftist policies, and of the black community with its 73% out-of-wedlock births and rampant criminality

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Fwd: Psychology 101






 

 

/If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.

 

As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water.

 

After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result ... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

 

Now, put the cold water away.

 

Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one.

 

The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs. To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him.

After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

 

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one.

 

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment...... with enthusiasm, because he is now part of the "team".

 

Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by the fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked.

 

Now, the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.

 

Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water.

Nevertheless, not one of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.

 

Why, you ask? Because in their minds...that is the way it has always been!

 

This, my friends, is how //Parliament// and Legislatures operate... and this is why, from time to time:

 

ALL of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME./

 

 

 

            =



__._,_.___
 




   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
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.

How “Conservative” Is Your Senator?

"But what we don't expect is for the average score of Republicans to be a dismal 70.64 percent. Eight Republicans have a failing score; that is, below 60. Eleven of them have a 60­just barely above failing. This means that 19 Republicans scored lower than the 2 Democrats who received a passing score. Only 1 Republican senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, scored a 100. The darling of conservatives, Marco Rubio, only scored an 80­that is a B-. Even Utah's Orin Hatch scored an 80. Poor John McCain­he scored a 56. I wonder how many conservatives voted for him for president in 2008? Would McCain have been any better than Obama? I argue no here ."

How "Conservative" Is Your Senator?
By Laurence M. Vance
August 14, 2013

One of the main tenets of conservatism is supposed to be fidelity to the Constitution. Let's see how Republicans in the U.S. Senate who tout their conservatism at every election measure up.

Democrats have controlled the U.S. Senate since the 110th Congress began in January of 2007. The Senate is currently composed of 52 Democrats, 46 Republicans, and 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine) who both caucus with the Democrats. But even though Republicans in the Senate are the opposition party, they aren't living up to the conservative principles they claim to adhere to.

So, my question for every Republican is simply this: How "conservative" is your senator?

Fortunately, this is an easy thing to determine. But since most Republicans don't bother to check the conservative credentials of those whom they put in office, I will do it for them.

Every three months, the New American magazine publishes a congressional scorecard based on the Constitution called "The Freedom Index." It rates congressmen "based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements." The first index for the 113th Congress has just been released.

Since Republicans are always talking about their fiscal conservatism and fidelity to the Constitution, "The Freedom Index" seems like a good way to put them to the test.

A senator's score is determined by dividing his good; that is, constitutional, votes on ten representative bills by the total number of good and bad votes he cast, and then multiplying the answer by 100 to turn it into a percent. The closer a senator's score is to 100, the more "conservative" he is.

The votes tracked this time were concerning Hurricane Sandy disaster relief, increasing the debt limit, the Keystone XL Pipeline, a balanced-budget resolution, the UN Arms Trade Treaty, an "assault weapons" ban, a high-capacity clip ban, Internet sales tax, product labeling for genetically modified food, and farm programs (including funding for food stamps).

The average Senate score is 41 percent. Only two Democrats (Begich of Alaska and Manchin of West Virginia) received a passing score of 60 or above. A few Democrats scored a big fat zero­as we might expect.

But what we don't expect is for the average score of Republicans to be a dismal 70.64 percent. Eight Republicans have a failing score; that is, below 60. Eleven of them have a 60­just barely above failing. This means that 19 Republicans scored lower than the 2 Democrats who received a passing score. Only 1 Republican senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, scored a 100. The darling of conservatives, Marco Rubio, only scored an 80­that is a B-. Even Utah's Orin Hatch scored an 80. Poor John McCain­he scored a 56. I wonder how many conservatives voted for him for president in 2008? Would McCain have been any better than Obama? I argue no here.

Senate Republicans would have scored even worse had "The Freedom Index" tracked any votes this time that related to foreign affairs. Just look at the recent 86-13 vote in the Senate against Rand Paul's proposal to cut off foreign aid to Egypt. The Republican vote was 33-13.

