Sunday, 1 December 2013

Re: [New post] Email from an enraged Obamabot

A true believer....a liberal's comments reveal what a Fascist at heart this person really is. Just cleverly disguised as a left wing liberal who believes in freedom of speech as long as that speech agrees with their own knee jerk recitation of the politically correct.......enough of these idiots!
 
In a message dated 12/1/2013 1:43:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, baconlard@gmail.com writes:




Dr. Eowyn posted: "At 10:09 AM this morning, FOTM received this email from Emily Johnson <myemily13@yahoo.com>, regarding my post "Where are Obama's daughters' baby pics and birth records?". Emily Johnson's email is so intelligently written, I simply must share it "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/author/eowyn2/

Email from an enraged Obamabot

by Dr. Eowyn

At 10:09 AM this morning, FOTM received this email from Emily Johnson <myemily13@yahoo.com>, regarding my post "Where are Obama's daughters' baby pics and birth records?".

Emily Johnson's email is so intelligently written, I simply must share it with all our readers.

Here's Emily Johnson's missive:

Hey you pig, I've reported you to the FBI for your "story" on PRESIDENT Obama's children. Those comments you have on your filthy site are threatening and seditious (I know that's a big word - look it up). Hope you have a nice uncomfortable visit with the Secret Service!!!!! :)

Here's a composite pic of the lovely Ms. Emily Johnson from her Facebook page:

http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/orc11.jpg

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | December 1, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Categories: Evil, Idiots, Liberals/Democrats/Left, Obama, Obama's America | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-onX

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:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/12/01/email-from-an-enraged-obamabot/

Thanks for flying with http://wordpress.com/ WordPress.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.

The Boomer Bust


The Boomer Bust
Here we are in the baby boom cosmos. What have we wrought?
By P.J. O'Rourke
Updated Dec. 1, 2013

The Baby Boom generation spans eighteen years. Already, the earliest boomers have reached retirement age. Many are getting more conservative as they get older. WSJ's Jason Bellini reports.

We are the generation that changed everything. Of all the eras and epochs of Americans, ours is the one that made the biggest impression­on ourselves. That's an important accomplishment, because we're the generation that created the self, made the firmament of the self, divided the light of the self from the darkness of the self, and said, "Let there be self." If you were born between 1946 and 1964, you may have noticed this yourself.

That's not to say we're a selfish generation. Selfish means "too concerned with the self," and we're not. Self isn't something we're just, you know, concerned with. We are self.

Before us, self was without form and void, like our parents in their dumpy clothes and vague ideas. Then we came along. Now the personal is the political. The personal is the socioeconomic. The personal is the religious and the secular, science and the arts. The personal is everything that creepeth upon the earth after his (and, let us hasten to add, her) kind. If the baby boom has done one thing, it's to beget a personal universe. (Our apologies for anyone who personally happens to be a jerk.)

Self is like fish, proverbially speaking. Give a man a fish and you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and, if he turns into a dry-fly catch-and-release angling fanatic up to his liver in icy water wearing ridiculous waders and an absurd hat, pestering trout with 3-pound test line on a $1,000 graphite rod, and going on endlessly about Royal Coachman lures that he tied himself using muskrat fur and partridge feathers…well, at least his life partner is glad to have him out of the house.

So here we are in the baby-boom cosmos, formed in our image, personally tailored to our individual needs, and predetermined to be eternally fresh and novel. And we saw that it was good. Or pretty good.

We should have had a cooler name, the way the Lost Generation did. Except good luck to anybody who tries to tell us to get lost. Anyway, it's too late now. We're stuck with being forever described as exploding infants. And maybe it's time, now that we've splattered ourselves all over the place, for the baby boom to look back and think. "What made us who we are?" "And what caused us to act the way we do?" "And WTF?" Because the truth is, if we hadn't decided to be young forever, we'd be old.

The youngest baby boomers, born in the last year when anybody thought it was hip to like Lyndon Johnson, are turning 50. We'd be sad about getting old if we weren't too busy remarrying younger wives, reviving careers that hit glass ceilings when children arrived and renewing prescriptions for drugs that keep us from being sad. And we'll never retire. We can't. The mortgage is underwater. We're in debt up to the Rogaine for the kids' college education. And it serves us right­we're the generation who insisted that a passion for living should replace working for one.

