Sunday, 29 September 2013

Fwd: Obamacare Monday



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Keith Allard
Date: Sunday, September 29, 2013
Subject: Obamacare Monday
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


Bruce,

Did you see Justin's e-mail about what's happening this weekend in D.C.? 
 
I just spoke with Justin, and he confirmed that he and his colleagues are standing strong against Obamacare. Justin stayed up past midnight yesterday to vote on a legislative package that includes funding the government, postponing Obamacare for one year, repealing the medical device tax, and paying the troops. 
 
Harry Reid and the Senate? They took the weekend off! Reports say that the Senate won't come back to work until Monday afternoon, just hours before a partial government shutdown.
 
While Justin has been busy at work in D.C., I've been crunching numbers at the campaign office. Supporters like you were very generous this weekend, but we're still $5,627 short of our minimum target for the quarter, which ends tomorrow.
 
Justin needs to stay focused on his important work in D.C. We need to help him remain our voice in Washington. Will you step up by 11:59 PM on Monday and help us meet our quarterly fundraising minimum?
Thank you in advance for your support. Justin is able to make a big difference in Washington because of our work together.

Keith Allard
Deputy Campaign Manager
Justin Amash for Congress

Keith,

Monday is the deadline.
 
On Monday, the federal government's fiscal year ends. If President Obama remains unwilling to make a reasonable compromise by Monday, he will force the federal government into a partial shutdown.
 
I just met with Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Rand Paul to hash out our strategy for this weekend. Our latest offer to President Obama is to allow the government to operate at current spending levels in exchange for a postponement of Obamacare.
 
You and I know that Obamacare is a disaster for our country's economy. Even President Obama seems to have recognized this. He delayed a verification system for Obamacare subsidies. And just yesterday, he announced that health care exchanges for small businesses won't be ready by the deadline.
 
Monday also is a big deadline for my campaign.
 
On Monday, we close out the third fundraising quarter. Days later, we must report our fundraising totals to the public.
 
I have some bad news. At this moment, we remain $12,373 behind our quarterly minimum. And we've heard in the last few weeks that the Washington political class is scheming to take me out. If we don't hit our minimum target, they will be emboldened to run a challenger against me.

The good news is that we have the momentum. I never have been so optimistic about our chances of moving this country in the right direction. We are beginning to win on restoring fiscal sanity to our federal government and reining in out-of-control surveillance and unconstitutional war.
 
At this critical moment for our country and for our work together, I need your help.

Before Monday, would you send $20, $40, $100, or $250 to my campaign to help us reach our minimum fundraising target?
 
I pledge to continue being your voice in Washington. I will continue standing strong in the fight for liberty. But I can continue this fight only with your help right now.



In liberty,

Justin Amash

P.S. The third fundraising quarter closes on Monday. Please take a minute to donate to my campaign before then to show any potential opponents that I've got thousands of grassroots leaders standing with me.

Copyright © 2013 Justin Amash for Congress
All rights reserved. 
You are receiving this email because of your relationship to the Justin Amash for Congress campaign. You may unsubscribe by clicking the "unsubscribe" link.

Justin Amash for Congress
1500 E Beltline Ave SE, Ste 250
Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Add us to your address book


Paid for by Justin Amash for Congress



--
--
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: A government shutdown won't shut everything down

Typical bullshit from DC!!! How about these asshole who supposedly represent us ACTUALLY do something that is not theater!!! Christ, did they all study theater arts in college!!!


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:





 

Published on HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)

A government shutdown won't shut everything down

Congress's inability to agree on a spending bill has reached the crisis point.

Unless feuding legislators approve by midnight Monday a measure that keeps paying for federal operations at least temporarily, much of the government will shut down Tuesday.

That would mean hundreds of thousands of federal workers across the country being sent home indefinitely and scores of agencies or divisions left with little or no staff to handle the public's business.

But there would be large exceptions to the shutdown. President Barack Obama, all of Congress and many senior government officials would remain on the job - as would everyone in the military.

In Hampton Roads, where much of the economy depends on federal defense dollars, Tuesday's morning rush hour would probably be no less congested than usual.

