Re: Fwd: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: FBI TARGETS MURDOCH - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

How refreshing!  Thanks Arch!  Of course, you know that your post to the Daily Kos will be immediately yanked......

 

 

On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:41 AM, archbelial <isleoforonsay@gmail.com> wrote:

No, Moe, Murdoch doesn't own the GOP. I do. Me and hundreds of
thousands of others who are overjoyed to finally get the chance to
tell the truth to the labor bosses, the welfare staters and the few
survivors of Lyndon Johnson's ruinous Great Leap Forward [Oops, that
was Mao. Johnson called it the Great Society--same difference]. It's
exhilerating!

On Jul 15, 3:17 am, Moe <coates...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The FBI had better be careful with what they do with Murdock. He owns
> the GOP and is bankrolling Palin, Huckelby, Rove, Gingrich and a lot
> of the other Tea Party leadership. Since America sold it´s freedom to
> the corporate world the average Joe Voter takes a backseat on the
> direction of the country. Of course the average American is not
> interested in the deep reaching violations in the UK.
>
> On Jul 14, 11:26 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  **
>
> > [image:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/308280/thumbs/r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-PHONE-HACKIN...]
>
> > *A law enforcement official said Thursday the FBI has opened an
> > investigation into allegations that *
> > *media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sought to hack into the phones of
> > Sept. 11 victims, .*
>
> > *Hi Team!*
> > **
> > **? 2 ALL: *
> > **
> > *FBI TARGETS MURDOCH -*
> > **
> >  [image: 071411rupert.jpg]
> > *(above): A demonstrator, wearing a mask depicting Rupert Murdoch,holding
> > puppets depicting British Prime Minister David Cameron and British Culture
> > minister Jeremy Hun. (AP/Lefteris Pitarakis) - gothamist.com*
> > **
> > Tom Hays reports:
>
> > "The decision to investigate was made after U.S. Rep. Peter King and several
> > other members of Congress wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding an
> > investigation, said the official, who spoke to The Associated Press on
> > condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
>
> > "The official stressed that the probe was in its infancy but declined to
> > discuss the scope of it or say whether any investigative steps had been
> > taken.
>
> > "News Corp., based in New York, has been in crisis mode because of a scandal
> > that sank its U.K. newspaper the News of the World.
>
> > [image:http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/sites/default/files/u188/murdoch.jpg]
>
> > "A rival newspaper reported last week that the News of the World had hacked
> > into the phone of U.K. teenage murder victim Milly Dowler in 2002 and may
> > have impeded a police investigation into her disappearance.
>
> > "More possible victims soon emerged: other child murder victims, 2005 London
> > bombing victims, the families of dead soldiers and former Prime Minister
> > Gordon Brown.
>
> > "U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said Thursday that the
> > department 'does not comment specifically on investigations, though anytime
> > we see evidence of wrongdoing, we take appropriate action.'"
>
> > [image: Rupert Murdoch Fbi]
>
> > *FBI targets Murdoch - what are your comments?*
> >  *Greg Dempsey
> > **http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/*<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/>
> > *Voice of the People*
> > **
>
> >   ===== Rupert Murdoch Under FBI Investigation: News Corp. Reportedly
> > Targeted Over 9/11 Victims Hacking Scandal
>
> > By TOM HAYS   07/14/11 04:00 PM ET   [image: AP] Associated Press
> > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/fbi-news-corp-investigation_...>
>
> > <http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20...>
> > NEW YORK -- The FBI and U.S. attorney's office in New York declined comment.
> > There was no immediate response to a phone message left for News Corp.
>
> > King, a Republican, said Thursday afternoon he had not officially been
> > contacted by the FBI and said he wanted to reserve comment until he hears
> > from the agency.
>
> > "If they do, I'd be gratified," he said in a brief telephone interview with
> > the AP.
>
> > On Thursday, Murdoch caved in to pressure from Britain's Parliament as he
> > and his son James first refused, then agreed, to appear next week before
> > lawmakers investigating phone hacking and bribery by employees of their
> > newspaper empire.
>
> > Murdoch began his media career in Australia in 1952 after inheriting The
> > News newspaper after the death of his father, and he has built News Corp.
> > into one of the world's biggest media groups. Assets include Fox News, the
> > 20th Century Fox movie studio, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post
> > and three newspapers in Britain – down from four with the death of the News
> > of the World.
>
> > Also Thursday, Scotland Yard said it had made its seventh arrest related to
> > the inquiry into phone hacking at the now-defunct tabloid, whose closure was
> > a doomed effort to keep alive a bid for the highly profitable network
> > British Sky Broadcasting. Police didn't disclose the name of the arrested
> > man.
>
> > ___
>
> > Associated Press writer Frank Eltman contributed to this report.
>
> >  __._,_.___
> >   Reply to sender<gregdemp...@sti.net?subject=Re%3A%20%2A%3F%202%20ALL%3A%20FBI%20TARGETS%20MURDOCH%20-% 20WHAT%20ARE%20YOUR%20COMMENTS%3F%2A>|
> > Reply
> > to group<Daily...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%2A%3F%202%20ALL%3A%20FBI%20TARGETS%20MURD OCH%20-%20WHAT%20ARE%20YOUR%20COMMENTS%3F%2A>|
> > Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyNW9laWZrBF9T...>|
> > Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2U1bW5iBF9T...>
> > Messages in this
> > topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/message/41891;_ylc=X3oDMTM3MG1...>(
> > 1)
> >  Recent Activity:
>
> >  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTUzZHQ2BF9TAzk3M...>
> >  [DailyKos]
> > A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
> > Group Email Addresses
> > Post message:       Daily...@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe:       DailyKos-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe:       DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner:       DailyKos-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> >  [image: Yahoo!
> > Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGtpNTdsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<DailyKos-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<DailyKos-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> > Unsubscribe <DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >    .
>
> > __,_._,___
>
> >  ap_wire.png
> > < 1KViewDownload
>
> >  murdoch.jpg
> > 45KViewDownload
>
> >  r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-FBI-large570.jpg
> > 44KViewDownload
>
> >  r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-PHONE-HACKING-FBI-911-huge.jpg
> > 93KViewDownload
>
> >  071411rupert.jpg
> > 124KViewDownload

--
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.

