Friday, 13 December 2013

Fwd: Dick Heller Challenges DC Gun Registration Scheme



-------


To receive email from Dick Heller, add BizRH@aol.com to your safe sender list.
View as Web Page Subscribe Unsubscribe
Washington DC Plans to Fingerprint & Photograph Every Legal Gun Owner
Dick Heller Challenges DC Gun Registration Scheme - Files for quick ruling in Heller II
Emily Miller of the Washington Timesby Emily Miller
 
The District of Columbia will do anything to stop law-abiding people from owning firearms to defend themselves.
 
The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that D.C.'s 30-year handgun ban was unconstitutional in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision. In response, Washington's city council put in place the most onerous gun registration requirement in the country.
 
So Dick Heller is taking D.C. to court again in a case known as "Heller II."
 
Heller told me in a phone interview Tuesday that, "The city collected every gun restriction they could find from every other state and gave them to us as thumbtacks on the road for our march to Second Amendment freedom." He is the lead plaintiff of five District residents who state that their constitutional rights are being infringed by the registration requirements. The city claims the process is necessary for "to protect police officers and to aid in crime control."
 
Read More at Heller Foundation
 
ARTICLE REPRINTED WITH FULL PERMISSION  
http://www.WashingtonTimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/dick-heller-challenges-dcs-gun-registration-files-/
 
 
HellerFoundation  •  POB 15496  •  Washington, DC 20003-0496
http://HellerFoundation.org



Share on Facebook Bookmark and Share  

--
--
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] Why are the media focusing on the ‘race’ of the suicide bomber wannabe in Wichita, Kansas?





BareNakedIslam posted: "When the most important part of his profile is that he is a convert to Islam and wanted to blow up the airport and kill as many Americans as possible for Allah. NBC News  A 58-year-old airport worker was charged Friday with allegedly planning a suicide b"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

Why are the media focusing on the 'race' of the suicide bomber wannabe in Wichita, Kansas?

by BareNakedIslam

When the most important part of his profile is that he is a convert to Islam and wanted to blow up the airport and kill as many Americans as possible for Allah. NBC News  A 58-year-old airport worker was charged Friday with allegedly planning a suicide bombing at a passenger terminal at the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport […]

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | December 13, 2013 at 4:45 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-106z

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/12/13/why-are-the-media-focusing-on-the-race-of-the-suicide-bomber-wannabe-in-wichita-kansas/




--
--
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] Obamacare Wasteland: 20,000% Markup for Website That Barely Works




Brent P. posted: " Taxpayers were charged $1 billion for the Obamacare website, and it is barely working. Some experts argue that the real cost of the Obamacare website should have been closer to $5 million. How did the Obama Administration bilk taxpayers out of a billion "

New post on therightplanet.com

Obamacare Wasteland: 20,000% Markup for Website That Barely Works

by Brent P.

Taxpayers were charged $1 billion for the Obamacare website, and it is barely working. Some experts argue that the real cost of the Obamacare website should have been closer to $5 million. How did the Obama Administration bilk taxpayers out of a billion dollars for a useless product? Find out on this Trifecta.

Read more of this post

Brent P. | December 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bM6

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/obamacare-wasteland-20000-markup-for-website-that-barely-works/




--
--
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] Obamacare Shocker: Richest 1% Get Best Health Care; 99% Get Shaft




Brent P. posted: " Trifecta explains why Obamacare will give the rich the best health care in America, and how the poor will get worst. Will you lose access to the best doctors and hospitals under Obamacare? Find out."

New post on therightplanet.com

Obamacare Shocker: Richest 1% Get Best Health Care; 99% Get Shaft

by Brent P.

Trifecta explains why Obamacare will give the rich the best health care in America, and how the poor will get worst. Will you lose access to the best doctors and hospitals under Obamacare? Find out.

Read more of this post

Brent P. | December 13, 2013 at 4:18 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bM3

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/obamacare-shocker-richest-1-get-best-health-care-99-get-shaft/




--
--
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] FLASHBACK: Obama’s Views on White People [Audio]




Brent P. posted: " While you're listening to this audio, here's a little exercise you can run through in your head: replace the phrase "white people" with "black people," then ask yourself if any white person could ever get away with it without being run out of the country"

New post on therightplanet.com

FLASHBACK: Obama's Views on White People [Audio]

by Brent P.