Still, it's an appropriate moment for us to weigh what we've wrought and tally what we've added to and subtracted from existence. We've reached the age of accountability. The world is our fault. We are the generation that has an excuse for everything­one of our greatest contributions to modern life­but the world is still our fault.

This is every generation's fate. It's a matter of power and privilege and demography. Whenever anything happens anywhere, somebody over 50 signs the bill for it. And the baby boom, seated as we are at the head of life's table, is hearing Generation X, Generation Y and the Millennials all saying, "Check, please!"

To address America's baby boom is to face big, broad problems. We number more than 75 million, and we're not only diverse but take a thorny pride in our every deviation from the norm (even though we're in therapy for it). We are all alike in that each of us thinks we're unusual.

Fortunately, we are all alike in our approach to big, broad problems too. We won't face them. There's a website for that, a support group to join, a class to take, alternative medicine, regular exercise, a book that explains it all, a celebrity on TV who's been through the same thing, or we can eliminate gluten from our diet. History is full of generations that had too many problems. We are the first generation to have too many answers.

Not a problem. Consider the people who have faced up squarely to the deepest and most perplexing conundrums of existence. Leo Tolstoy, for example. He tackled every one of them. Why are we here? What kind of life should we lead? The nature of evil. The character of love. The essence of identity. Salvation. Suffering. Death.

What did it make him? Dead, for one thing. And off his rocker for the last 30 years of his life. Plus he was saddled with a thousand-page novel about war, peace and everything else you can think of, which he couldn't even look up on Wikipedia to get the skinny on because he hadn't written it yet. What a life. If Leo Tolstoy had been one of us he could have entered a triathlon, a baby-boom innovation of the middle 1970s. By then we knew we couldn't run away from our problems. But if we added cycling and swimming…

So, to the problems of talking about the baby boom, let us turn our big, broad (yet soon to be firmed up, thanks to the triathlon for seniors that we're planning to enter) generational backsides.

But a difficulty remains. Most groups of people who get tagged by history as a "generation" can be described in an easy, offhand way: as folks sort of the same age experiencing sort of the same things in sort of the same place, like the cast of "Cheers" or "Seinfeld" or "Friends." I'm pretty sure­as a result of taking Modern Literature in college­that Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, James Joyce, Gertrude Stein, Ford Madox Ford, Henry Miller and Ezra Pound were roommates in a big apartment on the Left Bank in Paris in the 1920s. (If not, I give this idea for a sitcom away for free to the reader.)

But the baby boom has an exact definition, a precise demography. We are the children who were born during a period after World War II when the long-term trend in fertility among American women was exceeded.

Still, distinctions among varieties of baby boomers need to be made. Geographical distinctions are peripatetically moot for us. Distinctions according to race, class, gender or sexual orientation would be offensive to baby-boom sensitivities. Furthermore, they'd be beside the point, because the author­much as he endeavors to be as different from everyone else as a member of the baby boom should be­finds himself to be hopelessly ordinary in matters of race, class, gender identification and which section of Playboy he turned to first when he was 16. But time is a distinction we all have to endure. And there are temporal variations in the baby boom.

The seniors of this generation were born in the late 1940s. The author is of that ilk. The seniors were on the bow wave of the baby boom's voyage of exploration. But they were also closely tethered in the wake of preceding generations. In effect the seniors were keelhauled by the baby-boom experience and left a bit soggy and shaken. If we wound up as financial advisers trying to wear tongue studs or Trotskyites trying to organize Tea Party protests, or both, we are to be forgiven. Hillary Clinton and Cheech Marin are seniors.

The juniors were born in the early 1950s. They were often younger siblings of the seniors and came of age when parents were throwing in the towel during the "What's the Matter with Kids These Days" feature match. The juniors pursued the notions, whims and fancies of the baby boom with a greater intensity. For them, drugs were no longer experimental; drugs were proven. From the juniors we got the teeny-boppers, the groupies and the more ragamuffin barefoot urchins of Haight-Ashbury. They hunted up some shoes when they eventually made their way to Silicon Valley. ( Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both born in 1955.) But they never did find their neckties.

