Thursday, 28 November 2013

Fwd: [New post] ACT! For America President Debates Islamic Shill

burkasrugly posted: "Fellow infidels, The president of ACT! for America, Brigitte Gabriel, debated Michael Ghouse a couple of days ago on the Sean Hannity show. Either Mr. Ghouse is attempting to spew taqqyia, or he is totally clueless. He is trying to defend Iran, but Bri"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on actjonesboroar

ACT! For America President Debates Islamic Shill

by burkasrugly

Fellow infidels,

The president of ACT! for America, Brigitte Gabriel, debated Michael Ghouse a couple of days ago on the Sean Hannity show. Either Mr. Ghouse is attempting to spew taqqyia, or he is totally clueless. He is trying to defend Iran, but Brigitte is having none of it. Watch the clip:

Notice near the end Ghouse states that "there is never going to be a caliphate."  Ha!  what a crock!  That is their whole aim, Mr. Ghouse, and YOU KNOW IT!

Until next time,


Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from actjonesboroar.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Fwd: Why Reporters in the U.S. Now Need Protection

Why Reporters in the U.S. Now Need Protection

Last night, ProPublica founder and executive chairman Paul Steiger received the Burton Benjamin Memorial award from the Committee to Protect Journalists. Here are his remarks.

In recent days I thought a lot about the 16 previous recipients of the Burton Benjamin award, and re-read the words from this platform of some of them.

Their words are inspiring. Their deeds are awesome. I am humbled and deeply honored to be among them.

The first honoree, in 1997, was Ted Koppel of ABC, who for a significant time brought serious reporting to late-night TV with sustained high quality. The most recent, last year, was Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian, who has the vision to be a leader in reinventing journalism for the digital age and the courage to challenge both his government and ours on the extent to which they spy on us. Together, and with those in between, they inhabit an arc of profound change that I want to reflect on briefly tonight.

The arc actually goes back to 1981, when Michael Massing and other young writers with overseas experience founded CPJ.

American journalists were still basking in the reflected glow of All the President's Men, the Robert Redford/Dustin Hoffman movie that five years earlier had won three Academy Awards and anointed Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and by implication all reporters as rock stars with typewriters. Yes, typewriters.

Woodward's and Bernstein's reporting in the Washington Post, based partly on tips from anonymous sources, helped drive President Nixon from office. This came only a few years after the Pentagon Papers case, in which the Supreme Court denied Nixon's motion to bar the New York Times and the Post from publishing leaks of the papers, which detailed abuses during the Vietnam War.  

U.S. journalists, in other words, were riding high.

What Michael and his young colleagues saw was that journalists in America had it far better than those abroad, particularly in repressive states. Americans had the protection of the First Amendment and the backing of wealthy, committed, and lawyer-stocked news organizations. In vast parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, reporters, editors, and broadcasters could be bankrupted, beaten, thrown into jail, or killed, by powerful people offended by what they wrote or aired.

As the experience of our incredibly courageous honorees tonight demonstrates, in many places around the world the life of a journalist who is determined to find and report the truth is no better today than it was 32 years ago. Reporters, editors, photographers, and publishers are still threatened, beaten, and murdered, often with impunity. The core mission of CPJ is just as critical as it ever was, in many respects more so.

What has changed is the position of us, American journalists. We are still far better off than our beleaguered cousins in danger zones abroad, of course.

But financially, I don't need to tell this group of the hammering our industry has taken in the last decade. Publications shrinking or even closing, journalists bought out or laid off, beats shrunk or eliminated.

And now, more recently, we are facing new barriers to our ability to do our jobs – denial of access and silencing of sources.

For the starkest comparison, I urge any of you who haven't already done so to read last month's report, commissioned by CPJ and written by Len Downie, former editor of the Washington Post. It lays out in chilling detail how an administration that took office promising to be the most transparent in history instead has carried out the most intrusive surveillance of reporters ever attempted.

It also has made the most concerted effort at least since the plumbers and the enemies lists of the Nixon Administration to intimidate officials in Washington from ever talking to a reporter.

Consider this:  As we now know from the Snowden documents, investigators seeking to trace the source of a leak can go back and discover anyone in government who has talked by phone or email with the reporter who broke the story. Match that against the list of all who had access to the leaked info and voila!

In my days editing the Wall Street Journal, I used to joke that no one in the Washington Bureau ever had an on-the-record conversation. Now I would have to wonder whether anyone was having any kind of conversation at all that wasn't a White House-sanctioned briefing.

It isn't just words. The White House has been barring news photographers from all sorts of opportunities to ply their craft. Routine meetings and activities of the president, of which they used to be able to shoot still and video images under certain constraints, now are often – not always, but often -- off limits, according to the American Society of News Editors, which is protesting the action, along with other groups.

The administration has invited news organizations to pick up images handed out by the press office or from the White House website. Sort of like saying, "just print the press release," as some corporate PR people used to say to me years ago when I asked for an interview with the CEO.

I don't mean to suggest that this administration is always and everywhere implacably hostile to journalists. After its snooping into communications of the Associated Press and of a Fox News reporter was revealed, the administration agreed to certain restraints.

It ostensibly agreed not to prosecute anyone for engaging in journalism.  News organizations will generally be given advance notice when the Justice Department wants access to their records, so that they can resist in court, and warrants for access to a reporter's records won't be sought unless the reporter is a target of a criminal investigation. Still, the government can waive these constraints if national security is involved.

CPJ chairman Sandra Mims Rowe noted in announcing the Downie Report last month that the founders of CPJ "did not anticipate the need to fight for the rights of U.S. journalists who work with the protection of the First Amendment." Limited resources, she said, had to be directed at countries with the greatest need. Even with declining revenues at U.S. news organizations, the principal need is still abroad.