While you're listening to this audio, here's a little exercise you can run through in your head: replace the phrase "white people" with "black people," then ask yourself if any white person could ever get away with it without being run out of the country. I'm sick and tired of this BS that black people […]

Read more of this post

Brent P. | December 13, 2013 at 4:02 pm | URL: http://wp.me/p1SHGG-bM0

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/flashback-obamas-views-on-white-people-audio/




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

Fwd: [The_Fair_Forum] ] Interesting article



 
 
 
 
 
The Secret History of How Cuba Helped End Apartheid in South Africa
Democracy Now!
December 11, 2013

As the world focuses on Tuesday's historic handshake between President Obama and Cuban President Raúl Castro, we look back at the pivotal role Cuba played in ending apartheid and why Castro was one of only five world leaders invited to speak at Nelson Mandela's memorial. In the words of Mandela, the Cubans 'destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor ... [and] inspired the fighting masses of South Africa.' Historian Piero Gleijeses argues that it was Cuba's victory in Angola in 1988 that forced Pretoria to set Namibia free and helped break the back of apartheid South Africa. We speak to Gleijeses about his new book, "Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991," and play archival footage of Mandela meeting Fidel Castro in Cuba. Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to the historic moment Tuesday when President Barack Obama shook hands with Cuban President Raúl Castro as both men participated in the memorial service for anti-apartheid leader Nelson Mandela in South Africa. The White House said the handshake was unscripted. It marked the first time a U.S. president has shaken hands with a Cuban leader since 2000. In Washington, Republicans expressed outrage over the exchange. During a hearing in the House, Republican Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida sparred with Secretary of State John Kerry, who said it did not represent any change in U.S. policy toward Cuba.

REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN: Mr. Secretary, sometimes a handshake is just a handshake. But when the leader of the free world shakes the bloody hand of a ruthless dictator like Raúl Castro, it becomes a propaganda coup for the tyrant. Raúl Castro uses that hand to sign the orders to repress and jail democracy advocates. In fact, right now, as we speak, Cuban opposition leaders are being detained, and they're being beaten while trying to commemorate today, which is International Human Rights Day. They will feel disheartened when they see these photos. Could you please tell the Cuban people living under that repressive regime that a handshake nonwithstanding, the U.S. policy toward the cruel and sadistic Cuban dictatorship has not weakened? Thank you.

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Ladies and gentlemen, today is about honoring Nelson Mandela. And the president is at an international funeral with leaders from all over the world. He didn't choose who's there. They're there to honor Mandela. And we appreciate that people from all over the world and from all different beliefs and walks of life who appreciated Nelson Mandela and/or were friends of his came to honor him. And I think, as the president said—I urge you to go read his speech, or if you didn't see it or haven't read it, because the president said in his speech today honoring Nelson Mandela, he said, "We urge leaders to honor Mandela's struggle for freedom by upholding the basic human rights of their people"—

REP. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN: And would you say Raúl Castro is upholding their basic human rights?

SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: No, absolutely not.

AMY GOODMAN: The uproar over President Obama's handshake with President Raúl Castro has drawn attention to the close relationship between the South African anti-apartheid movement and Cuba. In 1991, Nelson Mandela visited Cuba with then-President Fidel Castro. This is a clip when they first met.

NELSON MANDELA: Before we say anything, you must tell me when you are coming to South Africa. You see—no, just a moment, just a moment, just a moment.

PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: [translated] The sooner the better.

NELSON MANDELA: And we have had a visit from a wide variety of people. And our friend, Cuba, which had helped us in training our people, gave us resources to keep current with our struggle, trained our people as doctors, and SWAPO, you have not come to our country. When are you coming?

PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: [translated] I haven't visited my South African homeland yet. I want it, I love it as a homeland. I love it as a homeland as I love you and the South African people.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, for more on Cuba's key role in the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa, we're joined now in Washington, D.C., by Piero Gleijeses, professor of American foreign policy at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He uses archival sources from the United States, South Africa and Cuba to provide an unprecedented look at the history in his latest book, Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991_. You can read the book's prologuepretoria on our website at democracynow.org.