The sophomores were born in the late 1950s. By the time they reached adolescence, the baby-boom ethos had permeated society. Sophomores gladly accepted sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll and the deep philosophical underpinning thereof. But they'd seen enough of the baby boom in action to realize that what works in general terms doesn't always work when the bong sets fire to the beanbag chair. Circumstances had changed. In college, many of the sophomores attended classes. Some even sneaked off and got M.B.A.s.

The freshmen were born in the early 1960s. They felt no visceral effects from the events that formed the baby boom. To freshmen, the Vietnam War was just something that was inexplicably on TV all the time, like Ed McMahon. Feminism had gone from a pressing social issue to a Bea Arthur comedy show that their parents liked, and, by the time the freshmen were in college, feminism was an essay topic for the "Reading Shakespeare in Cultural Context" course. Hint: Lady Macbeth hit that glass ceiling hard.

Now the American baby boom is the world's future. Everyone on the planet will turn into us eventually, as soon as families get excessively happy and start feeling too much affection for their kids. Unless, of course, extravagant freedom, scant responsibility, plenty of money and a modicum of peace lead to such a high rate of carbon emissions that we all fry or drown. But you can't have everything. And you can have a profusion of opportunity and, at the same time, a collapse of traditional social standards.

Just look at Western Europe and the wealthiest parts of Asia and Latin America. They're almost as useless as we are­with abundant disposable income and ample leisure time to devote to pointless activities that don't harm anybody much except ourselves.

Baby-boom-like places all seem to be engaged in bellicose national political deadlock the way we are in America. There's much tut-tutting about bellicose national political deadlock. But it's an improvement on bellicose national political purpose.

It will take a while to turn the whole world into baby boomers. For one thing, due to declining birthrates, the rising generation won't be a boom like we were with the same weight of numbers on their side. On the other hand, aging populations in places such as Russia and China will let these babies speak in booming voices.

Noxious politics will disappear as all the world's political science classes happily degenerate into hourlong shouting matches the way our old Constitutional Law classes did. It's hard to remain truly noxious when you like being obnoxious better.

Stupid notions of central planning, nationalization and protectionist trade barriers will fall by the wayside when everyone is paying as little attention in Economics as I was.

And sooner or later, the 1.29 billion people making $1.25 a day, the way we were, selling "underground" newspapers on the street in Baltimore, are going to figure out there's a better way. I just received an email from Nigeria about a rather large amount of money needing to be transferred to an American bank and requiring only modest assistance on my part.

There will be no religious fanaticism. We're not a generation who listens to anybody, God included. In our defense, I doubt God minds us not bothering about Him. Very few of the people we've bothered­parents, college deans, the police, LBJ, the psychiatrist at my draft physical, supervisors, bosses, attractive types in bars­have minded when we quit bothering them.

World peace is probably too much to ask. But it will be hard to assemble those huge conscripted armies that used to fight wars. We'll all have a letter from our doctor about our deep-seated psychiatric problems and drug use.

Besides, war is about power. Baby boomers aren't power hungry. Power comes with that kicker, responsibility. We're greedy for love, happiness, experience, sensation, thrills, praise, fame, adulation, inner peace, and, as it turns out, money. Health and fitness too. But we're not greedy for power. Observe the baby boomers who have climbed to its ascendancy in Washington. The best and the brightest? They're over at Goldman Sachs. GS +0.43%

And all of you tyrannical, despotic, overbearing squares and wet smacks with your two-bit autocracies in the butt ends of the world? You shall gather in finished basements while your revered elders stand at the top of the basement stairs yelling, "I think something's on fire down there!" Your offices shall be liberated by raving peaceniks. You shall spend your treasure on cocaine and rehab. Your junk bonds shall default. You shall form overage garage bands and try to play "Margaritaville." Your third spouse shall acquire an American Express AXP +0.25% Black Card with a credit limit higher than the U.S. national debt. Your daughters shall wear nose rings. Your sons shall have pagan symbols indelibly marked upon their necks. (Unless you belong to one of those cultures where daughters wear nose rings and sons have pagan symbols indelibly marked upon their necks, in which case they shall not.) You shall be perplexed by the Internet. You shall grow old and addled enough to vote for Ron Paul in a presidential primary.

There is no escape from happiness, attention, affection, freedom, irresponsibility, money, peace, opportunity and finding out that everything you were ever told is wrong.