But, she added, the time has come for CPJ to speak out against excessive government secrecy here at home. As just one supporter of CPJ, I agree. If we are going to be credible admonishing abusers of journalists abroad, we can't stand silent when it is going on at home.

One last thing.  I don't want to leave the impression that I'm in despair. I'm definitely not.

A couple of billionaires, Jeff Bezos and Pierre Omidyar, have put up several hundred millions of dollars in funding to, respectively, rebuild one great old platform – the Washington Post – and erect an entirely new one.

From New York to Texas to California, and in scattered places in between, non-profit reporting teams, ProPublica happily among them, are enjoying increasing success with both their journalism and their fundraising.

And new forms of web-based reporting like Buzzfeed are both attracting young audiences and sliding towards profitability. I was at first cranky the other day when Buzzfeed stole one of our brilliant senior editors. But then I realized his new job is to recruit half a dozen reporters and start an investigations team. For society and for journalism, that is progress.

We can't rest. We need to stand up in stout opposition whenever the First Amendment is challenged at home. We need to speak out, even more vigorously than before, when journalists are abused around the world. We need to keep finding and funding more inventive ways to carry out serious reporting.




Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Fwd: Just In Time For Thanksgiving: Obama Exposes Roswell And Area 51 Secrets!

Just In Time For Thanksgiving: Obama Exposes Roswell And Area 51 Secrets!

November 28, 2013 by Wayne Allyn Root 

Hello, I'm Wayne Allyn Root. Happy Thanksgiving to all my friends and readers at Personal Liberty. If you're a poll watcher like I am, Christmas has come early. Have you seen the poll numbers? Barack Obama's ratings are lower than a crackhead. Literally. Obama's popularity has fallen below the crack-smoking Mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford.

Obama's ratings are so low, even MSNBC won't take his calls. Obama's ratings are so low, even Nancy Pelosi is removing the Obama bumper sticker from her limo.

Obama's ratings are so low, senior citizens want Millard Fillmore back. Obama's ratings are so low, Jimmy Carter is back in vogue. Obama's ratings are so low, he called Hillary Clinton for advice, and she hung up.

Obama has sunk so low, he was caught asking Chris Christie for a pardon.

So knowing how the Chicago thugs in the White House operate, it's time for "the big reveal." It's time for the "nuclear option" of all distractions. It's time to induce hysteria. It's time to make the National Enquirer jealous. It's time for Obama to expose the secrets of Roswell and Area 51. It's time for Obama to pull out the spaceships, aliens and gamma-ray guns. We are Rome… so it's time for bread and circuses!

Obama's legacy has turned to crap. Everyone now knows the emperor has no clothes. Obama has been exposed as a liar, fraud and charlatan. The Chicago thugs in the White House can't allow that! Obama promised "free healthcare" and price reductions. Instead, we got massive new price increases that will bankrupt millions of Americans, force businesses to close and kill more jobs.

He famously promised, "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance." Millions have lost their policies. By next year, it could be 100 million (or more). He promised our quality of care would not be affected. Yet doctors are retiring by the thousands, and we've added 30 million patients.

Five million Americans have already lost their insurance, while only 100,000 have signed up for Obamacare. Five signed up in Washington, D.C. Five. In Obama country. And the website is defective. Everyone now realizes this is a man who spent hundreds of millions to build a website… that doesn't work. We just put that same guy in charge of your grandmother's cancer surgery? Oh vey.

Americans are finally waking up to the reality that "We wuz robbed." Someone obviously has a few hundred million dollars of our taxpayer money in a Swiss bank account. The FBI might want to start with Michelle Obama's Princeton Black Alumni buddy.

Then there are Obama's economic promises. His success there makes Obamacare look like a raving success. More Americans get government entitlement checks than are working in the private sector. More Americans are on food stamps than the population of Spain. Twice as many Americans now live in poverty under Obama, as the population of Syria. Fifty-seven percent of all the children in America are either living in poverty or defined as low income. Almost 50 percent of Americans have less than $500 in savings. And let's not forget the debt just went up $328 billion in one day — that's more than the budget deficit for the entire year 2007 under George W. Bush.

The jobs picture looks even worse than Obama's economy. Three years ago, my quote made headlines in TIME magazine. I said: "Obama is the great jobs killer. He's so good at killing jobs, he should be at the top of the FBI's Most Wanted List." Even I had no clue how right I'd turn out to be.

More than 100 million working-age Americans are no longer working. Food stamp growth is 75 times higher than job growth. The workforce participation rate is the lowest in modern history. Black unemployment is at 14 percent. Almost half of black teens are unemployed. And more than 80 percent of the jobs created since Jan. 1 are crummy, crappy part-time jobs. How bad is the Obama economy? Bangladesh is throwing an "Aid America" concert.

Then there are the nonstop scandals. And I mean serious scandals. Any one of them would force a President Richard Nixon out of office. Obama owns all of them.

Benghazi: More absurd lies than Obamacare, a possible arms deal with rebels gone bad and the cover-up of murder.

Fast and Furious: Another government arms deal gone bad, responsibility for the murder of a U.S. border guard, another blatant cover-up.

The National Security Agency scandal: Obama listens in to all of our calls. I hope he's listening to mine. He'll hear the word impeachment come up in every sentence.

The Associated Press scandal: Obama and paranoid buddies like Eric Holder are even illegally spying on their adoring Kool-Aid-drinking friends in the media.