Every sailor, Marine or other active-duty service member would report to work, as well as large numbers of civilian Defense Department workers.

Private shipyards building or repairing Navy vessels would continue operating at full force. Federal courts would be open. Air traffic controllers would be on the job at the airport. The mail would still be delivered.

That's not to say a government shutdown would go unnoticed. The immediate effect would be a halt to an array of government services, such as the processing of passports or Social Security applications and the enforcement of environmental laws.

If Congress reaches a compromise within a few days and the shutdown was short-lived, the economic effect on southeastern Virginia might be little more than a blip. The hardship would likely be limited to furloughed federal workers who might not get paid and others in need of fast action on a home loan approval or some other government service.

But if a shutdown dragged on, the fallout would grow as the stoppage of all federal activity deemed nonessential began to have a cumulative effect.

A prolonged impasse also could cause indefinite delays in military paychecks. Courts might have to close. And the economic impact of federal inaction on everything from defense contracts to federal permits to distribution of funds to cities and states would start to hit home.

Here's what to expect:

 

What would stay open?

For starters, U.S. defense and security operations at home and abroad would remain in place if they are deemed necessary to protect human life or prevent the destruction of property. The same standard would be followed in deciding what other federal services should continue.

Pentagon officials said they would require almost half the country's 800,000 civilian defense employees to be sent home until a spending plan is passed. In Hampton Roads, it's unclear how many of the 22,700 civilians employed by the Navy would be placed on leave.

Some government operations wouldn't be affected because they are exempted or self-funded. For example, the Postal Service would continue operations. Same for the National Weather Service. And federal taxes would continue to be collected.

 

Would military and civilian personnel who remain on the job be paid?

Eventually, yes. Their twice-monthly paychecks could be delayed until Congress passes a spending bill. The checks issued Tuesday to service members will be deposited ahead of a possible shutdown. However, if the government were to remain closed on the next payday - Oct. 15 - checks would be delayed. Defense officials expect that if a shutdown were to end within a week, there would be time to process payroll for the Oct. 15 checks.

It's less certain whether federal workers ordered to stay home would be paid for the mandatory furloughs. In past shutdowns, Congress has approved back pay, but given the tight fiscal times, that is not guaranteed.

Active-duty military may get some assistance from credit unions. The Navy Federal Credit Union has said that if a shutdown extends to the Oct. 15 payday, it would give those with direct deposit a pay advance.

 

Would Navy operations be curtailed?

Any military-related activity deemed crucial to protection of lives and property, such as the Navy's presence near Syria in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would be unaffected, Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale said Friday. However, naval training exercises off Virginia's coast could be stopped, he said.

 

What about military hospitals and commissaries?

Medical facilities, including Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, would remain open with no interruption in services for service members and their families.

Hale said it's likely commissaries would close.

 

Would Social Security or military pension payments be sent?

Yes. Those checks, as well as payments for Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, would be unaffected. However, the agencies would have smaller staffs and likely would not process new applications for entitlement or veteran benefits during the shutdown.

 

What about passport or loan applications?

With only skeletal staffs allowed to remain in many agencies, a shutdown could halt the processing of many federal applications. Among them:

* Passport applications at the State Department

* Firearm dealer permit applications with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

* And a variety of federal loan or grant applications, including those requested by students, small businesses, first-time homebuyers and local and state governments.

 

Would the government pay its bills on time?

In addition to postponing paychecks, the government would be unable to pay some private businesses that have contracts, depending on the situation. Any contracts already in place with fiscal year 2013 money would likely be paid. But new obligations for 2014 wouldn't be paid until Congress approves a spending bill.

 

Does Congress or the White House shut down?

No. While many staff members could be deemed nonessential and required to take leave, legislators and the president would continue to be paid, as is required under the U.S. Constitution. Appointed officials, including all federal judges, Cabinet secretaries and other senior officials, also would continue to work.

 

Would U.S.courts be open?

Federal courts would remain open at least through Oct. 14. If Congress hasn't begun funding the government by Oct. 15, "the Judiciary will reassess its situation," according to a U.S. Courts statement.


