Re: Ron Paul vs. the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field on Foreign Policy

Dr. Paul clearly made his bed during the last debate, sealing his fate as a crackpot.  Paul's political career is doomed, even his chances as a cabinet member and sharing his fiscal insight will be no more.

 

.

 

 

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:47 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Ron Paul vs. the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field on Foreign Policy
Brian Doherty | November 23, 2011

Without Ron Paul in the mix, last night's debate would have been more a bidding up of hostility to foreigners (except Israel) than any actual arena of opposing ideas on the future of American foreign policy.

Paul started off talking of "needless and unnecessary wars" making us less safe and beggering our coffers; probably slipped by using Timothy McVeigh as an example of how normal legal procedures can deal with terrorism (and I wish he'd have challenged Ed Meese on the factual significance of these alleged 42 terror assaults that Patriot Act has stopped; aren't they in fact mostly ginned-up nonsense such as Jacob Sullum blogged about earlier today?) since it allowed Gingrich to claim that the real goal are legal procedures that make sure nothing bad ever happens. Paul had a good rescue by stressing the threat to liberty of priviliging stopping crimes above any other concern, but I wonder how resonant such concerns are.

Paul reminded us that we might not want to give the president the sole power to assassinate Americans on his say so; that Israel can likely make the most intelligent decision on their own as to whether to start attacking Iranian alleged nuclear site and we should neither be dictating such decisions nor committing to help with them; that trying to buy friendship overseas with foreign aid doesn't always work; that foreign aid isn't necessary for overseas development and in fact is often more like making poor people here support rich people over there; and kept reminding his fellow alleged fiscal conservatives that foreign policy has real financial costs that they are never thinking of.

Paul also last night hit the drug war as "another war we ought to cancel," at length, concluding "the federal war on drugs is a total failure" with specific hat tips toward the absurdity of federal assaults on states with medical pot; and that meddling in the Middle East is what gins up terror against us in the Middle East, with his usual calls to empathetic understanding, considering what we would think/do if other countries did to us what we blithely do to other countries--"it's just looking for trouble, why don't we mind our own business?"

Paul's most summational quotable quote, applicable to not only foreign policy but so much about the current plans and ambitions of the U.S. government: "It's a road to disaster. We better wake up."

Here's the Paul-centric highlights clip from last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAW2spbZys&feature=player_embedded

In other Paul observations and news:

*Paul as the only voice last night against racial profiling in the name of the war on terror.

*AEI sums up the debate it co-sponsored, giving as much attention to Jon Huntsman's wan anti-nation-building comments as to Paul's concerted assault on the roots of GOP and American foreign policy.

*Glenn Greenwald from Salon attacks the nature and character of the interlocutors at the debate, and hat-tips to Paul's rare sense:

It was like a carnival of war criminals, warmongers, torturers, and petty tyrants: Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, best known for his 1980s war on pornography, was dredged up to demand that the government be vested with more Patriot Act powers (because he's a believer in individual liberty and small government); there was long-time supporter of Ahmad Chalabi and a war on Iran, Danielle Pletka; Iraq War propagandist and torture regime architect Paul Wolfowitz; and Fred Kagan of the mighty Kagan warrior family. But remember: as the supremely "objective" CBS' Bob Schieffer made clear in his snickering, scornful interview on Face the Nation this weekend, it is Ron Paul who is crazy and bizarre for suggesting that U.S. aggression played a role in motivating 9/11 and for being worried that bellicose actions against Iran are making things worse and may lead to war.

*From Paul's campaign web site blogger Jack Hunter, a set of media stars giving Paul props for schooling Romney last night on the myth of defense cuts.

*The Christian Science Monitor from a few days ago collecting examples of major media now taking Paul seriously, in a story that was front-page linked on Drudge. While I don't follow Drudge meticulously, various Paulistas believe this might have been his first big-time positive play for Paul on that site, which they see in itself as a further sign of Paul's reputational rise.

*In a poll commissioned by Paul-supporting superpac RevolutionPAC, Paul actually is winning in Iowa with 25 percent. Here's why they think their poll is better than others:

 The TeleResearch survey is the first to incorporate disaffected Democrats and Independents who will not vote to reelect Obama and will instead crossover to participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, as well as likely Republican caucus-goers.