The IRS scandal: To get re-elected, the Obama Administration sicced the IRS on Tea Party groups, conservative fundraisers and outspoken critics of Obama (like me). Their goal was to kill the political opposition, silence free speech and intimidate critics. These guys put the "thug" in Chicago!

The Census Bureau scandal: It appears government employees faked the unemployment numbers in the weeks leading up to the election to re-elect a President who wouldn't know what a job looked like, if it hit him in the face.

Oh, and let's not forget Obamacare: The world's first trillion-dollar Ponzi Scheme perpetrated with lies, misrepresentations and pure fraud by a late night Ginsu knife salesman named Obama.

Clearly, Obama has to change the conversation away from his record. Clearly it's time for the "weapons of mass distraction." It's time to pull out Roswell and Area 51. Aliens and spaceships should do the trick. It will take something that big to distract the public in time for the holidays.

Just understand what comes next. While Americans are watching the aliens, Obama will totally destroy what is left of the economy, the private sector, the American dream, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values and our relationship with Israel.

In other words, he'll finish the job.

I'm Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. God bless and happy Thanksgiving to you and your families. Let's give thanks for the greatest Nation God ever created — while we still have it.




Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Fwd: How the Muslim Brotherhood Dupes the West

How the Muslim Brotherhood Dupes the West

For several years many in the West debated if the Muslim Brotherhood was a moderate or a radical group. In fact, the Brotherhood managed to convince several decision makers in the U.S. and Europe that they are their "moderate" political partner. 

This has contributed to accepting such a group by U.S. decision makers despite the fact that the same group is the closest ally and shares the same ideology of Hamas, which is correctly classified by the U.S. as a terrorist organization.

Several reasons contributed to the inability of many Westerns to understand the true radical nature of the Brotherhood:

First: According to the beliefs of the Brotherhood, they achieve their ideological goals via the following four sequential steps:

 Step 1 -- Al-Daawa (Preaching);  Step 2 Al-Musharaka (Sharing power with others);  Step 3 Al-Tamkeen (Consolidating power);  Step 4 Al-Mughalab (Enforcing Sharia upon the others by force).

These sequential steps simply mean that an outside observer will not be able to see the violent nature of the group in the first three stages. In fact, the reason why most Egyptians turned against the Muslim Brotherhood was that they realized that the group was in Stage 3 and the next step for them, Stage 4, would have been Sharia rule, like the Taliban.

Had they reached Stage 4 in Egypt, it would have been impossible to remove them from power. Many Westerners simply could not see these stages, and thus continued to support the Brotherhood in the first three stages thinking that they are not a violent group.

It also worth mentioning that the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to accept things that contradict their true ideological beliefs such as allowing alcohol or freedom of women to dress as they want long as this can help them reach Stage 4.

Such temporary sacrifice ideologically is based on the Sharia principle of Tequia (deliberate deception of others until the person achieves power).

These stages also make it more difficult to recognize their reality before they reach their final stage that shows their reality (Stage 4).

Second: The Brotherhood has a policy of not doing the dirty work themselves, i.e. terrorism. They simply support other radical groups in a variety of ways to do this job on behalf of them. The pro-terrorists agenda of the Brotherhood can be elucidated in the release of hundreds of terrorists from Egypt prisons (while leaving pro-democracy activists in the prisons!). It can also be seen in trying to decrease international pressure on the radicals in Mali when Morsi objected to France's "interference" against them despite their heinous crimes against their population.

The Brotherhood's strategy of committing the violent acts themselves makes them look like a "moderate" group, however, a deeper analysis of their behavior shows clearly that they are pro-radicals.

Third: Various unusual tactics made it more difficult for outsiders to detect the real threat of this group.

 Some of these tactics include "covertly" encouraging a radical group such as Hamas to attack Israel while "overtly" positioning itself as the peace negotiator to gain trust of Westerners.  The ability of Hamas to reach the depth it did into Israel with their rockets for the first time only after Morsi came to power casts doubt on the common believe that the Muslim Brotherhood was truly interested in stopping Hamas from attacking Israel. 

Using words with two meanings is another tactic that allowed the Muslim Brotherhood  to deceive many in the West. For example, many Brotherhood members can insist that it is the right of any individual to choose his religion.

This is likely to be interpreted by many in the West as support for "Freedom of Religion," however, Brotherhood members will refrain from saying that, "It is also the right of any individual to leave his faith" as this will contradict their basic believe in the Redda Law of Sharia which allows killing those who convert from Islam to another believe system.

The use of such a tactic, allowed the Brotherhood to portray itself as a moderate group to many in the international community. 

 In this context it is vital to mention that Saiid Qutb, who promoted the use of violence to enforce Islam, is still the main spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is hard to believe that the Brotherhood is truly moderate while their main ideologue is the same person of the spiritual leader of Ayman Al-Zawherri. 

This would be like believing that a man is not anti-Semitic while his spiritual leader is Adolf Hitler! In fact, the similarity between the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic groups was made clear when former President Naser of Egypt said in one of his speeches that the first thing that the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood asked him to do when he met with him in 1953 was to force women to wear the hijab.

The second request was to close all movie theaters and ban movies. These are typically the first two things that Islamic radical groups from Mali to Somalia to Taliban do when they come to power.

The above reasons partially explain why many have failed to detect the real threat of the Muslim Brotherhood. This failure has resulted in political decisions that empowered them. Understanding the dynamics of the Muslim Brotherhood and how they work is fundamental to taking correct decisions regarding the Brotherhood organization.


Dr. Tawfik Hamid is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Hamid recognized the threat of radical Islam and the need for a reformation based upon modern peaceful interpretations of classical Islamic core texts. Dr. Hamid is currently a Senior Fellow and Chair of the study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.