--
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: Fwd: [DailyKos] *? 2 ALL: FBI TARGETS MURDOCH - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?*

No, Moe, Murdoch doesn't own the GOP. I do. Me and hundreds of
thousands of others who are overjoyed to finally get the chance to
tell the truth to the labor bosses, the welfare staters and the few
survivors of Lyndon Johnson's ruinous Great Leap Forward [Oops, that
was Mao. Johnson called it the Great Society--same difference]. It's
exhilerating!

On Jul 15, 3:17 am, Moe <coates...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The FBI had better be careful with what they do with Murdock. He owns
> the GOP and is bankrolling Palin, Huckelby, Rove, Gingrich and a lot
> of the other Tea Party leadership. Since America sold it´s freedom to
> the corporate world the average Joe Voter takes a backseat on the
> direction of the country. Of course the average American is not
> interested in the deep reaching violations in the UK.
>
> On Jul 14, 11:26 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  **
>
> > [image:http://i.huffpost.com/gen/308280/thumbs/r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-PHONE-HACKIN...]
>
> > *A law enforcement official said Thursday the FBI has opened an
> > investigation into allegations that *
> > *media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. sought to hack into the phones of
> > Sept. 11 victims, .*
>
> > *Hi Team!*
> > **
> > **? 2 ALL: *
> > **
> > *FBI TARGETS MURDOCH -*
> > **
> >  [image: 071411rupert.jpg]
> > *(above): A demonstrator, wearing a mask depicting Rupert Murdoch,holding
> > puppets depicting British Prime Minister David Cameron and British Culture
> > minister Jeremy Hun. (AP/Lefteris Pitarakis) - gothamist.com*
> > **
> > Tom Hays reports:
>
> > "The decision to investigate was made after U.S. Rep. Peter King and several
> > other members of Congress wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller demanding an
> > investigation, said the official, who spoke to The Associated Press on
> > condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly.
>
> > "The official stressed that the probe was in its infancy but declined to
> > discuss the scope of it or say whether any investigative steps had been
> > taken.
>
> > "News Corp., based in New York, has been in crisis mode because of a scandal
> > that sank its U.K. newspaper the News of the World.
>
> > [image:http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/sites/default/files/u188/murdoch.jpg]
>
> > "A rival newspaper reported last week that the News of the World had hacked
> > into the phone of U.K. teenage murder victim Milly Dowler in 2002 and may
> > have impeded a police investigation into her disappearance.
>
> > "More possible victims soon emerged: other child murder victims, 2005 London
> > bombing victims, the families of dead soldiers and former Prime Minister
> > Gordon Brown.
>
> > "U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman Laura Sweeney said Thursday that the
> > department 'does not comment specifically on investigations, though anytime
> > we see evidence of wrongdoing, we take appropriate action.'"
>
> > [image: Rupert Murdoch Fbi]
>
> > *FBI targets Murdoch - what are your comments?*
> >  *Greg Dempsey
> > **http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/*<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SECULARHUMANIST/>
> > *Voice of the People*
> > **
>
> >   ===== Rupert Murdoch Under FBI Investigation: News Corp. Reportedly
> > Targeted Over 9/11 Victims Hacking Scandal
>
> > By TOM HAYS   07/14/11 04:00 PM ET   [image: AP] Associated Press
> > <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/14/fbi-news-corp-investigation_...>
>
> > <http://reddit.com/submit?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F20...>
> > NEW YORK -- The FBI and U.S. attorney's office in New York declined comment.
> > There was no immediate response to a phone message left for News Corp.
>
> > King, a Republican, said Thursday afternoon he had not officially been
> > contacted by the FBI and said he wanted to reserve comment until he hears
> > from the agency.
>
> > "If they do, I'd be gratified," he said in a brief telephone interview with
> > the AP.
>
> > On Thursday, Murdoch caved in to pressure from Britain's Parliament as he
> > and his son James first refused, then agreed, to appear next week before
> > lawmakers investigating phone hacking and bribery by employees of their
> > newspaper empire.
>
> > Murdoch began his media career in Australia in 1952 after inheriting The
> > News newspaper after the death of his father, and he has built News Corp.
> > into one of the world's biggest media groups. Assets include Fox News, the
> > 20th Century Fox movie studio, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post
> > and three newspapers in Britain – down from four with the death of the News
> > of the World.
>
> > Also Thursday, Scotland Yard said it had made its seventh arrest related to
> > the inquiry into phone hacking at the now-defunct tabloid, whose closure was
> > a doomed effort to keep alive a bid for the highly profitable network
> > British Sky Broadcasting. Police didn't disclose the name of the arrested
> > man.
>
> > ___
>
> > Associated Press writer Frank Eltman contributed to this report.
>
> >  __._,_.___
> >   Reply to sender<gregdemp...@sti.net?subject=Re%3A%20%2A%3F%202%20ALL%3A%20FBI%20TARGETS%20MURDOCH%20-% 20WHAT%20ARE%20YOUR%20COMMENTS%3F%2A>|
> > Reply
> > to group<Daily...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%2A%3F%202%20ALL%3A%20FBI%20TARGETS%20MURD OCH%20-%20WHAT%20ARE%20YOUR%20COMMENTS%3F%2A>|
> > Reply
> > via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJyNW9laWZrBF9T...>|
> > Start
> > a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmY2U1bW5iBF9T...>
> > Messages in this
> > topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos/message/41891;_ylc=X3oDMTM3MG1...>(
> > 1)
> >  Recent Activity:
>
> >  Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DailyKos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYTUzZHQ2BF9TAzk3M...>
> >  [DailyKos]
> > A group for readers of DailyKos and other progressive sites.
> > Group Email Addresses
> > Post message:       Daily...@yahoogroups.com
> > Subscribe:       DailyKos-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > Unsubscribe:       DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com
> > List owner:       DailyKos-ow...@yahoogroups.com
> >  [image: Yahoo!
> > Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGtpNTdsBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> > Switch to: Text-Only<DailyKos-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> > Daily Digest<DailyKos-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> > Unsubscribe <DailyKos-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> • Terms
> > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> >    .
>
> > __,_._,___
>
> >  ap_wire.png
> > < 1KViewDownload
>
> >  murdoch.jpg
> > 45KViewDownload
>
> >  r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-FBI-large570.jpg
> > 44KViewDownload
>
> >  r-RUPERT-MURDOCH-PHONE-HACKING-FBI-911-huge.jpg
> > 93KViewDownload
>
> >  071411rupert.jpg
> > 124KViewDownload