Survey sample size is approximately 2,900, with almost 700 likely Republican caucus-goers. Indiana's TeleResearch Corp., which has been polling voters for more than 18 years, reports that the margin of error is less than 3%.

Factoring in both Republican caucus-goers and disaffected Democrats and Independents who've indicated that they will participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, Ron Paul leads at 25%, with an approximate 4-point advantage over Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/23/ron-paul-vs-the-rest-of-the-gop-presiden

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

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

Re: Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Good Answer!

 

(Happy [American] Thanksgiving Mark!)

 

KeithInTampa

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:10 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:

Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Ummmm......It's NOT illegal to immigrate... All one has to do is
follow the rules...EVERY country in the world has it's own rules.





On Nov 24, 5:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?November 20, 2011
> Benjamin Powell, Art CardenBirmingham NewsAs two economists interested in immigration, one an Alabamian by birth, we've kept an eye on the fury surrounding the Alabama's new immigration law. Proponents tout it as a matter of law and order and promise it will "save jobs." There's a larger question at stake, though: Should we even be restricting immigration in the first place?
> American immigration restrictions have a long history, but they have never been a good idea. Economist Thomas Leonard documents how even some Progressive Era economists supported immigration restrictions and minimum wages because they wanted to shut members of what they called "low-wage races" out of the American labor market. American reformers who pulled up the ladder in the early 20th century condemned many potential immigrants and native-born Americans to poorer, less fulfilling lives than they would have had if the United States had welcomed more immigrants.
> Fears that immigrants will wreck our economy are probably the biggest reason substantial barriers to legal immigration remain on the books. But immigrants don't take our jobs, lower our wages or depress the American economy.
> Virtually all economists who study immigration find that it provides a small but positive impact on the economy. It should be obvious that immigrants don't steal jobs from the native-born. Since 1950, the labor force has more than doubled but long-run unemployment is essentially unchanged. As we've added more workers, we've added more jobs.
> Immigrants tend to be either high-skilled or low-skilled; Americans tend to be more toward the middle of the skill distribution. This means that immigrants aren't substitutes for American labor but, instead, free up American labor to do jobs where it is more productive. That's one reason economists don't find that immigration depresses the wages of the native-born.
> As a number of economists have pointed out, immigrants don't "do jobs Americans won't do." They do jobs that wouldn't exist if the immigrants weren't there to do them. By making life harder for a population of undocumented immigrants, the state government has ensured that future generations of Alabamians will be poorer than they would otherwise be.
> The last refuge of the defenders of the new Alabama legislation is to protest that this is not about immigration per se, but about illegal immigration. Perhaps you acknowledge that we are a nation of immigrants but protest that your ancestors came here legally. That dodges the issue. To move to the United States legally in the 19th century and to move to the United States legally in the 21st century are two very different undertakings. We are willing to bet that our ancestorsand yourswould find themselves in the same position as many potential immigrants today: effectively denied entry by layers and layers of red tape.
> Defenders of restrictions might insist that the restrictions are still the law, but lots of immoral and unwise thingslike slavery and Jim Crowused to be "the law." Simply repeating "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?!" misses the real question: Why does the law make it illegal to migrate here? Immigrants are a boon to our economy and restrictions on immigration seem as immoral as many other past laws. Yes, the "illegal" part of illegal immigration is a problem. Alabama's legislators are addressing it the wrong way. As our friend Mark LeBar, a philosopher at Ohio University, has put it, illegal immigration is one of very few issues that really has a magic wand solution: Legalize it.http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3188

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

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

Re: Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Ummmm......It's NOT illegal to immigrate... All one has to do is
follow the rules...EVERY country in the world has it's own rules.