·         Egypt

·         Muslim Brotherhood

Copyright © 2013 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

Source URL:





Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Fwd: Lies, Damned Lies And Government Statistics

Lies, Damned Lies And Government Statistics

November 28, 2013 by The Dollar Vigilante 


Mark Twain said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." — Mark Twain

With all due respect to Twain, he did not extend the thought far enough; government statistics trump all lies. But then again, the government's role as both pre-eminent statistics gatherer and manipulator is a phenomenon more applicable to our time. Today, various U.S. bureaus and agencies monkey with every key macroeconomic indicator: most notably, inflation, production (gross domestic product) and unemployment.


Since the early 1980s, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has engineered a lower "inflation" rate in the consumer price index (CPI) with such maneuvers as:

  • Accounting for "quality" improvements in goods ("hedonic adjustments"),
  • Replacing items in the basket of goods measured with lower-price items ("substitution"),
  • Decreasing the impact of rising prices by any particular good within the basket ("geometric weighting"),
  • And changing how rents are measured ("imputation").

The results? According to ShadowStats, which calculates inflation with the previous CPI methodology, inflation has been understated by 5 to 6 percentage points over recent years.

Gross Domestic Product

GDP, to the extent it is relevant at all, must be assessed in real terms (discounting the effects of inflation). Otherwise, how else could you discern economic growth from a mere rise in prices? Therefore, economists "deflate" GDP statistics by the rate of inflation to determine real changes in economic output. Curiously, instead of using the CPI in such calculations, the government uses a different price index, entitled personal consumption expenditures (PCE). Why? As the PCE index is chronically lower than the CPI, real economic growth appears higher than if the CPI were used. Not content with just this trick, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (there are a number of U.S. agencies which compile economic statistics) rolled out new guidelines for GDP calculation on July 31: Henceforth, expenses paid for research and development will be included to "capture" the benefits of intangible assets. GDP jumped 2.7 percent with the addition (every little bit helps), and future growth is projected to be higher with the change.


As of October, unemployment stood at 7.3 percent. Notwithstanding the previous month's rate of 7.2 percent, this represented its lowest level since December 2008 (7.3 percent), which appears an impressive rebound given its peak of 10 percent (October 2009). But the labor force participation rate, the statistic that measures the actively employed percentage of an economy's workforce, stands at a mere 62.8 percent (October) — a level not observed since 1978. The discrepancy? Literally millions of discouraged unemployed workers having ceased looking for work. In BLS calculations, if you do not have a job, you are unemployed. If you have been looking for years and have become so disillusioned as to end your efforts, you are no longer unemployed — but you still do not have a job.

We understand that many areas of the economy cannot be measured with any precision. In fact, the Austrian school of economics, to which we subscribe, was the first to point out the difficulties of measuring something as seemingly innocuous as the price level.

Because of such difficulties, it is reasonable to believe economists seek to improve their accuracy and worth. But when do refinement and improvement become, not a purpose, but a pretense for goosing the numbers? The aforementioned machinations prove we are already there.

However, worse than the manipulation of statistics to placate the populace and the financial markets is the reason the government is so interested in statistics. In his book Statistics: Achilles' Heel of Government, noted economist Murray Rothbard explained:

Statistics are the eyes and ears of the bureaucrat, the politician, the socialistic reformer. Only by statistics can they know, or at least have any idea about, what is going on in the economy. Only by statistics can they find out . . . who "needs" what throughout the economy, and how much federal money should be channeled in what directions.

Statistics are the critical tools of the central planners. Their growth in usage tracks the retrenchment of free markets from the economic landscape. Their manipulation reflects the deterioration of an economy.

Twain may have been a great author of fiction, but the U.S. government wins the Pulitzer.




Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Fwd: [New post] Irish respond to muslim invasion

traildustfotm posted: "A violent letter has been sent to the mosques and schools of Ireland. We at FOTM do not support violence, but are aware of muslim intimidations against all free people. Some Irish have decided to turn the tide of the muslim invasion, and betrayed by their"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Irish respond to muslim invasion

by traildustfotm

A violent letter has been sent to the mosques and schools of Ireland. We at FOTM do not support violence, but are aware of muslim intimidations against all free people. Some Irish have decided to turn the tide of the muslim invasion, and betrayed by their elected leaders, have issued a stark warning.

The Irish Resistance

The Irish Resistance

Irish Citizens Stand Against Muslim Invasion

Posted by:  Posted date: November 27, 2013 

Many Muslims in Ireland are shocked by a letter posted to schools and mosques declaring a war against them. They should be shocked that it has taken as long as it has for people across the world to start standing up against their campaign of intimidation.

Gutless politicians don't stand with the people anymore. In seemingly every country across the globe, the political positions are occupied by self-serving, pandering wimps. This letter is clearly born out of a frustration with a lack of positive action on the part of government officials and a willingness of the Irish to defend their nation by taking matters into their own hands. After all, the people are the ones who are chiefly affected, not the bureaucrats.

The anonymous letter has made the rounds of Muslim schools and mosques in Dublin.

While the Muslim groups have and will try to negatively label it otherwise, it is a call to arms for the Irish citizens to recognize the impact of the invasion and the deliberate efforts to supplant the Irish people, their culture, and their traditions with Islam and Sharia law.

The language of the letter is described as intimidating and extremely violent. The obvious neglect to mention the Islamic violence is so outlandish that it is barely deserving of a comment.

A rapid, demanding and threatening spread across the world towards their caliphate is a much publicized goal of Islam. Yet the non-Muslim citizens of the world still continue to ignore the truths that the Islamists themselves acknowledge.