Source URL (retrieved on 09/29/2013 - 11:15): http://hamptonroads.com/2013/09/government-shutdown-wont-shut-everything-down

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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.



--
brine
http://brineb.blogspot.com/

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

Re: A government shutdown won't shut everything down

On Sunday, September 29, 2013 12:26:02 PM UTC-7, Travis wrote:
> Published on HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)
>
>
> A government shutdown won't shut everything down
> Congress's inability to agree on a spending bill has reached the crisis point.
>
>
> Unless feuding legislators approve by midnight Monday a measure that keeps paying for federal operations at least temporarily, much of the government will shut down Tuesday.
>
>
> That would mean hundreds of thousands of federal workers across the country being sent home indefinitely and scores of agencies or divisions left with little or no staff to handle the public's business.
>
>
> But there would be large exceptions to the shutdown. President Barack Obama, all of Congress and many senior government officials would remain on the job - as would everyone in the military.
>
>
> In Hampton Roads, where much of the economy depends on federal defense dollars, Tuesday's morning rush hour would probably be no less congested than usual.
>
>
> Every sailor, Marine or other active-duty service member would report to work, as well as large numbers of civilian Defense Department workers.
>
>
> Private shipyards building or repairing Navy vessels would continue operating at full force. Federal courts would be open. Air traffic controllers would be on the job at the airport. The mail would still be delivered.
>
>
> That's not to say a government shutdown would go unnoticed. The immediate effect would be a halt to an array of government services, such as the processing of passports or Social Security applications and the enforcement of environmental laws.
>
>
> If Congress reaches a compromise within a few days and the shutdown was short-lived, the economic effect on southeastern Virginia might be little more than a blip. The hardship would likely be limited to furloughed federal workers who might not get paid and others in need of fast action on a home loan approval or some other government service.
>
>
> But if a shutdown dragged on, the fallout would grow as the stoppage of all federal activity deemed nonessential began to have a cumulative effect.
>
>
> A prolonged impasse also could cause indefinite delays in military paychecks. Courts might have to close. And the economic impact of federal inaction on everything from defense contracts to federal permits to distribution of funds to cities and states would start to hit home.
>
>
> Here's what to expect:
>  
> What would stay open?
>
>
> For starters, U.S. defense and security operations at home and abroad would remain in place if they are deemed necessary to protect human life or prevent the destruction of property. The same standard would be followed in deciding what other federal services should continue.
>
>
> Pentagon officials said they would require almost half the country's 800,000 civilian defense employees to be sent home until a spending plan is passed. In Hampton Roads, it's unclear how many of the 22,700 civilians employed by the Navy would be placed on leave.
>
>
> Some government operations wouldn't be affected because they are exempted or self-funded. For example, the Postal Service would continue operations. Same for the National Weather Service. And federal taxes would continue to be collected.
>
>
>  
> Would military and civilian personnel who remain on the job be paid?
>
>
> Eventually, yes. Their twice-monthly paychecks could be delayed until Congress passes a spending bill. The checks issued Tuesday to service members will be deposited ahead of a possible shutdown. However, if the government were to remain closed on the next payday - Oct. 15 - checks would be delayed. Defense officials expect that if a shutdown were to end within a week, there would be time to process payroll for the Oct. 15 checks.
>
>
> It's less certain whether federal workers ordered to stay home would be paid for the mandatory furloughs. In past shutdowns, Congress has approved back pay, but given the tight fiscal times, that is not guaranteed.
>
>
> Active-duty military may get some assistance from credit unions. The Navy Federal Credit Union has said that if a shutdown extends to the Oct. 15 payday, it would give those with direct deposit a pay advance.
>
>
>  
> Would Navy operations be curtailed?
> Any military-related activity deemed crucial to protection of lives and property, such as the Navy's presence near Syria in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would be unaffected, Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale said Friday. However, naval training exercises off Virginia's coast could be stopped, he said.
>
>
>  
> What about military hospitals and commissaries?
> Medical facilities, including Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, would remain open with no interruption in services for service members and their families.
>
>
> Hale said it's likely commissaries would close.
>  
> Would Social Security or military pension payments be sent?
>
>
> Yes. Those checks, as well as payments for Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, would be unaffected. However, the agencies would have smaller staffs and likely would not process new applications for entitlement or veteran benefits during the shutdown.
>
>
>  
> What about passport or loan applications?
> With only skeletal staffs allowed to remain in many agencies, a shutdown could halt the processing of many federal applications. Among them:
>
>
> * Passport applications at the State Department
> * Firearm dealer permit applications with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
>
>
> * And a variety of federal loan or grant applications, including those requested by students, small businesses, first-time homebuyers and local and state governments.
>
>
>  
> Would the government pay its bills on time?
> In addition to postponing paychecks, the government would be unable to pay some private businesses that have contracts, depending on the situation. Any contracts already in place with fiscal year 2013 money would likely be paid. But new obligations for 2014 wouldn't be paid until Congress approves a spending bill.
>
>
>  
> Does Congress or the White House shut down?
> No. While many staff members could be deemed nonessential and required to take leave, legislators and the president would continue to be paid, as is required under the U.S. Constitution. Appointed officials, including all federal judges, Cabinet secretaries and other senior officials, also would continue to work.
>
>
>  
> Would U.S.courts be open?
> Federal courts would remain open at least through Oct. 14. If Congress hasn't begun funding the government by Oct. 15, "the Judiciary will reassess its situation," according to a U.S. Courts statement.
>
>
>
> Source URL (retrieved on 09/29/2013 - 11:15): http://hamptonroads.com/2013/09/government-shutdown-wont-shut-everything-down
>
>
>  
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __._,_.___
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __,_._,___