--
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.

The Quintessential Politician

The Quintessential Politician
by Harry Browne
June 22, 2004      

Now that the orgy of media coverage for St. Ronald of Reagan is over, we can take a dispassionate look at the "legacy" of Ronald Reagan without raining on anyone's eulogy.

It's telling that so much of the TV commentary focused on Reagan's sense of humor or his personal acts of kindness ­ his compassion and sensitivity to the needs of others. That's a tip-off that the man didn't change America in any important way. If he had done something revolutionary, that would have been the focus of discussion.

And, of course, there are millions of Americans who have a sense of humor or who perform personal acts of kindness. Neither characteristic should be at the top of the list in selecting a President. Such attributes seem important only because presidential candidates of the two major parties are so much alike in their politics. So voters who aren't joined at the hip to a particular political party usually wind up voting on the basis of personality and apparent "character."

As for the limited coverage of his policies, conservatives in print and on the Internet talked about Reagan's dedication to individual liberty and smaller government, and about his single-handed whipping of the Soviet Union. TV journalists, having no interest in smaller government, focused more on his fighting of the Cold War.

In truth, however, most of the discussion of Ronald Reagan was as bogus as Reagan's political career. He was neither the man he claimed to be nor the man who was celebrated these past few weeks.

My Sympathies

Even though I had no intention of voting for anyone, I couldn't help being sympathetic toward Reagan when he ran for President in 1976 and 1980. After all, here was a man preaching that "government is the problem, not the solution" and being trashed by the liberal media for saying so.

I considered him to be a refreshing change when he became President in 1981, and I wrote about him sympathetically in my investment newsletter during his first few years in office. Political pundits blamed him for every conceivable ill that befell society ­ from the 1981 recession ­ to the sudden nationwide interest in the people formerly known as "hobos" ­ to the stock-market crash in 1987. Whatever happened was a "wake-up call" to get rid of Reaganomics, while nothing was ever blamed on the Democratic Congress.

In such an environment, it was difficult for any non-liberal not to sympathize with Ronald Reagan.

Words & Deeds

Eventually, however, it became obvious that Reagan was all talk and no action.

If government was the "problem," why did he keep signing bills that made government bigger and bigger?

Fiscal Policy

Few people may remember that when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal budget was only $678 billion. During his 8-year tenure, the budget grew by 69% ­ on its way to today's $2.3 trillion budget.

The annual average increase in government during Reagan's administration was 6.8%, compared with "big government" Bill Clinton's average annual increase of 3.6%.

Reagan promised to balance the budget within his first term. Instead, the annual deficit rose from $79 billion to $212 billion in that first term ­ and the Reagan years added $1.9 trillion to the federal debt.

Reagan is known as a tax-cutter, and the term "Reaganomics" implies dramatic cuts in tax rates. But after pushing through a tax cut to be implemented over three years, he cooperated during the second year in the largest tax increase in American history up to that time. The nation's annual tax load increased by 65% during his time in office.

No Will

Conservatives like to blame the increase in government on the Democratic Congress. But Presidents have the power of veto.

Pens are cheap. A President can sign thousands of vetoes. Unless his opposition can muster a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, nothing can be forced on him.

The determining factor is whether the President has the will to reduce government. If he does, no one can stop him.

And while Reagan did veto some bills (unlike George W. Bush), in eight years Congress passed only nine bills over Reagan's veto. And only one of those was a budget bill.

Thus Congress didn't enlarge government in spite of Reagan's determined opposition. He actively participated in the growth of government.

The only positive result of Reagan's tenure was the change in the terms of political argument. Both liberals and conservatives had a vested interest in maintaining the fiction that Reagan was gutting the federal government. Conservatives wanted to point to this with pride, while liberals wanted to scream that the sky was falling. So both sides went along with the gag. This changed the terms of debate from the question of how much government should grow to how much government could be cut.

In reality, of course, there were no overall cuts, but the idea of cuts was no longer laughed out of serious conversations.

This is in keeping with the long-standing tradition that politics is all about talk, with no concern for actual results.

Social Policies

Reagan's fiscal promises may have been a sham, but his social promises were all too sincere. He delivered exactly as he promised ­ or threatened ­ he would.

He resurrected the War on Drugs, which had declined in activity during the Carter administration. Some of today's worst law-enforcement policies were initiated by Reagan's prodding.

In the 1980s asset forfeiture escalated from a little-used quirk in the law into a major weapon and source of funding for law-enforcement agencies. Thanks to "compassionate" Ronald Reagan, tens of thousands of American citizens ­ convicted of no crimes ­ have had homes, cars, and bank accounts confiscated by government.

Mandatory minimum sentences were initiated in 1986. Thanks to "sensitive" Ronald Reagan, tens of thousands of American citizens have received long, long prison sentences ­ sometimes life without hope of parole ­ for non-violent drug offenses.

But wherever he promised more liberty, he failed to deliver. When he ran for President, he vowed to end draft registration (which had been revived by Jimmy Carter), but Reagan never even asked Congress to consider such a bill.