To read the rest of this article in its natural habitat, go to the following link:

Again, FOTM does not promote violence. This is an article about one response in Ireland to the muslim invasion of their Christian nation. Jesus died for all who will turn to Him, including muslims. He wants to save them as much as He wants to save us. The letter spoken of here is poorly worded, violent, and reminiscent of the long conflict between Catholics and Protestants in that country. But people in this tiny island nation are feeling their backs to the wall, and recognize the mortal threat they are facing from jihadists moving into their country, demanding Christian statues be removed nation wide. 

So I put out a question.
How should the Irish respond? ~TD


Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Fellowship of the Minds.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:

Thanks for flying with

Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see
* Visit our other community at
* 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
For more options, visit

Nationalize Everything -- Even Thanksgiving

Nationalize Everything -- Even Thanksgiving
By Thomas DiLorenzo
November 28, 2013

"Nationalize as much as possible" to "make men love their country before their states.  All private interests, all local interests, all banking interests, the interests of individuals, everything, should be subordinate now to the interest of the Government." -- Senator John Sherman, 1863 (Cited in Heather Cox Richardson, The Greatest Nation on the Earth, p. 87
George Washington issued the first Thanksgiving Proclamation on October 3, 1789 as a way of celebrating the newly-ratified Constitution.  He distributed his proclamation to the governors of the states and suggested that they participate in the celebration, which the states all did in their own ways for many years.  The federal government was not yet a centralized, consolidated, monopolistic, central-planning bureaucracy, so Washington's proclamation was no more than a suggestion offered to the citizens of the free and independent states.

Thanksgiving did not become a national holiday until Lincoln nationalized all the state Thanksgiving celebrations by issuing a proclamation written by Secretary of State William Seward (according to Lincoln's White House secretary, John Nicolay) on October 3, 1863.   Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation is a masterpiece of lies, deceptions, and false propaganda that would have impressed any twentieth-century tyrant.

In order to keep the Northern public sufficiently frightened and paranoid (and hence supportive of the war), the Seward/Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation announced that the war "seemed to foreign States to invite and provoke their aggression."  In reality, no foreign state would ever have considered invading a country across a large ocean that had just assembled one of the largest and best-equipped armies in the history of the world.  In fact, at the end of the war many British politicians and opinion makers were terrified that Sherman would cross the Atlantic and invade England as punishment for trading with the Confederacy during the war.

The most absurd claim made in Lincoln's proclamation is that "order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theater of military conflict."  This was three months after some fifteen thousand U.S. Army soldiers were ordered to leave the Gettysburg battlefield and march to New York City to put down the New York City Draft riots, which they did by murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of draft protesters by shooting them down in the streets (See Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots).  Colonel Arthur B. Fremantle, a British government emissary to the Confederate Army, was making his way back to England via New York at the time and described the scene in his book, Three Months in the Southern States:

"The reports of outrages, hangings, and murder, were now most alarming, the terror and anxiety were universal. All shops were shut; all carriages and omnibuses had ceased running. No colored man or woman was visible or safe in the streets, or even in his own dwelling.  Telegraphs were cut, and railroad tracks torn up."

Violent mobs roamed the streets for days, wrote Freemantle, attacking the police and especially affluent Republicans who were able to buy their way out of the enslaving draft law for $300.  Such was the Seward/Lincoln idea of "harmony."  The fact that there was a massive desertion crisis in the Union Army (See Ella Lonn, Desertion During the Civil War), along with hundreds of thousands of draft evaders, also proves the absurdity of the claim that "harmony has prevailed" in the Northern States.

The notion that "the laws have been respected" is equally absurd, since Lincoln had illegally suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern citizens without due process on the mere suspicion of criticizing himself or the government ( See Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall).  Hundreds of Northern newspapers were shut down by Republican Party thugs in a gross assault on freedom of the press.  Lincoln redefined treason from the definition of it in the Constitution (Article 3, Section 3) as being the levying of war upon the states, which is exactly what he had done, to criticism of him and his regime.  These are just a few of the reasons why generations of historians referred to "the Lincoln dictatorship."  It was a lawless regime that boastfully lied about the laws being "respected."

When the South seceded it had no intention whatsoever of attacking the Northern states.  Jefferson Davis did not want to run the government in Washington, D.C. any more than George Washington wanted to run the government in London.  Yet the Seward/Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation speaks of "diversions of wealth" to "the national defense" (emphasis added).  But Lincoln was waging an offensive war, the purpose of which, according to his own numerous declarations and the declarations of the U.S. Congress, was to force the Southern states back into the union so that "the duties and imposts" can be collected from them, as Abe announced in his first inaugural address.

In the Northern states freedom of speech was essentially abolished; tens of thousands of political dissenters were imprisoned; taxes of every kind were raised to astronomical levels; hundreds of thousands of soldiers had already been killed or maimed for life in the war; inflation was raging; draft riots occurred not just in New York City but throughout the North; capital investment was massively diverted from civilian to military uses, thereby crippling economic growth; and international trade had almost come to a halt.  Yet the Seward/Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation cheerfully concluded that "the country" is "rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor."

This was an obvious attempt to falsely equate "the country" with "the government" in the minds of the public.  War always explodes the size, scope and powers of the state by crippling, diminishing, nationalizing, or destroying parts of the civil society and the private enterprise system.