Do you blame Republicans or Democrats for this political stalemate?

--
--
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: A government shutdown won't shut everything down






 

Published on HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com)

A government shutdown won't shut everything down

Congress's inability to agree on a spending bill has reached the crisis point.

Unless feuding legislators approve by midnight Monday a measure that keeps paying for federal operations at least temporarily, much of the government will shut down Tuesday.

That would mean hundreds of thousands of federal workers across the country being sent home indefinitely and scores of agencies or divisions left with little or no staff to handle the public's business.

But there would be large exceptions to the shutdown. President Barack Obama, all of Congress and many senior government officials would remain on the job - as would everyone in the military.

In Hampton Roads, where much of the economy depends on federal defense dollars, Tuesday's morning rush hour would probably be no less congested than usual.

Every sailor, Marine or other active-duty service member would report to work, as well as large numbers of civilian Defense Department workers.

Private shipyards building or repairing Navy vessels would continue operating at full force. Federal courts would be open. Air traffic controllers would be on the job at the airport. The mail would still be delivered.

That's not to say a government shutdown would go unnoticed. The immediate effect would be a halt to an array of government services, such as the processing of passports or Social Security applications and the enforcement of environmental laws.

If Congress reaches a compromise within a few days and the shutdown was short-lived, the economic effect on southeastern Virginia might be little more than a blip. The hardship would likely be limited to furloughed federal workers who might not get paid and others in need of fast action on a home loan approval or some other government service.

But if a shutdown dragged on, the fallout would grow as the stoppage of all federal activity deemed nonessential began to have a cumulative effect.

A prolonged impasse also could cause indefinite delays in military paychecks. Courts might have to close. And the economic impact of federal inaction on everything from defense contracts to federal permits to distribution of funds to cities and states would start to hit home.

Here's what to expect:

 

What would stay open?

For starters, U.S. defense and security operations at home and abroad would remain in place if they are deemed necessary to protect human life or prevent the destruction of property. The same standard would be followed in deciding what other federal services should continue.

Pentagon officials said they would require almost half the country's 800,000 civilian defense employees to be sent home until a spending plan is passed. In Hampton Roads, it's unclear how many of the 22,700 civilians employed by the Navy would be placed on leave.

Some government operations wouldn't be affected because they are exempted or self-funded. For example, the Postal Service would continue operations. Same for the National Weather Service. And federal taxes would continue to be collected.

 

Would military and civilian personnel who remain on the job be paid?