It is a myth that electing more Republicans to the Senate so that the GOP can control both houses of Congress would make the country better off. If you think Republicans are bad as the opposition party, you ought to see how bad they are when they are in the majority. Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency for over four years under George W. Bush and what did it do for America but put us on the road to bigger government, further indebtedness, increased spending, and more tyranny. Almost every bad policy of Obama can be traced back to the Bush years.

But it's not just the national government. We have had more Republicans elected to office on the federal, state, and local levels in the last twenty years than at any time in recent memory and probably not since Reconstruction. Republicans even control the House, Senate, and governorship in several states. Yet, we have more government, more government debt, more government spending, and more government tyranny at all levels than ever before­EPA, TSA, DHS, NSA, DEA, IRS, FBI, foreign military interventions, drone strikes, drug war, police brutality, etc.

Why on earth would anyone, and especially libertarians, think that voting Republican at any level would solve any problem or make things any better?


http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/laurence-m-vance/how-conservative-is-your-senator/

Obama and His “Most Evident” Right: Equality


Obama and His "Most Evident" Right: Equality
by James Bovard August 14, 2013

In his second inaugural address, Barack Obama quoted the Declaration of Independence and hailed "the most evident of truths ­ that all of us are created equal." Obama never explained why "created equal" was more evident than the right to liberty. He understands that he can capture far more power by invoking equality than he could by promising to respect Americans' liberty.

For thousands of years demagogues have sown and exploited confusion between equal rights and a right to equality. Equal legal rights are the foundation of a free society. Equal rights mean that government must treat all people equally ­ it must not discriminate on the basis of status, income, class, or race. Equal rights are the antithesis of politicians' right to forcibly equalize different citizens or groups.

Equal rights ensure that each person is entitled to the fruits of his labor; a right to equality demands that each receive the same portion, regardless of the amount or value of his labor. Equal rights allow each sovereignty over his own action; the right to equality requires that government continually intervene and direct individual action to ensure equal results. Equal rights allow each to be his own master, for good or ill; a right to equality requires that the community control all its members to ensure and preserve their equality. Equal rights allow each to prosper as chance and skill decide; a right to equality demands "affirmative action," "reverse discrimination," and continual expropriation to benefit the least successful. Equal rights mean that each can succeed or fail under a set of general rules; a right to equality means that no rule can be tolerated that fails to provide equal results.

In the modern world, no one did more to make equality the supreme political value than French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. He recognized two types of inequality:

One, which I call natural or physical, because it is established by nature, and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind or the soul; and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention, and is established, or at least authorized, by the consent of men. This latter consists of the different privileges which some men enjoy to the prejudice of others, such as that of being more rich, more honored, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience.

Rousseau conceded that men were not equal, but insisted that "society" treated them more unequally than they actually were. He sought not perfect equality, but inequalities acceptable to his moral sentiments. Lenin said, "Freedom is a precious commodity, so precious that it needs to be rationed"; and most egalitarians feel the same way about equality. It is not equality, but government certified and regulated inequalities that egalitarians seek. The inequalities will sometimes be more and sometimes less than what now exist, but the important thing is that benevolent administrators will control all inequalities to ensure their fairness.

Marx's supposed utopia was based on the "withering away of the state" ­ the assumption that once reform was completed, the new social system would perpetuate itself without the need for continual supervision and coercion. But in every equalization attempt, there is a perpetual, increasing need for government coercion. As long as the state continues to aggress, there can be no equality between private citizens and government czars. But when the state reduces its oppression, the natural inequalities of talent and ambition quickly reappear and wreak havoc on intellectuals' social blueprints.

Obama declared in his inaugural address that "our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts." And who is to determine their deserts? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been legendary for using an iron fist to pick winners and losers. The EEOC has epitomized the arbitrary approach that is consistent only in giving itself maximum pretexts to dictate to businesses, universities, and anyone else who falls under its sway. The EEOC has also epitomized the deceit at the core of equalization, since the agency has perpetually denied that it is mandating quotas at the same time that it threatens to destroy companies with the wrong percentage of minorities or women in each job category.