Behold the baby boom, ye mighty, and despair.


This essay is adapted from the latest of Mr. O'Rourke's 16 books: "The Baby Boom: How It Got That Way…And It Wasn't My Fault…And I'll Never Do It Again," to be published in December by Grove Atlantic.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304011304579220174176053820

FDA bans you from knowing what may make you sick


FDA bans you from knowing what may make you sick
By Nick Sorrentino on November 30, 2013

This is government at its worst. -- And think about that statement.

Cancer runs in your family? Would you like to get a test for $99 which might tell you if cancer is likely or not? Too bad. The government says you can no longer know this information about yourself.

How completely messed up is that?

(From Reason.com)
For a couple of years, I have been warning all my friends and colleagues to purchase $99 personal genome testing from 23andMe before the Feds banned it. Well, now the Food and Drug Administration has banned it sending the genome testing company a warning letter:

Click here for the article.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/11/fda-bans-you-knowing-what-may-make-you-sick/

What if Thanksgiving Exposes the Government?


What if Thanksgiving Exposes the Government?
By Andrew P. Napolitano
November 28, 2013

What if another Thanksgiving Day is upon us and because of the government we have less to be thankful for than we did at the last one? What if at every Thanksgiving liberty is weakened and the government is strengthened? What if Thanksgiving's warm and breezy seduction of gratitude is just the government's way of inducing us to think we should be grateful for it?

What if we don't owe the government any thanks for anything? What if the government owes us back all the freedom and property it has stolen from us? What if the government has produced nothing and owns nothing, save what it has coerced us to give it? What if the courts have ruled that the government can lie and cheat with impunity in order to acquire our property or assault our freedoms?

What if the government lies and cheats regularly to enhance its own wealth and power? What if the government claims that its power comes from the consent of the governed? What if no one consented to the government's spying and lying except those who personally and directly benefit from it?

What if the government is afraid to tell us all it is doing to us for fear we might vote it out of office? What if that vote would change nothing? What if the spying and lying continued no matter who ran the government? What if those who spy and lie don't lose their jobs no matter how they lie or upon whom they spy or who gets elected?

What if this holiday of turkey and football and family is the modern-day version of bread and circuses? What if bread and circuses ­ which Roman emperors gave to the mobs to keep them sated ­ are just the government's way today of keeping us sated at the end of every November? What if the government expects us to give thanks to it for letting us have Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday off?

What if the president thinks he's a king? What if he claims the power to kill people outside the Constitution? What if some of these people were your sisters or neighbors or friends? What if he thinks he's so smart that he knows what choices we should make? What if he makes those choices for us?

What if we each have the natural right to choose how to care for our own bodies, but he has used the coercive powers of the law to tell us how to do so? What if that law compelled all persons to pay for more health insurance than they needed or wanted or could afford? What if the president deceived dupes in Congress into voting for that law? What if the president deceived millions of Americans into supporting that law? What if the president forced you to pay for a health insurance policy that funded killing babies in their mothers' wombs?

What if the president knows what you want and need because his spies have captured your every telephone call, text and email? What if the Declaration of Independence says that our rights are personal, inalienable and come from God? What if the Constitution says that among our inalienable rights are the right to be left alone and the right to be different?

What if the president took an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution but believes in neither? What if he believes that our rights come from the collective consent of our neighbors, whom he can influence, or, worse yet, from the government, which he can control? What if he believes that he can invade our right to be left alone by spying on us and lying to us and destroy our right to be different by killing us? What if he actually did all these things?

What if only individuals foolish enough to do so give up their own rights but cannot give up the rights of those of us who refuse to surrender them? What if the government can only constitutionally take away personal freedoms when a jury has convicted someone of a crime? What if the government thinks it can take our rights away by ordinary legislation or by presidential fiat? What if it has done so?

What if someone who once worked for the government knew all this and risked life and limb to tell us about it? What if the government at first denied that it lies to and spies upon all Americans? What if it demonized the whistle blower? What if it chased him to the ends of the Earth because he revealed awful truths? What if everything Edward Snowden revealed about the government turned out to be true?

What if it is the personal courage and constitutional fidelity of Edward Snowden for which we should be thankful? What if the government hates and fears our freedoms just as it hates and fears the revelation of the awful truths Snowden possesses?