Eventually, yes. Their twice-monthly paychecks could be delayed until Congress passes a spending bill. The checks issued Tuesday to service members will be deposited ahead of a possible shutdown. However, if the government were to remain closed on the next payday - Oct. 15 - checks would be delayed. Defense officials expect that if a shutdown were to end within a week, there would be time to process payroll for the Oct. 15 checks.

It's less certain whether federal workers ordered to stay home would be paid for the mandatory furloughs. In past shutdowns, Congress has approved back pay, but given the tight fiscal times, that is not guaranteed.

Active-duty military may get some assistance from credit unions. The Navy Federal Credit Union has said that if a shutdown extends to the Oct. 15 payday, it would give those with direct deposit a pay advance.

 

Would Navy operations be curtailed?

Any military-related activity deemed crucial to protection of lives and property, such as the Navy's presence near Syria in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would be unaffected, Pentagon comptroller Robert Hale said Friday. However, naval training exercises off Virginia's coast could be stopped, he said.

 

What about military hospitals and commissaries?

Medical facilities, including Portsmouth Naval Medical Center, would remain open with no interruption in services for service members and their families.

Hale said it's likely commissaries would close.

 

Would Social Security or military pension payments be sent?

Yes. Those checks, as well as payments for Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits, would be unaffected. However, the agencies would have smaller staffs and likely would not process new applications for entitlement or veteran benefits during the shutdown.

 

What about passport or loan applications?

With only skeletal staffs allowed to remain in many agencies, a shutdown could halt the processing of many federal applications. Among them:

* Passport applications at the State Department

* Firearm dealer permit applications with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

* And a variety of federal loan or grant applications, including those requested by students, small businesses, first-time homebuyers and local and state governments.

 

Would the government pay its bills on time?

In addition to postponing paychecks, the government would be unable to pay some private businesses that have contracts, depending on the situation. Any contracts already in place with fiscal year 2013 money would likely be paid. But new obligations for 2014 wouldn't be paid until Congress approves a spending bill.

 

Does Congress or the White House shut down?

No. While many staff members could be deemed nonessential and required to take leave, legislators and the president would continue to be paid, as is required under the U.S. Constitution. Appointed officials, including all federal judges, Cabinet secretaries and other senior officials, also would continue to work.

 

Would U.S.courts be open?

Federal courts would remain open at least through Oct. 14. If Congress hasn't begun funding the government by Oct. 15, "the Judiciary will reassess its situation," according to a U.S. Courts statement.


Source URL (retrieved on 09/29/2013 - 11:15): http://hamptonroads.com/2013/09/government-shutdown-wont-shut-everything-down

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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: I'm sorry, but we have to talk about the barbarism of Islamic terrorism






 

I'm sorry, but we have to talk about the barbarism of modern Islamist terrorism

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100238080/im-sorry-but-we-have-to-talk-about-the-barbarism-of-modern-islamist-terrorism/?fb

 

By Brendan O'Neill 

World 

Last updated: September 28th, 2013

The aftermath of an Islamist bomb directed at Pakistani Shiites (Photo: AFP/Getty)

 

In Western news-making and opinion-forming circles, there's a palpable reluctance to talk about the most noteworthy thing about modern Islamist violence: its barbarism, its graphic lack of moral restraint. This goes beyond the BBC's yellow reluctance to deploy the T-word – terrorism – in relation to the bloody assault on the Westgate shopping mall in Kenya at the weekend. Across the commentating board, people are sheepish about pointing out the historically unique lunacy of Islamist violence and its utter detachment from any recognisable moral universe or human values. We have to talk about this barbarism; we have to appreciate how new and unusual it is, how different it is even from the terrorism of the 1970s or of the early twentieth century. We owe it to the victims of these assaults, and to the principle of honest and frank political debate, to face up to the unhinged, morally unanchored nature of Islamist violence in the 21st century.

