Gotta really wonder about this policy - I use this medicine on occasion

http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/07/22/breathless-fda-bans-asthma-medication/

--
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.

Neil deGrasse Tyson Admits the Space Shuttle Was Never About Science

Neil deGrasse Tyson Admits the Space Shuttle Was Never About Science
July 23, 2011 by Geoffrey Allan Plauché

Promoting science is a major reason often given in support of the space shuttle program and against ending it. But the space shuttle program was never about science, as astrophysicist and celebrity science-show host Neil deGrasse Tyson recently admitted (in the video below). It was created for geopolitical reasons ­ to combat the commies. He thinks Americans are afraid to admit this and need to be more honest with themselves.

He also allowed that you can see the program as a waste of money from the perspective of funding science, but I disagree with his suggestion you can see it as a waste of money only if you see the program as existing solely for the purpose of promoting science. It was a colossal waste of money by any measure, and I say that as a proponent of space exploration and exploitation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ8eYXd-XZA&feature=player_embedded

One thing that disturbed me, however, was Tyson's claim that he could second-guess the geopolitical reasons for the space shuttle program if he were a political scientist, but he's not so he won't. On the one hand, it's refreshing to see a scientist not making cocksure pronouncements about things outside of his particular area of expertise. On the other hand, speaking as a political scientist myself, political scientists should not be put on a pedestal and treated as technocratic experts to whom one must defer on political issues. Ironically, Tyson here falls prey to a kind of provincial attitude, despite warning against another kind in the video, in limiting his personal responsibility for making reasoned judgments to his own field of science . The "Oh, I'll leave the ethical and political concerns to others, I'm just a scientist" conscience-absolving attitude is an irresponsible abdication of responsibility that has played a role in the development of government weapons of mass destruction, such as the atom bomb.

The Missing Martyrs

The Missing Martyrs
Why There Are So Few Muslim Terrorists
Charles Kurzman

ISBN13: 9780199766871ISBN10: 0199766878 Hardback, 256 pages
Jun 2011,  In Stock

Price:

$24.95 (02)

Description

Why are there so few Muslim terrorists? With more than a billion Muslims in the world--many of whom supposedly hate the West and ardently desire martyrdom--why don't we see terrorist attacks every day? Where are the missing martyrs?
In this startlingly counterintuitive book, a leading authority on Islamic movements demonstrates that terrorist groups are thoroughly marginal in the Muslim world. Charles Kurzman draws on government sources, public opinion surveys, election results, and in-depth interviews with Muslims in the Middle East and around the world. He finds that young Muslims are indeed angry with what they see as imperialism--and especially at Western support for local dictatorships. But revolutionary Islamists have failed to reach them, as can be seen from the terrorists' own websites and publications, which constantly bemoan the dearth of willing recruits.
Kurzman notes that it takes only a small cadre of committed killers to wreak unspeakable havoc. But that very fact underscores his point. As easy as terrorism is to commit, few Muslims turn to violence. Out of 140,000 murders in the United States since 9/11, Islamist terrorists have killed at most three dozen people. Of the 150,000 people who die each day, worldwide, Islamist militants account for fewer than fifty fatalities--and only ten per day outside of the hotspots of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. The real bulwark against Islamist violence, Kurzman finds, is Muslims themselves, who reject both the goals of the terrorists and their bloody means. With each bombing, the terrorists lose support among Muslims.
Incisive and authoritative, The Missing Martyrs provides much-needed corrective to deep-seated and destructive misconceptions about Muslims and the Islamic world. The threat of Islamist terrorism is real, Kurzman shows, but its dimensions are, so far, tightly confined.

Features

• Directly and thoughtfully addresses concerns about terrorism
• Contains specific recommendations to improve U.S. relations with Muslim societies
• Illustrated with vivid anecdotes and memorable facts

Reviews

"Kurzman provides a significant answer to a question that needs to be addressed: in a world of more than a billion Muslims, why are there so few Muslim terrorists? So much attention is given by policy makers and media experts to the small number of extremists that Kurzman's crucial question is too often ignored. For anyone interested in reducing the threat of global terrorism, this study is required reading." -John Voll, Professor of Islamic History, Georgetown University

"The best scholarship asks uncomfortable questions, and then attempts to provide trenchant answers. Charles Kurzman has asked: why does fear of terrorism persist, despite the meagre number of actual casualties caused by those who claim to be Islamists or violent jihadi warriors? His answer is as bracing as it is counterintuitive: media need to tune down the obsession with violent episodes, but the American public also needs to clamor for an open, honest debate about terrorism. This book is a hard-headed manifesto, calling for a return to pragmatism, with more reliance on academics and less on interest-driven think tanks engaged with Middle East politics." -Bruce B. Lawrence, co-editor, with Aisha Karim, of On Violence: A Reader

Product Details

256 pages; 6-1/8 x 9-1/4; ISBN13: 978-0-19-976687-1ISBN10: 0-19-976687-8

About the Author(s)

Charles Kurzman is a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. His books include Democracy Denied and The Unthinkable Revolution in Iran.

From 3 to 4,500: What laws have you broken today?

