Tuesday, 3 December 2013

‘Mainstream’ Iowa Republicans Want Romney Clone in=?iso-8859-1?Q?_=9216_?=


'Mainstream' Iowa Republicans Want Romney Clone in '16
2nd December 2013
by: Tom Woods

"Mainstream" Republicans in Iowa are tired of the Ron Paulians running the state party. Here's their strategy, which from what I can tell they are advancing in all seriousness:

Led by Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, these Republicans want to grow the state party ­ one that ideological crusaders have shaped over the past few years ­ by bringing back into the fold pragmatic-minded voters while attracting more women and younger voters.
These Republicans say success would be Branstad winning re-election next fall and paving the way for a national GOP comeback in the 2016 presidential election by choosing a mainstream Republican in the leadoff presidential caucuses.

A "mainstream Republican" for president? You mean like the losers they've nominated twice in a row, who really helped "grow the party"? These are not fast learners.

Politico ran a story about the chairman of the state party, and actually devoted column inches to complaints that he de-friended some people on Facebook. The man must be stopped!

Critics are also upset about the Ron Paul Christmas Party, which the state GOP is holding as a fundraiser. It's December 13 in Houston, in case you feel like annoying the Romneyites, who evidently learned nothing in 2012, by attending.

http://tomwoods.com/blog/mainstream-iowa-gopers-want-romney-clone-in-16/

The Paradox of Voting

"Saying "we as a society" means one of two things: "We who agree with the choice imposed on others," or, "We are irrational in this choice, and could as well have chosen something else." In other words, "we as a society" does not really exist, except perhaps with respect to a few fundamental values on which unanimity obtains."

The Paradox of Voting
"We as a society" does not exist
DECEMBER 03, 2013
by PIERRE LEMIEUX

Speaking about Obamacare, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber said, "We've decided as a society that we don't want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses."
 
What does it mean that "we" decide something "as a society"? It's an important question: This sort of statement gets used frequently as a justification of government of intervention. When, in the same fashion, Obama says " we as a nation," he is just using a variation of the same expression and talking like the average politician.
 
"We as a society" or "we as a nation" is generally used as an incantation with no scientific meaning. If it has any ascertainable meaning, it means "we who want to impose our current and perhaps changing whims on others."
 
The simplest interpretation of "we as a society" is that it represents what a majority votes for. It would simply mean, we as a majority of 51 percent (or 60 percent, or 30 percent if we are talking of a mere plurality). But how is the majority representative of society? What tells us that another majority wouldn't vote differently if the issues were presented differently? Whose preferences exactly does the majority represent?
 

That Median Voter
 
In certain cases, the majority represents the preferences of a small group of voters, perhaps a single voter. The "median-voter theorem" shows that if you have one voter (or one group of voters), whose preferences are exactly in the middle of the distribution of preferences, he will win elections.
 
For example, if the median voter prefers public expenditures to be $3 trillion, no politician can win an election against one who runs on this proposal. Any politician who proposes to spend more or less will lose more than 50 percent of the electorate to the one who stands exactly in the center. The median voter theorem explains why a successful politician has to "hug the center," as The Economist puts it to explain the recent gubernatorial elections.
 

Preference Aggregation
 
When, however, the electorate is polarized around two opposing stances, the median voter theorem does not apply. More diverse individual preferences, and a more diverse society, weaken the median voter's power. What happens in this case? Who is the majority? How does it behave?
 
These issues fall under the label of "preference aggregation," within a field of inquiry called social choice. The broad question is, how can the preferences of voters­or, more generally, of individuals in society­be aggregated to produce social choices?
 
A little intellectual voyage will help us answer this question.
 
First, meet Jean-Antoine-Nicolas de Caritat, marquis de Condorcet (1743–1794). Condorcet was a French mathematician, philosopher, and classical liberal. Like many politicians, he became cross with the French authorities under the Terror (the nastier phase of the French revolution), was arrested on March 27, 1794, and died in jail a few days later.
 
His death, however, had nothing to do with his 1785 book, Essay on the Application of Probability Analysis to Decisions Made with a Plurality of Votes­except perhaps to the extent that he was not an intellectual yes man. Condorcet was the first one to clearly isolate a strange phenomenon that came to be known as the "paradox of voting": even if each voter is rational, the result of a vote can be irrational.
 
