FATHER ZAKARIA BOTROS: Islam’s Public Enemy #1, al-Qaeda has put a $60,000,000 fatwa on his head

FATHER ZAKARIA BOTROS: Islam's Public Enemy #1, al-Qaeda has put a $60,000,000 fatwa on his head barenakedislam | September 22, 2011 at 11:49 PM | Categories: Persecution of Christians | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-zYb

One of the reasons Botros is the most hunted man in the Muslim world is because his mission is to attack Islam, designating it not a religion, but rather a violent ideology that calls for the murder of Christians and Jews and other non-believers who reject Islam. Longtime BNI favorite, Zakaria Botros, a 76 year-old [...]

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.

Feel good story of the day…

Feel good story of the day… dcgere | September 23, 2011 at 8:58 am | Categories: Animals, Inspirational | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-9zu

Harper as she was first found, unable to walk

Deformed puppy learns to walk

Grab a tissue before you read this...

From Daily News Alert: A puppy in Sanford, Florida, was rescued after being found in a garbage bag.  Erica Daniel, 26, found the puppy outside the Save-A-Lot. A man was selling pit-bull puppies for $50. Daniel could hear a noise coming from a garbage bag next to the man. Daniel pressed the guy until he allowed her to look inside.

Inside was a deformed puppy that couldn't walk or hold up its head. Shelter workers and veterinarians came to the conclusion that the dog should be euthanized.  

Daniel fosters dogs that need serious help. While she was outnumbered on the deciding whether or not to euthanize this pup, she decided to take her home for the night to give the puppy unconditional love. The plan was to have her humanely euthanized in the morning.

It's a good think this woman took her in because now the puppy is recovering to the point that she's able to walk. They named the little girl Harper.

Happy girl!

Harper's disorder, commonly called "swimmer puppy disorder", causes dogs to lie flat on their chests with the legs perpetually sprawled out. Most dogs afflicted with it don't survive.

Within hours of taking Harper home Daniel noticed a difference. She massaged the puppy's tight muscles, hoping to relieve some of her pain. It worked. Harper lifted her head and looked around. Her front legs also became more limber. Daniel quickly canceled Harper's appointment to be euthanized and instead made an appointment with a veterinarian at the University of Florida.

The good news is the things they worried she might suffer from such as degenerative bone disease, brain abnormalities and a severe heart murmur were not to be found in this pup.

Her story quickly spread and when the people at the Hip Dog Canine Hydrotherapy and Fitness in Winter Park, Fla., heard about her they decided to donate free hydrotherapy and massage therapy to the puppy.

The water therapy has been so effective that she's now able to walk on grass, carpet and concrete. Daniel said she still struggles with hardwood floors and tile.

Sniff, sniff.  But what a happy ending!

DCG

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.

Can We Call Democrats Socialists Now?

That and a few other things none of which are nice. 

Can We Call Democrats Socialists Now? Scotty Starnes | September 23, 2011 at 12:56 PM | Tags: Democrats, Elizabeth Warren, social contract, Socialist | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-5Tg

"Redistribution of wealth...shared responsibility...at a certain point you've earned enough money..."

Those are just a few phrases uttered by the Socialist-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama. Here's the latest socialist gem given to us by Democrats Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Social contract? I don't know any American who has ever signed onto a social contract. Taxes, confiscated by the government, pay for these things Warren speaks about. I believe these millionaires pay their "fair share." However, Democrats want to take control of the free market (ask Maxine Waters) and anything else they can get their socialist hands on (health care, auto, banking industries).

Socialist love class warfare and believe they have the power to steal from one group to give to another group, which general vote for them. It's time to stop calling them Democrats. Call them socialists because that's what they are.

Add a comment to this post

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Express yourself. Start a blog.

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.

Please Don't Publish That

 

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20110915.aspx

Please Don't Publish That

September 15, 2011: Many military and commercial intelligence gatherers (spies) are unhappy with the recent publication of the discovery, by two Internet security researchers, that if you set up a server using the slightly misspelled name of a large corporation or government organization, you can collect thousands of misaddressed emails and attached documents. Normally, when you use the wrong (slightly misspelled) email address, you will later get an error message email, telling you that the bad address could not be reached. But with these sites using the various misspellings, your email gets delivered to someone seeking useful information they would otherwise not have access to. The fact that the sender did not receive an error message does not bother most people. The Internet is a mysterious beast, prone to odd behavior. Odd, yes, but always for a good technical reason.

This sort of deception (which, technically, is not illegal in most places) has been going on for years. Lots of people in the Internet security and intelligence communities knew about it, but not much was ever done. Now this angle is getting wide publicity, and senior managers and officials will, at least in some cases, demand solutions. This will reduce the effectiveness of this intelligence gathering technique, but not completely eliminate it. There are many similar techniques, which exploit human error and the way the Internet works. These tricks, government and corporate spies hope, will stay obscure.