Cold-War Policy

Reagan's military and Cold-War policies seem to be the least controversial. It's simply taken for granted that Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War ­ bringing down the Soviet Union by pushing the Soviets over the edge with increased military spending.

The idea is that the Soviets couldn't keep up with Reagan's new arms race.

Okay, suppose that's true. So what?

Switzerland couldn't keep up either. And neither could China nor New Zealand nor Tanzania. But those nations didn't collapse simply because their military budgets weren't as large as that of the United States.

The "outspending" idea makes absolutely no sense. It's designed to make us think of the arms race as though it were a drinking contest in which one contestant, while trying to keep up, drinks himself into oblivion.

But when the Soviets couldn't increase their military budget any further, all they had to do was stop increasing it ­ which in fact is what they did.

Another approach to the "Reagan won the Cold War" claim says that Reagan's tax-cutting program revitalized capitalism in America. In the early 1980s both America and the Soviet Union were in the economic doldrums, but the U.S. tax cuts shot America way ahead of the Soviets. The Soviet leaders realized they couldn't catch up because they knew that communism was an unworkable system.

Again, so what? Did the Soviet leaders resign, commit suicide, or renounce communism simply because the U.S. was in a bull market? Of course not. They just continued on their merry way, as leaders in other countries did.

Part of the problem with the "capitalist revival" idea is that median family income in America (adjusted for inflation) grew by only 1.4% per year during the much-vaunted Reagan years ­ whereas the annual average, through good years and bad, was 2.8% from 1947 to 1970. Granted, real median family income didn't grow at all during the 1970s, so the rebound in the 1980s was welcome ­ but, still, the "Reagan recovery" wasn't earth-shaking, and it certainly didn't cause the Soviet leaders to fall on their swords.

What Ended the Cold War?

It may be a long time before there's a definitive theory covering the cause of the Soviet Union's collapse.

Certainly, communism is an unworkable system, and it was bound to collapse eventually. It may be simply that 1991 was the time for it to happen ­ with no push from any outside source. But since Republicans happened to be in the Presidency when the Soviet Union fell, they get to take credit for it, along with taking credit for the Los Angeles Lakers winning five NBA titles in the 1980s.

If there was a proximate cause, it probably was Mikhail Gorbachev. It pains me to say as much, because I never expected him to do anything good for the world. Whenever a new Soviet leader came to power, the liberal journalists went to great lengths to tell us how different he was from his brutal predecessors ­ when in fact all the Soviet dictators were cut from the same cloth. With Gorbachev the liberal pundits turned out to be correct, but they'd cried "Sheep!" too often to be believed.

It isn't that Gorbachev set about to bring down the Soviet empire, but he recognized that it was on life support. He hoped to save it by restructuring the government and by fostering a more open society that would encourage innovation in the service of the state.

He also realized that the Soviet Union no longer had the resources to hold the satellite countries in line by force. So he set the leaders in those countries free to chart their own destinies.

Events ran away from the Soviets in August 1989 when Hungarian Prime Minister Miklos Nemeth decided to open the border with Austria ­ allowing East German tourists to escape into Austria. As soon as the news got back to Germany, thousands of East Germans poured into Hungary and on into Austria. The Iron Curtain was torn open, and by November 1989 even the Berlin Wall came tumbling down.

The rest is history. And although Ronald Reagan's name may appear in that history, I find it hard to accept that he created it.

Other Foreign Policy

Conservatives praise Reagan for his aggressive foreign policy. But I've seen no evidence that his policies did anything other than stimulate terrorism throughout the world.

One example was his all-out support for the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan. He called them "freedom-fighters." Today, many of the same people are called "terrorists."

Reagan ordered the Air Force to bomb Libya in April 1986, hoping to kill Muammar Khadaffi and to demonstrate to the world that Khadaffi couldn't get away with terrorist acts. But two years later a Pan American airliner exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the U.S. government swears that Khadaffi was responsible. So much for the idea that bombing people deters terrorists.

In 1983 Reagan sent U.S. Marines to Lebanon to keep the peace there. But over 200 of them died from a truck-bomb explosion on October 23. The event was a severe blow to the popularity of Reagan's foreign policy. Fortunately, Reagan reacted wisely by bringing the rest of the Marines home ­ rather than retaliating with a military attack on someone.

Perhaps to deflect attention from the Lebanon disaster, two days later U.S. troops invaded the sovereign nation of Grenada. The invasion never made sense. One excuse given was that the Marines were protecting a thousand Americans living there ­ as though the U.S. government and taxpayers are obligated to protect American citizens no matter where they decide to live. Another excuse was that the Soviet Union intended to build an airbase on Grenada, from which planes could attack the U.S. ­ even though the Soviets already had 24 years in which to build an airbase in Cuba, much closer to the U.S.

As with other U.S. Presidents of the past 70 years, Reagan was willing to give your money and your implied support to any brutal dictator or terrorist group who claimed to be on his side. So it isn't surprising that so many hundreds of millions of people around the world now consider America their enemy.

Reagan's last years in the Presidency were dominated by investigations into his administration's support for rebels in Nicaragua ­ support that was funded by sales of critical missiles to the Iranian government, which was considered to be a sponsor of terrorism. But, then, American foreign policy never has made much sense.

The Politician

Ronald Reagan was neither a hero nor a malevolent villain. He was simply a politician ­ but the quintessential politician.

A politician is someone who tells you one thing and does another ­ usually the opposite.

And on that basis, Reagan ranks right up there with Franklin Roosevelt as one of the most successful politicians ever.

But in terms of his effect on America, he was one of the worst.

It isn't just that he continued the great American presidential tradition of making government bigger and bigger. He also was the first President since Dwight Eisenhower to stir any hope in liberty-loving Americans that things might change for the better. But by the end of the 1980s, his failure to reduce government in any significant way caused many small-government advocates to believe that if Ronald Reagan, who talked the best game possible, couldn't seem to change anything for the better, it was obvious that no one could. In the process, he did a great deal to demoralize libertarians.