Lincoln also claimed to know what was in the mind of God in his Thanksgiving Proclamation by asserting that God is "dealing with us in anger for our sins" by forcing a war on the nation.   This was also the main theme of Lincoln's second inaugural address – that the war was not in any way his fault, but just "came" as God's punishment for all Americans, North and South, for the sin of slavery.  Americans were "unavoidably engaged" in a war, he said in the Thanksgiving Proclamation.

Lincoln never attempted to explain why God would punish only Americans for the sin of slavery while ignoring the fact that some 95 percent of all the slaves that were brought to the Western Hemisphere were kidnapped and transported there by the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and  others besides Americans.

Lincoln concluded his Proclamation by urging the nationalization of Thanksgiving  by celebrating "with one heart and one voice by the whole American people."  It is unlikely that any American from a Southern state (which Lincoln always insisted were at all times a part of the American union) at the time would have been so motivated.

Our First Thanksgiving

"No country was ever more "underdeveloped" than the wilderness of New England on which our Pilgrim forebears set foot. The majority of those who landed from the Mayflower in December 1620 perished prior to that first great harvest of 1623. For two years they followed the age-old custom prevalent in England of "farming in common" -- and they starved.
"Through suffering, starvation, and hardship, they learned and applied the fundamentals of freedom -- and, instead of starvation, they grew crops sufficient not only for their own needs, but to spare, enabling them to exchange their surplus with the Indians for beaver and other "furrs.""

Our First Thanksgiving
NOVEMBER 01, 1959

Mr. Prentice is an economist, lecturer, writer, and Counselor on Profit Sharing, now living in Dobbs Ferry, New York.

Our American Thanksgiving Day is a unique holiday, a day set aside by Presidential Proclamation so that we may thank our Heavenly Father for the bountiful gifts he has bestowed on us during the year.

It is also a day dedicated to the Family, the basic unit of our American society, the core and center around which all else in America revolves. This, too, is in accord with our basic religious faith, for the Commandment has come down to us to "honor thy father and thy mother."

And so, from wherever we may be, North, South, East, or West, we Americans travel, sometimes great distances, back to the family hearth, to be present at the traditional Family Reunion and Feast on Thanksgiving Day.

But Thanksgiving Day has still another meaning; on this day we are asked to remember what Edmund Burke, in one of the most eloquent phrases to be found in all literature, described as "that little speck, scarce visible in the mass of national interest, a small seminal principle, rather than a formed body" -- the tiny vessel, more accurately to be described as a "cockleshell," the Mayflower, and its hundred passengers, men, women, and children, who sailed on her.

Twelve years earlier, in 1608, they had fled from religious persecution in England and established a new home in Holland. Despite the warm welcome extended by the Dutch, as contrasted with the persecutions they had endured in England, their love for their homeland impelled them to seek English soil on which to raise their children, English soil on which they would be free to worship God in their own way.

Finally, the Pilgrims landed, as we all know, on Plymouth Rock in the middle of December 1620, and on Christmas Day, in the words of Governor William Bradford,¹ they "begane to erecte ye first house for commone use to receive them and their goods."

So was established the first English colony in New England.

Three years later, when the plentiful harvest of 1623 had been gathered in, the Pilgrims "sett aparte a day of thanksgiving."

Governor Bradford adds, "Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."²

Three Kernels of Corn

But what of the intervening years? After all, there were harvests gathered in 1621 and 1622.

I know of one family, descended from the Pilgrims, who place beside each plate at their bounteous table on Thanksgiving Day a little paper cup containing just three kernels of corn, as a constant reminder of the all too frequent days during these first years when three kernels of corn represented the daily food ration of their Pilgrim forebears.

Within three months of their landing on Plymouth Rock, "of one hundred and odd persons, scarce fifty remained. And of these in ye time of most distres, ther was but six or seven sound persons, who, to their great comendations be it spoken, spared no pains, night nor day, but with abundance of toyle and hazard of their own health,… did all ye homly and necessarie offices which dainty and quesie stomaks cannot endure to hear named; and all this willingly and cherfully…, shewing herein their true love unto their freinds and bretheren. A rare example and worthy to be remembered."

One half of the crew of the Mayflower, including "many of their officers and lustyest men, as ye boatson, gunner, three quarter-maisters, the cooke, and others," also perished before the little vessel set sail on her return voyage to England in April 1621.

In the following excerpt from his History, Governor Bradford vividly describes the lot of the Pilgrims during these early years. Writing about conditions in the spring of 1623, after their corn had been planted, he says:
"All ther victails were spente, and they were only to rest on Gods providence; at night not many times knowing when to have a bitt of any thing ye next day. And so, as one well observed, had need to pray that God would give them their dayly brade, above all people in ye world….; which makes me remember what Peter Martire writs (in magnifying ye Spaniards) in his 5. Decade, page 208. 'They' (saith he) 'led a miserable life for 5. days togeather, with ye parched graine of maize only, and that not to saturitie'; and then concluds, 'that shuch pains, shuch labours, and shuch hunger, he thought none living which is not a Spaniard could have en­dured.'
"But alass these [the Pilgrims], when they had maize (yt is, Indean come) they thought it as good as a feast, and wanted not only for 5. days togeather, but some time 2. or 3. months togeather, and neither had bread nor any kind of come.
"Yet let me hear make use of his [Peter Martire's] conclusion, which in some sorte may be applied to this people: 'That with their miseries they opened a way to these new-lands; and after these stormes, with what ease other men came to inhabite in them, in respecte of ye calamities these men suffered; so as they seeme to goe to a bride feaste wher all things are provided for them.' "
Yet, following the harvest gathered in in the fall of that same year, 1623, and for all the years that followed, Governor Bradford tells us, "Any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

Three years of near starvation -- and then decades of abundance. Was this a miracle?