 

 

 

--
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.

Moderates, Extremists, and Liberty

Moderates, Extremists, and Liberty
Thursday, September 22, 2011
by Gary Galles

As I have observed the mainstream media (MSM, to the cognoscenti) over the past few decades, I have noted a growing infatuation with the words moderate and extremist. Those words, paired together in a particular way, have become far more common.

In California, where I live, every time the legislature has trouble passing a budget, pundits blame it on a decline in the number of moderate members, whose seats are now held by extremists. Of course, what is really involved is that Democrats, who have long dominated the legislature, have found it harder to buy off enough Republican votes to impose their budget priorities, which invariably involve increasing the burden on some to give more to others. When opposition-party members who are only moderately attached to the principle of self-ownership (moderates) are replaced with those more firmly attached to it (extremists), at least with regard to taxes, the price of buying the necessary swing votes can rise dramatically. Democrats cannot impose their agenda as easily and gridlock becomes more common.

The MSM treatment of the tea party during the debt-ceiling impasse followed much the same line. In the wake of a historic expansion of federal power and spending, where 40 percent of every dollar had to be borrowed, pundits called for moderates, because they would compromise toward President Obama's demand for higher taxes, rather than the current extremists, who wanted to undo some of the new and improved profligacy in government outlays.

In both of these examples, and many others (such as the MSM treatment of Rep. Ron Paul throughout his political career), the moderation called for is always moderation in defense of some aspect of liberty (self-ownership), so that further inroads can be imposed, with those firmest in their defense tarred as unreasonable extremists.

However, I recently discovered that this tendency is of longer standing than I had been aware of. In an "electoral manifesto" published in November 1830, Frederic Bastiat offered a dead-on discussion of the same problem in France. Since he expresses himself with his characteristic clarity, wit, and irony, I think it is worth recalling:

To the electors of the Department of the Landes:

[I]t is above all the moderation which plays a role in this army of sophisms.

Everyone wants moderates at any price; we fear extremists above all … since the center is definitely between the right and the left, we conclude that this is where moderation lies.

Were those who each year voted for more taxes than the nation could bear moderates? What about those who never found the contributions to be sufficiently heavy, emoluments sufficiently huge, and sinecures sufficiently numerous … the betrayal of the confidence of their constituents.…

And are those who want to prevent the return of such excesses extremists? I mean those who want to inject a dose of moderation into spending; those who want to moderate the action of the people in power … those who do not want the nation to be exploited by one party rather than another.…

[T]he government … tends strongly to … expand indefinitely its sphere of action. Left to itself, it soon exceeds the limits which circumscribe its mission. It increases beyond all reason … It no longer administers, it exploits.… It no longer protects, it oppresses.

This would be the way all governments operate … if the people did not place obstacles in the way of governmental encroachments.

[L]iberty should not be bargained over … it is an asset so precious that no price is too high for it.…

[P]rodigality and liberty … are incompatible.

But where can there be liberty when the government, in order to sustain enormous expenditures and forced to levy huge fiscal contributions, must resort to the most offensive and burdensome taxation … to invade the sphere of private industry, to narrow incessantly the circle of individual activity, to make itself merchant, manufacturer, postman and teacher.… Are we free if the government … subjects all its activities to the goal of enlarging its cohort of employees, hampers all businesses, constrains all faculties, interferes with all commercial exchanges in order to restrain some people, hinder others, and hold almost all of them to ransom?

Can we expect order from a regime that places millions of enticements to greed all around the country … increasingly spreading the mania for governing and a zeal for domination.

Do we want then to free government from the plotters who pursue it in order to share out the spoils, from factions who undermine it in order to capture it, and from the tyrants who strengthen it in order to control it? Do we want to achieve order, freedom and public peace?

Do we want the government to take more of an interest in us than we take in ourselves? Are we expecting it to restrain itself it we strengthen it and become less active if we send it reinforcements? Do we hope that the spoils it can take from us will be refused.… Should we expect a supernatural nobility of spirit or a chimerical impartiality in those who govern us, while for our part we are incapable of defending … our dearest interests!

Electors, be careful. We will not be able to retrieve the opportunity if we let it slip … we should not shut our eyes to the evidence … if there has been no material improvement, have we at least then been given any reason for hope? No.

[L]iberty … are we going to destroy its work with our votes?

Frederic Bastiat recognized that, in his era, politically popular "moderation" resulted in expanding government coercion, while extremism, which was continually attacked, meant commitment to defending liberty. Unfortunately, little seems to have changed when it comes to political punditry, beyond the explosion of media in which to misrepresent that crucial issue. But fortunately, if we recognize with Bastiat what is really at stake ­ a liberty too precious to be bargained over ­ such misleading rhetoric cannot fool us into becoming accomplices in destroying liberty with our political choices.


Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.

http://mises.org/daily/5599/Moderates-Extremists-and-Liberty

Why Save an Immoral, Illegal, Fraudulent Program?

Thursday, September 22, 2011
Why Save an Immoral, Illegal, Fraudulent Program?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

GOP president candidate Rick Perry says that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, a monstrous lie, and unconstitutional. His GOP opponent, an ardent supporter of Social Security and, for that matter, socialized medicine, Mitt Romney, says that Perry can't be trusted because he wants to kill Social Security.

Kill Social Security? Where did Romney get that? Perry has made it quite clear that, like every other conservative, he wants to save and fix Social Security. It's only libertarians who want to kill Social Security and now rather than later.

In fact, Perry's position is very strange, especially given that he's a devout Christian. Here is man who clearly recognizes that Social Security is an immoral, fraudulent program. After all, what does a Ponzi scheme connote if not fraud? And wouldn't a fraudulent scheme be considered something immoral, especially one that is based on a monstrous lie?

Then, how can Perry, as a Christian, support the continuation of any such program? How does he reconcile that with his conscience and with God? Does he say to himself and to God, "Well, I know it's immoral, fraudulent, unconstitutional, and based a monstrous lie but I have no choice but to support it because otherwise I'll lose votes from seniors"?

What other reason would Perry have for supporting the continuation of what he himself acknowledges is an immoral program? Isn't his fear of losing votes the only reason for his wanting to continue such a program?

Romney is in a different position. As a conservative statist, he makes no bones about it: He believes in socialism and thus will do everything he can to make sure that such socialist programs as Social Security, Medicare, education grants, farm subsidies, and, well, the entire welfare state will be continued under his administration.

In other words, the same old statist junk that we've been having to endure for almost a century. A Romney administration would essentially be Barack Obama's second term, just as the Obama administration has been George W. Bush's third term. Not a dime's worth of difference, given the joint allegiance that Republicans and Democrats have to the welfare state (and the warfare state).

During the last presidential debate, GOP candidate Rick Santorum said that he trusts the American people.

Oh?

Well, I didn't hear him calling for the immediate repeal of Social Security. I guess what he meant to say was, "I trust the American people … but not when it comes to managing their own retirement and to deciding whether to honor their mother and father on a voluntary basis."

This is where the socialism of public schooling meets the socialism of Social Security. I'd estimate that at least 80 percent of Americans attend public schools. So, here you have 3 generations of Americans, most of whom have spent 12 years under government control, who cannot be trusted to handle their own retirement and to make their own choices with respect to charity. Some success story!

In fact, not to digress too much, but isn't it interesting that notwithstanding all those public school graduates, there are so many adults on drugs that the 40-year drug war must continue to be waged. I can't help but wonder whether we have causation, not coincidence, here. In any event, some success story!

Indeed, whenever libertarians call for the separation of school and state, statists respond by saying that parents can't be trusted with the educational decisions of their children. I ask: Why not? Aren't most of them graduates of public schools? Some success story!

Anyway, back to Social Security. From a technical standpoint, there really isn't any fraud involved. FDR and his statist cronies were very careful in how they phrased the Social Security law. They made sure that the law, as crafted, wasn't creating a retirement program, an insurance program, or a contractual relationship.

The Social Security law created a welfare program. That's it. Just a welfare program, just like food stamps, farm subsides, or foreign aid to dictators.

To fund it, the government could have cut spending elsewhere, or raised income taxes, or imposed some sort of consumption tax. Instead, it created a tax on payroll and called it a Social Security tax. But the tax was never part and parcel of the program. It was simply a way to raise taxes. The Social Security tax could be repealed today and the Social Security welfare program would remain intact.

What the feds then did was to create the illusion of a trust fund. As the government was spending the Social Security tax revenue on welfare spending and military spending, it was writing IOU's to itself saying, in effect, "We owe the Social Security trust fund the sum of $1,000,000."

Imagine if Bernie Madoff had announced after getting caught defrauding customers with his Ponzi scheme, "I haven't defrauded anyone. Go look in my safe and you'll find millions of dollars in IOUs in which I promise to pay back the money."

Well, that's what the feds have been doing ­ and with the intention of misleading people into thinking that they have been "putting their money into the fund, year after year."