Professor Gleijeses, welcome to Democracy Now! Talk about this key relationship, why Cuba was so seminal to the anti-apartheid movement.

PIERO GLEIJESES: Cuba is the only country in the world that sent its soldiers to confront the army of apartheid and defeated the army of apartheid, the South African army, twice—in 1975, 1976, and in 1988. And in Havana, when he visited Havana in July 1991—I won't to be able to repeat exactly the words of Nelson Mandela, but Nelson Mandela said, "The Cuban victory," referring to the Cuban victory over the South Africans in Angola in 1988, "destroyed the myth of the invincibility of the white oppressor and inspired the fighting masses of South Africa. Cuito Cuanavale," which is a victory of the Cubans in Angola, "is the turning point in the liberation of our continent and of my people from the scourge of apartheid." So, in—

AMY GOODMAN: For a country that knows very little, Professor Gleijeses, about the Cuban experience, its military intervention in Angola, can you step back for a moment and explain what President Castro—what Fidel Castro and these Cuban soldiers did?

PIERO GLEIJESES: Sure. In 1975, you have the decolonization of Angola, Portuguese colony slated to become independent on November 11, 1975. There is a civil war between three movements: one supported by the Cubans, the Cubans that supported over the years in its struggle against the Portuguese; the other two supported by South Africa and the United States. And the movement supported by the Cubans, the MPLA, which is in power in Angola today, having won free election, was on the verge of winning the civil war. And it was on the verge of winning the civil war—a paraphrase from what the CIA station chief in Angola at the time told me—because it was the most committed movement with the best leaders, the best program. And in order to prevent their victory, the victory of the MPLA, in October 1975, urged by Washington, South Africa invaded. And the South African troops advanced on Luanda, and they would have taken Luanda and crushed the MPLA if Fidel Castro had not decided to intervene. And between November 1975 and April 1976, 3,6000 Cuban soldiers poured into Angola and pushed the South Africans back into Namibia, which South Africa ruled at the time.

And this had an immense psychological impact—talking of South Africa—in South Africa, both among whites and among blacks. And the major black South African newspaper, The World, wrote in an editorial in February 1976, at a moment in which the South African troops were still in Angola, but the Cubans were pushing them back—they had evacuated central Angola. They were in southern Angola. The writing was on the wall. And this newspaper, The World, wrote, "Black Africa is riding the crest of a wave generated by the Cuban victory in Angola. Black Africa is tasting the heady wine of the possibility of achieving total liberation." And Mandela wrote that he was in jail in 1975 when he learned about the arrival of the Cuban troops in Angola, and it was the first time then a country had come from another continent not to take something away, but to help Africans to achieve their freedom.

This was the first real contribution of Cuba to the liberation of South Africa. It was the first time in living memory that the White Giants, the army of apartheid, had been forced to retreat. And they had retreated because of a non-white army. And in a situation of internal colonialism, this is extremely important. And after that, the Cubans remained in Angola to protect Angola from the South African army. Even the CIA acknowledged that the Cubans were the guarantee for the independence of Angola. And in Angola, they trained the ANC, the African National Congress, of Mandela. And very close relations developed between the two. I don't know if you want me to go on and talk about the next moment, or you want to interrupt me with some questions.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Yes, Professor Piero Gleijeses, if you could speak specifically about the role of Che Guevara in Africa?

PIERO GLEIJESES: Yeah, Che Guevara had nothing to do with South Africa. The role—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: In Africa, though, in the Congo and Angola.

PIERO GLEIJESES: Yes, I understand. The role of Che Guevara in 1964, 1965—in late 1964, Che Guevara was sent by Fidel Castro as Fidel Castro's top representative to Sub-Saharan Africa—it was the first visit by a top Cuban leader to Sub-Saharan Africa—because the Cubans believed that there was a revolutionary situation in central Africa, and they wanted to help. And Che Guevara established relations with a number of revolutionary movements. One of them, the MPLA, the Movement for the Liberation of Angola, that was based in Congo-Brazzaville. And in 1965, the first Cubans fought in Angolan territory together with the MPLA. But the major role played by Che Guevara is that he led a group of Cubans into Congo, the former Belgian Congo, where there was a revolt by the followers of the late Lumumba against the central government enforced by the United States. And the United States had created an army of white mercenaries, the White Giants, mainly South African and Rhodesians and then Europeans, to crush this revolt. And the Cubans went at the request of the rebels, at the request of the government of Egypt, Algeria and Tanzania to help the rebels.