Maybe it's because we have become so inured to Islamist terrorism in the 12 years since 9/11 that even something like the blowing-up of 85 Christians outside a church in Pakistan no longer shocks us or even makes it on to many newspaper front pages. But consider what happened: two men strapped with explosives walked into a group of men, women and children who were queuing for food and blew up themselves and the innocents gathered around them. Who does that? How far must a person have drifted from any basic system of moral values to behave in such an unrestrained and wicked fashion? Yet the Guardian tells us it is "moral masturbation" to express outrage over this attack, and it would be better to give into a "sober recognition that there are many bad things we can't as a matter of fact do much about". This is a demand that we further acclimatise to the peculiar and perverse bloody Islamist attacks around the world, shrug our shoulders, put away our moral compasses, and say: "Ah well, this kind of thing happens."

Or consider the attack on Westgate in Kenya, where both the old and the young, black and white, male and female were targeted. With no clear stated aims from the people who carried the attack out, and no logic to their strange and brutal behaviour, Westgate had more in common with those mass mall and school shootings that are occasionally carried out by disturbed people in the West than it did with the political violence of yesteryear. And yet still observers avoid using the T-word or the M-word (murder) to describe what happened there, and instead attach all sorts of made-up, see-through political theories to this rampage, giving what was effectively a terror tantrum executed by morally unrestrained Islamists the respectability of being a political protest of some breed.

Time and again, one reads about Islamist attacks that seem to defy not only the most basic of humanity's moral strictures but also political and even guerrilla logic. Consider the hundreds of suicide attacks that have taken place in Iraq in recent years, a great number of them against ordinary Iraqis, often children. Western apologists for this wave of weird violence, which they call "resistance", claim it is about fighting against the Western forces which were occupying Iraq in the wake of the 2003 invasion. If so, it's the first "resistance" in history whose prime targets have been civilians rather than security forces, and which has failed to put forward any kind of political programme that its violence is allegedly designed to achieve. Even experts in counterinsurgency have found themselves perplexed by the numerous nameless suicide assaults on massive numbers of civilians in post-war Iraq, and the fact that these violent actors, unlike the vast majority of violent political actors in history, have "developed no alternative government or political wing and displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern". One Iraqi attack has stuck in my mind for seven years. In 2006 a female suicide bomber blew herself up among families – including many mothers and their offspring – who were queuing up for kerosene. Can you imagine what happened? A terrible glimpse was offered by this line in a Washington Post report on 24 September 2006: "Two pre-teen girls embraced each other as they burned to death."

What motivates this perversity? What are its origins? Unwilling, or perhaps unable, to face up to the newness of this unrestrained, aim-free, civilian-targeting violence, Western observers do all sorts of moral contortions in an effort to present such violence as run-of-the-mill or even possibly a justifiable response to Western militarism. Some say, "Well, America kills women and children too, in its drone attacks", wilfully overlooking the fact such people are not the targets of America's military interventions – and I say that as someone who has opposed every American venture overseas of the past 20 years. If you cannot see the difference between a drone strike that goes wrong and kills an entire family and a man who crashes his car into the middle of a group of children accepting sweets from a US soldier and them blows himself and them up – as happened in Iraq in 2005 – then there is something wrong with you. Other observers say that Islamists, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the individuals who attacked London and New York, are fighting against Western imperialism in Muslim lands. But that doesn't add up. How does blowing up Iraqi children represent a strike against American militarism? How is detonating a bomb on the London Underground a stab at the Foreign Office? It is ridiculous, and more than a little immoral, to try to dress up nihilistic assaults designed merely to kill as many ordinary people as possible as some kind of principled political violence.

We have a tendency to overlook the newness of modern Islamic terrorism, how recent is this emergence of a totally suicidal violence that revels in causing as many causalities as possible. Yes, terrorism has existed throughout the modern era, but not like this. Consider the newness of suicide attacks, of terrorists who destroy themselves as well as their surroundings and fellow citizens. In the 1980s and 1990s, there were an average of one or two suicide attacks a year. Across the whole world. Since the early and mid-2000s there have been around 300 or 400 suicide attacks a year. In 2006 there were more suicide attacks around the world than had taken place in the entire 20 years previous. Terrorists' focus on killing civilians – the more the better – is also new. If you look at the 20 bloodiest terrorist attacks in human history, measured by the number of causalities they caused, you'll see something remarkable: 14 of them – 14 – took place in the 1990s and 2000s. So in terms of mass death and injury, those terrorist eras of the 1970s and 80s, and also earlier outbursts of anarchist terrorism, pale into insignificance when compared with the new, Islamist-leaning terrorism that has emerged in recent years.