And sure enough, it's worked. To this day, countless seniors exclaim, "I put it in and have a right to get it back." They simply block out of their minds that they haven't put any money into anything. They were taxed and the tax monies were spent. If they had read the law or consulted with a lawyer, they would have seen that Social Security was nothing more than a welfare program, one that future generations have the right to repeal whenever they want. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Rick Perry is right: Social Security is an immoral, illegal, fraudulent Ponzi scheme, one that places no trust in the American people. But Perry is also wrong. The only right approach, especially for a Christian, to such a program, is to end it without delay, not save, reform, or continue it.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-09-22.asp

Fumbling Freedom at the NFL

"So my jaw nearly hit the floor when I read that the " NFL wants all fans patted down from the ankles up this season…" What? And why? The usual excuse, of course: sexually molesting people protects them."

Fumbling Freedom at the NFL
Written by Becky Akers   
Thursday, 22 September 2011 09:24

I'm not much of a football fan. In fact, we can broaden that to say I loathe every sport but Scrabble. If the entertainment involves chasing a ball, count me out.

Thank God I've endured only one football game in my life, when a friend with two free tickets dragged me to see Giants or Yankees or something. But I managed to grab a book before he trussed me and threw me in the back of his car. Burying my nose in its pages kept me from dying of boredom while men who were old enough to know better scrimmaged for home runs or whatever it is they do.

So I could be wildly mistaken in my impression of football's average enthusiast. But I've always assumed he's blessed with an abundance of testosterone. And that he doesn't take kindly to another guy's even noticing his "junk," let alone massaging it on the preposterous pretense that explosives lurk there.

I'm as ignorant of the NFL as I am of sports. But I'll bet that money drives the League, that while its executives may enjoy watching players putt or whatever, their ultimate concern is the bottom line. Bingo: the NFL's " Constitution and Bylaws" defines the "purpose and objects for which the League is organized" as "promot[ing] and foster[ing] the primary business of League members, each member being an owner of a professional football club located in the United States." Sans subsidies, such "promoting and fostering" requires pleasing customers. And sexually assaulting them generally displeases them. Big-time.

So my jaw nearly hit the floor when I read that the " NFL wants all fans patted down from the ankles up this season…" What? And why? The usual excuse, of course: sexually molesting people protects them.

We might well ask what the NFL is protecting them from. Silly me, I thought slipping in a puddle of spilled beer was about as dangerous as watching football got. But what do I know? Perhaps the field's murder and mayhem regularly invade the stands; maybe massacres with thousands of casualties thin rooters' ranks. Indeed, "NFL officials have contended that pat-down searches, which began in 2005, provide an essential layer of security in an age of constant terrorism threats."

Oh, come off it: Are you big, brawny footballers or little 'fraidy cats? Only one of those alleged threats concerned football, and it was a hoax that the Feds, as usual, ballyhooed into a crisis. Which confirms my suspicion that indigestion from the tailgate-party is a spectator's greatest peril. And the NFL itself tacitly admits this: it devotes an entire webpage to "Health & Safety" ­ of athletes, not aficionados. So insisting that a good grope " improve[s] fan safety" becomes all the more offensive.

And inexplicable: why would professional football teams ­ which provide no essential service or product, whose supporters buy tickets with discretionary dollars, and whose attendance has steadily declined since the NFL began attacking customers, angering them so much that one sued ­ deliberately antagonize those devotees still forking over megabucks for a seat?

Whenever a private party's policies seem wasteful, self-defeating and downright stupid, look for the State's involvement. And indeed, the Feds have steadily suborned not only the NFL but " dozens of other companies and organizations" by granting them "exemption from lawsuits…" It seems "a post-9/11 law … prohibits them from being sued if terrorists attack a site they are protecting. The law, called the SAFETY Act (Support Anti-terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies) … guarantee[s] they will not pay any claims that terror victims might file after an attack."

And what do the Feds take from this deal? The League and the "dozens of other companies and organizations" sign on to the agenda of installing a police-state: "The NFL got the protection after the government approved the league's nine-page stadium-security guidelines."

No wonder the NFL pretends that " pat-downs are an important part of our comprehensive security procedures, including secure facility perimeters and bag searches … These limited, consensual security screenings are designed to enhance the protection and safety of our fans."

Where have we heard that before? Yep, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) paws passengers at checkpoints with the same excuse: that fondling us protects us. The TSA even lends the NFL its euphemistic jargon as the latter prattles about " implementing an enhanced pat-down procedure."

At Our Rulers' urging, the NFL has sexually assaulted some of football's fans for six years; now it threatens to manhandle all of them. Time to remember where your spines are, gentlemen, and tackle the League's vile "partnership" with the DHS. And yes, that's easy for me to say since I care diddly about football. But by staying home, you could roll back the police-state, one game at a time.