From 3 to 4,500: What laws have you broken today?
July 23, 2011 by Douglas French

The U.S. Constitution mentions three federal crimes by citizens: treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Today, there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, write Gary Fields and John R. Emshwiller for the Wall Street Journal.

Clarence Darrow anticipated the prison nation that America is today a hundred years ago in his book Resist Not Evil.  All areas of life have become part of the penal code, with an army of people operating as police, legislators, and the court system to enforce these laws through force and violence.  But even Darrow wouldn't have dreamed that the unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image, or of the slogan "Give a Hoot, Don't Pollute" can land a person in federal prison.

Fields and Emshwiller's frightening article tells about a father and son chased by the Feds for unknowingly digging on federal ground for arrowheads.  "The Andersons are two of the hundreds of thousands of Americans to be charged and convicted in recent decades under federal criminal laws­as opposed to state or local laws­as the federal justice system has dramatically expanded its authority and reach."

The Amercian Bar Association can't  even tally up the federal offenses exactly but believe the number exceeds 3,000.  The ABA's report said "the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades."

A Justice spokeswoman told the WSJ, that there was no quantifiable number. "Criminal statutes are sprinkled throughout some 27,000 pages of the federal code," write Fields and Emshwiller.

These crimes of the state's making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison.  While the US population has grown 36% in the past three decades, three times more people are going to prison, with immigration and drug violations making up over 60% of the offenses in 2010.  The federal prison population has grown eight fold during this period.

Of course much of the public cheers on the increasing prison state.

Roscoe Howard, the former U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, argues that the system "isn't broken." Congress, he says, took its cue over the decades from a public less tolerant of certain behaviors. Current law provides a range of options to protect society, he says. "It would be horrible if they started repealing laws and taking those options away."

One wonders if Howard believes 77-year-old race-car legend Bobby Unser deserves to have a criminal record "for accidentally driving a snowmobile onto protected federal land, violating the Wilderness Act, while lost in a snowstorm."  Or whether a Pennsylvania woman who violated a 1998 federal chemical-weapons law tied to an international arms-control treaty should spend six years in prison.  The woman spread some chemicals that burned her husband's paramour on the thumb.

The woman has challenged the law's constitutionality and the Supreme Court is sympathetic.

During oral arguments in the case, Justice Samuel Alito expressed concern about the law's "breadth" by laying out a hypothetical example. Simply pouring a bottle of vinegar into a bowl to kill someone's goldfish, Justice Alito said, could be "potentially punishable by life imprisonment."

And this is today's justice system?  Darrow wrote in 1902,

the state furnishes no machinery for arriving at justice. [It] has no way of arriving at the facts. If the state pretends to administer justice this should be its highest concern. It should not be interested in convicting men or punishing crime, but administering justice between men. It is obvious to the most casual observer that the state furnishes no machinery to accomplish this result.

Anders Behring Breivik - Right Wing Politics Attacked by Left Wing Brainwashing ?

Anders Behring Breivik is an exceptional instance. The gathered
details concerning his political beliefs, affinities, activities, show
no indications of irrationality, lack of logic, disordered thought
processes, or even psychopathology. There must be some cracks in his
personality, that may yet surface as details come forward, but in the
information currently available there is nothing that would indicate
that he could do what he has been charged with and alleged to have
done. That he has committed the violent acts he is suspected of is
likely true. That is not what the biggest question is. His profile
causes us to ask why. He was a model instance, almost a pardigm
instance, of a European who has well thought out, intellectually
solid, right wing political beliefs, nationalism and beliefs against
multiculturalism. These were not irrational, emotional, outbursts, but
a long held, solid, rational political position as to what he thought
right for Norway and Europe with indications of some right wing
idealism. He was anti nazi, anti neo nazi. He did have contentions
against Norway's governing Labor Party which is part of the "red-green
coalition", and is very left wing, socialist in its ideology. It is
also pro multiculturalism, not against multiculturalism. Socialist
governments, despite their holding to policies of "transparency,
openness" and so forth, tend to be, almost without exception, somewhat
forceful as to their platforms and policies. They do seek popular
belief in those platforms and policies and socialists can be highly
manipulative on that issue. (We have seen it in other instances of
socialist governments.) How does this then relate to Breivik ?

The theory that Anders Behring Breivik, was being pushed to change his
political viewpoints & beliefs, & reacted to that undue pressure,
gains credence from indications he had a grudge against the governing
labor party & its multiculturalism policies in Norway. Norway may have
broken him, in its attempts to change his mind from right to left.
Left wing "brain washing" is strongly suspected. Or another group
using "brain washing" tactics for effect, to discredit the European
political right wing. The latter would indicate a level of
sophistication not previously clearly seen in that political arena, in
any similar context.

During the Cold War I was taught how what I will loosely term "brain
washing" methods, work, particularly in reference to totalistic
societies but also within espionage, in situations of ideological
conflict. It is a psychologically brutal system and I was shown how it
can, particularly if misused with intent to produce instances of
ideological conversion, can result in not only desired conversion
reactions against the ideological and affinity relations someone is
being programmed away from, but in some instances of very strong,
solid, core beliefs, can result in equally strong reactions against
whatever group appears to be the source of the attempted conversion of
beliefs and affinities.