What we have today, uniquely in human history, is a terrorism that seems myopically focused on killing as many people as possible and which has no clear political goals and no stated territorial aims. The question is, why? It is not moral masturbation to ask this question or to point out the peculiarity and perversity of modern Islamist violence. My penny's worth is that this terrorism speaks to a profound crisis of politics and of morality. Where earlier terrorist groups were restrained both by their desire to appear as rational political actors with a clear goal in mind and by basic moral rules of human behaviour – meaning their violence was often bloody, yes, but rarely focused narrowly on committing mass murder – today's Islamist terrorists appear to float free of normal political rules and moral compunctions. This is what is so infuriating about the BBC's refusal to call these groups terrorists – because if anything, and historically speaking, even the term terrorist might be too good for them.

 

--



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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: Open Carry - Should You Scare Stupid Sheep?







http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/open-carry-support/

 

Open Carry – Should You Support it?

By Skip Coryell / 29 September 2013

 

I recently attended a sporting event which was abruptly cut short in the second half. The players left the field as did the coaches and officials. The spectators began filing out of the stadium, and I had no idea what was going on. So I asked, "Hey, why is everyone leaving?" I was told a man had brought a gun into the stadium, so school officials were ending the game for the safety of the players and fans.

I looked around at the people leaving. They were excited and all abuzz about what had just happened. No one seemed afraid or even a bit concerned. As I was getting into my vehicle a woman struck up a conversation with me. It went like this:

Woman: "Did you see that man with a gun?"

Skip: "No, I didn't see anything."

Woman: "They asked him to leave and he seemed upset."

Skip: "Oh."

Woman: "Why would anyone bring a gun to a school?"

I didn't answer her. Truth be told I was in legal possession of my concealed Glock Model 22 at that very moment. She just didn't know it, and I wasn't about to tell her. I thought to myself, Why scare the sheep? They've already had enough excitement for one night. Besides, I wouldn't want the poor woman to soil herself. So I let her go home to her FaceBook page where she could tell all her friends about her harrowing near-death experience.

The next day I read several news articles about the incident online. Turns out the man was openly carrying his firearm in a legal fashion, according to Michigan statute. So what was his sin? Only this – He scared the sheep. In the news, the coach was quoted as saying: "I thought it was necessary to clear the field of players and parents. It is regretful that the boys on both teams could not finish. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but I thought it best to err on the side of caution."

So, according to the media and the school, the pariah becomes the man who is openly exercising his Second Amendment rights.

Despite the social stigma, I sometimes choose to open carry. Sure, I hear all the arguments against open carry, but I choose to do it selectively at a time and place of my own choosing.

Argument: "If you are carrying openly, then you give away your tactical advantage."

Skip's answer: Maybe in some cases that's true. If a bad guy sees a little old lady openly carrying, then he might think, Hey, look! There's a free gun! But most open carriers I see are middle-aged men with heightened awareness, retention holsters, extra training and would be viewed as hard targets and not free firearms for the taking.

Case in point, I've advised my wife to carry concealed unless she's with me for that very reason. If you're going to open carry, then you need the training and physical and mental ability to protect that firearm. On the other hand there are very few documented cases of people being targeted while open carrying. When there are so many sheep grazing about, why take the chance?

Argument: "People who open carry are just show-offs, people looking for attention!"

Skip's answer: I used to think that, too – until I got to know a number of people who routinely open carry. From my experience, most of them are not show-boaters. They just have a different perspective on civil rights as well as a different personality.

Civil rights perspective – They view carrying a firearm as a fundamental human right whether concealed or exposed. Why should it matter whether or not people can see it? Most of them view it as an exercise in First Amendment rights as well. They have taken the Second Amendment "out of the closet" so to speak. A common saying among open carriers is "A right not exercised is a right lost."

Personality difference – Open carriers tend to be less concerned about what others think of them. They are free spirits, controlling their own destiny, refusing to go back into the closet for the comfort of the flock. They also tend to be bold and are not afraid of sheep or law enforcement confrontations.

