Lazarowitz (A good Irish American I'm sure) is just another example
of
far left extremists attacking our next President.
---
no ... he's a jew blasting RP because of his refusal to bend over for
israel.
he agrees with RP on most things except foreign policy.
"I am also anguished by the Big Government neoconservatives, whose
suggestions of bombing Iran have been based on false propaganda. Short-
term, present-oriented thinking is a common trait of the American
neoconservatives, who have been supporting the U.S. government's
expansion into foreign lands to force transitions from theocracy to
democracy among the Islamic states as though that will in some way
protect Israel, despite many years of history to the contrary.
Unfortunately, the neoconservatives have a blind religious faith in
the power and effectiveness of the State. In clinging to military
industrial complex socialism and bureaucracy, the neocons support the
U.S. government's interventions and foreign entanglements with other
governments, vicariously playing the role of "do-gooders" in a cops-
and-robbers fantasy world in the name of protecting the U.S. and
Israel. It is just as immoral to seize private wealth from American
Muslims, Christians and Atheists for redistribution to Israel as it is
immoral to seize private wealth from American Jews for redistribution
to Muslim states such as Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan. - SL
On Nov 21, 9:00 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geesh what a load of crap! The only thing ignorant, is the article written
> by Scott Lazarowitz, which I could dissect each and every paragraph
> showing the ignorance and misplaced prevaricate lies and smear, but again,
> Lazarowitz (A good Irish American I'm sure) is just another example of
> far left extremists attacking our next President.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:36 AM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > *The Ignorance of Newt versus the Inalienable Rights of All
> > *by Scott Lazarowitz
>
> > During a recent Republican Presidential debate, former House Speaker Newt
> > Gingrich implied<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>that he strongly disagrees with very important assertions of the
> > * Declaration of Independence*<http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm>:
> > "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator
> > with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the
> > pursuit of Happiness."
>
> > Additionally, like many people now, Gingrich seems to believe that there
> > should be a different set of laws for society when there is a "war"
> > underway. But the truth is, *war* is an artificial concept used by
> > collectivists and statists to rationalize the commission of criminal acts
> > of aggression against others and get away with it.
>
> > The truth is, there are really two kinds of behaviors in general:
>
> > - Peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors, in which the people of a society
> > act voluntarily amongst themselves, and under the rule of law that forbids
> > physical aggression (except in a case of actual self-defense), theft, fraud
> > and trespass; or
> > - Non-peaceful, aggressive behavior that consists of the violation of
> > others' persons or property. These are the crimes of society, which include
> > theft and the initiation of aggression against others, terrorist acts, and
> > the use of the State's armed apparatus to initiate violence against foreign
> > peoples.
>
> > By "all men," the *Declaration* refers to *all of humankind* created
> > equal, and endowed with unalienable rights to life and liberty that are
> > inherent in all of us as human beings. The *Declaration* does not state
> > that such rights apply only to Americans. And "unalienable" (or
> > inalienable) means that such rights are not *given* to anyone by
> > government because they are inherent rights. If these basic, inherent
> > rights are not given to us by the State and its agents, then the State may
> > not take such rights away. And the Founders were very clear on the idea of
> > due process, which are very strict rules placed on the government to prove
> > its case against a suspect.
>
> > Gingrich disagrees with these basic points. He opposes the idea of
> > presumption of innocence. If Gingrich believes that the President, a CIA
> > officer, a soldier or general may have the power to be judge, jury and
> > executioner against someone, then he certainly couldn't believe in the idea
> > of inalienable rights.
>
> > Here is just one example of Gingrich's ignorance, joined by most of the
> > other Republican candidates for president, in reference to President
> > Obama's order to assassinate American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due
> > process, without trial or any evidence brought forward:
>
> > When asked by CBS News anchor Scott Pelley if, as President, Gingrich
> > would "sign that death warrant for an American citizen overseas,"
> > Gingrich's response<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>was a
> > *correction *for Pelley. Gingrich declared that al-Awlaki *was* found
> > guilty, by "a panel that looked at it and reported to the president."
>
> > But such a panel and its findings have been kept secret<http://www.salon.com/2011/10/06/execution_by_secret_wh_committee/sing...>,
> > away from the scrutiny of al-Awlaki's counsel, a jury, Congress or the
> > American people. Gingrich believes that, if the government has told us that
> > someone is guilty of terrorism, without trial or even evidence brought
> > forth, then we must have a blind faith in these government officials that
> > they are telling the truth.