Clearly Breivik was a long term member of the political right wing. He
started in his youth and had not deviated since then. If the push away
from, for example, right wing beliefs attacks what is pat of the
"personality core" aggressively enough, and the core is particularly
strong and solid, the reaction can become directed at whatever is
perceived as the source of the attack on the core personality. Less
likely to happen where beliefs are more superficial, "interests"
rather than deeply internalized beliefs. Breivik himself believed his
beliefs were more than "interests" adding weight to the theory that he
was broken by what amounts to being the Norwegian governing left, or a
group capable of similar manipulation pretending to be the Norwegian
governing left, Labor Party. This is insufficient to lead to a
definite conclusion as to placing blame on the Norwegian government,
as to having attempted to "brain wash" Breivik. Let me explain why.

In espionage this is referred to as an instance of "signature", where
"signature" is what is characteristic of a group or ideology, but can
be "forged" by another group for manipulative purposes. Forged
signature can never be entirely excluded in instances of "brain
washing". There were instances during the Cold War, of "forged
signature" attempts at ideological conversion. Attempts that were made
to look like they were coming from Washington, when in fact they were
not, but were designed to attempt to convert to anti-Americanism by
making it appear that U.S. operatives were on the offensive and the
source for attacks. The purpose in those instances was to convert the
target against the United States anti Soviet Cold War position. So,
although there appear to be indications of a Norwegian governing Labor
Party "signature" on what appears to be attempted conversion of Anders
Behring Breivik away from his right wing, anti multiculturalism,
nationalist views, we cannot conclude from that indication that that
'signature" was in fact the Norwegian government, as it could be
"forced" by another group wanting to set up Breivik to target the
Labor Party and Norway's government. We have insufficient background
detail to determine that with any certainty.

So we have a problem of unprecedented proportions at the worst
possible moment in our western history. We have a man, who is a model
instance of the political right wing, an anti Nazi, Christian,
conservative, anti multiculturalist, allegedly "Zionist", who has
strong views concerning muslims and Islam, among other similar right
wing positions, charged with terrorism, likely to be charged with more
than 95 deaths and large number of injuries, in Norway. It threatens
to discredit right wing politics in Europe exactly at a time when that
political stance is of immense significance in determining how the
western world, particularly Europe, will evolve towards its political
future. It may even determine Europe's survival in terms of its
cultural and ideological heritage, into that future. A very crucial
problem for European, in fact for western, Judeo Christian originated,
politics, now and into the immediate future. An event that if
misinterpreted, or misunderstood, could damage Europe and the west
irreparably.

Bob Ezergailis
Canada

--
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.

Road Shortage in Socialist Paradise

Road Shortage in Socialist Paradise
July 23, 2011 by Per Bylund

I have written much before on the state of Sweden, the mythical land of "working" socialism. Here is another example of how it seems to not work at all as the global myth has it. The huge discount store of Gekås in the small, 9,000-population town of Ullared in southern Sweden attracts 28,000 customers daily. Obviously, most of the customers are from out-of-town or even drive from far away to buy the heavily discounted goods at Gekås.

The problem with all these travelers is that the roads to Ullared are not even close to sufficient for this kind of traffic. This causes traffic jams and customers consequently end up spending time in their cars instead of in the discount store. Meanwhile, the central government's road authority Trafikverket has done nothing to improve the roads to Ullared for the last 15 years. And they are not planning on doing anything either.

As a solution to this problem, which of course affects Gekås as it affects the small town of Ullared and the whole region, Gekås are offering a SEK 100,000,000 loan (approx. $16,000,000) to the road authority to improve the roads – at a very favorable interest rate. Gekås have already invested in the infrastructure in Ullared to support visits by their numerous customers, and this is obviously the next step. The road authority has not responded, but it is likely they will turn Gekås offer down. Private interests are generally not allowed to participate in the provision of public welfare and service. Or, as in this case, the non-provision of it.

Fwd: Media Tip

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rusty Weiss

This is what makes me sick about the media... among other things.

Reuters Labels Norway Terror Suspect as 'Right-Wing' 25 Times

Rusty

--

Please contact me at The Mental Recession, or follow on Twitter @rustyweiss74.

 

--
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.

Good quotes on the debt ceiling brouhaha - from Bizzy Blog

Quotes of the Day (072311, Morning)
<http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/07/23/quotes-of-the-day-072311-morning/>

Filed under: Quotes, Etc. of the Day
<http://www.bizzyblog.com/category/quotes-etc-of-the-day/> — TBlumer @
10:41 am

What's going on here is pure political calculus. Republicans have
done their job, offering a plan that raises the debt ceiling,
sharply cuts current spending, reforms future spending authority and
asks the states to ratify a Balanced Budget Amendment to the
Constitution.

… The debt battle of 2011 is all about getting Republicans to betray
their spending and tax promises so that Barack Obama can be
re-elected in 2012.

– From an Investors Business Daily editorial
<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/579223/201107221832/Tax-Obsessed.htm>
("Democrats
Are Obsessed with Raising Taxes"), July 23

As noted in my latest Pajamas Media column which also appeared at
BizzyBlog <http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/07/23/the-fear-based-economy/>
this morning, tax increases (not needed anyway) would cripple the
current "Fear-Based Economy," which has weakended considerably in the
past two-plus months.