His electoral victories gave doctrinaire conservatives something to cheer about, because they're far more concerned with winning elections than in bringing liberty back to America. It's not surprising that they revere both Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, since both were cut from the same cloth.

Does It Matter?

Does it matter that the Reagan legacy is a fraud?

Yes, it matters a great deal.

It matters because we need to understand that since the 1920s no American President has made a determined effort to reduce government significantly. It isn't that it can't be done. It's been proven only that no Republican or Democrat is going to do it.

It matters because it reminds us that politicians are not to be believed ­ not about their records, not about the foreign dangers that supposedly require us to go to war, not in their promises to obey the Constitution and fight for smaller government.

It matters because it demonstrates that we shouldn't put our faith in apparent heroes. Instead, our salvation lies with ourselves. It is we who must carry the message of the benefits of liberty, and spread that message far and wide until the public demands ­ and no politician can resist ­ the restoration of the American way.

http://harrybrowne.org/articles/Reagan%27sLegacy.htm

130 Republicans Who Are In Congress Today Voted To Hike The Debt Ceiling Under Bush Without Hostage Threats

130 Republicans Who Are In Congress Today Voted To Hike The Debt Ceiling Under Bush Without Hostage Threats
By Zaid Jilani on Jul 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm

There was a time when House Republicans chose not to threaten the nation with default to get their agenda passed.
White House and congressional negotiators are currently in the process of striking a deficit reduction deal, as most Republicans in Congress are refusing to raise the federal debt ceiling without deep cuts to public investments and social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare. By doing so, these Republicans are essentially holding the country hostage, threatening the United States with default unless Democrats agree to these cuts.

Yet these Republicans were not always demanding hostages in exchange for allowing the country to pay its own bills. In November of 2004, Congress voted in both the House and Senate to hike the U.S. debt limit by $800 billion, which raised the total ceiling to $8.1 trillion.

A ThinkProgress review of the votes in both the House and Senate finds that a whopping 130 congressional Republicans voted to hike the debt ceiling that November that remain in the U.S. Congress today (either in their same seats or by coming to the Senate). These members of Congress did not demand draconian cuts in public investment that would've driven up unemployment and threatened the economy in return.

Of course, there was one other difference between then and today. President George W. Bush was in the White House, and Republicans did not have an incentive to try to politically damage him by holding the debt ceiling hostage. In 2002, during another hike in the nation's debt limit under Bush, his press secretary Ari Fleischer said it was important to raise the debt ceiling because it was not the time "to engage in activites that could in any way raise questions about the full faith and credit of the United States":

MR. FLEISCHER: The Senate passed, 68-29, a clean increase in the debt limit. The President praises the Senate's action. The debt limit is a very important issue. This is not the time to play any ­ this is not the time to engage in any activities that could in any way raise questions about the full faith and credit of the United States. And the President urges the House to follow the Senate's action on this matter.

These votes also prove that these Republicans, when faced with the default of their country, are willing to vote to raise the debt ceiling; this indicates that it is perhaps unneccesary to strike any sort of deficit reduction deal at all to win their votes. If Republicans and Democrats want to strike a grand bargain on deficit reduction, they can certainly do that in the context of the budget appropriations process rather than holding the debt limit hostage.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/19/273349/130-republicans-voted-debt/

Statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act

Statement on the Cut, Cap and Balance Act

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against HR 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.  This bill only serves to sanction the status quo by putting forth a $1 trillion budget deficit and authorizing a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt limit.

When I say this bill sanctions the status quo, I mean it quite literally.

First, it purports to eventually balance the budget without cutting military spending, Social Security, or Medicare.  This is impossible.  These three budget items already cost nearly $1 trillion apiece annually.  This means we can cut every other area of federal spending to zero and still have a $3 trillion budget.  Since annual federal tax revenues almost certainly will not exceed $2.5 trillion for several years, this Act cannot balance the budget under any plausible scenario.

Second, it further entrenches the ludicrous beltway concept of discretionary vs. nondiscretionary spending.  America faces a fiscal crisis, and we must seize the opportunity once and for all to slay Washington's sacred cows-- including defense contractors and entitlements.  All spending must be deemed discretionary and reexamined by Congress each year.  To allow otherwise is pure cowardice.

Third, the Act applies the nonsensical narrative about a "Global War on Terror" to justify exceptions to its spending caps.  Since this war is undeclared, has no definite enemies, no clear objectives, and no metric to determine victory, it is by definition endless.  Congress will never balance the budget until we reject the concept of endless wars.

Finally, and most egregiously, this Act ignores the real issue: total spending by government.  As Milton Friedman famously argued, what we really need is a constitutional amendment to limit taxes and spending, not simply to balance the budget.  What we need is a dramatically smaller federal government; if we achieve this a balanced budget will take care of itself.

We do need to cut spending, and by a significant amount.  Going back to 2008 levels of spending is not enough.  We need to cut back at least to where spending was a decade ago.  A recent news article stated that we pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities.  The same could be said for the rest of the government.  Why has our budget doubled in 10 years?  This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount. 

We need to cap spending, and then continue decreasing that cap so that the federal government grows smaller and smaller.  Allowing government to spend up to a certain percentage of GDP is insufficient.  It doesn't matter that the recent historical average of government outlays is 18 percent of GDP, because in recent history the government has way overstepped its constitutional mandates.  All we need to know about spending caps is that they need to decrease year after year.

We need to balance the budget, but a balanced budget amendment by itself will not do the trick.  A $4 trillion balanced budget is most certainly worse than a $2 trillion unbalanced budget.  Again, we should focus on the total size of the budget more than outlays vs. revenues.