"Rational" in this context simply means consistent or transitive preferences: If you prefer X to Y, and Y to Z, you will also prefer X to Z. The Condorcet paradox says that even with rational electors, a majority that prefers X to Y and Y to Z can prefer Z to X.
 
An example will make this easier to grasp. Suppose the issue is whether the president should have more power over the budget (compared to Congress), less power, or the same degree of power as now. Let P represent the status quo, P- mean less power to the president, and P+ more power. Now consider an electorate composed of three voters: Alice, Bob, and Charlie. Suppose that Alice prefers P- to P to P+, which we can write as P->P>P+. We use symbols to economize on words: ">"simply means "preferred to." Like all other voters, Alice is rational, which implies that she also prefers P- to P+. Assume that Bob's preferences are P>P+>P-. As for Charlie, his preferences are represented by P+>P->P. Bob and Charlie are also supposed to have transitive preferences.
 
It is easy to check that if our voters are asked to vote between P- and P, the majority (Alice and Charlie) will choose P-. If the electorate votes between P and P+, the majority (Alice and Bob) will choose P. Since the electorate prefers P- to P, and P to P+, you would think that it would prefer P- to P+ if presented with these two alternatives. But no! You can check that P+ would win over P- with a majority of votes (Bob and Charlie). The electorate is irrational even if each voter is rational.
 
Other preference orderings will produce a rational electoral choice. But the example shows that the paradox of voting can appear. "We as a society" is more a casino roulette than a rational actor.
 

Cyclical Majorities
 
This theory explains many observable phenomena. It explains the inconsistencies we often find in public opinion surveys. It may explain why voters vote both for job creation programs and for minimum wages that destroy jobs. It explains the votes on the Muscle Shoals hydroelectric project in the U.S. senate in 1925. Over less than a week in January of that year, and without any senator changing his mind, the U.S. senate voted to refer the alternatives to a study commission instead of allowing private development, then for private development instead of public ownership, and then again for public ownership instead of a study commission (see John N. Neufeld et al., "A Paradox of Voting: Cyclical Majorities and the Case of Muscle Shoals," Political Research Quarterly, vol. 47, no. 2, 1994).
 
This is another example of the paradox of voting, also called "cyclical majorities." Voters -- U.S. senators in this case -- cycle between issues without being able to reach a definitive decision.
 
Mathematician Charles L. Dodgson (1832–1898) rediscovered the phenomenon of cycling a hundred years after Condorcet. Dodgson was also known as Lewis Carroll, author of Alice in Wonderland and other literary works. That such a creative spirit as Dodgson worked on cycling lends more credence to the importance of the topic.
 
Our intellectual voyage now takes us to Duncan Black (1908–1991), a Scottish economist who rediscovered the paradox in the mid-twentieth century. When a numerical example he was working on showed an irrational electorate made of rational voters, Black was deeply disturbed: "On finding that the arithmetic was correct and the intransitivity persisted," he later explained, "my stomach revolted in something akin to physical sickness." He had to admit that his prior intuition­that rational voters produce a rational electorate­was disturbingly wrong.
 
The final destination in our voyage is Kenneth Arrow, a Stanford University economist who extended the opportunity for nausea to all economists and political scientists who study the issue. In his 1951 book, Social Choice and Individual Values, Arrow mathematically demonstrated that the discovery of Condorcet, Dodgson and Black was only a special case of a more general theorem: Whatever the decision mechanism used, a social choice cannot be both democratic and rational. If all individual preferences are to count equally (and given a few other axioms), a social choice must be either irrational or imposed by some on others. For his work, Arrow (along with with John Hicks) won the 1972 Nobel Prize in economics.
 