AMY GOODMAN: Uh—

PIERO GLEIJESES: And—yes?

AMY GOODMAN: Professor, I wanted to go back to Angola—

PIERO GLEIJESES: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —and this time bring in former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. This is Kissinger explaining why the U.S. was concerned about the Cuban troops that Fidel Castro had sent to fight in Angola. After Kissinger, you'll hear Fidel Castro himself.

SECRETARY OF STATE HENRY KISSINGER: We thought, with respect to Angola, that if the Soviet Union could intervene at such distances, from areas that were far from the traditional Russian security concerns, and when Cuban forces could be introduced into distant trouble spots, and if the West could not find a counter to that, that then the whole international system could be destabilized.

PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: [translated] It was a question of globalizing our struggle vis-à-vis the globalized pressures and harassment of the U.S. In this respect, it did not coincide with the Soviet viewpoint. We acted, but without their cooperation. Quite the opposite.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Fidel Castro and, before that, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from the film CIA & Angolan Revolution. Professor Gleijeses?

PIERO GLEIJESES: OK, two points. One, Kissinger didn't mention that the Cubans intervened in response to the South African invasion and that the United States had connived with the South Africans and urged the South Africans to invade. So here, there is a rather important issue of chronology.

The second point is that in the last volume of his memoirs, Kissinger, who in general is a very arrogant person, acknowledges that he made a mistake. And the mistake he made was in saying that the Cubans had intervened as proxies of the Soviet Union. And he writes in his memoirs that actually it had been a Cuban decision and that the Cubans had intervened and confronted the Soviets with a fait accompli. And then he asks a question in his memoirs: Why did Castro take this decision? And Kissinger's answer is that Fidel Castro was probably—I'm quoting—"was probably the most genuine revolutionary leader then in power." So, there are two Kissingers, if you want, and there is the Kissinger of his memoirs, where he says a few things that actually are true.

AMY GOODMAN: Piero Gleijeses, what do you make of the furor right now? You just heard Congressmember Lehtinen from Florida attacking John Kerry, you know, the significance of the handshake between President Obama and President Raúl Castro right there at the Soweto stadium at the memorial service for Nelson Mandela.

PIERO GLEIJESES: I think it's pathetic and reflects the ethics of the United States and the policy of the United States. Obama, President Obama, was received with applause in South Africa when he spoke, etc., because he is the first black president of the United States. But the role of the United States as a country, as a government, past governments, in the struggle for liberation of South Africa is a shameful role. In general, we were on the side of the apartheid government. And the role of Cuba is a splendid role in favor of the liberation. This handshake—going beyond this particular issue, the handshake was long overdue. The embargo is absurd, is immoral. And we have here a president who bowed to the king of South Africa—of Saudi Arabia, I'm sorry, which certainly is no democracy. I mean, even Obama should know it. So it's an absurd situation. The problem with Obama is that his speeches are good, his gestures are good, but there is no follow-up. So, unfortunately, it is just a gesture, a long-overdue gesture that does not change a shameful U.S. policy.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Professor Piero Gleijeses, before we conclude, let's turn to Fidel Castro speaking in South Africa on his visit in 1998.

PRESIDENT FIDEL CASTRO: [translated] Let South Africa be a model of a more just and more humane future. If you can do it, we will all be able to do it.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was Fidel Castro speaking in 1998 in South Africa, with former president, who just passed away, Nelson Mandela applauding him. Piero Gleijeses, we just have a minute. Could you talk about what most surprised you in your research in the Cuban archives about this history?

PIERO GLEIJESES: Well, there are a lot of things. One is the independence of Cuban policy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. There are clashes between Fidel Castro and Gorbachev. There are clashes between the leaders of the Cuban military mission in Angola and the Soviet leaders, which I quote actually in my book and which make really fascinating reading. This is one thing.