___________________

The Republican Congress has handed the President an unparalleled
opportunity. Using the UNLIMITED power provided by the 14th
Amendment, President Obama can single-handed set right the myriad
social injustices that have been plaguing the working poor and
middle class for decades. Reversing 30 years of Republican and
Corporate skullduggery. If he has the courage, and if he is actually
a Democrat.

… I felt it important for someone to at least, even if tongue and
cheek, layout what IS possible if Obama was of a mind. He isn't, he
is too much of a conservative lump to ever have that kind of courage
to do what is REALLY in the nations best interest.

– From The Daily Kos
<http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/22/997577/-The-Case-for-Martial-Law?via=search>
*("The Case for Martial Law")* , July 22

"The Jester," if he gets enough heat, will probably back down and say
"You guys can't take a joke." No, I can't. Not this one.

___________________

"We have run out of time and they are going to have to explain to me
how it is that we are going to avoid default" on Aug. 2, the
president told reporters at a hastily scheduled news after Boehner's
announcement.

– From an Associated Press report
<http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-07-23-08-11-35>
Saturday morning

The "how" is simple, sir. Have the Senate revote and pass Cut, Cap &
Balance.

Then you can separately bring your overpowering case for tax increases
in a separate bill. If the people want it so bad, their pressure should
cause it pass in a straight up-or-down vote.

From this point on, if the government shuts down or defaults, it's on
the Senate and the President. The House has done its job. All the media,
Senate, and White House spinning will never change that fundamental truth.

___________________

The so-called mainstream media is engaged in a bizarre propaganda
effort, aimed not so much at persuading voters to agree with Obama
but at convincing politicians that voters agree with Obama.

– From Jim Taranto's Best of the Web at the Wall Street Journal
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576462142788961966.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion>,
July 22

It's beyond propaganda. They're making stuff up trying to influence what
goes on in the discussions themselves. How many times have you seen
indications that "they're close to an agreement" in the past several
days? John Boehner has put it on paper
<http://www.speaker.gov/UploadedFiles/boehner_07-22-2011.pdf> that "A
deal was never reached, and was never really close." The primary
motivation for relaying the false White House and Democratic leaks has
been to build pressure on Boehner to make the reports true and agree to
something unacceptable.

Comments [moderated] (0) <http://www.bizzyblog.com/?comments_popup=37620>

--
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.

Who knew how big the stacks were

http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006623

--
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.

Looks like Zero is getting desparate and Boehner is not giving in - good for Boehner

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_DEBT_SHOWDOWN?SITE=OHMOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

--
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.

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT Steve | July 23, 2011 at 4:16 am | Tags: Elvis Costello, government, Lou Costello, Microsoft, Microsoft Windows, money, Tony Abbott, United States | Categories: Humor | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8gP

Here is the original sketch. Below it's updated a bit. Very clever and Funny I think.

watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and
I'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the
windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer
and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can
use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business.
What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend
anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows!

OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a
proposal.&nb sp; What do I need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue "W."
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "W" if you don't start
with some straight answers. What about financial
bookkeeping? You have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer?
How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!
(A few days later)
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?

ABBOTT: Click on "START...."

 ~Steve~        A Big H/T to Joseph.

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.

Good Northern Virginia candidate

http://www.forrest2011.com/wp/

--
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.

Google Maps (In 3D)!

http://www.worldstart.com/google-maps-in-3d/

 

 

--
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 BANK'S NEW SIGN.

TEXAS BANK'S NEW SIGN. Steve | July 23, 2011 at 4:34 am | Tags: Concealed carry, Concealed carry in the United States, gun control, National Rifle Association, Ohio, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States, World War II | Categories: crime, Idiot Law Makers, Inspirational, Second Amendment | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8gR

 

A WORD TO THE WISE PERHAPS?

Chappell Hill is a small town between Houston and Brenham on Hwy 290.

CHAPPELL HILL Any would-be robbers looking to walk into the bank here had best think twice.There is a new sign in town.

About a month ago, Chappell Hill Bank president Edward Smith looked at a sign on the front door prohibiting concealed weapons from his business and decided to make a policy change. Licensed to carry a handgun? Come on in, and bring your weapon.

The sign, now prominently displayed on the bank's front door, says: "Lawful concealed carry permitted on these premises. Management recognizes the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right of all citizens. We therefore support and encourage the carrying of licensed concealed weapons." Smith said he made the policy change to send a warning to potential robbers, and also to express support to Americans right to bear arms.

"We had the sign on the window, the red circle with the pistol inside and a line through it.And I started thinking, We've got this no gun sign up and the guy (robber) can come in and do what he wants. But if you've got a policy allowing handguns, he won't know how many people are going to be in here carrying a concealed weapon. There may be some little old lady who's mad at the government, and she'd love to use it" he said.

The bank has been robbed twice in the last three years, including last March when a Western-attired man walked in, ordered bank employees to fill a canvas bag with money and then fled in a pickup truck. The man, who did not brandish a weapon, has not been caught.

