Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: If you could, and would, read my document with an open mind,
there is nothing injurious to ordinary citizens. Stalin didn't give a
damn about ordinary citizens (or soldiers). He killed them by the
millions. Are you saying that my New Constitution will harm ordinary
citizens? Ha, ha, HA! Then you can't read, for sure! — J. A. A.
—
>
On Apr 10, 7:25 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I prefer to call it what it is.... Stalinesque.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >  John,
>
> > So you are trying to eliminate celebrities who have an opinion that differs
> > from yours. How fascist of you!
>
> > On 04/10/2011 01:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > No, Jonathan!  Celebrities in the media and in entertainment simply
> > can't voice their opinions or political preferences in any MEDIUM.
> > The man-on-the-street doesn't get hours a week to talk about how great
> > Barack Obama is, the way Oprah Winfrey did.  Barbara Walters, a
> > celebrity, made no bones about the fact she supported Barack Obama.
> > What in our "Constitution" gives high-paid celebrities the right to
> > have more influence on the outcome of elections than the man on the
> > street?  As soon as Jay Leno or David Letterman make one joke about a
> > candidate for public office, they will immediately be fired or their
> > network closed.  Politics is NOT about entertainment, nor is it a game
> > with 24-7 play-by-play coverage with commentary and prove-nothing
> > polls.  Those who would like our government to be run the way the
> > People say, rather than the way those who publicly endorse a candidate
> > say, should rally behind my New Constitution—a document for the
> > people!  —  J. A. A. —
>
> >   On Apr 9, 1:01 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  John,
>
> > You have once again shown that you have no interest in freedom, but
> > instead want to dictate what others can and cannot do.
>
> > That you believe celebrities should have less right to voice their
> > opinions smacks of fascism. Or am I misinterpreting what you mean when
> > you state, "Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> > 'following' which would be cesseptable (sic) to vote like the
> > celebrities vote. The (sic) means celebrities would have more influence
> > at the poles (sic) than the man-on-the-street (sic).  Of course, that
> > shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and democracy."
>
> > Please explain to the world what "principles of fair play" means and why
> > someone who is a celebrity will not be allowed to "play" in your world.
>
> > And, John, you'd better do it fast. I think your time on this forum is
> > about up.
>
> > On 04/08/2011 09:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >  Jonathan:  Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> > "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities
> > vote.  The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles
> > than the man-on-the-street.  Of course, that shift of power runs
> > counter to principles of fair play and democracy.  The 1st Amendment
> > says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other
> > medium".  Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is
> > allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I
> > correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google
> > didn't FIRE Mark, post haste!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
>
> >  --
>
> >       Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > --
> > Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *
> *

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

No, Jonathan! Celebrities will only be jailed for publicly endorsing
any candidate for public office. As things now stand, candidates are
soliciting celebrities to stand beside them at rallies. They know
that that gets them votes. But never more! After a few celebs spend
a year or so in jail, it won't be likely that the public will give-a-
damn who those jerks are going to vote for. If a musical group is
hired to provide music at a rally, the performers better make damn
sure they don't say anything supportive of that candidate, lest they
go to jail. Get it? — J. A. A. —
>
On Apr 10, 6:30 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> So you are trying to eliminate celebrities who have an opinion that
> differs from yours. How fascist of you!
>
> On 04/10/2011 01:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No, Jonathan!  Celebrities in the media and in entertainment simply
> > can't voice their opinions or political preferences in any MEDIUM.
> > The man-on-the-street doesn't get hours a week to talk about how great
> > Barack Obama is, the way Oprah Winfrey did.  Barbara Walters, a
> > celebrity, made no bones about the fact she supported Barack Obama.
> > What in our "Constitution" gives high-paid celebrities the right to
> > have more influence on the outcome of elections than the man on the
> > street?  As soon as Jay Leno or David Letterman make one joke about a
> > candidate for public office, they will immediately be fired or their
> > network closed.  Politics is NOT about entertainment, nor is it a game
> > with 24-7 play-by-play coverage with commentary and prove-nothing
> > polls.  Those who would like our government to be run the way the
> > People say, rather than the way those who publicly endorse a candidate
> > say, should rally behind my New Constitution�a document for the
> > people!  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > On Apr 9, 1:01 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> You have once again shown that you have no interest in freedom, but
> >> instead want to dictate what others can and cannot do.
>
> >> That you believe celebrities should have less right to voice their
> >> opinions smacks of fascism. Or am I misinterpreting what you mean when
> >> you state, "Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> >> 'following' which would be cesseptable (sic) to vote like the
> >> celebrities vote. The (sic) means celebrities would have more influence
> >> at the poles (sic) than the man-on-the-street (sic).  Of course, that
> >> shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and democracy."
>
> >> Please explain to the world what "principles of fair play" means and why
> >> someone who is a celebrity will not be allowed to "play" in your world.
>
> >> And, John, you'd better do it fast. I think your time on this forum is
> >> about up.
>
> >> On 04/08/2011 09:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan:  Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> >>> "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities
> >>> vote.  The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles
> >>> than the man-on-the-street.  Of course, that shift of power runs
> >>> counter to principles of fair play and democracy.  The 1st Amendment
> >>> says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other
> >>> medium".  Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is
> >>> allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I
> >>> correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google
> >>> didn't FIRE Mark, post haste!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >> --
>
> >>        Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> >> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> >> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> --
>
>       Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: The only ones being restricted are employees of government,
public officials, and 100% of those working in the media. Nothing
about my Constitution restricts the free speech of the man-on-the-
street! Not too long ago, there was a radical Hispanic school teacher
in California teaching his students that Arizona's immigration law
should be ignored. Since that teacher is a government employee (the
states are included), as soon as he expressed his personal opinions to
his students, he was guilty of violating the Constitution and would
immediately be fired from his job. The present state of being in this
country is that those with government jobs are part of a ruling
class. HA! When that unconstitutional WI teachers union opened their
mouths in public forum, every single one of them would be out of a
job! If people think that power is to be found by banding together in
groups and fighting it out, think again! My New Constitution will
criminalize any group leaders seeking power above and beyond what my
New Constitution guarantees. And doing that, flagrantly, is treason!
Group-against-group bickering will finally cease to exist in this
country, beginning with my outlawing of political parties! — J. A. A.
—