But another thing that impressed me very much is the respect with which the Cubans treated the Angolan government. This is very important, because the Angolan government really depended on Cuba for its survival, the presence of the Cuban troops as a shield against South African invasion, which was a constant threat, and the very large and generous technical assistance that Cuba was providing to Angola. And the tendency would be to treat a government that's so dependent with some kind of superiority. And this is something I've never found in international relations, this kind of respect with which Cuba treated what, by all objective counts, should have been a client government. And it's particularly striking for someone who studies the United States and lives in the United States, because seriously the United States government does not treat government that depends on Washington with much respect.

AMY GOODMAN: Piero Gleijeses, thank you so much for being with us.

PIERO GLEIJESES: My pleasure.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor of American foreign policy at SAIS, the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. We will post the prologue of your book on our website. The book is just out; it's called Visions of Freedom: Havana, Washington, Pretoria, and the Struggle for Southern Africa, 1976-1991, just published by University of North Carolina Press. Go to democracynow.org to read that prologue. When we come back, we'll talk about Russia and gay and lesbian policy. Stay with us.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/12/11/the_secret_history_of_how_cuba

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.

__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
.....the forum for free & fair debate, Everyone welcome. Hate Obama's health care plan, tell us!
.

__,_._,___

--
--
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.

are things bigger in Texas?

--
--
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: All Politicians are Crininals






http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013121333590/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/politicians-criminal-minds.html

 

Politicians' Criminal Minds

13 December 2013 04:16

Written by Tibor Machan

 

It may have been either Will Rogers or Mark Twain, I cannot now recall which of the two great American humorists it was, who said all politicians are criminals. But it makes no difference because when something is true, its source is not the main issue. Fact is, politicians are extortionists at heart since their forte is that they will allow you and me to live and work provided we fork out nearly half of what we earn or otherwise obtain honestly so they can then dispose of it as they see fit.

In our time, not entirely unlike in others, the main appeal politicians hold out for millions is that they join them in their resentful bashing of the rich. This is a successful ploy because in the past, of course, most riches came from conquest, from governments and their favorite minions sending out thugs to confiscate whatever they desired from those who had some. As the saying has it, behind every great fortune lies a great crime, including extortion via taxation! This is why Robin Hood became a hero to so many: He went out and recovered what the tax takers took by force and returned it to the rightful owners. (No, Robin Hood didn't steal from the rich and give to the poor; he repossessed from the ruler and his vicious taxers!)

How can politicians live with the knowledge that they are what they are, confiscators, extortionists? Because they tell themselves the story so many tell themselves when they do the wrong thing – "The intended end justifies the means!" Nearly every criminal thinks this way and so do nearly all who perpetrate evil upon others. Some higher goal than what the victim seems to be pursuing motivates them. They are serving the public interest or God or the common good or the environment or science or culture – you name it, there are hundreds of candidates that make the politician feel at ease.

Criminals also have great goals that will be served by their loot and since their victims are well enough off, they have nothing to complain about. After all, isn't it selfish to insist on trying to hold on to your own resources, your own time, indeed your own life? Prominent university professors spell this out for us – we are all selfish bastards if we hold on to our own and allocate it as we judge fit. No, they will determine to what end my and your life should be devoted and if we disagree, they will send the politician into the arena who will make laws that compel us all to comply with their noble vision. As Professor Peter Unger wrote in one of his "ethics" books, "On pain of living a life that's seriously immoral, a typical well-off person, like you and me, must give away most of her financially valuable assets, and much of her income, directing the funds to lessen efficiently the serious suffering of others."

I personally know numerous such apologists for actions and politics that involve taking from people what is theirs so as to devote it to objectives the takers have failed to convince their victims to contribute to voluntarily. Never mind that – just like criminals, who cares about the rights of these victims when my noble goals are at stake?! And because there are at least some whose wealth was acquired through some shady dealings, one can rest easy in one's conscience by telling oneself, 'Well, they are all guilty of graft and theft. Why shouldn't we then go after them in the same vein?' With the likes of the famous French poet Charles Baudelaire, who said that "Commerce is satanic, because it is the basest and vilest form of egoism. The spirit of every businessman is completely depraved" providing them the clear conscience they crave as they rob and steal and extort from us, why would politicians think any differently from criminals? In our day the leader of the citizenry has no hesitation about bashing the wealthy, insisting that robbing them of their lives and resources and liberty to dispose of these as they judge proper is perfectly honorable.