The sign has made Chappell Hill Bank and Smith somewhat of an Internet sensation. A photo of the sign has made its way around the world, and Smith has even been interviewed for the National Rifle Association's radio networkhttp://

www.nranews.com/#/nranews ;. He's also been contacted by other media outlets wanting to do stories.

"It's kind of gotten a life of its own" he said.

Expressions of support have far outnumbered criticism.
Smith has been contacted by officials from larger banks considering taking similar action, and has received e-mails in support from across the United States and even from England, Canada,and Germany ..

"I haven't gotten any from Chicago or California , which doesn't surprise me", Smith said with a laugh. "We did get a real nice e-mail from an 88-year-old World War II veteran who said it's about time somebody stood up in this country."

The NRA has even invited him to speak at an upcoming convention, but Smith said, "I'm still deciding on that."

Smith said he's only received one negative e-mail, from an anonymous sender.

~Steve~                     H/T   May

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.

UN to Remove Jerusalem from Israel?

UN to Remove Jerusalem from Israel? Eowyn | July 23, 2011 at 7:04 am | Tags: Bangladesh, East Jerusalem, EU, Golan Heights, Jerusalem, Palestinian state, Quartet on the Middle East, Russia, Six-Day War, UN Security Council, USA, West Bank | Categories: God's creation, Islam, Israel, Liberals, Religion, Terrorism, United Nations, United States | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-8gy

Patriot Update is sending an e-mail alert that the United Nations Security Council has scheduled next Tuesday, July 26, in New York, for open "debate" about whether or not they will seize Israeli land in September, and divide Jerusalem by establishing a Palestinian state, without negotiation or approval from Israel.

[H/t beloved fellow Tina!]

The same alert is also posted on many blogs, such as Traditional Values Coalition.

According to the e-mail, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had feared just such a "surprise" move after the Quartet on the Middle East (UN, EU, USA, and Russia) met on July 11 in Washington, DC, to endorse Obama's plan (in his speech of May 19) to enforce Israel's 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem.

But I cannot find verification of this on the web. Instead, the Seattle PI reports on July 12, 2011, that the Quartet meeting was a bust:

The "highly-anticipated gathering hosted Monday by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and attended by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, EU top diplomat Catherine Ashton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov failed to produce a unified statement on the way ahead."

So I went onto the United Nations' website to find confirmation of the July 26 Security Council meeting. I found a "Programme of Meetings and Agendas" in the Journal of the United Nations. On page 2 of the pdf document is this:

The Security Council will hold an open debate on Tuesday, 26 July 2011, in the Security Council Chamber Room GA-TSC-01, in connection with the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question".

Member states wishing to inscribe their names on the list of speakers should contact the Secretariat....

Here's a screenshot I took of that announcement:

Then I went looking for the agenda item and found this document: A "Statement" made on January 19, 2011, by Mr. Md. Nojibur Rahman, Minister (Economic) and Charge d'Affaires of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to the United Nations at the Security Council Open Debate on the agenda item "The situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question".

On behalf of Bangladesh, a Muslim country, Rahman said the following:

"In order to achieve a lasting solution in the Middle East, it is very important to address the key issue, which is prolong and illegal occupation of the Arab territories by Israel.... My delegation believes that direct negotiations will only be successful if there is sustained regional and international support for...Palestinian State-building...which guarantee Israel's withdrawal from all occupied Arab and Palestinian territories back to June 4, 1967 line.... In conclusion, let me reiterate Bangladesh's long-standing position that the continued illegal occupation of Palestine over the past six decades is the root cause of violence, unrest and destabilization in the region."

So there you have it. Despite the innocuously-worded announcement in the UN's "Programme of Meetings and Agendas" of an "open debate" by the Security Council scheduled for July 26, 2011, the statement by Bangladesh's representative to the United Nations makes clear the debate agenda is about "restoring" Israel to its pre-1967 borders, also called the Green Line.

That, in turn, means Israel must surrender the territories it captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula (the latter has since been returned to Egypt). But the Green Line once divided Jerusalem into East and West, with the western section within Israel. Annexed by Jordan in 1948, East Jerusalem includes Jerusalem's Old City and some of the holiest sites of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, such as the Temple Mount, Western Wall, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Territories held by Israel before and after the Six Day War of 1967

All of which means that returning Israel to its 1967 borders would mean that Israel not only loses the West Bank -- and with that its defense strategic depth -- Israel -- and the Christian world -- will also lose Jerusalem to the new Palestinian Muslim state.

It should be said that the United Nations is decidedly partial on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and regularly condemns Israel for this or that. Even if the UN Security Council's "open debate" next Tuesday concludes with their demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders doesn't mean squat.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride....

~Eowyn

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.

We Don't Need No Stinking Amendment

We Don't Need No Stinking Amendment
by Mark Carroll

Incremental attacks on liberty come in many forms. Some are fairly obvious: The Patriot Act, The TSA, inflation via the Federal Reserve, endless wars, etc. Others, taking the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing approach, are less so. One example is the balanced budget amendment, which has again reared its ugly head – this time as part of the Cut, Cap and Balance bill.

Superficially, a balanced budget amendment sounds like a good idea. After all, the Republicans remind us (because they are oh, so thrifty), as individuals we can't live above our means without getting into financial trouble. Why should the federal government be allowed to?