>
On Apr 10, 5:31 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein,
>
> Regardless of ANY law or law making body's intent; the more laws and the
> more intrusion into the life of people the restricted and thus the more
> enslaved they become. Your Constitution and its "built in" penal aspect and
> outright restriction on free speech is the perfect example.
>
> Just what part of "We the People" at the beginning of the present
> Constitution do you Americans NOT get. It flatly lays the responsibility for
> EVERYTHING that Government does at your feet. Exactly why do you think the
> amendments that allow  you to be armed and talking on the street corner do
> you most obviously NOT get ?? Not only do you not get it you allow
> Government to erode it at every turn.
>
> That which is happening to your nation is not the fault of your Constitution
> it IS the direct fault of every citizen that allows it.
>
> As to your ability to deal outside your borders with me ... good luck with
> that.  As to your Constitution.... We have our own and yours does NOT apply.
>
> Manchurian Candidate.  That is someone who is anti-America who manages
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > to get elected President.  He has an aunt who was there when he was
> > born in Kenya.  But there are no doctor's or nurses who can be found
> > who were there when he was, purportedly, born in Hawaii.  Where is the
> > birth certificate with a footprint to confirm where Obama was born?
> > The economic harm that man has done to the USA qualifies him to get
> > capital punishment.  But it is his failing to respect his Oath of
> > Office and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which is
> > immediately treason.  Socialism and communism, which Obama's policies
> > embrace, is the anti-thesis of a republic or democracy.  In short,
> > Obama wishes to enslave the 55% of good, hard-working Americans so
> > that the 45% of liberal good-for-nothings can get free lunches and
> > abortions.
>
> > Your working for Google cannot suspend my free speech rights.  My New
> > Constitution says: "A Citizen's constitutional rights supersede any
> > intra-business regulations, including medical protocol."   —  J. A.
> > Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > On Apr 9, 12:18 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Einstein,
>
> > > First: I did NOT threaten. I DID.
> > > Second: Whether the present or future Constitution is in place I am
> > > not subject to it or US regulation.
> > > Third: you openly threatened a sitting head of state... It is
> > > absolutely against the law to do so in your country. The first
> > > amendment does not give you that prerogative.
>
> > > The next such offense will be forwarded to the proper authorities.
> > > This is NOT a threat, it is a fact.
>
> > > On Apr 8, 10:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Jonathan:  Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a
> > > > "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities
> > > > vote.  The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles
> > > > than the man-on-the-street.  Of course, that shift of power runs
> > > > counter to principles of fair play and democracy.  The 1st Amendment
> > > > says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other
> > > > medium".  Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is
> > > > allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I
> > > > correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google
> > > > didn't FIRE Mark, post haste!  — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Apr 5, 2:44 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for
> > > > > any medium to express their personal political biases.
>
> > > > > Does that mean my sister will no longer be allowed to work for Kenny
> > > > > Kingston?
>
> > > > > On 04/05/2011 11:28 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > Folks:  Pushing for socialism or communism in a Republic or
> > Democracy
> > > > > > is the same as trying to overthrow the government.  There is no
> > higher
> > > > > > crime than that!  I've never said that "anyone" who speaks freely
> > is
> > > > > > an outlaw.  Only those like Mark, alias "The Annointed (sic) One"
> > who
> > > > > > attack me�the most patriotic and pro civil liberties person in
> > the USA�
> > > > > > is clearly an outlaw.  Free speech IS allowed for all of those not
> > > > > > employed by government and not being paid by any medium.  Working
> > as a
> > > > > > 'moderator' for Google gives the likes of Mark an advantage of
> > > > > > exposure.  My New Constitution doesn't allow any person working for
> > > > > > any medium to express their personal political biases.  There can
> > be
> > > > > > no exceptions if the USA is to return the control of government to
> > the
> > > > > > People, and away from the elitist media and elitist politicians
> > which
> > > > > > the media made to be elitist in the first place.  ï¿½ John A.
> > Armistead
> > > > > > �  Patriot
> > > > > > On Apr 4, 12:11 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > > > >> Stalinesque...... Your "pegging" ANYONE that speaks freely as an
> > "outlaw" is
> > > > > >> absolutely Stalinesque.
>
> > > > > >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:38 AM, NoEinstein<
> > noeinst...@bellsouth.net>  wrote:
> > > > > >>> Jonathan:  My rationality for pegging you an outlaw and a traitor
> > > > > >>> should be evident to anyone who has read my pro-people New
> > > > > >>> Constitution that I've regularly detailed in Sections.  Anyone,
> > like
> > > > > >>> you, who has a holier-than-thou tone doesn't have the value
> > system to
> > > > > >>> judge anything.  Be content with looking things up in your
> > elementary
> > > > > >>> school dictionary, Jonathan.  That's all the discourse you'll
> > ever
> > > > > >>> get.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > > > > >>> On Apr 1, 4:09 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> John,
> > > > > >>>> If you truly believe I have "no virtues worthy of... being
> > allowed to
> > > > > >>>> continue to live on this Earth," why don't you stop by sometime
> > and we
> > > > > >>>> can discuss this in person.
> > > > > >>>> As for my being "an outlaw to humanity," how do you believe that
> > is
> > > > > >>>> possible?
> > > > > >>>>      *OUTLAW,* n. A person excluded from the benefit of the law,
> > or
> > > > > >>>>      deprived of its protection.
> > > > > >>>>      *HUMANITY*, n. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is
> > > > > >>>>      distinguished from other beings.
> > > > > >>>> How did you determine that humanity is law?
> > > > > >>>> On 04/01/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most
> > highly-motivated,
> > > > > >>>>> for-the-people document ever written.  Jonathan, the socialist-
> > > > > >>>>> communist, is bent on destroying the USA.  He has no virtues
> > worthy of
> > > > > >>>>> his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth.  He is an
> > outlaw
> > > > > >>>>> to humanity, along with Mark and MJ.  I'm amazed that Keith
> > can't see
> > > > > >>>>> what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate!  ï¿½ J. A.
> > > > > >>>>> Armistead �   Patriot
> > > > > >>>>> On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>> John,
> > > > > >>>>>> The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to
> > defend
> > > > > >>> it,
> > > > > >>>>>> you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to
> > personal
> > > > > >>>>>> attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every
> > instance
> > > > > >>>>>> thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more
> > than a
> > > > > >>>>>> hypocrite.
> > > > > >>>>>> On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>> Jonathan:  You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate
> > your non-
> > > > > >>>>>>> existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual
> > and
> > > > > >>>>>>> creative superiors.  As required by the original
> > Constitution, I
> > > > > >>>>>>> only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the
> > attacks
> > > > > >>>>>>> of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark.  My time would be
> > better spent
> > > > > >>>>>>> writing more essays.  ï¿½  J. A. A. �
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> John,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR
> > New
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Constitution being criticized.
> > > > > >>>>>>>> On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> Jonathan:  For your information, no socialist-communist
> > will ever
> > > > > >>> get
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> a chance to serve in, or be employed by government.  The
> > "input"
> > > > > >>> that
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like
> > you.
> > > > > >>>   � J.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> A. A. �
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling
> > rather
> > > > > >>> than
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> engage in meaningful dialog.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>> On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving
> > of a
> > > > > >>> reply.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> � J. A. A. �
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley<
> > jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> John,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In
> > the
> > > > > >>> case of
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both
> > parties to
> > > > > >>> the
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary
> > > > > >>> interaction. That
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> is how things should be.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have
> > been
> > > > > >>> treated
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> unfairly by government or by business they can sue in
> > civil
> > > > > >>> court and
> > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> let the jury
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Mark: I'm very much aware of the "humanness" of the people. A strong
New Constitution will remind them just what their responsibilities
are. I have worked the wording of my document to be comprehendible by
people of average intelligence. No more will it be necessary to go
hat-in-hand to the courts to determine what is allowed.

You are 100% wrong that government under my New Constitution will be
able to do anything it so wishes. Unlike the original Constitution,
mine has at least half a page (of ten pages) explaining what can and
what can't be enacted as laws! I mandate that representatives never
have worked for government, nor have held any public office (the
military is excluded). I also prohibit the national media from
interviewing any representative. Those three things will suddenly
make government office attractive to salt-of-the-Earth types who would
otherwise be shy at making so many public appearances. I have
effectively sequestered representatives to do their jobs without being
constantly pursued by the media. If those guys so choose, they can go
to work wearing coveralls or Bermuda shorts. There will be nothing
about the job to appeal to ego maniacs, like 90 plus percent of
Congress now are.

Rather than seek my replies to obvious questions, I suggest you read
back into my thread. I've made government be deferential to
individual, law-abiding citizens (those conversant on the New
Constitution as a whole). And I require the reconsideration of every
law now on the books—with full citizen input! No country can work
well when so very few realize what the laws governing them say. Right
off the bat, any law that didn't pass by at least 55% of the vote will
be struck down. No more will there be as many people for as against
issues. Having two houses of Congress forces compromises which make
few people happy. And I stipulate that laws which pass may not be the
will of the people. In which case, those laws will be decided in
national referenda. After 14 years of work, I can say with assurance
that the US government will be the most stable and predictable in all
of the world. Mark, don't imagine problems which have long since been
realized and eliminated within the document.