>
> > This is despite the fact that Obama never presented<http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/30/cia-assassinates-two-american-citi...>actual evidence against al-Awlaki, just as George W. Bush never
> > presented evidence <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905c.asp> of Osama bin
> > Laden's guilt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/obl-2001-interview.html>.
> > We should just believe them. Even the so-called killing of bin Laden by the
> > Navy SEALS might not have been true<http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts320.html>,
> > and bin Laden may actually already have died as early as 2001<http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts305.html>
> > .
>
> > So, are the war supporters and government expansionists really sure they
> > want such un-American, banana republic governmental powers to be in place?
> > At the recent debate, Gingrich<http://www.salon.com/2011/11/13/gop_and_tp_on_obamas_foreign_policy_s...>declared that, "If you engage in war against the United States, you are an
> > enemy combatant. You have none of the civil liberties of the United
> > States…You cannot go to court."
>
> > Now, Gingrich is called, "Mr. Speaker" because he is fairly good at
> > speaking. But they do not call him "*Mr. Thinker*," that's for sure. You
> > see, like many others nowadays, he is assuming that, based on *someone's*determining that one is an "enemy combatant," therefore one has no civil
> > liberties. But it is those civil liberties, those inalienable rights to
> > life and liberty that includes presumption of innocence and due process,
> > which protect the individual from being falsely imprisoned or executed.
>
> > When you know that the Bush Administration knowingly<http://www.fff.org/comment/com1004d.asp>apprehended hundreds
> > of innocent people <http://www.fff.org/comment/com0905l.asp>, including children
> > and senile old men<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/25/guantanamo-files-children...>,
> > at the beginning of their war against Afghanistan, and detained them
> > indefinitely without trial, evidence or even suspicion, and with more
> > innocents victimized by the Obama Administration<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/03/02/the-black-hole-of-guantan...>as well – some of whom languished at Guantanamo prison for years – you have
> > to admit that these have been *crimes* committed by the agents of the
> > U.S. government against innocents.
>
> > And contrary to what the propagandists have been stating, the real purpose
> > of torturing presumably innocent people has been to extract false
> > confessions and to falsely implicate other innocents. (See here<http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2009/09/30/a-truly-shocking-guantana...>,
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/u-s-government-used-communist-...>and
> > here<http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/05/interrogation-experts-from-eve...>.).
> > Stating, "but we're at war," as do Newt Gingrich and other statist
> > proponents of this kind of banana republic society, is a simply juvenile
> > attempt at rationalizing the government's crimes.
>
> > Now, are you really sure you want to trust the President, military
> > officers and soldiers, and CIA officers – or local police, for that matter
> > – to decide that someone is a "terrorist," and then be his judge, jury and
> > incarcerator, and *executioner*? Do you trust these people under orders<http://lewrockwell.com/lazarowitz/lazarowitz30.1.html>of the likes of Obama, Janet Napolitano or Eric Holder to be the ones to
> > conclude that someone is a "terrorist," and then to be his judge, jury and
> > executioner? Already, some of these public officials<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=94799>have referred
> > to Tea Partiers <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/lazarowitz6.1.1.html>as "terrorists<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60421.html>."
>
> > And so we should believe that someone is a "terrorist" without any
> > evidence, because Barack Obama said so? Now, *there's* someone with
> > credibility. A President who has worked feverishly to bomb and destroy
> > Libya, only to have it come under al Qaeda rule. Or a President such as
> > Bush who bombed and destroyed Iraq, only to bring Iraq under rule of
> > repressive Islamic Sharia Law. We should trust these people to act as judge
> > and jury and to imprison those that such officials determine to be a
> > terrorist, despite the hundreds or thousands who had been swept up randomly
> > in Afghanistan and Iraq, falsely implicated, detained, tortured and
> > murdered?
>
> > And should we trust the young soldiers on the battlefield to make that
> > judgment? Remember, the brilliant George W. Bush has said that the whole
> > world is the battlefield now. And that includes the U.S., in which each
> > individual is treated like a criminal now, thanks to the TSA, DHS and
> > Patriot Act.
>
> > And should we trust soldiers, many of whom have been committing sexual
> > assaults <http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/04/01-9> against female
> > military personnel? Or those who have been committing sexual assaults
> > against other male military personnel, and trust their superior officers
> > who defend them<http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/04/03/the-military-s-secre...>?
> > Should we trust people of that ilk to determine that someone somewhere is a
> > "terrorist"? Or local police departments, many of which are<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/law-disorder/etc/cron.html>
> > corrupt <http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w192.html> or have been
> > increasingly
>
> ...
>
> read more »
>
> Newt.2012.gif
> 16KViewDownload
--
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.