But when we look a little closer, we realize that a balanced budget amendment is not only unnecessary, but dangerous, for several reasons.

First, the issue is not whether any given federal budget is balanced, but whether it is constitutional. When the President, Senators and Representatives are sworn into office, they swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, which severely limits the scope of the federal government. No reference is made in the balanced budget amendment regarding the constitutionality of the budget items. It will simply legalize what is now unconstitutional as long as they stay within certain financial limits.

Second, a balanced budget will simply mean Washington raises taxes/prints money to offset unconstitutional expenditures. As mentioned above, it nowhere addresses the issue of the limitations the founders placed on the federal government via the Constitution. Nor does it address the more important issues of fiat money, the Fed or the IRS. While the balanced budget amendment supposedly limits the amount of money the Congress can spend, it also gives them the authority to waive those limits.

Third, the founders gave the "power of the purse" to the legislative branch. The balanced budget amendment will transfer this power to the President, giving the President the power to budget and tax, blurring the separation of powers the founders wisely gave us.

In June of 1921 the Congress passed the unconstitutional Budget and Accounting Act which supposedly granted budget making power to the President. Ever since then, Presidents have been required to submit a budget for the entire Federal government. Since that Act was unconstitutional, the President's budgets are unconstitutional. The balanced budget amendment will not only legalize what is now unconstitutional, but it transfers the power to tax to the President. Congress will once again have ceded its power to the Executive branch. Congress has already surrendered its power to declare war to the President, and if this bill is passed, we will be one step closer to the President officially being a dictator.

Fourth, the Congress and the President constantly ignore the limits of the Constitution. What makes anyone think that if there is a balanced budget amendment that all of a sudden they will honor their oath to the Constitution? If they were doing that now, an amendment wouldn't be necessary. The problem is with the character of the President and the members of Congress – not the document.

Fifth, Public Law 95-435, which was signed into law by Jimmy Carter, requires a balanced budget. In other words, it is already federal law that the federal budget be balanced – we do not need an amendment to the Constitution. It has been on the books for years. This is just another example of the crooks in Washington simply ignoring the law. Again, the issue is the lack of character and integrity of the bums that supposedly represent us in Washington.

PL 95-435: "Sec. 7. Beginning in fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts."

The Balanced Budget Amendment: "SECTION 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year."

Any substantive difference there? What's stopping them from balancing the budget as they are already required?

Sixth, a balanced budget amendment could take many years, if not decades, before it was ratified by the states. In the meantime, the economy will have collapsed.

Seventh, in addition to whatever time it takes to ratify the balanced budget amendment, it doesn't go into effect until another five years later. This is the Wimpy approach: "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." The politicians that are supposedly being so fiscally responsible are just pushing all this nonsense far into the future – no different than their other plans to allegedly cut taxes and spending. A person of integrity would deal with this now and not push it onto someone else years down the road.

Eighth, who enforces this? How is it enforced? Who determines if the amendment has been violated? What are the penalties for violating the amendment? There doesn't appear to be any current punishment for violating the Constitution. Think about it: Michigan Representative John Conyers once said, "We don't read most of the bills [we pass.]" Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass the health care bill to find out what was in it. How will this be different?

Ninth, if the balanced budget amendment goes nowhere or is vetoed by Obama, it puts the Republicans in a position to say, "See? We tried," and blame it on the Democrats. If fiscal responsibility and adherence to the Constitution are so important to them, why didn't they just end the unconstitutional agencies, programs, taxing and spending when they controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency?

Tenth, while I consider the Constitution to be a dead letter, it still is technically the law of the land. The real danger of a balanced budget amendment is the clamor to get it via a Constitutional Convention. If the Cut, Cap and Balance bill is passed and Obama vetoes it, expect renewed fervor for a Constitutional Convention. If that happens, there is no way to limit the purpose of the Convention to a balanced budget amendment, and we will finally lose the Constitution once and for all. It's how we got our Constitution in the first place – the founders tossed out the Articles of Confederation when the states' representatives were only authorized to amend them.

Again, I know our "leaders" in Washington, who Tom Woods referred to as "interchangeable nobodies, and liars, and thieves and killers" already ignore the Constitution, but they would love an opportunity to finally toss it into the trash as a quaint, antiquated document and be done with it in their quest for total government. Hopefully, through a Ron Paul presidency, the election of a few decent Representatives and eventually several decent Senators, we can restore allegiance to the Constitution and actually have politicians, if not statesmen, that honor their oath of office. That will not happen by way of a balanced budget amendment.

A Ron Paul presidency, which I wholeheartedly support, will go a long way in achieving that goal, but I remain convinced that it is much more likely that we will achieve it via the nullification approach from the bottom up rather than trying to change the make-up of Congress from the top down. In either case, the bottom line is that it bears repeating that a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary, a diversion from the truly critical issues, and very dangerous.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/carroll-m1.1.1.html

The Jack Ass Show

"When you assume the Republicans are shills for progressivism, the actions make sense and are easily predictable. If the Republicans won the Debt Debate, government spending would really be cut. Which of course, they don't want. So they had to throw the fight. Unfortunately, like TV wrestling, it becomes more and more obvious the game is rigged. It's as if the rulers in Washington don't even care if we believe their staged fight. It's just a kabuki ritual they have to perform before stealing more of our Freedom."