What if our thanks are due primarily to the Author of our freedoms, who made us in His image and likeness, and to those who have exercised those freedoms to seek and reveal the truth? What if it is the truth, and not the government, that will keep us free?

What if we have the right to pursue happiness no matter what the government says? What if we have the right to be unique no matter what the government wants? What if the freedom to seek the truth will bring us happiness?

What if that freedom which is still ours is a just cause for a happy Thanksgiving, after all?

The Hidden Role of the IRS in Obamacare


The Hidden Role of the IRS in Obamacare
By Joseph Salerno
Bastiat.Mises.org
November 28, 2013

The highly publicized glitches and failures associated with the  launch of the Affordable Health Care Act have obscured the central role of the IRS in carrying out the law's mandate.  Stripped down to its essentials, Obamacare is not an "insurance" plan at all.  It is rather a naked redistributionist scheme to coerce the young and the healthy into paying for the healthcare bills of the elderly and the sickly.  This means that some agency had to be enlisted to penalize the young and healthy who refused to willingly participate in their own fleecing. What agency is better equipped to do this than the IRS?  In an article in the Washington Post, Tom Hamburger and Sarah Kliff point out,

. . . the IRS also has a huge role in carrying out the law, including helping to distribute trillions of dollars in insurance subsidies and penalizing people who do not comply.
The fine is intended to encourage healthy people to enroll even if they do not have an immediate need for care. If the elderly and the sick dominate the ranks of those who sign up, it could lead to what health economists call an " insurance death spiral" of rapidly escalating costs, premium hikes and declining enrollment.

This means a massive increase in the scope and operations of the IRS, which is

. . . charged under the act with carrying out nearly four dozen new tasks in what represents the biggest increase in its responsibilities in decades. None is more crucial than enforcing the requirement that all citizens secure health insurance or pay a penalty.

Fortunately for the American public, because the IRS has lately become so universally reviled, it has been "hamstrung" by Congress in carrying out its mandate: it is legally precluded from employing its full fascist panoply of liens, foreclosures, and criminal prosecution.  It can only garnish tax refunds due to those uninsured who have overpaid their taxes.  (The penalty is $95 or 1% of income, whichever is greater).

Meanwhile some are beginning to express doubts about whether the law can be made to work given the present structure of incentives and penalties.  Jon Gruber, the MIT economist who helped design the mandate in the Massachusetts insurance plan says, "We should be absolutely clear we don't know how this will work."  And Robert Laszewski, president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates opines, "I now think there is little hope we are going to get enough younger healthy people to sign up, and that means that this law is in grave danger of financial collapse."

Another thought about Obamacare:  it is a redistribution scheme that egalitarians contemplate only in their most fevered dreams.  It  actually redistributes health itself from those endowed with it to those who are not, because  real income is directly correlated with health,  and by financially penalizing the healthy, whether though formal penalties if they do not enroll or over-priced premiums if they do,  it deprives them of part of the means by which they can maintain their health.

5 Reasons I Stopped Taking the News Seriously


5 Reasons I Stopped Taking the News Seriously
Paul Rosenberg
FREEMANSPERSPECTIVE
Nov 26th, 2013

Back in the early 90s, I felt a need to understand politics far better than I had, and I spent a lot of time and effort on it. Along the way – and partly by accident – I learned a few things that put me off broadcast news ever since.

Here are five of those stories.


#1: When a Decrease is Actually an Increase

At one point during this time, there was a furor raised over the funding of school lunches. So, I looked into it carefully.

After delving into the actual numbers, I was horrified to learn that what I heard from all the big-name news outlets was factually incorrect. Every single one of them got it wrong.

So, I called the newsroom of the biggest and most respected news radio station in Chicago (where I was living.) Amazingly, they put me right through. The conversation went like this:

Me: Listen, I have a problem on this school lunch thing. The numbers you guys are using are wrong.

News writer: What do you mean?

Me: You're reporting a seven percent cut in school lunch funding, but I checked the real numbers – they are going up three percent. The democrats are saying "seven percent cut," because they want a ten percent increase. This talk about a cut is false: it's actually an increase, and you guys have to know that.

News writer: Yeah, well… the democrats gave us stuff to use and the republicans didn't.