— J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Apr 10, 4:15 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein,
>
> You say,
>
> "The existing Constitution is so weak that such allowed our
> government to evolve away from doing the Will of the People, "
>
> and upon this you base the need for a new Constitution.... you have it
> exactly backwards. It is the PEOPLE that are weak... NOT the Constitution.
> If the people did not allow the government to evolve away from the
> constitution and their will it could not have happened.
>
> Regardless of how nanny-like a (your) constitution is it requires the
> citizens act to maintain it... lacking this the government will do as it
> pleases regardless of the contents of ANY document.
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jonathan:  The existing Constitution is so weak that such allowed our
> > government to evolve away from doing the Will of the People, to...
> > expecting the people to do the will of government.  The first step is
> > to correct who can become our representatives!  Those who have worked
> > their way "up" through local and state offices are already showing
> > themselves to believe they are from a 'ruling class'.  My New
> > Constitution excludes those, other than for the Pres. and V. Pres.,
> > and those from the military, who have ever worked for government or
> > held a local, state, or federal office.  Every important right or
> > protection from the original Constitution is right there in my New
> > Constitution, too!  The rule is:  If something is broke—like our
> > Constitution, time and again has shown that it is— FIX IT!  I've spent
> > 14 dedicated years doing just that.  The people will once again be in
> > charge.  And any public official or government employee not being
> > deferential to a single law-abiding citizen will be looking for
> > another job!  — J. A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > On Apr 8, 11:59 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> > > John,
>
> > > How about adding the following Section to Article I of the existing
> > > Constitution.
>
> > > Section 11. Prohibitions
> > >    (1) Rights inherently belong to all Inhabitants of the several
> > > States, therefore the Congress and any Agency of the United States are
> > > prohibited from enacting any law, rule, or regulation which may in any
> > > way restrict a Person from engaging in an activity which is
> > > non-aggressive in nature; every Person has the Right to his own actions,
> > > provided only that he does not Aggress against another, or the property
> > > thereof; to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually
> > > agreed upon terms; to use his own Power for the preservation of his own
> > > Nature, his own Life, his own Liberty; to defend against the aggression
> > > of others;
> > >    (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of
> > > anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;
> > >    (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of
> > > this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or
> > deported;
>
> > > I'm sure it could be fleshed out to prohibit Congress from aggressing
> > > against us in other ways, but I was short on time.
>
> > > On 04/08/2011 08:29 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those,
> > > > like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head
> > > > like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or
> > > > four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or
> > > > business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you
> > > > to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to
> > > > survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
> > > > to hang by the neck until dead�like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
> > > > � J. A. A. �
> > > > On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would
> > > >> hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New
> > > >> Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of
> > the
> > > >> provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our
> > > >> current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the
> > > >> provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such
> > > >> won't be allowed.
>
> > > >> On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > >>> Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new
> > > >>> constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything
> > other
> > > >>> than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a
> > > >>> committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy
> > > >>> was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees
> > > >>> do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those
> > > >>> of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you
> > > >>> and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would
> > > >>> address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm
> > > >>> one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > > >>> On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>> But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New
> > > >>>> Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you
> > are
> > > >>>> the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT.
> > > >>>> How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when
> > the
> > > >>>> "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously
> > doesn't
> > > >>>> belong to "we the people."
> > > >>>> It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of
> > > >>>> input from us mere mortals.
> > > >>>> Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR
> > worthless
> > > >>>> piece of crap pisses YOU off.
> > > >>>> On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > >>>>> who has a holier-than-thou tone
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>>         The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing
> > what
> > > >>>>         freedom and liberty are.
> > > >>>> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> > > >>>> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
> > > >> --
>
> > > >>        The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> > > >>        freedom and liberty are.
>
> > > >> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> > > >> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > > --
>
> > >       Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> > > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> > > <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
> *
> *
> *
> *

--
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.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Dear Keith:

There will be far less trashing of Presidents once political parties
are abolished. Political parties are quasi governmental bodies which
are determining who our candidates for public office can be. In
choosing the candidates for President and Vice President, the spaced-
out primaries give the most power to Iowa, New Hampshire and South
Carolina. My New Constitution eliminates primaries and party
conventions! Additionally, political parties are verboten, because
they determine who the powerful "leaders" in Congress are. Under my
New Constitution when the President wishes to speak with the "leaders"
of Congress, every House member will show up at the White House! No
person, due to seniority, popularity, nor group affiliation shall have
more "leadership" than any other House member! Note: The US Senate
is an oligarchy. Since no senator is determined by votes of equitable
segments of the population, as in a republic, the Senate is
unconstitutional and is thus eliminated. Also, the Senate is very
wasteful. It has been too dominated by out-of-tough career
politicians.

From the first moments I heard Barack Obama speak at that 2004
Democratic Convention, I observed his trademark, emotionless, stony
expression. From a lifetime of experience, I've learned not to trust
any person who is so cold as to hide his or her emotions. I'm an
expert graphologist, probably one of the top four or five in the
entire world. Obama's character is dominated by his big do-it-my-way
ego. He is a very domineering person. But his experience was limited
to his having been a "community organizer" (communist) in Chicago, and
being a teacher of constitutional law—on a Constitution that Obama
openly disagreed with. That's why I knew he was someone to be treated
like a traitor to the USA, not just trashed because he has subtle
political differences with me.

Obama is the king-pin of a no-longer-repressed socialist-communist
take-over attempt on this country. In 2008, for the first time in
years, those of the Oprah Winfrey genre had their party controlling
both houses of Congress and the White House. Those who had been
"closet" socialist-communists were now openly and blatantly so. The
plus side of that is that jerks like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have
revealed how anti-America they are, and how anti-free enterprise and
anti-capitalist they are. They are from the party of the "criers", so
long as they get to decide how those who are crying are made happy.

Keith, you have a mellow, forgiving personality. I can't forgive a
thief and a traitor simply because he gets to stand in front of flags;
wave to the media walking in the arcade; or show off his balance by
bouncing down the steps of Air Force One without once holding onto the
handrail. That man must have a death wish. He probably goes on so
many vacations to help decide where he can run to once our so-far-lame
law enforcement decides that his charade as President has gone on long
enough. Keith, I'm not "trashing" Obama, I'm wanting him to be
OBLITERATED from the ranks of Presidents of the USA! There shall be
no… "library" honoring that traitor! — John A. Armistead — Patriot