But what does Skip Coryell think about it?

In the first edition of my book Blood in the Streets: Concealed Carry and the OK Corral, I made the following statement: "In my very humble opinion, in most scenarios, open carry is a bad decision. Open carry is stupid carry."

After educating myself and experiencing open carry firsthand on several levels, I revised my book to read: "I firmly believe that carrying a firearm is a choice, and whether you conceal it or openly display it is no one else's business. It's your God-given right whether hidden or revealed, so wear your gun with pride."

Now, more than ever before, gun owners are under attack by a unified and tenacious political enemy, backed up by an organized mainstream media more than willing to put the final death nail in the coffin of the Second Amendment. Open carriers have long been referred to as "The red-headed stepchild of the right to keep and bear arms family." I believe if we are to survive this assault with our basic human rights intact, it's time for the RKBA family to stick together and watch each other's backs. After all, you can pick your friends, but you're stuck with your relatives.


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/09/open-carry-support/#jczXZUBWslILuoS9.99



__._,_





   
__,_._,___


--
--
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 on Muslims & Christians (jaw-dropping)






http://dcclothesline.com/2013/09/28/20-obama-quotes-about-islam-contrasted-with-20-obama-quotes-about-christianity/

20 Obama Quotes About Islam Contrasted With 20 Obama Quotes About Christianity

Posted by Michael Snyder

You are about to read some of the most shocking quotes that Barack Obama has ever uttered in public.  A few of these have been widely circulated, but most of them are very obscure.  Even though he claims to be a Christian, throughout his political career Obama has repeatedly attacked traditional Biblical Christianity and he has a very long history of anti-Christian actions.  In public speeches he has repeatedly cast doubt on the Bible, he has repeatedly stated that he does not believe that Jesus is necessary for salvation, and he has consistently said that he believes that all "people of faith" believe in the same God.  At the same time, Obama has always referred to Muhammed as "the Prophet", he has always expressed great love and respect for Islam, and he has even removed all references to Islam from terror training materials used by federal government agencies.  So what in the world does "the leader of the free world" actually believe?  Read the quotes below and decide for yourself…

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Islam

#1 "The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam"

#2 "The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer"

#3 "We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country."

#4 "As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam."

#5 "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance."

#6 "Islam has always been part of America"

#7 "we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities"

#8 "These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam's role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings."

#9 "America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."

#10 "I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam."

#11 "Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace."

#12 "So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed"

#13 "In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education."

#14 "throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality."

#15 "Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality"

#16 "The Holy Koran tells us, 'O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.'"

#17 "I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week, and wish you a blessed month."

#18 "We've seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe."

#19 "That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear."

#20 "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story."

20 Quotes By Barack Obama About Christianity

#1 "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation"

#2 "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation."

#3 "Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?  Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination?  Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"

#4 "Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life."

#5 "The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics."

#6 From Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope: "I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex—nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount."

#7 Obama's response when asked what his definition of sin is: "Being out of alignment with my values."

#8 "If all it took was someone proclaiming I believe Jesus Christ and that he died for my sins, and that was all there was to it, people wouldn't have to keep coming to church, would they."

#9 "This is something that I'm sure I'd have serious debates with my fellow Christians about. I think that the difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and prostelytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they're going to hell."

#10 "I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.  I can't imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.  That's just not part of my religious makeup."

#11 "I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing."

#12 "I've said this before, and I know this raises questions in the minds of some evangelicals. I do not believe that my mother, who never formally embraced Christianity as far as I know … I do not believe she went to hell."

#13 "Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God's will–they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths."

#14 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: "If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount."

#15 "You got into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

#16 "In our household, the Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology"

#17 "On Easter or Christmas Day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites."

#18 "we have Jews, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and their own path to grace is one that we have to revere and respect as much as our own"

#19 "All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra — (applause) — as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer.  (Applause.)"

#20 "I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people."

About the author: Michael T. Snyder is a former Washington D.C. attorney who now publishes The Truth. His new thriller entitled "The Beginning Of The End" is now available on Amazon.com.

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


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