The equalized and the equalizers

In recent decades many liberals have become far more attached to equality than to democracy. Ronald Dworkin, one of the most respected legal philosophers of the past half century, declared, "A more equal society is a better society even if the citizens prefer more inequality." Cornell University political scientist Andrew Hacker concurred: "Citizens should be given the blessings of equality whether they want them or not."

This has been especially evident in education policy, where activists and professors have found one pretext after another to seize control over schooling in the name of equality. Forced busing was one of the clearest examples of this mania, and its nature was especially stark in the cradle of contemporary liberalism. In 1974 Boston residents voted 15 to 1 against busing schoolchildren to achieve racial integration. A month later, federal judge Arthur Garrity ignored the popular vote and made himself czar of Boston schools. He effectively decreed that, because the schools were supposedly unconstitutionally segregated, neither parents nor students nor anyone else had any rights. Garrity ordered the speedy imposition of a "Master Plan" that he later admitted he had not bothered to read.

Forced busing was the equivalent of throwing a bomb into a classroom. Under Garrity's decree schools in Roxbury, a low-income black area, and South Boston, a poor white Irish area, were merged. The National Guard was called out to restore order after violent public protests and racial clashes near the schools; even the 82nd Airborne Division was put on alert for Boston duty. Garrity responded by banning all public meetings in South Boston.

Forced busing exemplified the local dictatorship of the Best and the Brightest. There was far more enthusiasm among Boston elites for iron-fisted equalizing than for democracy. Harvard's Center for Law and Education was co-counsel for the case that spurred Garrity's power grab. The vast majority of college presidents in the Boston area embraced his takeover of the schools. Professors rushed to enlist in the Brain Trust to centrally micro-manage every classroom. Social scientists moved children around a chess board with the same alacrity that generals choose regiments for suicide charges. At the same time, most of the equalizers made sure their own kids were not pulled into the vortex.

In the coming years Boston's forced busing would be a prototype for more government interventions across the land. There is little recognition among much of the political elite of the havoc that has been inflicted in the name of equality in many areas of modern life. Obama's inaugural theme, for instance, spurred jubilation among liberals. The Washington Post headlined its report on Obama's speech, "Obama Calls for Greater Equality for All."

Unlike Obama, the Founding Fathers would never have placed equality at the pinnacle of rights ­ especially since they recognized how its pursuit could unleash rulers. This was a common saying in 18th-century America: "The restraint of government is the true liberty and freedom of the people." But in Obama's vision, freedom arises after government extends its domain deeper into people's lives. He declared, "We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few…. The commitments we make to each other ­ through Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security ­ these things do not sap our initiative; they strengthen us." Obama's rhetoric rings hollow to anyone who has ever filled out federal income-tax forms or been forced to pay a 15 percent "self-employment tax" for Social Security. Social Security and Medicare have vastly increased citizens' dependency on their rulers and on arbitrary decrees by Congress and federal
administrators.

Social Security was supposedly launched to ensure that old folks had a basic minimum. As time went on, politicians and bureaucrats found one pretext after another to extend their control to more of people's lives. But paternalism is the antithesis of equality, as it assumes that some are so capable and others are so incompetent that the former must commandeer the latter.

Obama believes that equality provides him the ultimate political trump card. But differences among people's circumstances do not entitle politicians to take over their lives. Coercing people to make them unequal would be as much a violation of their liberty as coercing them to make them equal. If people are to be free, they must be free to be unequal. To insist that all use their freedom in an equal manner inevitably destroys that freedom.

Equality is the great red herring of our time. Few people actually desire equality, yet it is the standard for measuring almost every moral, political, and economic proposal. In almost all cases, the goal is not equality, but a different arrangement of inequalities. As long as society is divided into the equalizers and the equalized, there will be no equality.

This article was originally published in the April 2013 edition of Future of Freedom.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/obama-and-his-most-evident-right-equality/