The Jack Ass Show
by Brian Wilson

After the show, 2 olives and a grey goose yesterday, I steeled myself to watch a few minutes of the Jack Ass Show. The Jack Ass doesn't have opinions, the Laws of Nature flow from his lips. JA doesn't need to know economics or history. A word-a-day vocabulary is the knowledge of all knowledge. His audience doesn't need to think. He already has all the answers.

JA thinks he is a man of principle. But he is an emotional rowboat lost at sea without a philosophical anchor. It takes years to lay a philosophical foundation and build a principled life on top of it. Any fool knows the right and wrong of the 10 Commandments. It takes wisdom to see the folly of pretty ideas that are really tyranny draped in velvet.

The whole manufactured point of his "talking points ad ridiculum" was the principled intransigence of the Tea Party Movement standing firm for real spending cuts in the so-called "debt debate". The hyper-ventilated allegation the Tea Partiers would be branded as "Extremists" and the confidence of the American people is a non-sequitur. The Tea Party Movement is the American people. It isn't an organization that claims to represent anyone. It is a collection of individuals who associate in common cause. Many claim to be Tea Party leaders but they are charlatans walking in front of the parade. The Tea Party people listen to everyone. Take orders from none. And for better or worse, make their own decisions. They may not be the American people but they are a hell of a lot closer than a Jack Ass with a loud mouth and a TV studio.

When you assume the Republicans are shills for progressivism, the actions make sense and are easily predictable. If the Republicans won the Debt Debate, government spending would really be cut. Which of course, they don't want. So they had to throw the fight. Unfortunately, like TV wrestling, it becomes more and more obvious the game is rigged. It's as if the rulers in Washington don't even care if we believe their staged fight. It's just a kabuki ritual they have to perform before stealing more of our Freedom.

While we're on the subject, let me add Sean to the list. He says all the right words but there is no brain behind them. He knows all the correct conservative answers but can't defend them intellectually. He is like Abba: singing a song in English perfectly without understanding any of the lyrics.

Oh yes, why are the 38 at the same time "uncompromising and irrelevant"? It is the insecurity of emotional decision. They hated John Galt because of his confidence in his own beliefs. Where they had doubts, he had none. Hosts like the Jack Ass are never sure their opinion is right - yet they demand everyone agree with them. The uncompromising and principled make them loath themselves. The Principled Man is willing to stand alone with his beliefs because they were not formed from the consensus of others.

Tomorrow and the latest news await….

http://lewrockwell.com/wilson-brian/wilson-brian23.1.html

Kids to be denied their Fathers, because of ONE Man’s vote – Tony Windsor

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/07/14/kids-to-be-denied-their-fathers-because-of-one-mans-vote-tony-windsor/

Please read the following letter that was sent to Tony Windsor,
Federal Member for New England, on the proposed 2011 child custody/
family law changes currently before Parliament, designed to prevent
most separated fathers from having contact with their children.
The office of Tony Windsor has made it clear to me that they do not
care to respond to the serious issues confronting separated fathers
and children of separated families, despite being given ample
opportunity to do so in response to this letter, and in previous
discussions.

Because of their condescending and dismissive attitude, I now publish
this letter, unfortunately without any official response from Tony
Windsor.
The attitude of his staff has given me the impression that Tony
Windsor has sold out his beliefs on shared parenting, since he has
jumped into bed with Julia Gillard and the Greens.
I consider Tony Windsor's actions to be a total betrayal of the
natural rights of the children of Australia, and I feel ashamed on his
behalf that he didn't even believe that this issue deserved an
explanation, much less a simple response.
Please feel free to distribute this letter to any print, radio or
other media outlets in Australia, and in particular in Tony Windsor's
electorate of New England, including the regional centers of Tamworth,
Inverell and Armidale.

===========================================
From: Ash Patil
Fathers4Equality-Australia

To Tony Windsor
Email: Tony.Windsor.MP@aph.gov.au
Parliament Ph: (02) 6277 4722
Tamworth: Toll Free: 1300 301 839
Inverell: (02) 6721 0144

Federal Member for New England
PO Box 6022, House of Representatives
Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600
CC: Tamworth, Armidale & Inverell & other media