>
On Apr 9, 3:57 am, Keith In Köln <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey John!
>
> Uhm.......I very much agree with Mark here.   No question,  I am no fan of
> President Obama and the Obama Administration.  Nevertheless,  I found it
> appalling when those "Wacko Left Socialist-Elitist Moonbats"  threatened and
> disrespected President Bush,  and those "Wacko Right Conspiratorialist
> Crackpots"  threatened and disparaged President Clinton.  It is one thing to
> disagree with our President and his policies.  It's quite another to
> disrespect and trash the President of the United States.
>
> You're classier than that.
>
> KeithInKöln
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 7:06 AM, Jonathan Ashley <
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> >  John,
>
> > Obviously you failed to read what I wrote. One problem addressed and
> > solved. Two sentences.
>
> > (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of anyone
> > other than themselves shall be prohibited;
> > (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of this
> > Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;
>
> > On 04/08/2011 09:27 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Jonathan:  Most of your objectives are already part of my New
> > Constitution.  What you have done is to make a too broad list of
> > fairly common objectives without addressing just that one "problem",
> > which you must show you can correct in an original way.  Writing a
> > constitution isn't about "making an outline" of desirables, it is
> > about considering how those new provisions will affect everything else
> > going on in America.  Choose one problem and write no more than four
> > sentences.  So far, you haven't shown that you can do that.  — J. A.
> > A. —
>
> >   On Apr 8, 11:59 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  John,
>
> > How about adding the following Section to Article I of the existing
> > Constitution.
>
> > Section 11. Prohibitions
> >    (1) Rights inherently belong to all Inhabitants of the several
> > States, therefore the Congress and any Agency of the United States are
> > prohibited from enacting any law, rule, or regulation which may in any
> > way restrict a Person from engaging in an activity which is
> > non-aggressive in nature; every Person has the Right to his own actions,
> > provided only that he does not Aggress against another, or the property
> > thereof; to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually
> > agreed upon terms; to use his own Power for the preservation of his own
> > Nature, his own Life, his own Liberty; to defend against the aggression
> > of others;
> >    (2) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of
> > anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited;
> >    (3) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of
> > this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported;
>
> > I'm sure it could be fleshed out to prohibit Congress from aggressing
> > against us in other ways, but I was short on time.
>
> > On 04/08/2011 08:29 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >  No, Jonathan!  The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is those,
> > like you, who wouldn't believe the truth if it hit you over the head
> > like a 2 x 4.  Spend a week or so and see if you can write three or
> > four sentences that correct an envisioned problem with government or
> > business.  You can't, or won't, do it!  Faulting my document shows you
> > to be a socialist-communist who doesn't want the US economy to
> > survive.  Remember, jerk:  Traitors don't get to vote, they just get
> > to hang by the neck until dead�like Barack Obama will be doing, soon.
> > � J. A. A. �
> > On Apr 5, 3:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  If I were to devote 14 years of my life to a single project, I would
> > hope the results of that endeavor were something worthwhile. YOUR New
> > Constitution is bloated and shows a complete lack of focus. Most of the
> > provisions you present are unenforceable. Like the framers of our
> > current constitution,  you offer no penalties for violating the
> > provisions of YOUR New Constitution. You only declare such and such
> > won't be allowed.
>
> >    On 04/05/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >    Jonathan:  Devote 14 plus years of your life to writing 'a' new
> > constitution and see how you would describe it.  Saying anything other
> > than 'my' would imply that the document was the result of... a
> > committee.  I can say with certainty that nothing creative or worthy
> > was ever figured out while talking.  Since talking is what committees
> > do, that explains why committee solutions are never as good as those
> > of inspired intellectuals like me.  Take any issue of concern to you
> > and write even one paragraph explaining how 'your' constitution would
> > address the problem.  Not one person in a million could do that.  I'm
> > one person in 300 million!  ï¿½  J. A. Armistead �  Patriot
> > On Apr 4, 12:26 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >  But John, it is you who has a holier-than-thou tone. It's YOUR New
> > Constitution. By your responses to posts it is obvious you think you are
> > the only one in the world worthy enough to have written IT.
> > How can you honestly claim YOUR New Constitution is pro-people when the
> > "people" cannot even ask you questions about it? It obviously doesn't
> > belong to "we the people."
> > It is YOU who claims to have written something SPECIAL - unworthy of
> > input from us mere mortals.
> > Admit it, John. That anyone has the nerve to challenge YOUR worthless
> > piece of crap pisses YOU off.
> > On 04/04/2011 08:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >  who has a holier-than-thou tone
>
> >  --
> >         The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> >         freedom and liberty are.
> > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> >  --
>
> >           The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
> >        freedom and liberty are.
>
> >    Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> >  --
>
> >       Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > --
> > Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> > Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
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.

Texas May Go To 85! (Clovers Stroking Out All Over)

Texas May Go To 85! (Clovers Stroking Out All Over)
by Eric Peters
EricPetersAutos.com

Maybe we're over the hump. Texas appears to be on the verge of raising its highway speed limits to 85. That's good news for Texas motorists, who may soon get to drive legally at speeds they travel anyway.

Which brings up a question: Why do they call those signs speed limits?

A legitimate speed limit (not a speed that amounts to the de facto normal cruising speed or average traffic flow of most cars on the road, as current "speed limits" are) ought to be about 85-90 mph on most roads. It's ridiculous that the "limit" -- as we Americans define it -- amounts to the speed most cars are cruising along at. A speed limit ought to be just that -- the absolute maximum safe speed for that road under ideal conditions.

It is absurd to take the position -- as our system currently does -- that the posted max is the maximum safe speed for the road. It implies that any car doing that speed is already pushing the envelope, operating right on the edge of recklessness. If so, all those people trundling along with the cruise control set at 70 don't seem to be sweating it much. And given that probably 70 percent -- likely a lowball figure -- are actually exceeding the posted speed imit, you have to take the position that either a very large percentage of American drivers are cavalierly reckless drivers -- or the "limit" is really nothing more than a politically prescribed number that corresponds to -- usually -- just slightly less than the average, ho-hum flow of traffic.

A limit, it ain't -- except in a legal sense. Drive faster than the number painted on the sign and you place yourself in jeopardy of receiving a "speeding" ticket. It doesn't mean anything more than that -- even though our system imputes unsafe driving to it.

This is perhaps the biggest con since the Federal Reserve.

Consider: For about 20 years, no American could legally drive faster than 55 MPH on a U.S. Interstate Highway. On the same highways that had previously had significantly higher speed limits – 70, 75 MPH was common prior to 1974, when the 55 MPH edict went into effect. It suddenly became illegal to drive 70 or 75. But it didn't become unsafe -- unless you attribute magical powers to Congress, which imposed the 55 MPH limit -- and then, just as magically repealed it in 1994.

Did it, then, suddenly -- miraculously -- become "safe" to once again drive at 70 or 75 MPH on those very same roads?

Of course not. But no refunds were given for the millions of "speeding" tickets given to hapless motorists during the 20 years prior. Nor did the insurance companies issues an apology -- and a store credit -- for surcharging all those ticketed drivers on the basis of their "speeding" and, hence, their (supposedly) unsafe driving.

Things have gotten better. In most parts of the country, highway limits are at least up to -- roughly -- the normal, average speed of traffic -- which seems to be somewhere between 70 and 75 MPH. Few cars go much slower than that; not very many go much faster than that.

Going by the 85th percentile rule -- the method for setting speed limits that states and the federal government are supposed to abide by, which they have agreed to abide by but of course rarely do abide by -- current highway speed limits, properly defined, ought to be around 85 MPH, just as Texas is proposing.

The 85th percentile rule says observe the normal flow of traffic -- conduct a traffic survey -- and note the average speed of the cars traveling on that road. This observed average speed becomes the baseline from which the speed limit is extrapolated. The limit --- properly defined -- would be set 5-10 MPH higher than the observed average speed. With most traffic on most non-urban highways running around 70, the limit thus ought to be about 80. Maybe higher on really rural, lightly traveled highways (as in Texas) where a limit of 90 or even 100 mph would not be at all unreasonable.

That's how it's supposed to be done. But of course, that's not how it's actually done.

The 85th percentile rule is obeyed about as much as the rule that says Congress is supposed to declare war before we send "the troops" off to fight a war.

The reason for this is obvious: There would be almost no need for traffic cops anymore; jobs would be lost -- and revenue lost. A great deal of revenue. Some small towns (and even larger counties) depend on the cashflow generated by the local "speeding" racket for a huge chunk of their annual budgets. Everyone knows this. The officials barely even try to conceal the reality of the shakedown, for if "speeding" really were the homicidally reckless act they say it is, would they be giving people "breaks" at radar traps? Cutting the ticket down to 9 over instead of 13? Do we see such gentle, almost friendly, banter between cops and rapists?

Of course we don't.

If routinely exceeding politically contrived "limits" were in fact dangerous and not just a scam to gin up money without imposing an explicit Motorists Tax, then our system is oddly kindhearted to all the millions upon millions of (cough) dangerous drivers out there.

But of course, they're not dangerous. Just guilty of ignoring a number pulled out of a hat and plastered into a sign bu politicians bureaucrats. The cops know it, the judges know it, the insurance companies know it, too.

All the evidence says so, too.

It was just announced that highway fatalities have dropped to their lowest level ever -- even though people are driving faster and lately, legally so.