Boycott the NFL, I say.

http://thenewamerican.com/opinion/becky-akers/9072-fumbling-freedom-at-the-nfl

Biggest Losers in Palestine Veto? The American People

Biggest Losers in Palestine Veto? The American People
by Philip Giraldi, September 22, 2011

If the Palestinian application for United Nations full membership actually takes place Friday and the United States uses its Security Council veto to stop the process, it will be the final step in a predictable and preventable tragedy playing out. Some are arguing that Washington might actually abstain, thereby gaining considerable favorable sentiment from much of the world and also sending a signal to Israel that there are limits to the bilateral relationship. But it is far more likely that President Barack Obama, who has stated over and over that he will protect Israel in international forums, will not flinch when he calls on Susan Rice to cast the fatal vote. Any expectation that the president might hesitate either because it is the right thing to do or because it benefits the United States is fanciful, particularly with a presidential election looming in 2012.

Washington's attempts to "mediate" the situation have really been limited to pressuring the Palestinians to back off. Sending National Security Council official Dennis Ross, "Israel's lawyer," to Ramallah to talk around the Palestinian leadership should, if anything, indicate to the Palestinians that Washington is, as it always has been, firmly in the Israeli corner. So let us assume that Palestine will feel compelled to seek full U.N. membership as the world's 194th nation and that Washington will then veto the application. The first question then has to be whether the entire process had any meaning at all or it was just kabuki, a stylized show played out to an appreciative audience with a predictable ending. The short answer is that the Palestinians will certainly be on the losing end ­ as they have been for more than 60 years ­ but the real losers will be the United States and Israel.

The mainstream media has echoed Israeli and American arguments that Palestinian statehood is meaningless without a negotiated settlement of issues on the ground. But Israel has made it clear that it has no desire to negotiate anything while it continues to occupy the West Bank, so the Palestinian choice is to accept the status quo, in which it is powerless and voiceless, or attempt to line up the international community more solidly behind it and shift the playing field.

Israel has been working hard to stop the process, or, at worst, to mitigate its impact by having a number of important nations, mostly in Europe, either abstain on the vote or vote no. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a glad-hand tour of European capitals earlier this year with that express purpose, and he received positive signals from the Italians, the Dutch, the Poles, and the Germans, though it is by no means clear how they will vote. It was for Israel a top national priority, which it has conveyed clearly to its friends in the United States.

Washington, at the urging of Israel, also joined in the effort, starting with warnings late last year to Latin American nations that recognizing Palestine as a state would be "unacceptable." More recently, the State Department and the White House have repeatedly expressed their desire that the Palestinians shelve their plans to seek a U.N. seat, and they have been assiduously working both in front of the TV cameras in New York and Washington and behind the scenes to convince the Palestinian leadership to cease and desist. The dialogue has been given some teeth by Congress, which is determined to cut all aid to Palestine if the U.N. action goes through. One congressmen, Joe Walsh of Illinois, is preparing a motion that will provide congressional support for an Israeli annexation of much of the West Bank if the Palestinians proceed. Walsh describes Palestinian statehood as "absolutely outrageous."

So Israel sees the Palestinian plan as a major threat and the United States appears to be on board, but many would reasonably observe that Israel often cries wolf and greatly exaggerates what it perceives as threats against it. Is that true in this case, making it just another instance where Tel Aviv is adopting an extreme position in hopes that Washington will deliver the goods? It may not be. Israel sees danger precisely because the Palestinian bid will do a couple of things that call into question some significant aspects of the status quo. First of all, since it will certainly pass with a huge majority in the General Assembly if the Palestinians opt to go that route, it will provide overwhelming international confirmation of Palestinian rights with the U.S. and Israel standing on the wrong side on the issue. It will also severely undermine Israel's moral position, such as it is, and emphasize the illegality of the Israeli occupation of parts of the West Bank. The process is already illegal in the eyes of the rest of the world, including the United States, but it will be even less tenable if a convincing majority of the world's countries recognize Palestine as a state with defined borders and a national identity.

Second, recognition of statehood carries with it recognition that the state exists within defined space, in this case the 1967 borders. This has enormous significance because those borders include many areas being colonized by the Israelis, as well as East Jerusalem. It means that any Israeli settlement that is on the other side of that border is considered completely illegal and that Israel is therefore a rogue state that is occupying and settling lands belonging to a neighboring state 44 years after the cessation of hostilities. Even the New York Times in an article on Sept. 10 regarding the recent unrest in Egypt, noting that Islamic groups were not involved, conceded that criticism of Israel has a basis in the widespread popular perception that "Muslims, Arabs, and indeed many around the globe believe Israel is unjustly occupying Palestinian territories, and they are furious at Israel for it." The rejection of Palestinian statehood and the debate surrounding it will only heighten that sentiment.