I was horrified, but it was, at least, an honest answer. What shocked me most was the fact that they simply didn't care. This was the flagship news station in Chicago – the one people went to when they wanted to be sure – and they simply didn't care about accuracy.


#2: To Make Their Voices Sound Better

Not long after this incident, I was listening to the other news station in Chicago (also an old and respected station) and in the credits at the bottom of the hour, I heard, "The news this hour is being written by Sandy ____."

As it happened, Sandy was an old friend. A few weeks later I called her about it and asked if she enjoyed the work. The conversation went like this:

Sandy: Actually, Paul, I just quit.

Me: I'm sorry, Sandy. It sounded like a fun job. Why did you quit?

Sandy: Well, I was writing the news as accurately as I could, but they were changing it as they read it on the air.

Me: Some kind of political bias?

Sandy (laughing): No, they were changing it to make their voices sound better.

Me: What!?

Sandy: I kid you not, Paul. They thought their voices would sound better if they changed what I wrote, so they did.

Sandy is a person of integrity, so she quit. She was the only one.


#3: Editing Tricks

At one point, I was involved in a human interest story that ran on the big local TV station. I observed all of the filming and talked with the interviewer off-screen as well. (Seemed like a nice guy.)

But when the show finally aired, it had been edited so that people seemed to be saying things they never said or intended to say. The program didn't present them saying anything horrible, but it was definitely not the truth. To the viewers, however, it looked 100% real.


#4: The "Real" Story

Another time, I had the insider's view of a story that made the national news via quite a few major news outlets. The giant TV network that covered it (and their famous news anchor) simply got the facts wrong. So did smaller outlets. One newspaper got it right – The National Enquirer!


#5: The Short Term Weatherman

Granted, this one's just for fun, but it still makes a good point.

Years ago, I was helping in the evenings at a radio station, in a regionally important Midwestern city. At one point the DJ started pushing buttons in an excited way, then turned to me:

DJ (urgently): Paul, stick your hand out the window!

Me: What??

DJ: We lost the satellite feed for the weather report. Stick your hand out the window!

I complied.

DJ: Now, is it warmer or colder than when you got here an hour ago?

Me: I don't know, D… I think it's a little warmer.

By the top of the next hour, we had the satellite feed back, and the solemnly reported temperatures for that evening ended up being:

Six o'clock: 66 degrees.

Seven o'clock: 69 degrees.

Eight o'clock: 62 degrees.

Oops!


No Respect

The job of the news media is not to be accurate; their job is to be respected.

All of the expensive suits, the perfect hair, the conservative diction and bearing… it all serves the purpose of gaining respect. Accuracy and fairness would only become factors if they damaged that respect.

Have you ever noticed that there is no competition between news networks involving accuracy? There are no Fact Wars between networks. They spend millions to make people respect their chief news reader, but they don't point out each other's factual errors.

So, I don't respect them or take them seriously. And now you know why.

http://www.freemansperspective.com/stop-taking-the-news-seriously/

Are You a Socialist?


Are You a Socialist?
November 30, 2013
Thomas DiLorenzo

You are if you are not an opponent of the welfare state and the whole system of "progressive" taxation that funds it according to both Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek.  Socialism started out meaning "government ownership of the means of production" with the ostensible purpose being "equality."  But the socialists of the world quickly determined that it would be easier to allow (heavily regulated) private enterprise to exist and then plunder it with taxes to fund their utopian dreams.  There is a long tradition of intellectual opposition to all forms of socialism, including welfare statism, in the Austrian School of Economics.  To learn about it take my new four-week online Mises Academy course on "Santa Claus Economics" beginning this Sunday, December 1, at 5:30 PM EST.

You Cannot Negotiate With Iran?


"Why have the interventionists, the neocons, and the special interest groups claimed for so long that negotiation and diplomacy was tantamount to surrender; that countries such as Iran and Syria "only understand force"? It is because these groups are afraid of diplomacy. They do not want a peaceful resolution to these conflicts. They see US foreign relations only in the starkest terms: do what we say and we will give you aid, disobey us and we will bomb you."