By now, the idiot mantra that "speed kills" ought to be as discredited as neo-con Republican braying about "WMD."

http://epautos.com/?p=2779

Rats! I Was Hoping for a Shutdown

Rats! I Was Hoping for a Shutdown
by J. Paul Henderson

For the past couple of weeks, all the talking bobble heads in TV Newsland could concern themselves with was the looming (partial) government shutdown and the dire consequences such an event would have for all of us out here in Normal Land.

But there were so many aspects to this whole thing that seemed to escape the women with big blond hair and men with perfectly tied Windsor knots passing themselves off as journalists.

First of all, there were no Draconian budget cuts. The amount of money they were squabbling over was a tiny percentage of one percent of the budget. In the grand scheme of things, this was about as important as a husband and wife with a monthly income of $4,000 fighting over one's desire to blow eighty cents on a Snickers Bar.

Beyond that, no one was addressing the fact that the deficits, as far as the eye can see (or until national bankruptcy), are more that a trillion dollars a year. This is like that same couple with a $4,000 monthly income, spending $6,000 a month and deciding to become more responsible by cutting out one Starbuck's coffee a week.

The inmates are now in full control of the asylum.

But there are bigger issues then this. (should be than) Issues no one in Mainstream News Land has addressed. The official number of unessential federal workers to be laid off was 800,000. If they're unessential, what are they doing and why are we paying them? Why don't we just eliminate their jobs entirely? That alone would save over fifty billion dollars a year. Not to mention that those 800,000 people could no longer do any damage. Who knows how much more that would save us?

As they say on TV at two in the morning, "But wait! There's more!"

Have you noticed that whenever there's a threat of a governmental shutdown, the only things they threaten to de-fund are the few that are at least arguably useful? Things like parks. The Blue Ridge Parkway (Yes!). They're gonna save money by closing a road?

But through all the fighting over spending and all the talk of slashing the budget by a whopping one percent, no one, including the Tepid Tea Party folks could bring themselves to cut even the most insane federal spending schemes. Here are just two of hundreds -- or maybe thousands -- that could go: Do you know there's a federal program to pay your home phone bill? And if you can't afford your car repairs, Big Daddy Washington will pay to have it fixed. True! We actually have federal departments of home phones and car repair.

Here in North Carolina, the Fedz are proposing to spend a half-billion dollars upgrading the passenger rail service between Charlotte and Raleigh. After the half-billion dollars (plus the inevidable cost overruns) travel time will be reduced from three hours and fifteen minutes to three hours. And almost no one rides that train, anyway. Why would they? You can drive from Charlotte to Raleigh in three hours and have your own car when you get there.

This idiotic waste of money is being promoted by state and local politicians because it will create jobs. But when you take money honestly earned by one person and give it to someone to do something useless, you haven't created any new wealth; you've merely taken it from one pocket and put it in another pocket -- with a big, fat management fee staying in Washington.

If we take this stupid thing, multiply it by the hundreds of other big, costly stupid things being promoted around the country, and eliminate them -- we might be able to balance the budget. Or at least come a lot closer than we are now.

I believe the periodic threats to shut down the government are nothing more than big PR stunts. The propaganda that precedes the predictable eleventh hour settlement is designed to convince Americans that if these drones and leaches went home western civilization would disintegrate before our very eyes.

The main reason it's not going to happen is a partial shutdown of the government could cause things to get better. Even Boobus Amerikanus might figure out that most of the employees laid off and programs stopped were not only unnecessary, but detrimental.

And one thing the emperor hates is to be caught with his clothes off.

There's one other reason these guys don't want to shut down the government. With the partial shutdown, your Congressthing would still be working, but his entire staff would be laid off. This would mean he'd have to get his own coffee, drive his own car and have illicit affairs with himself.

Can't have that, can we?

I suggest that the next time they threaten even a partial shutdown of the government, we call their bluff and shout "Shut it down! S H U T I T D O W N !"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/henderson-jp5.1.1.html

Why Japan Chose It's Nuclear Godzilla

Why Japan Chose It's Nuclear Godzilla
by Eric Margolis

Japan's nuclear calamity has shown once again the remarkable courage, patience, and stoicism of that nation's people.
As a visitor to Japan for the past 36 years and former columnist for one of its leading newspapers, Mainichi Daily News, the giant earthquake and ensuing tsunami that savaged northern Japan filled me with anguish and sorrow.

I watched at first fifty, then a hundred nuclear technicians and firefighters know as the "kamikaze brigade" risk their lives in a miasma of lethal radiation to fight the fires and explosions at Fukushima's ravaged nuclear plant. Many knew they were facing death or grave future illness, yet the charged forward in the heroic Japanese tradition.

In Japan's samurai code, an act of supreme bravery occurs when a fighter confronts impossible odds, or knows his death in battle is inevitable, yet still decides to fight for honor's sake. In samurai lore, this is know as "the nobility of failure."

Japanese history and, of course, World war II, are replete with examples of self-sacrifice and boundless valor in the face of certain defeat.

Brave and resolute as Japanese are, the question remains, why did Japan decide to build nuclear power plants they knew could be potentially dangerous only 15 years or so after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The answer has to do with World War II. Japan has no resources, other than rock, wood, water and its industrious people. All raw material to this island nation must be imported by sea.

Japan entered World War II to seize more land in Manchuria and China, and to gain vital resources in South Asia. In 1940, most of Japan's heavy oil, and all its aviation fuel, came from the world's largest oil producer, the United States. Interestingly, the US was also Germany's leading oil supplier.

When in late 1941, US President Franklin Roosevelt sought (my view) to push Japan into the war by imposing an embargo of oil and scrap metal on Japan, Tokyo had a two-year stockpile of oil.

Tokyo's military-dominated government faced a stark choice: go immediately to war in hopes of a quick victory while there was still oil, or watch its oil stores dwindle way and thus face military impotence. War was the choice.

Japan's leading military officer, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, warned Japan was going to war for oil, and would be defeated because of lack of oil.

In 1941, Japan's economy was only 10% of the size of the US economy in what was to become history's first industrialized war.

Japanese strategists had seen how Britain's total naval blockade of the Central Powers in World War I brought about the final defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary by starvation, not battlefield defeat.

Yamamoto's warning was prophetic. Japan could not sustain its maritime supply lines to South Asia and the oilfields of Indonesia and Malaysia, both former European colonies.

By mid-1944, a brilliant, audacious campaign by US submarines had cut off nearly all of Japan's imports of raw material and oil. The winter of 1944-45 was the coldest in 20 years. Japanese, facing starvation, subsisted on roots and grass. As in the current Fukushima disaster, there was no fuel to cremate huge numbers of bodies.

Japan did not import a single barrel of oil in 1945. Without oil, its navy could not leave port, its aircraft could not fly. Pathetic attempts were made to make aviation fuel by boiling and distilling pine roots.

The powerful US Fifth Fleet that was nearing Japan alone used more fuel in a year than all of Japan. Without fuel, Japan could not fight. Modern mechanized warfare runs on oil. Adolf Hitler also failed to understand this critical strategic point.

While Japan starved, its cities were laid waste by the most lethal bombing raids in history Nearly half of Japan's cities, 66 in all, sustained 40% or more total damage from a rain of fire bombs dropped by Gen. Curtiss LeMay's US B-29's.

Thirty percent of Japan's urban population was killed, wounded or left homeless; 2.5 million buildings were destroyed. Most Japanese cities were built of wood and paper – as many still were around Fukushima – perfect targets for LeMay's fire bombs.

On 9 March, 1945, US B-29's dropped 1,667 tons of fire bombs on Tokyo. Fifteen square miles of downtown Tokyo were burned to the ground in a gigantic holocaust. An estimated 185,000 civilians died and another 100,000 were severely wounded – nearly all by burns.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki inflicted an immediate total of 200,000 dead and wounded, with many more in ensuring years and decades.

After the war, Japan's leadership concluded their nation had to have energy independence, even if it meant from potentially dangerous nuclear power. Japan must never again me left helpless. Oil was too precious to use for power generation. It had to be stockpiled for strategic use and transportation.