If the Palestinians are in the United Nations as a full member or even with limited rights, they will have access to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, where they can take legal steps against Israel and against individual Israelis. Even though Israel doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the court, when it reaches the point where no senior Israeli government official, present or retired, can travel without concern over being arrested, it will have a major impact on how Israel sees itself and how the rest of the world sees Israel. The clear depiction of Israel as an occupying power in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which most of the world's nations are signatories, would also fuel the Israel divestment campaign, which is another major concern of the Israeli government, and also legitimately so, as it could have a serious impact on the Israeli economy.

The Palestinians would also have recourse to other United Nations bodies. They would, for example, be able to appeal to UNESCO to stop the Israeli demolition of Muslim and Arab historical sites and the renaming of villages and other landmarks, a considerable benefit.

So Israel is right in understanding that the U.N. entry could have a profound impact, but the United States would hardly escape collateral damage from its veto and could turn out to be the biggest loser. Policymakers in Washington like Joe Walsh forget Newton's Third Law of Motion, though that assumes that they have ever heard of Newton. Newton said that every action produces an equal and opposite reaction. It is true in international relations just as it is true in physics, only in the real world it has come to be known as blowback.

What would be the possible blowback from an American veto? John Whitbeck has correctly described the veto by Washington as a "shotgun blast in both of its own feet." The United States is already perceived negatively in every Arab nation except Kuwait. It is seen as on one hand supporting liberalization and democratization of some Arab governments while at the same time suppressing fundamental rights in places like Palestine. Worse still, if Washington cuts aid to the Palestinians because of their going to the U.N., it will be widely perceived as a de facto partner and enabler of the occupation of the West Bank.

The unfortunately well-deserved perception of blatant hypocrisy will alienate emerging "Arab spring" regimes even more from Washington and will almost certainly lead to anti-American violence, possibly extreme, in places like Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkey. American goods and services will, as a consequence, undoubtedly become less welcome in many parts of the world, while the U.S. veto will inevitably provide a recruiting bonanza for groups that use terror, including al-Qaeda.

And it could make every American traveler less safe when he or she goes abroad, while American soldiers stationed in foreign lands will inevitably become targets of militants, inspired by yet another example of Washington's hypocrisy. Vice President Joe Biden and Gen. David Petraeus had it exactly right when they observed that Israeli policies were endangering Americans. That was before they came to their senses and recanted, but apparently the president of the United States was not listening anyway.

Acceptance of full Palestinian sovereignty and statehood by Israel and the United States would give Tel Aviv a genuine negotiating partner and go far toward restoring the reputation of the United States of America, while rejection of it will end the charade forever, eliminating any chance for any kind of viable peace process in the Middle East. And the damage extends beyond that. Saudi Arabia has already warned that the U.S. veto will do irreparable damage to its bilateral relationship with Washington and will also forever destroy America's reputation in the Arab world. It would hasten the development of the clash of civilizations, "us and them" point of view, dividing much of the developing world from Washington. It would be the final and irrevocable step in a foreign policy that has brought nothing but disasters over the past 10 years.

http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/09/21/biggest-losers-in-palestine-veto-the-american-people/

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security
Overreaching agency isn't cost-effective in this impoverished era
By David Rittgers
The Washington Times
Friday, September 16, 2011

George W. Bush was right before he was wrong. Mr. Bush initially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, but he bowed to political pressure and formed a new bureaucracy and increased domestic-security funds. Ten years after Sept. 11, it's time to rethink the very existence of that department because the additional layers of government and wasteful spending do not provide enough security to justify its existence.

In response to the terrorist attacks, Mr. Bush created a White House advisory position, with Tom Ridge coordinating federal terrorism prevention and response. Members of Congress thought that plan was insufficient and called for a sweeping reorganization of government. Mr. Bush suddenly embraced the idea and pushed for a Cabinet department larger than anything Congress proposed. What's more, Mr. Bush claimed the new department would be revenue-neutral, a claim that is laughable in retrospect.

In creating Homeland Security, Congress lumped together 22 previously unconnected federal agencies under a new Cabinet secretary. That's a problem, not a solution. And while members of Congress routinely clamor for consolidating Homeland Security oversight in one committee, that seems unlikely: 108 congressional committees and subcommittees oversee the department's operations. If aggregating disparate fields of government made any sense in the first place, we long ago would have consolidated all Cabinet responsibilities under one person - the secretary of government.

Rather than rethinking the structure that imposes inefficiency in the first place, Congress is building Homeland Security a new headquarters to help manage the mess it created. Unfortunately, the largest Washington-area federal construction project since the Pentagon will hold just 14,000 of the 35,000 staff members in the national capital region - less than half. The department projects that spending $3.4 billion to build this massive facility will save $400 million in management costs over the next 30 years. The math is dubious, primarily because few costs can be projected over 30 years with any certitude. And only in Washington would spending several billion dollars to save hundreds of millions be considered a bargain.