You Cannot Negotiate With Iran?
Written by Ron Paul
Sunday December 1, 2013

You cannot negotiate with Iran. That is what they told us for years. The Iranian leadership is too fanatical, they are not rational actors, they are "not like us." One US official even recently said that deception is part of the Iranian DNA. But just over a week ago negotiations between the five permanent UN Security Council Members plus Germany and the Iranians produced an historic agreement that may be first step toward a new era in US relations with the Middle East.

As Middle East expert Eric Margolis pointed out this week, for Iran's major concessions it will only receive "$7 billion -- of its own money, which has been frozen abroad by US-led sanctions." That sounds like quite a bit of compromise for such a "fanatical" country.

Earlier this summer the same people made the same arguments about Syria. You cannot negotiate with Syrian President Assad, they said. He is insane; he is another Hitler. But not only was it possible, a deal was signed ending the threat of a US strike in exchange for Syria agreeing to give up its chemical weapons and the ability to manufacture new ones. Syria upheld its end of the agreement and the chemicals were all accounted for on schedule.

Why have the interventionists, the neocons, and the special interest groups claimed for so long that negotiation and diplomacy was tantamount to surrender; that countries such as Iran and Syria "only understand force"? It is because these groups are afraid of diplomacy. They do not want a peaceful resolution to these conflicts. They see US foreign relations only in the starkest terms: do what we say and we will give you aid, disobey us and we will bomb you.

Now the warmongers who call themselves "foreign policy experts" have been exposed. The whole world sees that they are wrong. Their advice is bad. Their limited vision of how foreign affairs should be conducted is actually dangerous to the United States. It is now clear that there are workable alternatives.

As with the US threats against Syria, public opinion polls on talks with Iran demonstrate that the American people are solidly behind diplomacy and opposed to another war. According to one recent poll, Americans support the deal reached with Iran by a margin of two-to-one.

Congress, however, is once again far behind the American people. Even as US negotiators were reaching agreement with their Iranian counterparts, US representatives and Senators were drafting legislation to increase sanctions on Iran. Instead of listening to the American people, many in Congress seem attached to special interests like the Israel and Saudi lobbies, which oppose anything less than full Iranian capitulation. Israel refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty yet it seeks to dictate the rules of the treaty to those who have signed it. Saudi Arabia is desperate to control the region politically and economically, and it views an Iran that is free to sell oil and other products on the open market as a threat to Saudi power.

For too long both Israel and the Saudis have benefited from a US military guarantee. It has created "moral hazard" that only encourages more belligerent behavior on both of their parts. It remains to be seen whether this six month trial period will develop into a permanent move toward normalization of relations with Iran. What if Congress refuses to give Iran its own money back? But we are moving in the right direction and we should be optimistic.

A better US relationship with Iran may signal the beginning of the end of US meddling in the region and serve as an incentive for Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the Gulf States to solve their problems themselves. This would be a great boost to US national security, just as an Iran open to US business and trade would be a great boost to our economic security. Is peace finally breaking out? Let's hope so.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2013/december/01/you-cannot-negotiate-with-iran.aspx

Fwd: [New post] Email from an enraged Obamabot





Dr. Eowyn posted: "At 10:09 AM this morning, FOTM received this email from Emily Johnson <myemily13@yahoo.com>, regarding my post "Where are Obama's daughters' baby pics and birth records?". Emily Johnson's email is so intelligently written, I simply must share it "
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Email from an enraged Obamabot

by Dr. Eowyn

At 10:09 AM this morning, FOTM received this email from Emily Johnson <myemily13@yahoo.com>, regarding my post "Where are Obama's daughters' baby pics and birth records?".

Emily Johnson's email is so intelligently written, I simply must share it with all our readers.

Here's Emily Johnson's missive:

Hey you pig, I've reported you to the FBI for your "story" on PRESIDENT Obama's children. Those comments you have on your filthy site are threatening and seditious (I know that's a big word - look it up). Hope you have a nice uncomfortable visit with the Secret Service!!!!! :)

Here's a composite pic of the lovely Ms. Emily Johnson from her Facebook page:

Orc1

~Eowyn

Dr. Eowyn | December 1, 2013 at 1:25 pm | Categories: Evil, Idiots, Liberals/Democrats/Left, Obama, Obama's America | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-onX

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:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/12/01/email-from-an-enraged-obamabot/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.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.