The political implications are striking. Saying "we as a society" means one of two things: "We who agree with the choice imposed on others," or, "We are irrational in this choice, and could as well have chosen something else." In other words, "we as a society" does not really exist, except perhaps with respect to a few fundamental values on which unanimity obtains.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-paradox-of-voting#ixzz2mS6siB6h

Crony Drug War: A government crime lab chemist (with close relations to prosecutors) has been caught intentionally forging signatures and tampering with evidence in as many as 40,000 cases


Crony Drug War: A government crime lab chemist (with close relations to prosecutors) has been caught intentionally forging signatures and tampering with evidence in as many as 40,000 cases
By Nick Sorrentino on November 27, 2013

Drug war prison graph cc

The drug war is a colossal disaster. It is a massive sociological experiment which because of crony capitalist forces (and other forces) continues on. Many groups make lots of money and have gained lots of power because drugs are illegal. They are not going to give up this power just because the lives of millions of Americans are destroyed by the policy every year. Hey, they've got to get paid.

There was a time when the war on drugs, as stupid as it is, had the hope of success. (Because it hadn't been tried.) There was a time when thoughtful people could defend the effort (sort of.) But that time has passed. The below story is a reflection of an asinine, corrupt, horribly unhelpful policy put forward by big government nanny staters.

(From FilmingCops.com)
A government crime lab chemist has been caught intentionally forging signatures and tampering with evidence in as many as 40,000 cases, destroying the lives of countless innocent Americans.
Annie Dookhan worked as a chemist for the State of Massachusetts, and it turns out she had close relations with prosecutors.
These prosecutors were able to successfully convict innocent Americans because Dookhan would chemically taint the "evidence," resulting in career boosts for the prosecutors while innocent men and women were torn from their families and locked in cells.

Click here for the article.

http://www.againstcronycapitalism.org/2013/11/crony-drug-war-a-government-crime-lab-chemist-with-close-relations-to-prosecuters-has-been-caught-intentionally-forging-signatures-and-tampering-with-evidence-in-as-many-as-40000-cases/

Re: Are You a Socialist?



On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

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.

--
--
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.

Fwd: Obama's Disdain for Constitution Threatens Our Republic






 




http://allenbwest.com/2013/12/obamas-disdain-constitution-threatens-republic/

Obama's Disdain for Constitution Threatens Our Republic

Written by Allen West on December 1, 2013

 
Every now and then someone says it so well, it just needs to be read as is. So it is with this piece written by M. Northrup Buechner, Associate Professor of Economics at St. John's University in New York, as featured in Forbes Magazine.

Finally, what we have all been witnessing and addressing is drawing the attention of the financial elites who read the pages of this prestigious magazine. It is my hope that Dr. Buechner retains his position at St. John's University because the lawless Barack Obama will unleash his hounds to destroy him.

Let this be a message to John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and all Republicans. Take heed, the future of our Constitutional Republic lies in your hands — and cowardice and failure are not an option.

Here's a small excerpt:

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

 

Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country — implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country — an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.

 

What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?

 

Please take a moment to read the full article here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/

Op/Ed

11/19/2013 @ 8:00AM

Obama's Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic

By M. Northrop Buechner

 

Since President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, he has changed it five times. Most notably, he suspended the employer mandate last summer. This is widely known, but almost no one seems to have grasped its significance.

The Constitution authorizes the President to propose and veto legislation. It does not authorize him to change existing laws. The changes Mr. Obama ordered in Obamacare, therefore, are unconstitutional. This means that he does not accept some of the limitations that the Constitution places on his actions. We cannot know at this point what limitations, if any, he does accept.

By changing the law based solely on his wish, Mr. Obama acted on the principle that the President can rewrite laws and — since this is a principle — not just this law, but any law. After the crash of Obamacare, many Congressmen have implored the President to change the individual mandate the same way he had changed the employer mandate, that is, to violate the Constitution again.

The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).

Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. "I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class," he has said. "We're going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress." There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.

If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant. Probably, it will become a kind of rubber-stamp or debating society. There are many such faux congresses in tyrannies throughout history and around the globe.

Mr. Obama has equal contempt for the Supreme Court. In an act of overbearing hubris, he excoriated Supreme Court Justices sitting helplessly before him during the 2010 State of the Union address — Justices who had not expected to be denounced and who were prevented by the occasion from defending themselves. Mr. Obama condemned them for restoring freedom of speech to corporations and unions.

Ignoring two centuries of practice, President Obama made four recess appointments in January 2012, when the Senate was not in recess. Three courts have found that his appointments were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take up the case. If the Supreme Court finds against him, what will Mr. Obama do?