Or is there a rational explanation for this sudden change in the fortunes of our Pilgrim forefathers?

So They Tried Freedom

Describing events that took place in the spring of 1623, Governor Bradford answers our questions, in eloquent words that should be engraved on the hearts and minds of all Americans:
"All this whille no supply was heard of, neither knew they when they might expecte any. So they begane to thinke how they might raise as much corne as they could, and obtaine a beter crope then they had done, that they might not still thus languish in miserie. At length, after much debate of things, the Govr (with ye advise of ye cheefest amongest them) gave way that they should set come every man for his owne perticuler, and in that regard trust to themselves…. And so as­signed to every family a parcell of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end, only for present use (but made no devission for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some familie. This had very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corne was planted then other waise would have bene by any means ye Govr or any other could use, and saved him a great deall of trouble, and gave farr better contente. The women now wente willingly into ye feild, and tooke their little-ons with them to set corne, which before would aledg weaknes, and inabilitie; whom to have compelled would have bene thought great tiranie and oppression.
"The experience that was had in this comone course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanitie of that conceite of Platos and other ancients; - that ye taking away of propertie, and bringing into a comone wealth, would make them happy and florishing; as if they were wiser then God. For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yongmen that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in devission of victails and cloaths, then he that was weake and not able to do a quarter ye other could; this was thought injuestice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalised in labours, and victails, cloaths, &c., with ye meaner and yonger sorte, thought it some indignite and disrespect unto them. And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slaverie, neither could many husbands well brokke it. Upon ye poynte all being to have alike, and all to doe alike, they thought them selves in ye like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut of those relations that God hath set amongest men, yet it did at least much diminish and take of ye mutuall respects that should be preserved amongest them. And would have bene worse if they had been men of another condition.
"Let none objecte this is men's corruption, and nothing to ye corse it selfe. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in his wisdome saw another course fiter for them."
This new policy of allowing each to "plant for his owne perticuler" produced such a harvest that fall that Governor Bradford was able to write:
"By this time harvest was come, and in stead of famine, now God gave them plentie, and ye face of things was changed, to ye rejoysing of ye harts of many, for which they blessed God. And ye effect of their particuler planting was well seene, for all had, one way and other, pretty well to bring ye year aboute, and some of ye abler sorte and more industrious had to spare, and sell to others, so as any generall wante or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day."

The Importance of Property Rights

Our first Thanksgiving should, therefore, be interpreted as an expression of gratitude to God, not so much for the great harvest itself, as for granting the grateful Pilgrims the perception to grasp and apply the great universal principle that produced that great harvest: Each individual is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. Prop­erty rights are, therefore, insepa­rable from human rights.

If man abides by this law, he will reap abundance; if he violates this law, suffering, starvation, and death will follow, as night the day.

This is the essential meaning of the two great Commandments, "Thou shalt not covet" and "Thou shalt not steal."

When it came time for the spring planting in the following year, 1624, the Pilgrims went one step further. In Governor Bradford's words:
"I must speak of their planting this year; they having found ye benefite of their last years harvest, and setting corne for their particuler, having therby with a great deale of patience overcome hunger and famine. That they might encrease their tillage to better advantage, they made suite to the Govr to have some portion of land given them for continuance, and not by yearly lotte, for by that means, that which ye more industrious had brought into good culture (by much pains) one year, came to leave it ye nexte, and often another might injoye it; so as the dressing of their lands were the more sleighted over, and to lese profite. Which being well considered, their request was granted. And to every person was given only one acrre of land, to them and theirs, as nere ye towne as might be, and they had no more till ye seven years were expired."
Describing the results of the application of this policy in the year 1626, Governor Bradford tells us:

"It pleased ye Lord to give ye plantation peace and health and contented minds, and so to blese their labours, as they had come sufficient (and some to spare to others) with other foode; neither ever had they any supply of foode but what they first brought with them. After harvest this year, they sende out a boats load of corne 40. or 50. leagues to ye eastward, up a river called Kenibeck     God preserved them, and gave them good success, for they brought home 700 ti. of beaver, besids some other furrs, having little or nothing els but this corne, which them selves had raised out of ye earth."

The discovery and application of this concept of individual property rights, derived from the Creator, was the real "seminal principle" so eloquently phrased by the great English statesman and orator, Edmund Burke. As it developed from this tiny seed into a "formed body," it became the cornerstone of our Declaration of Independence and of our Constitu­tion, and produced the extraordinary explosion of individual human energy that took place in nineteenth century America.

Famine Persisted in England

In England, meanwhile, farming "in common" continued to be the general practice for another hundred years. Not until the second decade of the seventeen hundreds did "setting crops for their particuler" begin slowly to be accepted in England -- and decades were to pass before the new practice became sufficiently widespread to provide an adequate food supply for the population.

As recently as 1844, an English writer thus describes the conditions which then existed:
"Full one third of our popula­tion [in the United Kingdom] subsist entirely, or rather starve, upon potatoes alone, another third have, in addition to this edible, oaten or inferior wheaten bread, with one or two meals of fat pork, or the refuse of the shambles [slaughterhouses], per week; while a considerable majority of the remaining third seldom are able to procure an ample daily supply of good butcher's meat or obtain the luxury of poultry from year to year.
"On the continent of Europe, population is still in a worse condition…."³ยบ
No country was ever more "underdeveloped" than the wilderness of New England on which our Pilgrim forebears set foot. The majority of those who landed from the Mayflower in December 1620 perished prior to that first great harvest of 1623. For two years they followed the age-old custom prevalent in England of "farming in common" -- and they starved.