So Japan took a calculated risk.

www.ericmargolis.com

Deconstructing the U.S. Military; or How to Cut a Cool Trillion Dollars a Year from the U.S. Budget

Deconstructing the U.S. Military; or How to Cut a Cool Trillion Dollars a Year from the U.S. Budget
by Dana Visalli

While in Kabul in March of this year, I visited the U.S. military base in that city, Camp Eggers. Knowing I would need a pretext to gain entry, I typed up a letter offering to give a presentation on wildlife in Afghanistan, which I had been studying. When approaching the base, one passes through an initial checkpoint, where a Hummer topped with a machine-gun nest stands guard. Then there is a 100-yard walk down a narrow corridor between high concrete blast walls, at which point one arrives at a guarded entry point through the wall. I showed my passport and letter, and was escorted through a second layer of blast walls to a little wooden information booth in this still-peripheral circle of defense. The pimply young lad manning the booth was flustered by my request; he had never seen anything quite like it. He did what all soldiers do when faced with something new; he phoned his superior for orders on how to proceed.

Permission was granted to pass to the next entry level. At hut #2 another friendly young male soldier by the name of Ryan was equally baffled by my written request, and he dialed up his commanding officer for instructions on what to do with me. Then, with Ryan as my escort, I made it into the inner sanctum of the base, where soldiers and military contractors strolled leisurely around the streets of the former Kabul residential area. After being passed around to several more levels of authority, I finally ended up at the office of Morale, Welfare and Recreation. The female officer in charge there was as confused by my presence as everyone else had been, and after reading my proposal asked rather sternly, "How did he get on the base?" She reprimanded Ryan for bringing me to the center of Camp Eggers, then realized that she would have to phone her commanding officer because there was no standardized protocol on how to deal with me. As we retraced our steps, Ryan remarked that he certainly could not be held accountable for letting me on the base because all he had done was follow orders. In fact, the primary concern of everyone I interacted with at Camp Eggers was to follow the directives of their superiors; no one appeared to have the capacity to take responsibility for their actions.

In the mid-1960s, political scientist Hannah Arendt published a book-length study of how some of the great evils of history, such as slavery and the Holocaust, managed to occur. Her book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, concluded that generally such crimes are not carried out by fanatics or sociopaths, but rather by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their superiors and their state and therefore do what they are told to do, and participate with the view that their actions are normal. The word "banal" is defined as "something that is trite, normal, and commonplace." The root of the word comes from the Old French word ban, referring to feudal military service, which was compulsory and thus commonly accepted. Thus, military culture is by definition synonymous with banal, which my acquaintances at Camp Eggers demonstrated as they strove to find orders to follow and avoid responsibility for their actions.

Most members of the military establishment receive extensive training in combat techniques, including of course how to kill other human beings. One common drill at boot camp is to have recruits lunge repeatedly at mock human targets with mounted bayonets, shouting "Kill! Kill!" as they stab their imaginary victims. After months of such training, killing itself becomes banal, something normal and commonplace. The military culture of thoughtless submission to authority combined with heavy conditioning to snuff out human life creates a wide path towards the "great evils" that Hannah Arendt addressed.

Examples of what a sane society would call evil acts abound in the annuals of our current wars. For example, in 2010 a group of five American soldiers murdered a number of Afghan civilians "for sport," and collected fingers of their victims as trophies. Killing for them had become normal and banal; it was in fact what the soldiers were trained to do.

In March of 2011 two U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopters came upon 10 Afghan children ages 7 to 13 gathering brush to warm their huts and attacked them with heavy machine gun fire. When the parents of the children arrived on the scene, attracted by the gunfire, they could only collect body parts of their children. For the pilots of the helicopters, killing was their job, a normal part of military life.

On March 12, 2006, four U.S. soldiers entered the home of a 14-year old girl in the Iraqi city of Mahmudiya, took her mother, father and sister into a bedroom and shot them, and then gang-raped the girl. Afterwards, they shot her in the head and attempted to burn her body. They then reported the deaths as being the result of an insurgent attack.

On March 25, 2003, Marine Sgt. Eric Schrumpf was participating in the U.S. invasion of Iraq when he spotted an Iraqi soldier in his field of view behind a female Iraqi citizen. He couldn't get a clear shot with the woman blocking his line of sight, so he shot her to get her out of the line of fire. "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way," Schrumpf explained. Later he elaborated, "We had a great day. We killed a lot of people."

Over the long term, most soldiers committing such murders become victims of their own lack of judgment, unable to live with the profoundly antisocial acts they have committed. Sergeant Schrumpf is himself now debilitated by PTSD, and can scarcely function in civilian society. He has attacked people in movie theaters because he mistakes their cans of Coke for military weapons. "I'll never be the same again," says Schrumpf, who seems somehow mystified by the etiology of his emotional dysfunction.

Similar stories of the fruits of combat duty are limited only by time available to tell them. After serving in the Marines during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Lance Cpl. Walter Rollo Smith returned home and soon killed his wife, Nicole Marie Speirs, the 22-year-old mother of his twin children. He drowned her in a bathtub without any evident provocation or reason. In reflecting on his heinous crime, Smith said, "I know for a fact that before I went to Iraq, there's no way I would have taken somebody else's life."

After serving in the Army in Iraq in 2004, Spc. Brandon Bare, 19, of Wilkesboro, N.C, came home and stabbed his wife Nabila Bare, 18, at least 71 times with knives and a meat cleaver. About three dozen of the wounds were on her head and neck. Killing is what he was trained to do.

Mental angst and dysfunction in soldiers returning from combat is commonplace. A recent study indicates that 62% of soldiers returning from the war in Iraq have asked for mental health counseling, with 27% showing dangerous levels of alcohol abuse. Suicide rates among soldiers and vets have increased dramatically in recent years. Over 100,000 Vietnam vets have now killed themselves, far more than died in the Vietnam War. More than 300,000 veterans of the U.S. military are currently homeless, another study reveals.

If war is in fact destroying the youth of America by turning them into trained and traumatized killers, one could at least hope that the wars themselves have some value to American society. Objective evidence indicates otherwise. The actual conduct of war bears more resemblance to a circus act than the noble endeavor it is often portrayed to be. To cite one of the many examples of the senselessness of war related in the book Achilles in Vietnam, author and Vietnam vet Jonathan Shay describes how, "During one patrol in the dry season, a U.S. Army squad ran out of water and was not resupplied. They walked for a day and a half in search of water in Vietcong-controlled territory. When men started to collapse from dehydration in the heat, an officer's plea for emergency resupply was heeded: a helicopter flew over and "bombed" the squad with cases of Tab, seriously injuring one of the men. The major whose helicopter dropped the Tab was recalled to evacuate the casualty. There was no enemy activity. I subsequently read in the division newspaper that the major had put himself in for and had received the Bronze Star for resupplying the troops and evacuating the wounded 'under fire.' " Remember that story the next time you see a soldier's chest full of medals.

The Vietnam war itself was fought because at the end of World War II, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnam's independence from the colonizing French, reading from the U.S. Declaration of Independence to emphasize his people's reasonable claim to self-determination. Instead of supporting this universal urge that humanity has for freedom, the U.S. supported the French effort to regain their colony for 10 long years (1945-1954). After the French were defeated, the U.S. fought the Vietnamese for another 22 years (1955-1975). Thus, 32 years of brutal mayhem took place, when all the Vietnamese people were asking for was their independence. The American lives that were ruined – the 58,000 combat deaths, 100,000+ suicides, 300,000 homeless men – were all expended for nothing, as were the 3.4 million Vietnamese who died in that war. To briefly mention another of our recent wars, today the nation of Iraq lies in ruins, the people impoverished, a million dead and 5 million living as refugees, while the entire basis of the U.S. invasion in 2003 is widely acknowledged to have been a complete fabrication.