Shockingly, the cost of the new headquarters roughly equals what we've averaged annually on homeland security grant programs to cities and states. That's part of the political appeal of "homeland security." It allows politicians to wrap pork in red, white and blue in a way not possible with defense spending. Not every town can host a military installation or build warships, but every town has a police force that can use counterterrorism funds to combat gangs or a fire department that needs recruits or a new fire station.

You'd think that after Sept. 11 we would have focused our spending on securing the obvious terrorism targets, and in some cases we have. Too often, however, we're not doing that - like when we buy a hazardous-materials trailer for a county in rural Ohio, a piece of equipment that later gets sold because it sits unused in a parking lot and costs too much to maintain. Or when we buy an 80-camera surveillance system to monitor an Alaskan town too small for a streetlight. Or when we satiate officials' desire for NASA-style command centers and buy 55 flat-screen televisions for a local intelligence center only to find out that the TVs are all tuned to the same news channel.

There's reason to doubt how much security this spending has bought us. A study by professors John Mueller and Mark Stewart found that in order to survive a cost-benefit analysis, the past decade's increased homeland-security expenditures "would have to deter, prevent, foil or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful [attempted Times Square car bomb]-type attacks per year, or more than four per day."

Ultimately, it may be fiscal necessity that reduces our bureaucratic bloat. The decade since Sept. 11 has been one of profligate overspending, and now the long-feared entitlement crisis is upon us. Government needs to get leaner and spend security dollars on those programs that are cost-effective, scrapping or downsizing the ones that are not. While many of the agencies under the Department of Homeland Security have valid federal missions and would not go away, such as the Secret Service and Border Patrol, we are due for a serious belt-tightening. Abolishing the department, an agency born of political and economic overreaction, would be a good start.

David Rittgers is a legal-policy analyst at the Cato Institute and author of the study "Abolish the Department of Homeland Security" (September 2011).


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/16/abolish-the-department-of-homeland-security/

We the Ruled

We the Ruled
by Michael S. Rozeff

A government's laws direct all those within its jurisdiction. They go further. They presume to "speak" for those under control: to say what is right and wrong, to say that this is what you shall do and shall not do, and to say what you may do and what you may not do. Still more, they say that this is what will be taken from you and what will be given to you.

Law-making is a great power, and we can expect that those in government are going to use it to advance their own interests. To some extent, law-makers attend to some complex mixture of our individual interests, but the reflection of what each of us wants as mirrored in the laws they produce is a highly distorted, usually unrecognizable, image. For all practical purposes, their interests are not "our" interests.

Therefore, let's distinguish them the lawmakers from us the law-takers.

Economists speak of "price-takers". This is a person or company that, in making an exchange, is not influential enough to affect prices. I propose a similar concept in political matters. A "law-taker" is a person or company not influential enough to affect laws.

Most of us ordinary Americans are law-takers. Those who are not I call lawmakers Thus, companies and persons that influence laws, influential campaign contributors, lobbyists, rule-making bureaucrats, influential Congressmen, presidents, and judges are examples of lawmakers You and I who are ordinary persons uninvolved in these political processes or are mere tokens in such processes and who basically are told what to do – we are law-takers. We are at the receiving end of the laws that they make.

The fact that some law-takers like (and others dislike) certain laws is beside the point of this distinction. I dislike being forced to pay a property tax that finances the public school in my district. Others who are also politically powerless like it or at least have no objection to it. The fact remains that we are both law-takers.

Going deeper, we in fact are more than law-takers. We are also "government-takers". We didn't create our school districts or the governments at several levels that enable them and interact with them financially and legally. Our influence over these governments – their very form and existence – is nil too.

Even if we government-takers and law-takers are not harming others through criminal activities or torts, we are forced to accept numerous laws that we dislike and that decrease our happiness and welfare. The public discussion shows that. Demonstrations show that. The large share of votes that goes to the losing sides shows that.

It's obvious that people are in constant disagreement over various issues and that the government and its laws do not satisfy everyone. They are constantly displeasing numerous of us government-takers and law-takers. The government and laws also displease many lawmakers, for they do not all get their way on every issue either. Their positions as lawmakers and wielders of power are fluid. There is an enormous amount of infighting among those in government.

As a law-taker, I vouch for the fact that the government is doing things that I personally would never dream of doing. The discrepancy between the directions of government and my own directions is impossible to bridge. I would never pick up a gun, travel to South Vietnam, and start shooting at Viet Cong. I wouldn't build an airplane and drop bombs on Laos or Cambodia. I wouldn't build rockets and shoot them at Baghdad and other targets in Iraq. I wouldn't send someone to prison for selling cocaine. I wouldn't build a $750 million "embassy" in Iraq. I wouldn't force certain of my fellow Americans to fork over wealth so that I could then give it to others of my fellow Americans. I wouldn't dream of borrowing $1 for every $2 that I spend, or of piling up $300,000 worth of personal debt.