We can get a hint by looking at how other parts of his Administration have dealt with Court decisions they did not like.

The Attorney General's Office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the Court's decision.

The Supreme Court has defined the standard for sexual harassment as "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" behavior to a "reasonable person." In open defiance of that ruling, the Obama Department of Education has declared a new definition of sexual harassment for colleges, that is, "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," including "verbal conduct," even if it is not objectively offensive — thus reinforcing the reign of terror over sex on college campuses. If a young man's request for a date turns out to be unwelcome, he is guilty of sexual harassment by definition.

The lack of respect for the Supreme Court by the Obama administration is manifest. They feel bound by the Court's decisions only if they agree with them. If they disagree, it is deuces wild; they will embrace any fiction that nullifies the Court's decision.

The direction in which Mr. Obama is taking us would make possible the following scenario. A Republican Congress is elected and repeals Obamacare over a Democratic President's veto. The President refuses to enforce the repeal. The Supreme Court rules that the President's refusal is unconstitutional. The President denounces that ruling and refuses to be bound by it.

If the President persists in rejecting all authority other than his own, the denouement would depend on the side taken by the Armed Forces. Whatever side that was, our national self-esteem would be unlikely to recover from the blow of finding that we are living in a banana republic.

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries. He has said that he wants a fair country — implying that, as it stands, the United States is not a fair country — an unprecedented calumny committed against a country by its own leader.

What country does he think is more fair than the United States? He has three long years left in which to turn us into a fair country. Where does he intend to take us?

Mr. Obama got his conception of a fair country from his teachers. A fair country is an unfree country because it is regimented to prevent anyone from rising too high. Their ideal is egalitarianism, the notion that no one should be any better, higher, or richer than anyone else. Combined with a dollop of totalitarianism, egalitarianism has replaced communism as the dominant ideal in our most prestigious universities. Mr. Obama and his colleagues are the product of those universities, and they have their marching orders.

The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.

Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take — actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. "A republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

We are losing it. If Mr. Obama's reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say "No!" "Not now!" "Not yet!" "Not ever!"

M. Northrup Buechner is Associate Professor of Economics at St. John's University, New York.

 

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


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

Fwd: Shocking details of items purged from FBI terror training; deemed 'offensive to Muslims'








Shocking details of items purged from FBI terror training; deemed 'offensive to Muslims'

December 2, 2013 by Janeen Capizola 22 Comments

"For the first time I am aware of in our nation's history, we are refusing to take a good look at who wants to destroy us," U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas. 

"The Obama administration needs to stop putting the tender sensibilities of radical Islamists above the safety of the American people," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Both of those statements were made regarding the extent to which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has chosen to train its agents in political correctness over the stark reality of terrorism by ensuring none of its anti-terror training material is offensive to Muslims.

New documents recently obtained through a 2012 Freedom of Information Act request by the Washington Examiner revealed more of what a group of Subject Matter Experts (SME) deemed "offensive to Muslims" and ordered purged from the FBI's training curricula on counterterrorism over the last couple of years.

Obama in Muslim dress

Photo Credit: AP Image viaNBC News

The infamous 2006 photograph of then-Sen. Barack Obama wearing the traditional turban and robe while visiting Kenya – removed

The incredible 2010 testimony of Attorney General Eric Holder where he refused to say the words "radical Islam" under questioning on terrorism from U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith – not only purged, but "the reason for that deletion was redacted," the Examiner reported.

"Slides showing verses in the Quran favored by terrorists," to a Westboro Baptist Church video called, "God Hates Lady Gaga" to  "cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad that led to terrorist plots against the Danish newspaper that published them" – all gone from the training documents.

"Entire sections dealing with Middle Eastern history, Islamic culture and techniques for interviewing Muslims while being mindful of Islamic customs were removed," the article continued.

The Examiner explained that the documents released by the FBI to conservative watchdog Judicial Watch, who reported its findings back in May, "included explanations of why individual pages were considered unacceptable, but not the actual pages themselves."

For example, the May Judicial Watch report said, in part:

Documents obtained by the Judicial Watch FOIA request revealed that among the reasons given by the FBI's SME for purging "offensive" training documents were:

"Article is highly inflammatory and inaccurately argues the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization."