War itself is not only "a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed," as Dwight Eisenhower noted in a speech in 1953, but war is also destructive to the physical earth, the very source of human life, and indeed of all life. The U.S. has dropped 15 million tons of bombs on the earth's surface in last 60 years, spread 1 million tons of napalm on fields and forests, and sprayed 20 million gallons of defoliants on some of the most diverse rainforests on the planet. By any measure, the U.S. military is conducting a war against the earth itself. Such an inane effort does not come cheaply. The total cost of all military expenses for 2012 is estimated to be $1.2 trillion dollars, one-third of the total federal budget. It is the U.S. military that is driving the U.S. itself into bankruptcy.

In summary, the U.S. military is destroying the lives of its own young men while at the same time it devastates other human cultures; it threatens the economic survival of the United States while it is fraying the ecological fabric that makes life on earth possible.

Mikhail Gorbachev once noted that the Soviet system was evil and had to be dismantled. The U.S. military is a similarly evil force loosened on the world. As was done to the repugnant Soviet system, the equally repugnant U.S. military should be completely dismantled, with all soldiers and ships and planes and weapons brought home from the vast web of 1000 American military bases spanning the globe. The savings in terms of human lives, human suffering, ecological integrity and American dollars will be immeasurable. We can then begin to rebuild a national defense consisting of a small militia that can guard our borders and "repel invasions," as called for in the U.S. Constitution, all the while remembering that the best defense is the making of friends.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/visalli4.1.1.html

Good question here about 71 MPG car

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/04/10/sunday-discussion-question-why-isnt-this-car-in-the-u-s/

--
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.

Fwd: Fwd: Irish Setter Dad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Hsieh

For those who haven't seen this one yet, PJ O'Rourke has a funny
review of the "Tiger Mother" book here:

"Irish Setter Dad"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/irish-setter-dad_555534.html?page=1

--PSH
--------------------

Good column about PC speech

   

PC Campus Culture Takes Out Alexandra Wallace

Posted By Bernard Chapin On April 10, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Education,Free Speech,Opinion,Politics,US News | 59 Comments

Just a few months ago, Alexandra Wallace was a UCLA student with her own YouTube channel. Thanks to political correctness — that evil ^[1], communicative virus that erodes ^[2] our pride in Constitution ^[3] and country ^[4] — she’s now a college dropout who had to flee campus in the midst of death threats ^[5].

The United States in 2011 faces serious crises ^[6] on several ^[7] fronts ^[8]. In terms of importance, the federal government’s monstrous^[9], irresponsible ^[10] debt ^[11] is our most pressing concern ^[12]. Debilitating ^[13] annual deficits ^[14] are a sword of Damocles threatening our sovereignty and national security ^[15]. Documenting ^[16] its peril and the ways we can avert calamity is an overwhelming imperative for conservatives. If we are to take our nation back ^[17] we must ensure that something viable remains.

Political correctness is not quite as dangerous to the American endeavor as debt and money printing ^[18], but, as the Wallace case shows, it is every bit as antithetical. To the left, PC is an essential vehicle for silencing conservatives ^[19]. It constantly evolves to squelch the expression of those arguments that statists are incapable of answering.

PC has many definitions but the one I will posit here is the deliberate attempt, via appeals to conformity and the creation of social mores, to realize a leftist political agenda. Two of the most ubiquitous words used to justify PC totalitarianism are “sensitivity” and “inclusivity.” One displays sensitivity when he or she allows leftists to talk without interruption while inclusivity is evidenced when third parties reflexively defer to whatever delusional ^[20] policies ^[21] the Democrats wish to implement ^[22].

More than anything else, political correctness demands that citizens shut their mouths and refrain from articulating common sense^[23] in the face of madness ^[24]. This cultural Marxism is a rigged game and the preferred weapon of control freaks everywhere. Whether a proposition strikes ^[25] you as crazy ^[26] or not, its best practice to say nothing about it. Cultural Marxism ^[27] is very much alive in the new millennium, so interwoven with our daily activities and conversation that some people are no longer capable of resistance.

Under its edicts, the drone who parrots PC is deemed intelligent, compassionate, learned, and evolved, whereas the individual who enunciates the truth ^[28] is a Neanderthal, a bumpkin, and all too often…a Republican ^[29].

What is crucial is that citizens are purged of those unpredictable behaviors that make them human and capable of questioning utopian fantasies. PC is social control, and in no area has it triumphed more convincingly than in regards to race.

With race relations, a Belial ^[30] rule is followed: Non-leftist whites are forbidden to say anything at all about race unless it’s to apologize for something. That plenty of minorities ^[31] get caught ^[32] in PC’s despotic web is ignored altogether.

This state of affairs is a result of Democrats continuing to see themselves — despite being the party ^[33] of slavery and segregation — as the keepers of the demonic R ^[34]. They hold that they and their purple hordes ^[35] are the only mortals fit to decide what is racist^[36] and what is not.

They rewrite history and pretend their lust for social justice ^[37] fueled the victories of the Civil Rights era. Of course, this is nothing butAbzug ^[38] and bunkum. Twenty percent ^[39] more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats. Leftist talking heads though deny ever having heard of boll weevils ^[40] and that the southern segregationists were as integral ^[41] to the Democratic Party as Tammany Hall ^[42].

Racism, both as a concept and a pejorative, has been so frivolously applied and distorted ^[43] over the last three decades that most accusations have little to do with discriminating against others on the basis of skin color.

Nowadays the insult most often defames a person that leftists simply don’t like. Disagreeing with a statist is all it takes to find oneself compared to infamous ^[44] white supremacists ^[45].

The examples are infinite. Oppose public workers shaking down civic governments? It’s a civil rights issue ^[46] and one linked to the legacy of Martin Luther King ^[47] (seriously). The same thing is true if one questions the government’s degradation ^[48] of health care^[49].

Conservatives oppose ObamaCare for the soundest of reasons as everything the federocracy touches becomes inefficient ^[50] anddysfunctional ^[51]. Yet Democrats are immune to illumination. Last year one of their senators even equated those who oppose the health care power grab with deceased segregationists ^[52].

Most of us intuit that in order to be a country, borders must be defended. The Democratic Party knows better. Arresting aliens who illegally hop our fences is also a “racist ^[53]” act in their eyes.

Enter Alexandra Wallace, the latest example of a twisted racist whom we all must despise.
Ms. Wallace does not exactly fit the racist mold. She’s urban, attractive, full-bodied, and a devout flibbertigibbet. Fully equipped with our society’s manufactured and false self-esteem, certain that her opinions are important and interesting, she made the mistake of sharing them on YouTube.

Her offending video ^[54] criticized those Asians who she finds tiresome on the Westwood campus ^[55]. For a little less than three minutes she shallowed forth about how Asians have quirky and annoying habits.

Her complaint revolves around their allegedly using cell phones in the library and that student relatives come to campus to clean their laundry. She also performed an imitation of how they sound while blabbing on the phone. What she said was embarrassing and obtuse, but little more. A Black Panther ^[56] threatening Philadelphia voters she’s not.

Her monologue went viral. Mirror sites ensured the world could behold the clip even after she deleted her YouTube channel. (One such site boasts 6,000,000 plus views as of this writing).

Unfortunately for Ms. Wallace, she soon discovered that being a goofy, opinionated, callow youth is no defense when brought before the fascist hanging judges who adjudicate appropriateness within our culture. What would be dismissed as mundane valley girl gibberish in 1981 now amounts to a hate crime thirty years later.

Wallace’s moronities enflamed the leftist media. A writer at The Nation ^[57] dubbed ^[58] her another “example of incendiary, bigoted campus speech.” The Huffington Post ^[59] decried it as a “racist rant.” The statist feminists of Jezebel ^[60] followed suit with brilliant creativity, labeling her a “racist ranter.” Most astoundingly, the New York Lies Times devoted an editorial ^[61] to Wallace’s “clearly racist words.”