As a government-taker, I can assure you that I would consider it crazy to sign off on a document like the U.S. Constitution – even if I had the chance. I would not sign off on a document that gives me one lousy vote that cannot possibly control numerous unnamed persons who would have the power to tax me over any number of projects of their choosing. I would not sign off on a document rife with loopholes that could only be used to imperil my freedom. I would not throw myself into a collective of other voters who are casting secret ballots for representatives who are on a ballot through processes well beyond my control.

These brief comments are not a thorough critique. They only underscore that I for one, as law-taker and government-taker, am being forced to accept laws and governments. Based on observation of our contentious political processes and disagreements, the same is true of numerous other law-takers and government-takers. This is an empirical fact that exists independent of the morality of the matter. It is another fact that you and I have moral disagreements with these laws and governments.

What is more, the conflicts between rulers and ruled necessarily accompany the presence of government. Lawmakers and government-makers must, in the nature of their relations with those whom they rule, necessarily take directions that clash with nearly all the law-takers and government-takers in their jurisdiction. The exercise of power by the rulers necessarily clashes with the wishes of those ruled. If it did not, violence and force would not be the (current) defining characteristic of government.

At the heart of the conflicts between rulers and ruled is the fact that the lawmakers and government-makers (the rulers) are different persons than the law-takers and government-takers (the ruled). Different persons have different values, knowledge, information, tastes, wills, drives, motivations, habits, customs, beliefs, intelligence, personalities, bodies, genes, etc. When a law or directive is put in or passed or a government system or subsystem instituted, it embodies a single direction. It may clash with other laws and subsystems of that same government, but it itself is unitary. The motivations behind this law or system are not at issue. The point is that this law is bound to face a multiplicity of views held by the numerous law-takers within its jurisdiction. Whatever direction this law takes, it is bound to be a different direction than what many law-takers would personally take.

The number of opinions held by law-takers on directions for governmentally-provided defense is enormous. The same goes for the health care sector or any other realm of government action. Government decisions are bound to clash with what most people would do if they had freedom and were not under government control.

In our era, voting occurs. One can vote and yet still be among the ruled. The capacity to cast a ballot every so often doesn't mean that a person is influential.

Voting is categorically different than exchanges in a free market. In the free market, a buyer directly controls an exchange. You can buy an Apple computer at a given price or not. This is entirely up to you. Further, there is a one-to-one relation between your buying an Apple computer and the revenue of the retailer. If 40 percent of existing Apple buyers stop buying them, the manufacturer gets a direct signal.

In the case of politics, one votes for a person, not an issue. A vote conveys no direct signal on an issue. Further, the person who becomes a representative makes hundreds of decisions on hundreds of issues, thereby diluting any possible direct influence one's vote may have. The representative's vote in a legislature is combined with votes of other representatives, causing more dilution of the voters' influence. At many points, judicial, executive, and bureaucratic processes intervene, and they cause more dilution. Each voter for a representative may be deciding to vote because of a different issue upon which the representative has taken a stance. This is vastly different from the signals given to Apple if all these people decided to buy or not buy an Apple. What is more, there are lawmakers behind the scenes that use money and power to shape the laws against the interests of the law-takers. Every one of these realities dilutes the influence of a given election vote of a law-taker and ruptures the relation between that person's vote and his influence on a given issue.

Suppose that a voter organizes other voters in order to gain influence over the political outcomes. Then he faces a new set of obstacles in that persons are selected by parties and the parties have their own processes of influence. Furthermore the lawmakers control election districts and ballot access. They even control how much money one can donate to campaigns, when one can donate it, what can be said in a campaign and when it can be said.

Voting is a con game designed to softsoap the ruled and disguise the force exercised on them by the rulers. Patriotism toward government is another such ruse. We the People is a fiction. We the Ruled is a fact.

I am saying little that is new, although it bears repetition until it motivates action. I echo and strongly endorse Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience (1849):

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, – 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, – 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure."

Thoreau is relevant today and always:

"How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also."

The Mexican-American War to which Thoreau refers is more than matched by today's wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen:

"All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable. But almost all say that such is not the case now. But such was the case, they think, in the Revolution of '75. If one were to tell me that this was a bad government because it taxed certain foreign commodities brought to its ports, it is most probable that I should not make an ado about it, for I can do without them. All machines have their friction; and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil. At any rate, it is a great evil to make a stir about it. But when the friction comes to have its machine, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer. In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army."

http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff363.html