What we have been asked to do here is support a budget that only cuts relative to the President's proposed budget.  It still maintains a $1 trillion budget deficit for FY 2012, and spends even more money over the next 10 years than the Paul Ryan budget which already passed the House.

By capping spending at a certain constant percentage of GDP, it allows for federal spending to continue to grow.  Tying spending to GDP creates an incentive to manipulate the GDP figure, especially since the bill delegates the calculation of this figure to the Office of Management and Budget, an agency which is responsible to the President and not to Congress.  In the worst case, it would even reward further inflation of the money supply, as increases in nominal GDP through pure inflation would allow for larger federal budgets.

Finally, this bill authorizes a $2.4 trillion rise in the debt limit.  I have never voted for a debt ceiling increase and I never will.  Increasing the debt ceiling is an endorsement of business as usual in Washington.  It delays the inevitable, the day that one day will come when we cannot continue to run up enormous deficits and will be forced to pay our bills.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I sympathize with the aims of this bill's sponsors, I must vote against HR 2560.  It is my hope, however, that the looming debt ceiling deadline and the discussion surrounding the budget will further motivate us to consider legislation in the near future that will make meaningful cuts and long-lasting reforms.

Bill to Allow DHS to Seize Authority over US Coastlines, National Parks

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/bill-allow-dhs-seize-authority-over-us-coastlines

 

Bill to allow DHS to seize authority over U.S. coastlines

Published 18 July 2011

The House is currently considering a bill that would cede control of America's coastlines to DHS; under the proposed National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, the Secretary of the Interior would forfeit authority of all public coast lands to the Secretary of Homeland Security, whenever the DHS chief sees fit

Interior could lose control of wetlands to DHS // Source: noaa.gov

The House is currently considering a bill that would cede control of America's coastlines to DHS.

Under the proposed National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, the Secretary of the Interior would forfeit authority of all public coast lands to the Secretary of Homeland Security, whenever the DHS chief sees fit. The bill would also allow DHS to take control of lands located along the Canadian and Mexican borders. DHS would be empowered to freely construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles, and set up "monitoring equipment" on these lands. Within 100 miles of a coastline or international border, DHS would also have the power to waive all environmental regulations including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The bill was introduced in April by Representative Rob Bishop (R – Utah) and has been referred to the House Committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Homeland Security.

According to the bill, its goal is to "prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes."

Several lawmakers and environmental groups are already opposing the bill.

Lynn Scarlett, a former deputy Interior secretary under President George W. Bush, and Representative William Keating (D – Massachusetts), who sits on the House Homeland Security Committee, have strongly criticized the bill and requested further clarification.

"While HR 1505 is just starting to be reviewed by the appropriate committees and as such, is subject to extensive modification, Congressman Keating believes the legislation in its current form needs to be clarified so as to appropriately assess the border security risk levels of various locations throughout the country and balance our national security against other vital protections, such as environmental safeguards, which should not be discarded haphazardly," said Lauren Amendolaro, the communications director for Representative Keating.

In addition, the Pew Environment Group argued that the bill is "sweeping waiver of the nation's bedrock environmental and land management laws" and does little to help secure America's borders.

Jane Danowitz, the director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group, said, "The proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations."

The bill would allow DHS to waive environmental laws across large swaths of areas like the entire Alaskan border, all of Hawaii, and all of Florida. In addition DHS could gain control of national parks like the Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Acadia National Park in Maine, and Mount Rainer National Park in Washington.

 

 

--
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.

An Alarming New Stimulant, Legal in Many States

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/us/17salts.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23&pagewanted=all

An Alarming New Stimulant, Legal in Many States

Michael Stravato for The New York Times

So-called bath salts are labeled "not for human consumption," which helps them skirt a law that would make them illegal.

By ABBY GOODNOUGH and KATIE ZEZIMA

Published: July 16, 2011

Dr. Jeffrey J. Narmi could not believe what he was seeing this spring in the emergency room at Schuylkill Medical Center in Pottsville, Pa.: people arriving so agitated, violent and psychotic that a small army of medical workers was needed to hold them down.

They had taken new stimulant drugs that people are calling "bath salts," and sometimes even large doses of sedatives failed to quiet them.

"There were some who were admitted overnight for treatment and subsequently admitted to the psych floor upstairs," Dr. Narmi said. "These people were completely disconnected from reality and in a very bad place."

Similar reports are emerging from hospitals around the country, as doctors scramble to figure out the best treatment for people high on bath salts. The drugs started turning up regularly in the United States last year and have proliferated in recent months, alarming doctors, who say they have unusually dangerous and long-lasting effects.

Though they come in powder and crystal form like traditional bath salts — hence their name — they differ in one crucial way: they are used as recreational drugs. People typically snort, inject or smoke them.

Poison control centers around the country received 3,470 calls about bath salts from January through June, according to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, up from 303 in all of 2010.

"Some of these folks aren't right for a long time," said Karen E. Simone, director of the Northern New England Poison Center. "If you gave me a list of drugs that I wouldn't want to touch, this would be at the top."

At least 28 states have banned bath salts, which are typically sold for $25 to $50 per 50-milligram packet at convenience stores and head shops under names like Aura, Ivory Wave, Loco-Motion and Vanilla Sky. Most of the bans are in the South and the Midwest, where the drugs have grown quickly in popularity. But states like Maine, New Jersey and New York have also outlawed them after seeing evidence that their use was spreading.

The cases are jarring and similar to those involving PCP in the 1970s. Some of the recent incidents include a man in Indiana who climbed a roadside flagpole and jumped into traffic, a man in Pennsylvania who broke into a monastery and stabbed a priest, and a woman in West Virginia who scratched herself "to pieces" over several days because she thought there was something under her skin.

"She looked like she had been dragged through a briar bush for several miles," said Dr. Owen M. Lander, an emergency room doctor at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, W.Va.

Bath salts contain manmade chemicals like mephedrone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone, or MDPV, also known as substituted cathinones. Both drugs are related to khat, an organic stimulant found in Arab and East African countries that is illegal in the United States.