Until this attitude about people and their resources – reminiscent of the days of serfdom and involuntary servitude – seriously abates, the dream of a genuine free country will remain, well, but a dream. The idea that when one is successful, or even simply lucky so far as amassing resources is concerned, others get authorized to forcibly remove one's wealth and use it without one's permission for their however desirable ends, is plainly barbaric. It amounts to subjugating others, actually enslaving them. And that has no place in civilized societies.

Tibor Machan, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Auburn University, holds the R.C. Hoiles Endowed Chair in Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics at Chapman University, is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University and serves as a Senior Contributing Editor with TheDailyBell.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: Administration: Issa can't be trusted







It IS the illiterate, uneducated, gullible morons who elected Obama in the first place.

 

B

 

The Administration says Issa can't be trusted?!?!?!? OMG! If there was EVER more perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black I have never heard of it! The really pathetic thing about this is that there are so many illiterate, uneducated, gullible morons in this country that they'll actually believe this BS – which the Administration has, I truly believe, patented!

 

 

December 12, 2013, 04:58 pm

Administration: Issa can't be trusted

By Justin Sink

Greg Nash

The Obama administration on Thursday escalated its feuding with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), telling him he cannot have physical copies of ObamaCare security documents because he might leak them.

Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has requested copies of six reports prepared by a contractor that outline security vulnerabilities with the ObamaCare enrollment portal HealthCare.gov.

In an letter sent Thursday, the administration argues that because of Issa's history of selective leaks to the media, he can't be trusted with the materials.

"The committee's unwillingness to commit to undertake measures to address the security risks associated with further disclosure is troubling, particularly in light of reports that sensitive materials were disclosed through various investigations," wrote Jim Esquea, the assistant secretary for legislation at the Health and Human Services Department (HHS).

Issa's office blasted back on Thursday and accused the White House of overreaching in advising the contractor who prepared the report to not respond to the subpoena.

"It's an unacceptable violation of law and a dangerous precedent for any administration to tell a private company not to respond to a lawful subpoena," Issa spokesman Frederick Hill said.

At issue is a subpoena issued by Issa to MITRE, a contractor working to assess security issues with the ObamaCare website.

The administration has already allowed Oversight staffers to review the reports in a secure room, but is refusing to turn over physical copies.

Esquea says that the information contained in the documents "could be used to hack the system" and that they "may pose a risk to the confidentiality of consumer information accessible through healthcare.gov."

"As we have explained through staff discussions and in our prior correspondence, these documents are highly sensitive in light of the substantial harm that could result if the information contained in them were accessed by determined actors seeking to compromise the security and functioning of the website," Esquea said.

Esquea said the administration is willing to make the documents available to outside security experts who can independently testify that their disclosure would create a security risk to the ObamaCare website.

The White House has publicly and privately fumed over Issa's document releases during his tenure heading the Oversight Committee. They say Issa has routinely disclosed sensitive or classified information in the course of politically charged investigations.

Earlier this month, White House press secretary Jay Carney said he was "confident" that the "dribs and drabs of information" provided by Issa to reporters about HealthCare.gov only "partially reflect what's happening at CMS and HHS."

Democrats have also highlighted instances in recent years where Issa released sensitive materials related to ongoing investigations.

The executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington accused Issa last year of inserting material from a sealed warrant into the congressional record while investigating the "Fast and Furious" gun-walking operation.

In 2011, the Department of Homeland Security complained when sensitive information on the Transportation Security Administration provided to the committee was disclosed to the press.

In a letter to the committee earlier this month, MITRE said they had provided redacted versions of the report, and would also be willing to allow review of unredacted versions in a secure facility.

"I believe this responds to the committee's interest while also allowing MITRE to properly discharge our obligation to the government as a custodian of sensitive information potentially affecting the privacy interests of all Americans," MITRE CEO Alfred Grasso said in a letter to Issa.

Grasso goes on to say that the reports were produced under contract with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and suggests Issa should attempt to gain copies by subpoenaing the department. 

— This story was updated at 6:45 p.m.

 



__._,_.__



           

__,_._,___


--
--
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.