"Page 13 inaccurately states that AQ [al Qaeda] is responsible for the bombing of the Khobar Towers and that AQ is 'clearly linked' to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center."

"The Qur'an is not the teachings of the Prophet, but the revealed word of God."

"Remove references to mosques specifically as a radicalization incubator."

"Remove sweeping generality of 'Those who fit the terrorist profile best (for the present at least) are young male immigrants of Middle Eastern appearance.'"

Mark Flatten's Examiner report explained further now that specific purged documents are known:

No explanation is given for [the Obama photograph] deletion in the SME assessment other than the photo "is in poor taste and must be removed."

The Danish cartoons appeared in multiple [FBI] presentations on suicide bombers in a section labeled, "How things can inflame a situation."

The cartoons sparked violent protests across the Middle East that led to more than 200 deaths. Muslims consider it blasphemous to create Images of Muhammad.

Last year, four men were convicted in a Danish court of plotting a terrorist attack against the newspaper as revenge for the cartoons. Two men with alleged al Qaeda connections also were convicted for a separate plot in Norway.

The only explanation for purging the cartoons given in the SME assessment is that all of the Images are "inappropriate."

Several slides were removed because they linked al Qaeda to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six people.

The FBI's own website suggests a connection between al Qaeda and the 1993 bombing.

Some of the slides removed by the SMEs were deemed in poor taste because they were too graphic or conveyed the wrong message.

One, under the label "Guaranteed Truth," showed Images of a person being waterboarded, a drug syringe, an attack dog and an electric cord. At the bottom is the phrase "Psychological interviewing."

The SMEs said the slide appeared to endorse torture.

"The FBI is rewriting history in order to help al Qaeda," Fitton wrote for Judicial Watch in May. "As we recently learned from the Boston Marathon terrorist attack, the country is less safe when we allow radical Muslim organizations to tell the FBI how to train its agents and do its job. The FBI's purge of so called 'offensive' material is political correctness run amok, and it puts the nation at risk."

"If you are going to be able to survive an enemy that wants to kill you and destroy your country, then you have got to know and understand your enemy," the Examiner quoted Gohmert, who has been an outspoken critic of the FBI's political correctness in its anti-terror training document purge, as saying.

"When you are in a war to save your country, your way of life, your liberty, then you need to know everything you can about those who are trying to destroy you."

Related: FBI removed material 'offensive to Muslims' from training guides

'There are new bombs, very big bombs': Dems admit terror threat to America rising

More from the Washington Examiner.

Eric Holder's May 2010 Congressional testimony:



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


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

Fwd: War On Terror: Obama Negotiating Release Of Convicted Iranian Nuclear Scientist







http://shark-tank.net/2013/12/03/war-on-terror-obama-accused-of-negotiating-release-of-convicted-iranian-nuclear-scientist/

 

War On Terror: Obama Accused of Negotiating Release Of Convicted Iranian Nuclear Scientist

December 3, 2013

Tweet

President Barack Obama/ The Shark Tank

By JAVIER MANJARRES

President Obama is being accused striking the Iranian nuclear deal, with the use of a captured and convicted Iranian nuclear scientist, who was arrested  in the United States back in 2011 for allegedly trying to buy technology that would, and could be used for Iran's nuclear program.

The State Department responded by saying talks in Geneva between Iran and six world powers focused solely on the nuclear issue, leaving no room for appeals on behalf of Pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and ex-FBI Agent Robert Levinson. But recent reports say the U.S.-Iran negotiations that led to the Swiss talks included the release of an Iranian nuclear scientist arrested in 2011 for trying to aid his nation's nuclear program by circumventing western sanctions.

State Department officials have maintained that the Obama administration has continued to press for the American trio's freedom, just not as part of the nuclear talks. But Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice, who represents Abedini's family, said freeing an Iranian prisoner while Americans languish in Tehran was wrong.

Abedini was sentenced to eight years in an Iranian prison, after he was accused of trying to establish home churches, a move Iranians believe would undermine their government  and national security.  Both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, requested that Iran release Abedini, but nothing came of it.

But according to recent reports, while Obama and Kerry were calling for his release, they were secretly negotiating with the Iranians over their nuclear program.