Dear Mr Tony Windsor,
You may recall that we corresponded back in November 2005, whereby I
wrote you, as I did for every other Member of Parliament, to ask for
your thoughts on Family Law reform.
Specifically, you were asked for your views on a Rebuttable
Presumption of Equal Parenting Time, given the enormous community
support for Shared Parenting, and in response to the recommendations
by the Hull bi-partisan (Coalition/Labor) Child Custody committee,
after 3 years of intensive community consultation.
We appreciated your response to our questions back in 2005 Mr Tony
Windsor, whereby you not only indicated that you supported Shared
Parenting as a concept, but you highlighted your support for even
stronger measures that would enforce a Presumption of Equal Parenting
Time.
On November 4, 2005, YOU wrote:
"On a personal basis, I would not be opposed to an amendment to the
Family Law Act to incorporate a legal presumption of equal parenting
time in the event of separation, rebuttable if child abuse can be
reasonably substantiated, or if the parent's mutually agree to an
alternate arrangement.
Should the feedback from the residents of the New England Electorate
differ from my own view I would have to re-examine my position however
to date the comments I have been receiving have generally been in line
with my own views on this matter.
Thank you once again for writing to me and I hope the foregoing will
clarify my position on this issue.
Tony Windsor MP
Member for New England
Yours sincerely
It was therefore a complete shock that we learned that on the 31st
May, 2011, you voted with the Gillard government and the Greens to
pass what is widely believed to be a Trojan-Horse bill designed in
practice to deny fathers any form of meaningful contact with their
children after separation. The bill was passed by one vote ONLY.
This bill, deceptively called the Family Violence Amendment bill,
2011, is not only anti-Shared Parenting, it is in fact anti-Contact,
as it legally endorses Perjury, Parental Alienation and
Unsubstantiated Allegations as legitimate means to deny a child their
natural right to have any contact at all with their father.
The obvious question Mr Windsor is why did you support this bill, a
bill that goes against your own personal beliefs, and those quite
clearly of your constituents (then and now)? Were you perhaps
distracted by all the attention and the extra roles lavished on you by
a Gillard government desperate for your support, that you let this
most malicious bill pass without due scrutiny?
You must be aware that the bill you have voted for explicitly:
creates an effective presumption of guilt against innocent fathers
makes conclusive evidence, especially in defence of abuse claims,
subservient to subjective beliefs
removes penalties against knowingly false allegations of child abuse &
domestic abuse
provides tacit encouragement for Parental Alienation by removing the
'friendly parent' provision
perpetuates the offensive and unfounded stereotype that men are a
natural threat to their children
perpetuates the untruth that Shared Parenting exposes children to
child abuse. In fact, shared parenting households are statistically
the safest environments for children.
perpetuates the unfounded presumption that mothers are unable to harm
or abuse their children
perpetuates the unfounded presumption that women never engage in
domestic abuse
has so diluted the concept of domestic abuse, that it can be applied
to any form of behaviour, whether it is real, innocent and benign, or
completely imagined;
contravenes the United Nations Convention on the rights of the Child
by denying the child their right to participate 'meaningfully and
fully' with both their mother and their father.
contravenes the International Bill of Human Rights by denying fathers
their right to a fair trial
violates Sex Discrimination standards, by procuring laws designed to
only protect half the population from domestic violence, while
ignoring or dismissing the other half.
has slashed funding for post-separation mediation to force parents
back into the Court system
will in effect divert seriously scarce child protective resources from
their primary task of genuine child protection, to that of chasing up
legally motivated allegations.
will promote sole maternal custody, which according to the Australian
Institute of Criminology, accounts for almost 80% of all familial
child abuse.

Shame on you!
Mr Windsor, you are married man and a father with 3 children. You may
very well have an optimal relationship with your wife, but you like
every other human would have at times had tensions and disagreements
with your wife. You should realise that if you had separated (when
your children were young), that even a decent father as yourself would
have been completely removed from your children's lives, if relied
upon this bill.
There is simply no reasonable reason why laws designed to reduce the
incidence of domestic violence, cannot also respect the human rights
and natural justice of men, women and children.
Given that over half your electorate are males and children, you have
an obligation to seriously consider the implications of this bill, if
passed by the Senate.
This bill will not reduce the heat of divorce. It will not encourage
mediation and agreement. It would not share the burden of child
raising. It will not promote equality for women. It will only further
disenfranchise already maligned fathers, creating the potential for
more tragedies.
People will be asking why the government chose again to promote a
"winner-takes-all", litigation-intensive, archaic, punitive set of
laws designed for mass punishment, in the hope that it would instil
fear, enforce compliance and subdue violence.
This form of mass punishment has not worked in Egypt, it has not
worked in Syria, and it will not work in Australia.
We need laws that apply to all Australians and encourage co-operative
parenting, reduce litigation and the enormous legal bills that destroy
the future of our children, and we need all Australians to be judged
by the one standard, the one law, not selective laws depending on
one's gender.
We are all equal after all, right, so why is this bill designed to
only protect one gender?
If this bill is passed, the next father or mother who either suicides
or commits a tragedy against their children, people across Australia
will be wondering what pushed them over the edge.
This bill is an opportunity to make a genuine effort to diffuse
separations, not to create more reasons for people to lash out at a
system that has completely betrayed half of all Australians.
Please take this opportunity to re-think this poorly thought-out bill.
Please tell us what you can do to amend this most malicious bill,
before it's too late. Please do not tell us that since you
thoughtlessly voted for it, then you can now wash your hands and do
nothing.
We understand that you can influence the final vote in the Senate, if
you show an interest. You can otherwise not blame fathers and children
for holding you and others like you responsible for taking Australian
families back to the dark ages in family law, for you had that final
vote that could have amended this bill into something workable, but
chose not to.
We would appreciate a written response within 7 days of the posting of
this letter.
Ash Patil
Fathers4Equality-Australia
Website: www.fathers4equality-australia.org
Email: president@fathers4Equality-australia.org
–end of letter to Tony Windsor, Federal Member for New England–

--
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.