Obamacare



-------


19 November 2013 Last updated at 01:56

Raise prescription charges to £10, think tank urges


Prescription charges in England should be increased to £10 to fund cash-strapped NHS services, a centre-right think-tank has argued.

Reform says raising the price tag from £7.85, with exemptions for people on low incomes but not necessarily all pensioners, could generate millions of pounds each year.

Around 90% of prescriptions in England are currently dispensed free of charge.

Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have scrapped all prescription charges.

The British Medical Association has previously said the current system is "unfair" and wants prescription charges to be scrapped in England.

But with the NHS funding shortfall expected to reach £30bn by 2020, Reform says the time has come to consider higher charges for medicines to help plug this gap - although it accepts that such a move would be unpopular with many.

Thomas Cawston, Research Director at Reform, said: "Few will want to debate higher NHS charges but the funding outlook for the service makes it unavoidable.

NHS prescriptions

  • No charges in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland
  • Chargeable in England but free to certain groups including the over-60s, under-16s, young people in full-time education and pregnant women
  • The largest single area of need is diabetes
  • The most commonly prescribed drugs are painkillers and blood pressure medication
  • Nearly 60% of all drugs currently dispensed in England are to those over the age of 60, free of charge

"Prescription charges are the easiest route to new revenue, with exemptions for people on low incomes built in."

Prescription charges in England currently raise £450m a year, against a total government spend on prescription services of £7.9 billion.

A simple increase in the level of the charge for prescriptions from £7.85 to £10.00, and in the cost of a Prescription Prepayment Certificate (a way of bulk-buying prescriptions to save patients money in the long term) from £104 to £120, would raise an additional £134m annually, for example.

Or, moving to a French-style system, with a lower prescription charge of £3.00 but exemptions for only a fifth of drugs dispensed, would raise £1.4bn a year, according to Reform.

Other revenue-generating ideas include introducing a £10 flat rate charge for GP consultations or £10 fines for every missed hospital appointment. These would pull in £1.2bn and £55m a year, respectively, Reform estimates.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24985242

--   Mario Huet  List Administrator  Libertarian Alliance Forum    **************************************************  *   Words cannot picture her; but all men know   *  * That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought *  **************************************************           James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night  

--
--
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: [New post] You Just Might Be A Democrat

If I had any hair left,  I might actually try Number 16! 


On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:


Mike posted: "You Might Be a Democrat If... 1) You're a Hollywood movie star who thinks building a border fence is racist, as you drive home to your gated community. 2) You're a guy who needs Viagra to get it up and you think it's Bush's fault. 3) You're a"
Respond to this post by replying above this line

New post on Fellowship of the Minds

You Just Might Be A Democrat

by Mike

You Might Be a Democrat If...

1) You're a Hollywood movie star who thinks building a border fence is racist, as you drive home to your gated community.

2) You're a guy who needs Viagra to get it up and you think it's Bush's fault.

3) You're a gal who thinks if a guy talks to you he's a sexist rapist, and if he ignores you he's a gay Republican.

4) You think "government intervention" means free rent, free food, and a free cell phone.

5) You think a genius is a man who believes our country has 57 states.

6) You laughed at the Obama rodeo clown and felt guilty.

7) You think open dialogue means you talk and others listen.

8) You think crime is caused by the environment.

9) You're a guy and you think Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Michelle Obama are hot mamas.
(In that case, you're also insane.)

10) You think "get a job" means all those other people.

11) Your school's fight song was "San Francisco (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)". (And you think that was Bush's fault.)

12) You go ga-ga over Hollywood celebrities, but you've never read the Constitution.

13) You think "an informed opinion" means watching "The View."

14) You use cutesy baby-talk and kissy sounds around children, but think pro-life demonstrators are dangerous.

15) You're under forty and haven't had a job in fifteen years. If ever.

16) You're a male over sixty with a ponytail who hangs out at college campuses to pick up girls.

17) You use your parents' credit cards to buy two hundred dollar ripped designer jeans and Che Guevara posters.

18) You pass out copies of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" for Christmas. (Excuse me, you pass them out over winter solstice and Kwanzaa.)

19) The three most commonly heard words at your family get-togethers are, "It's Bush's fault."

20) You think this whole list is Bush's fault.

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:
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/12/01/you-just-might-be-a-democrat/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.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.

--
--
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.