Atarodi was released in April, according to the report. Atarodi is believed to be a vital player in Iran's missile and nuclear programs, according to Israeli intelligence analyst, Ronen Solomon. Atarodi has published over 30 technical articles relating to micro-electric engineering and has even won awards for his research in this arena

"These claims are untrue," an Obama administration official told Fox News without elaborating when asked about the Times of Israel report saying the scientist had been released. It was not clear if the official was denying Mojtaba Atarodi was released or simply disputing the context.-Fox News

President Obama has long trampled on the U.S. foreign policy of not negotiating with terrorists, first with his dealings with known terrorists is Afghanistan, and now the unfolding and unearthed longstanding negotiations with the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran.

While the U.S. State Department contends that the Obama administration is working to negotiate or "win the release" of the three Americans, if the allegations that the convicted Iranian nuclear scientist was used as a bargaining chip in the recent nuke deal, Obama's loyalty to Americans could be called into question, for not considering the  imprisoned Americans in the nuclear negotiations with Iran.

 



__._,_.___
 


           

__,_._,___


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

Fwd: [New post] ICYMI: Reality Check: One on One with President Obama, Why Is the U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria? [Video]




Sard posted: " Sept. 11, 2012--Ben Swann Reality Check asks President Obama about U.S. foreign policy that seems to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan but support al Qaeda in Syria."

New post on therightplanet.com

ICYMI: Reality Check: One on One with President Obama, Why Is the U.S. Supporting Al Qaeda in Syria? [Video]

by Sard

Sept. 11, 2012--Ben Swann Reality Check asks President Obama about U.S. foreign policy that seems to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan but support al Qaeda in Syria.

Read more of this post

Sard | December 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bDT

Comment    See all comments

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

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/12/icymi-reality-check-one-on-one-with-president-obama-why-is-the-u-s-supporting-al-qaeda-in-syria-video/




--
--
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: The First Hippie President

He is too young to have been a hippie!!! President Clinton and President G.W. Bush are the correct age/generation to be hippies!!!


On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Travis <baconlard@gmail.com> wrote:






The First Hippie President

Posted By Roger L Simon On December 2, 2013

Don't trust anyone over 30.

 

Bill Clinton, the cliché goes, was the first black president, no matter his skin color. That being the case, Barack Obama is not the first black president, or the first African-American president, if you prefer, but the first hippie president.

Clinton's southern background and lifestyle were indeed more typically black, just as Obama's was more typically hippie.

And we're not just talking about the "Choom gang" here, scarfing "Maui Wowie" on the sands of Oahu. We're talking about all of it, the whole multi-culti-missing-white-mother-vanished-Kenyan-father-anti-imperialist-America-is-always-the-enemy-and-don't-you-forget-it-nine-yards. And like most hippie culture as I knew and experienced it, it wasn't about "peace and love." Not in the slightest. That was a masquerade — remember Altamont [1]? It was a put-down of "The Man" and violent aggression toward everything that was decent just because it was normal and the status quo. And the methods were — pace Bill Ayers, the Chicago Seven, the Weathermen, et al. — "by any means necessary." "Burn, baby, burn" whether you were white or black. As Jonah Goldberg eloquently pointed out in his brilliant book, hippie culture was part and parcel of "liberal fascism." [2]

Which accounts for a lot of where we are today. Trust a hippie to negotiate with the mullahs and trust a hippie, yet more incredibly if reports are true, to negotiate with Hezbollah.

I know. I was one myself. Sort of.

Of course, most of us grew out of it. Obama, however, was late to the party and, like many latecomers, didn't quite see it for what it was. The hippie period latecomers I have noticed were envious of their forebears and didn't quite grasp that the whole might have been mere teenage rebellion. Lost in a nostalgia for what they never quite had, they took it all a bit too seriously. (Some of those forebears too, like Tom Hayden, trapped themselves for life in their tired rhetoric. They weren't able to  grow up and face anything close to reality.)

It's no accident then that Obama, as the first hippie president, has done little or nothing to help the lives of black people. Quite the contrary. ("Hey, man, everything's cool. I'm one of you. Later.") The point of hippie culture was "do your own thing," right?  So what if your social fabric is falling apart.