They are similar to so-called synthetic marijuana, which has also caused a surge in medical emergencies and been banned in a number of states. In March, the Drug Enforcement Administration used emergency powers to temporarily ban five chemicals used in synthetic marijuana, which is sold in the same types of shops as bath salts.

Shortly afterward, Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, asked the agency to enact a similar ban on the chemicals in bath salts. It has not done so, although Gary Boggs, a special agent at D.E.A. headquarters in Washington, said the agency had started looking into whether to make MDPV and mephedrone controlled Schedule I drugs like heroin and ecstasy.

Mr. Casey said in a recent interview that he was frustrated by the lack of a temporary ban. "There has to be some authority that is not being exercised," he said. "I'm not fully convinced they can't take action in a way that's commensurate with the action taken at the state level."

Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, introduced federal legislation in February to classify bath salts as controlled Schedule I substances, but it remains in committee. Meanwhile, the drugs remain widely available on the Internet, and experts say the state bans can be thwarted by chemists who need change only one molecule in salts to make them legal again.

And while some states with bans have seen fewer episodes involving bath salts, others where they remain fully legal, like Arizona, are starting to see a surge of cases.

Dr. Frank LoVecchio, an emergency room doctor at Banner Good Samaritan Medical Center in Phoenix, said he had to administer general anesthesia in recent weeks to bath salt users so agitated that they did not respond to large doses of sedatives.

Dr. Justin Strittmatter, an emergency room doctor at the Gulf Coast Medical Center in Panama City, Fla., said he had treated one man whose temperature had shot up to 107.5 degrees after snorting bath salts. "You could fry an egg on his forehead," Dr. Strittmatter said.

Other doctors described dangerously elevated blood pressure and heart rates and people so agitated that their muscles started to break down, releasing chemicals that led to kidney failure.

Mark Ryan, the director of the Louisiana Poison Center, said some doctors had turned to powerful antipsychotics to calm users after sedatives failed. "If you take the worst attributes of meth, coke, PCP, LSD and ecstasy and put them together," he said, "that's what we're seeing sometimes."

Dr. Ryan added, "Some people who used it back in November or December, their family members say they're still experiencing noticeable paranoid tendencies that they did not have prior."

Before hitting this country, bath salts swept Britain, which banned them in April 2010. Experts say much of the supply is coming from China and India, where chemical manufacturers have less government oversight.

They are labeled "not for human consumption," which helps them skirt the federal Analog Act, under which any substance "substantially similar" to a banned drug is deemed illegal if it is intended for consumption.

Last month, the drug agency made its first arrests involving bath salts under the Analog Act through a special task force in New York. Undercover agents bought bath salts from stores in Manhattan and Brooklyn, where clerks discussed how to ingest them and boasted that they would not show up on a drug test.

"We were sending out a message that if you're going to sell these bath salts, it's a violation and we will be looking at you," said John P. Gilbride, special agent in charge of the New York field division of the D.E.A.

The authorities in Alton, Ill., are looking at the Analog Act as they prepare to file criminal charges in the death of a woman who overdosed on bath salts bought at a liquor store in April.

"We think we can prove that these folks were selling it across the counter for the purposes of humans getting high," said Chief David Hayes of the Alton police.

Chief Hayes and other law enforcement officials said they had been shocked by how quickly bath salts turned into a major problem. "I have never seen a drug that took off as fast as this one," Chief Hayes said. Others said some people on the drugs could not be subdued with pepper spray or even Tasers.

Chief Joseph H. Murton of the Pottsville police said the number of bath salt cases had dropped significantly since the city banned the drugs last month. But before the ban, he said, the episodes were overwhelming the police and two local hospitals.

"We had two instances in particular where they were acting out in a very violent manner and they were Tasered and it had no effect," he said. "One was only a small female, but it took four officers to hold her down, along with two orderlies. That's how out of control she was."

A version of this article appeared in print on July 17, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: An Alarming New Stimulant, Sold Legally in Many States.

--
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.

Now That Is What I Call Taking the Right Route

Now That Is What I Call Taking the Right Route catscanner150 | July 19, 2011 at 11:46 am | Tags: Barack Obama, North Carolina, Republican Party, Traffic sign | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8ck

Someone in North Carolina is apparently not a fan of President Obama.

An unknown party hacked into a Department of Transportation road sign over the weekend to change the warning message to read, "Impeach Obama."

Read more: DOT road sign flashes: 'Impeach Obama' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=323581#ixzz1SZsykVWy

 

Tom in NC

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Liberal Heads Exploding over Herman Cain's remarks

Liberal Heads Exploding over Herman Cain's remarks barenakedislam | July 19, 2011 at 1:26 PM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-x5b

Leftie peabrain bitch slams Cain for saying "Islam is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion." Then she accuses him of having not one single example of shari'a law being used in the United States. A quick GOOGLE search provides ample documentation of shari'a being used in American court cases: sharia-law-cited-used-and-awarded-in-23-court-case-across-america

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

108 Stores with Senior Discounts

 