Through suffering, starvation, and hardship, they learned and applied the fundamentals of freedom -- and, instead of starvation, they grew crops sufficient not only for their own needs, but to spare, enabling them to exchange their surplus with the Indians for beaver and other "furrs."

If Pilgrims Had Had "Foreign Aid"?

But suppose some foreign country, or their mother country, had taken pity on them in their misery and sent them ample food supplies during those first terrible years; this would have been impossible, for England herself was virtually on a starvation diet, as were most of the countries on the continent of Europe. But suppose it had been possible; suppose they had received such "foreign aid"?

Would not the Pilgrims have continued to "farm in common"? Would they not have continued to follow the practice that more than two centuries later was to become a basic tenet of Marxian philosophy, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"?

Would the Pilgrims ever have learned and applied the concepts of the dignity of the individual and the sanctity of property -- the idea that each individual is entitled to the fruits of his own labor -- the Law of Individual Freedom and Individual Responsibility?

Freedom for the individual, with recognition and respect for the right of each individual to his property, is essential to the release of individual human energy, which alone can raise the standard of living of any people.

It is for this reason that aid sent to support socialist governments (which deny the right to private property) and aid sent to help underdeveloped peoples that have not yet learned the lessons taught to the Pilgrims by hard experience -- it is for this reason that such "aid" may be likened to attempting to fill a bathtub without first putting the stopper in.4

Would not America be rendering a greater service to these peoples by teaching them, through precept and example, the real meaning of our first Thanksgiving -- and by pointing out to them the truth and applicability of the great ideals of individual freedom and individual responsibility under God?

The young American nation grew and prospered because for more than a century and a quarter the sanctity of property rights was recognized as being indispensable to human rights; because her people were free to "plant for their own particuler"; because the resultant "free market economy" invited domestic and foreign capital seeking a profit.

What of Today?

Is America, today, still abiding by these principles?

Not only is the answer "No!" but there is evidence on every hand that we are re-enacting the very mistakes our Pilgrim Fathers made during their first years of "farming in common," mistakes which produced nought but disaster, reenacting in the New World the age-old miseries of constant hunger and starvation that continued to plague the Old World for some two centuries to come. We are not as yet suffering the Pilgrims' privation, but we are reverting to arbitrary communalization on an enormous scale, resetting the same old-world stage.

Our present tax structure is a case in point. Its aim is not to finance the costs of a strictly limited government, but rather to reform society, to remold our lives, and to redistribute our wealth according to the ideas of economic and social planners dedicated to the socialization, the communization, of our once free America.

As a consequence, we are now supporting vast armies of government bureaucrats who swarm over the land -- and over much of the world -- devouring our substance like a plague of locusts. Today, one in every six employed Americans is on a government payroll.

As a consequence, we are compelled to contribute from the fruits of our labor billions of dollars for subsidies and handouts granted by politicians in their endless search for votes and personal power.

As a consequence, we have government operating vast businesses -- already representing 20 per cent of the industrial capacity of the USA -- businesses that ride the backs of the American people as interest free, rent free, cost free, and tax free princes of privilege, in competition with tax-paying enterprises.

In our program of aid to socialist governments and to underdeveloped nationalities and peoples that have not yet learned to apply the great universal truths tested and proved by our Pilgrim forebears, are we not seeking to fill the bathtub without first seeing to it that the stopper is in place -- in a fruitless attempt to buy loyal allies with money? Referring to our sixty billion dollar Foreign Aid since World War II, on January 27, 1957, Hon. Spruille Braden said: "It is a sum equal to the assessed valuation of all real and other property in our seventeen biggest cities!"

Each time I accept a government handout, for any reason whatsoever, I am stealing from the only Treasure House any people has -- the surplus wealth created by the productive energies of millions of individual men and women, each seeking a better life for himself and for his children. Each time I produce less, in my work, than enough to earn a profit for my employer, I am stealing from someone else -- and contributing toward creating unemployment for others and a higher cost of living for all.

This Thanksgiving Day, let us, each in his own way, humbly ask forgiveness for the degree to which we have all violated the great "seminal principle," either directly, or through tolerating its violation by others.

Then, this Thanksgiving Day, let us highly resolve to dedicate our lives, as individuals, to "planting for our own particuler," rather than living as parasites on the productive energy of others; let us dedicate our lives to a renewed application of the ideal of individual freedom and individual responsibility, which our Pilgrim forebears learned at such sacrifice, and which they passed down to us as our most precious heritage.

Foot Notes

1This and subsequent quotations are taken from Bradford's History "of Plimoth Plantation" from the original manuscript. Printed under the direction of the Secretary of the Commonwealth by order of the General Court. Boston: Wright & Potter Printing Company, State Printers. 1898.

2Presumably 1647, the last year covered in Bradford's History.

3Treatise on Artificial Incubation" by Mr. W. Bucknell, London: p. 36, quoted in Dictionary of the Farm by Mr. W. L. Rham (Charles Knight and Co., 1844), pp. 418-419. I am indebted to my uncle, the late Col. E. Parmalee Prentice, for the vast amount of research he carried out in gathering material such as this for his remarkable book, Hunger and History (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1951), without which this part of the article could not have been written.

4The distinction between free market services to individuals and intergovernmental foreign aid may be clarified by this statement by Joseph Stalin in Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (New York: Four Continent Book Corporation, 1940), pages 115 and 116: -- "It is essential that the advanced countries should render aid -- real and prolonged aid -- to the backward nationalities in their cultural and economic development. Otherwise it will be impossible to bring about the peaceful coexistence of the various nations and peoples within a single economic system that is so essential for the final triumph of Socialism."