It's also no accident that Obama has found a perfect partner in crime in John Kerry, the first hippie secretary of State. Never mind the seven thousand dollar Armani suits of today, who can forget the old Kerry in his tie-dyes and stringy sixties-seventies do, denouncing his fellow American servicemen as the scions of Genghis Khan [3] (in that pretentious accent, as if anyone could conceivably know how Genghis really pronounced it)? These days the ex-hippies, many of them anyway, wear the most expensive suits. Didn't David Brooks wax poetic in the New York Times over the crease of Obama's pants? Hippiedom was always about the clothes you wore as much as anything else. They just changed, leaving the same superficial personalities intact.

So we are in the era when the hippies are negotiating against the Iranians about nuclear weapons. There would be something almost Terry Southern-black comic about it, if civilization didn't hang in the balance. But, hey, do your own thing, and if that thing happens to be enriching uranium, so be it. I mean Rouhani's got a beard, right? If he only weren't over thirty, we could really trust him.

(Artwork psychedelically created using multiple Shutterstock.com [4] images.)


Article printed from Roger L. Simon: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/12/02/the-first-hippie-president/

URLs in this post:

[1] Altamont: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Free_Concert

[2] "liberal fascism.": http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2008/03/17/a-century-of-liberal-fascism/

[3] the scions of Genghis Khan: http://www.wintersoldier.com

[4] Shutterstock.com: http://www.shutterstock.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.



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

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

Fwd: [New post] Ex-Secret Service Agent: Obama Feels Need to Defend Islamofascists Due to Shared Belief in Authoritarianism




Sard posted: " (The Blaze)--In an interview conducted with Blaze Books prior to the release of his now New York Times bestselling book, Life Inside the Bubble, former presidential Secret Service agent Dan Bongino held no punches, unloading on President Obama and a sle"

New post on therightplanet.com

Ex-Secret Service Agent: Obama Feels Need to Defend Islamofascists Due to Shared Belief in Authoritarianism

by Sard

(The Blaze)--In an interview conducted with Blaze Books prior to the release of his now New York Times bestselling book, Life Inside the Bubble, former presidential Secret Service agent Dan Bongino held no punches, unloading on President Obama and a slew of other targets. His central message on the president: Barack Obama is "married to […]

Read more of this post

Sard | December 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bDO

Comment    See all comments

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

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.therightplanet.com/2013/12/ex-secret-service-agent-obama-feels-need-to-defend-islamofascists-due-to-shared-belief-in-authoritarianism/




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

Fwd: Is US Military Readiness Being Compromised?








http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013120333543/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/is-us-military-readiness-being-compromised.html

 

Is US Military Readiness Being Compromised?

03 December 2013

Written by J. D. Longstreet

Obama's Purge of the US Military

More and more Americans are beginning to worry that America's military is in decline.  Veterans of the military forces, especially, worry as they have seen the evidence of a lack of readiness by simply comparing the state of readiness of their branch of the military during their time of service and the state of readiness today in that same branch of the US Military.

It is a topic the government does not want to discuss in public.  That is understandable.  However, it needs attention and it needs attention NOW.

 The House Armed Services Committee chairman, Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., said recently:  "You'd better hope we never have a war again."  It would seem he, too, is concerned over what he perceives as the decline in what the military calls its readiness.

There can be no doubt that recent budget cuts have hurt the US military.  The cuts were made against the warnings of top brass at the Pentagon and by military experts.  More cuts are in the pipeline. 

How bad has readiness suffered?  Well, that's classified.  But we are able to pick up a snippet here and there that allows us to peek behind the curtain for an instant. 

From a report on ABCnews.com we learn:  "... an Air Force official says they've grounded 13 combat fighter/bomber squadrons or about a third of those active duty units. And the Army says only two of its 35 active-duty brigades are fully ready for major combat operations."  SOURCE:   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/worry-us-military-ready-21046785  

Just for your information -- a brigade is made up (usually) of approximately 3,500 to 5,500 troops.   So the figures above become even more frightening when we realize that we have roughly 160,000 active duty combat troops in those 35 brigades -- BUT -- we only have less than ten thousand active duty combat troops ready to fight -- right now!

Yeah, I know that is JUST the Army and does not include the Reserves, the Marines, and the Navy. Still, it IS eye-opening and frightening.