Good to know information... 108 Stores with Senior Discounts Gone are the days of your grandmother's "early bird special" at the local diner. As our baby boomers reach retirement age, hundreds of retailers are featuring new and improved discounts exclusively for the 60 and older crowd. We have composed a list of senior savings that will help you keep more cash in your pocket. Whoever said getting older was a bad thing, obviously didn't know about these fantastic senior discounts!   Restaurants Applebee's: 15% off with Golden Apple Card (60+) Arby's: 10% off (55+) Ben & Jerry's: 10% off (60+) Bennigan's: discount varies by location Bob's Big Boy: discount varies by location (60+) Boston Market: 10% off (65+) Burger King: 10% off (60+) Captain D's Seafood: discount varies on location (62+) Chick-Fil-A: 10% off or free small drink or coffee (55+) Chili's: 10% off (55+) CiCi's Pizza: 10% off (60+) Culver's: 10% off (60+) Denny's: 10% off, 20% off for AARP members (55+) Dunkin' Donuts: 10% off or free coffee (55+) Einstein's Bagels: 10% off baker's dozen of bagels (60+) Fuddrucker's: 10% off any senior platter (55+) Gatti's Pizza: 10% off (60+) Golden Corral: 10% off (60+) Hardee's: $0.33 beverages everyday (65+) IHOP: 10% off (55+) Jack in the Box: up to 20% off (55+) KFC: free small drink with any meal (55+) Krispy Kreme: 10% off (50+) Long John Silver's: various discounts at participating locations (55+) McDonald's: discounts on coffee everyday (55+) Mrs. Fields: 10% off at participating locations (60+) Shoney's: 10% off Sonic: 10% off or free beverage (60+) Steak 'n Shake: 10% off every Monday & Tuesday (50+) Subway: 10% off (60+) Sweet Tomatoes 10% off (62+) Taco Bell: 5% off; free beverages for seniors (65+) TCBY: 10% off (55+) Tea Room Cafe: 10% off (50+) Village Inn: 10% off (60+) Waffle House: 10% off every Monday (60+) Wendy's: 10% off (55+) White Castle: 10% off (62+) Retail and Apparel Banana Republic: 10% off (50+) Bealls: 20% off first Tuesday of each month (50+) Belk's: 15% off first Tuesday of every month (55+) Big Lots: 10% off Bon-Ton Department Stores: 15% off on senior discount days (55+) C.J. Banks: 10% off every Wednesday (60+) Clarks: 10% off (62+) Dress Barn: 10% off (55+) Goodwill: 10% off one day a week (date varies by location) Hallmark: 10% off one day a week (date varies by location) Kmart: 20% off (50+) Kohl's: 15% off (60+) Modell's Sporting Goods: 10% off Rite Aid: 10% off on Tuesdays & 10% off prescriptions Ross Stores: 10% off every Tuesday (55+) The Salvation Army Thrift Stores: up to 50% off (55+) Stein Mart: 20% off red dot/clearance items first Monday of every month (55+) Grocery Albertson's: 10% off first Wednesday of each month (55+) American Discount Stores: 10% off every Monday (50+) Compare Foods Supermarket: 10% off every Wednesday (60+) DeCicco Family Markets: 5% off every Wednesday (60+) Food Lion: 6% off every Monday (60+) Fry's Supermarket: free Fry's VIP Club Membership & 10% off every Monday (55+) Great Valu Food Store: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) Gristedes Supermarket: 10% off every Tuesday (60+) Harris Teeter: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) Hy-Vee: 5% off one day a week (date varies by location) Kroger: 10% off (date varies by location) Morton Williams Supermarket: 5% off every Tuesday (60+) The Plant Shed: 10% off every Tuesday (50+) Publix: 5% off every Wednesday (55+) Rogers Marketplace: 5% off every Thursday (60+) Uncle Guiseppe's Marketplace: 5% off (62+) Travel Alaska Airlines: 10% off (65+) Alamo: up to 25% off for AARP members American Airlines: various discounts for 65 and up (call before booking for discount) Amtrak: 15% off (62+) Avis: up to 25% off for AARP members Best Western: 10% off (55+) Budget Rental Cars: 10% off; up to 20% off for AARP members (50+) Cambria Suites: 20%-30% off (60+) Clarion: 20%-30% off (60+) Comfort Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Comfort Suites: 20%-30% off (60+) Continental Airlines: no initiation fee for Continental Presidents Club & special fares for select destinations Dollar Rent-A-Car: 10% off (50+) Econo Lodge: 20%-30% off (60+) Enterprise Rent-A-Car: 5% off for AARP members Greyhound: 5% off (62+) Hampton Inns & Suites: 10% off when booked 72 hours in advance Hertz: up t0 25% off for AARP members Holiday Inn: 10%-30% off depending on location (62+) Hyatt Hotels: 25%-50% off (62+) InterContinental Hotels Group: various discounts at all hotels (65+) Mainstay Suites: 10% off with Mature Traveler's Discount (50+); 20%-30% off (60+) Marriott Hotels: 15% off (62+) Motel 6: 10% off (60+) Myrtle Beach Resort: 10% off (55+) National Rent-A-Car: up to 30% off for AARP members Quality Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Rodeway Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Sleep Inn: 20%-30% off (60+) Southwest Airlines: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) Trailways Transportation System: various discounts for ages 50 and up United Airlines: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) U.S. Airways: various discounts for ages 65 and up (call before booking for discount) Activities & Entertainment AMC Theaters: up to 30% off (55+) Bally Total Fitness: up to $100 off memberships (62+) Busch Gardens Tampa: $3 off one-day tickets (50+) Carmike Cinemas: 35% off (65+) Cinemark/Century Theaters: up to 35% off U.S. National Parks: $10 lifetime pass; 50% off additional services including camping (62+) Regal Cinemas: 30% off Ripley's Believe it or Not: @ off one-day ticket (55+) SeaWorld Orlando: $3 off one-day tickets (50+) Cell Phone Discounts AT&T: Special Senior Nation 200 Plan $29.99/month (65+) Jitterbug: $10/month cell phone service (50+) Verizon Wireless: Verizon Nationwide 65 Plus Plan $29.99/month (65+) *Check out our Secret Cell Phone Discounts to view all cell phone discounts available to you! Miscellaneous Great Clips: $3 off hair cuts (60+) Super Cuts: $2 off haircuts (60+) Since many senior discounts are not advertised to the public, our advice to men and women over 55 is to ALWAYS ask a sales associate if that store provides a senior discount. That way, you can be sure to get the most bang for your buck. Looking for a printable version of our list of discounts for seniors? We've got you covered! Click this link to view, then just hit "Print" in your browser: 108 Stores with Senior Discounts (PDF, 141 KB)

 

--
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.