This was PC propaganda, but Wallace issued an apology ^[62] anyway:

I made a mistake. My mistake, however, has lead to the harassment of my family, the publishing of my personal information, death threats, and being ostracized from an entire community. Accordingly, for personal safety reasons, I have chosen to no longer attend classes at UCLA.

Defying expectations, the university responded ^[63] rationally by not punishing Wallace — although they maintained their cultural Marxism bona fides by first lecturing that they were “appalled” by “the sentiments expressed.” No matter. She is gone, and will be shamed by the event for the rest of her life.

That such a donnybrook resulted from the vapid utterances of a student illustrates how racism hysteria has conquered our country. As an “ism,” racism is so powerful that guilt is automatically presumed whenever an allegation is made.

It may strike conservatives as odd, but merely impersonating someone has become an odious act. It used to be non-remarkable and occasionally very entertaining. Think of Rich Little’s ^[64] career! Yet precedent exists for its standing as a prejudicial abomination.

Recall what happened to the rabbi who exposed Helen Thomas as a heinous anti-Semite. Just as with Joe the Plumber ^[65], the rabbi quickly found himself ^[66] in the left’s crosshairs. Radicals unearthed evidence of his prior impersonation of a Mexican person. Oh no! Yes, to leftists, whites imitating non-whites is de facto proof ^[67] of racism. Copying an accent is racist because…the left says it is.

All of this elucidates why conservatives would be wise to ignore political correctness entirely. To those leftists who wish to structure our speech we should, in the words ^[68] of the worst president in history, “argue with them and get in their face.”

Leftists are not our friends. They are our foes. Being chivalrous towards enemies results in defeats like the one we are currentlyexperiencing ^[69] in Wisconsin. The Democratic Party has been taken over by radicals who despise ^[70] our country and wish totransfer ^[71] America’s wealth to the third world.

We must not assume good faith with those who are devoid of honor and character. They will push their agenda until they succeed in turning our nation into Democratic Kampuchea ^[72]. Thus, we should eschew pessimism, push back, and verbally fight them with everything we have. Define your enemy. Free your speech. Do not leave the fray, and never, ever surrender. We can still save the greatest nation on earth.

---

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pc-campus-culture-takes-out-alexandra-wallace/

URLs in this post:

[1] evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj-u-hcENFY

[2] erodes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpySxTeupag

[3] Constitution: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4502473/shelia-jackson-lee-squares-off-with-cavuto/?playlist_id=87937

[4] country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fuf3EH13Hs

[5] death threats: http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-19/news/29185796_1_ucla-student-student-newspaper-death-threats

[6] serious crises: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/soros-bets-on-u-s-financial-collapse/

[7] several: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/047091033X/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0385512236&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1K5E2B6E8FMBB0AJ9A6C

[8] fronts: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Newhome-sales-plunged-in-apf-1641198396.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

[9] monstrous: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/568170/201104051853/Ryans-Budget-Plan-Lower-Spending-Deficits-And-Taxes.htm

[10] irresponsible: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/federal-reserve-begins-ma_b_677483.html

[11] debt: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[12] pressing concern: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Feds-Fisher-US-debt-situation-rb-2041699246.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=3&asset=&ccode=

[13] Debilitating: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703512404576208940912318606.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

[14] annual deficits: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/congressional-budget-office-projects-higher-iobama-deficits/1

[15] national security: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/25/joint-chiefs-chair-says-debt-is-the-greatest-threat-to-national-security/

[16] Documenting: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/262839/are-we-broke-michael-tanner

[17] take our nation back: http://www.cnsnews.com/node/63421

[18] money printing: http://www.cnbc.com/id/41071743/Bernanke_Is_Wrong_on_Quantitative_Easing_Author

[19] silencing conservatives: http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/65repressivetolerance.htm

[20] delusional: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=su4PwZCWUdg&feature=player_embedded

[21] policies: http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_snd-block-grants.html

[22] implement: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1566638755/manhattaninstitu/

[23] common sense: http://pajamasmedia.com../blog/on-the-left-its-fake-sophisticates-real-snobs/

[24] madness: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2011-04-06-editorial06_ST1_N.htm

[25] strikes: http://www.infowars.com/msnbc-host-calling-obama-socialist-is-code-for-n-word/

[26] crazy: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/08/05/slates-noah-calling-obama-skinny-coded-discussion-race

[27] Cultural Marxism: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

[28] the truth: http://www.answers.com/topic/veritas-odium-parit

[29] a Republican: http://www.amazon.com/Cant-Believe-Sitting-Next-Republican/dp/159403253X

[30] Belial: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belial

[31] minorities: http://www.hollywood.com/news/Isaiah_Washington_Fired_from_Greys_Anatomy/3779700

[32] caught: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5572120

[33] the party: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html

[34] demonic R: http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/Democrats--race--Reid--Ron-Miller--Republicans--Rubio/2010/08/16/id/367553

[35] purple hordes: http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/assets_c/2010/06/TP%20Rally%20SEIU%20shirts-thumb-350x262-28613.jpg

[36] racist: http://madamenoire.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/al-sharpton.jpg

[37] social justice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaByLMlJRE

[38] Abzug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug

[39] Twenty percent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[40] boll weevils: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boll_weevil_%28politics%29

[41] integral: http://www.umich.edu/%7Elawrace/votetour8.htm

[42] Tammany Hall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall

[43] distorted: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_racism_trap_defined.html

[44] infamous: http://www.newworldnews.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/people.Bush-Hitler1.jpg

[45] supremacists: http://mchenrycountyblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Hitler-equals-Scott-Walker.png

[46] issue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/11/unions-frame-collective-b_n_834454.html

[47] Martin Luther King: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/unions-frame-collective-bargaining-civil

[48] degradation: http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Obamacare-Sally-Pipes/dp/1596986360

[49] health care: http://michellemalkin.com/2010/03/23/racial-preferences-in-obamacare/

[50] inefficient: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/03/no-the-next-stop-is-bankruptcy/

[51] dysfunctional: http://www.bia.gov/

[52] segregationists: http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/30/ohio-democrat-sherrod-brown-shows-innocent-interns-what-washington-is-really-like/

[53] racist: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_4f785e7c-be91-5cba-8d90-50ed2415f7ab.html

[54] video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg3tIERI-D4

[55] Westwood campus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Los_Angeles

[56] Black Panther: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

[57] The Nation: http://www.thenation.com/blog/159298/fire-alexandra-wallace-and-defending-offensive-speech

[58] dubbed: http://studentactivism.net/2011/03/16/alexandra-wallace-free-speech/

[59] The Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/alexandra-wallace-racist-video_n_835505.html

[60] Jezebel: http://jezebel.com/#%215783669/alexandra-wallace-leaves-ucla

[61] an editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/opinion/18fri2.html

[62] an apology:http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/blog/off_the_press/2011/03/alexandra_wallace_apologizes_announces_she_will_no_longer_attend_ucla

[63] responded: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/statement-of-janina-montero-vice-199282.aspx

[64] Rich Little’s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Little

[65] Joe the Plumber: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/28/ohio-official-who-snooped-joe-the-plumbers-records-is-an-obama-donor/

[66] found himself:http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/06/rabbi_who_brought_down_helen_thomas_has_great_mexican_impression.html

[67] de facto proof: http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/helen-thomas-was-set-up-by-a-racist/

[68] words: http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/04/dnc-goes-nuclear-mobs-of-right-wing-extremists-are-attacking-our-health-care-town-halls/

[69] experiencing: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/the-latest-kloppenburg-ahead-with-all-precincts-reported.php

[70] despise: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263872/samantha-power-s-power-stanley-kurtz

[71] transfer: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/34752

[72] Democratic Kampuchea: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/07/98/cambodia/133533.stm

Copyright © 2011 Pajamas Media. All rights reserved.