Budget cuts have curtailed training, especially for the US Army and it is beginning to show.

Consider this:  "U.S. General Ray Odierno, U.S. Army chief of staff, has said that budget cuts and fiscal uncertainty in the United States have led to sharp reductions in army training.

In comments on October 21 at a conference of the Association of the U.S. Army, Odierno said currently only two brigades of troops are fully trained and combat ready.

"We had to stop training, basically, in the last six months of the [fiscal] year," Odierno said.

A combat brigade has between 3,500 and 5,000 troops. The U.S. Army currently has some 570,000 uniformed personnel.

Under current plans approved by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel during the summer, that figure could be reduced as low as 420,000.

Odierno also said budget woes are affecting equipment purchases and the army currently needs a new armored fighting vehicle and new helicopters."
  SOURCE:  http://www.rferl.org/content/article/25143880.html

Look. The US military is reeling from $800 billion in defense cuts over the next ten years and now, we learn, they are faced with $500 billion MORE in budget cuts since sequestration has kicked in.

The Obama administration's military budget cuts are being made when global tension and instability are spiraling up.  The Middle East is a time bomb set to explode at any moment.  As I write China and Japan are at something of a standoff over disputed ownership of a few small islands claimed by both.  The US is pledged to fight for Japan should this glaring contest suddenly go hot and bullets begin to fly.

How bad is it?  As we said above that is classified, but consider what Retired Adm. James A. Lyons former Commander - in - Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations had to say back in October 2013 in an article published by the Washington Times:  "All this means that we will have the smallest Army since prior to World War II. The Navy, with its anemic shipbuilding program, will most likely be left with the smallest fleet since prior to World War I. The U.S. Air Force will suffer a similar adverse impact. Selected aircraft squadrons from both the Air Force and the Navy have been ordered to stand down and not fly. It will take several months to restore their readiness.

Symbolic of the Navy's demise are the five aircraft carriers that are currently moored at piers at the Norfolk Naval Base in Virginia for lack of operating and overhaul funds. Clearly, with the escalating civil war in Syria, one carrier battle group should be immediately deployed to the Mediterranean. Such a deployment would dramatically change the strategic equation and counter Russia's deployment of 11 ships currently there." SOURCE:  http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/11/restoring-military-readiness-512223544/#ixzz2mEsFm3Ny

The budget cuts have done a number on the US military.  Adding to the military's problems though, is the social engineering the left has forced upon our fighting forces.  Unit cohesion is evaporating with homosexuals serving openly now and, with women in combat roles, sexual assaults are sky rocketing.

Some are wondering if we have entirely to many politician soldiers, parade ground officers, instead of fighting generals in positions of power in the upper echelons of the US military. 

And there are those who suspect Obama is purging the military of generals and admirals who place their oath to protect the Constitution before allegiance to him.  

Consider this:  "Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

"Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause," Boykin said.

Boykin went on to say:  "I believe there is a purging of the military," he said. "The problem is worse than we have ever seen."

Boykin referred to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years."
  SOURCE:  http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#zjus8xYFUc2EzwEZ.99

One could argue that Obama is only following his Marxist philosophy and copying Joseph Stalin's purge of the Soviet military in 1941.  That purge by Stalin was to consolidate his power.  One would be hard pressed NOT to think Mr. Obama might be motivated by the same motivating principle as Stalin.  Stalin wanted a military that answered only to him -- and him alone. 

We cannot allow any President to create a Praetorian Guard of our military. 

There has never been an attempted coup by the US military.  How do I know?  Because had there been -- it would have been successful.  They have shown remarkable restraint over the past nearly two-and-half centuries.  But today there is restlessness in the ranks -- both upper and lower.

The US military, the Army, the Navy, Marines, the Air Force, the Coast Guard, and all the Reserve forces need our help.  The least we can do is contact our Congressperson and demand that they investigate and get to the bottom of Obama's purge of the military and restore the necessary funds to rebuild our military and finally, Congress should repeal, or in some other way, remove homosexuals from serving openly in the US military and remove women from combat roles in all the services.   

The US military has defended America for 250 years, or so.  Don't you think it's about time we Americans came to the defense of our troops?

 



__._,_.___



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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.