On Nov 24, 5:52 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?November 20, 2011
> Benjamin Powell, Art CardenBirmingham NewsAs two economists interested in immigration, one an Alabamian by birth, we've kept an eye on the fury surrounding the Alabama's new immigration law. Proponents tout it as a matter of law and order and promise it will "save jobs." There's a larger question at stake, though: Should we even be restricting immigration in the first place?
> American immigration restrictions have a long history, but they have never been a good idea. Economist Thomas Leonard documents how even some Progressive Era economists supported immigration restrictions and minimum wages because they wanted to shut members of what they called "low-wage races" out of the American labor market. American reformers who pulled up the ladder in the early 20th century condemned many potential immigrants and native-born Americans to poorer, less fulfilling lives than they would have had if the United States had welcomed more immigrants.
> Fears that immigrants will wreck our economy are probably the biggest reason substantial barriers to legal immigration remain on the books. But immigrants don't take our jobs, lower our wages or depress the American economy.
> Virtually all economists who study immigration find that it provides a small but positive impact on the economy. It should be obvious that immigrants don't steal jobs from the native-born. Since 1950, the labor force has more than doubled but long-run unemployment is essentially unchanged. As we've added more workers, we've added more jobs.
> Immigrants tend to be either high-skilled or low-skilled; Americans tend to be more toward the middle of the skill distribution. This means that immigrants aren't substitutes for American labor but, instead, free up American labor to do jobs where it is more productive. That's one reason economists don't find that immigration depresses the wages of the native-born.
> As a number of economists have pointed out, immigrants don't "do jobs Americans won't do." They do jobs that wouldn't exist if the immigrants weren't there to do them. By making life harder for a population of undocumented immigrants, the state government has ensured that future generations of Alabamians will be poorer than they would otherwise be.
> The last refuge of the defenders of the new Alabama legislation is to protest that this is not about immigration per se, but about illegal immigration. Perhaps you acknowledge that we are a nation of immigrants but protest that your ancestors came here legally. That dodges the issue. To move to the United States legally in the 19th century and to move to the United States legally in the 21st century are two very different undertakings. We are willing to bet that our ancestorsand yourswould find themselves in the same position as many potential immigrants today: effectively denied entry by layers and layers of red tape.
> Defenders of restrictions might insist that the restrictions are still the law, but lots of immoral and unwise thingslike slavery and Jim Crowused to be "the law." Simply repeating "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?!" misses the real question: Why does the law make it illegal to migrate here? Immigrants are a boon to our economy and restrictions on immigration seem as immoral as many other past laws. Yes, the "illegal" part of illegal immigration is a problem. Alabama's legislators are addressing it the wrong way. As our friend Mark LeBar, a philosopher at Ohio University, has put it, illegal immigration is one of very few issues that really has a magic wand solution: Legalize it.http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3188

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: here is a new anti-poverty summit addendum for your agenda i hope you will you consider

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Noelle Finnerty <skylark.nf@gmail.com> wrote:

--
yorkton environment directorate

may god bless all creative inspirations

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

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

PAKISTANI woman kills husband, chops him up, then cooks his body parts in a big pot

New post on Bare Naked Islam PAKISTANI woman kills husband, chops him up, then cooks his body parts in a big pot by barenakedislam Various reports say Zainab Bibi, 32,  killed him because he tried  to molest her 17-year-old daughter from a first marriage multiple times, and for attempting to take a second wife without her permission. Express Tribune    Zainab alleged that she had murdered her husband after he had tried to molest her 17-year-old daughter, who was [...] Read more of this post barenakedislam | November 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM | Categories: Women | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-CKH Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/pakistani-woman-kills-husband-chops-him-up-then-cooks-his-body-parts-in-a-big-pot/

Thanks for flying with 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.

Like rats off a sinking ship, advertisers on TLC’s ‘All-American Muslim’ are fleeing!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bare Naked Islam <donotreply@wordpress.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 3:18 AM
Subject: [New post] Like rats off a sinking ship, advertisers on TLC's 'All-American Muslim' are fleeing!
To: baconlard@gmail.com

New post on Bare Naked Islam Like rats off a sinking ship, advertisers on TLC's 'All-American Muslim' are fleeing! by barenakedislam Sears, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and McDonalds have dropped support for TLC's 'All-American Muslim' program. Among the companies that initially supported it, but have not scheduled any more ads are: Airborne Vitamin, Amway, Diamond Foods, Dyson Vacuum, Estee Lauder, HTC Phones, Petsmart, Pfizer, Sonic,  and T-Mobil. Congratulations, BNI readers. I know all your letters and calls [...] Read more of this post barenakedislam | November 24, 2011 at 4:17 AM | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-CK9 Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/like-rats-off-a-sinking-ship-advertisers-on-tlcs-all-american-muslim-are-fleeing/

Thanks for flying with 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.

JFK Would Be So Proud, NOT!!!

New post on Fellowship of the Minds JFK Would Be So Proud, NOT!!! by catscanner150 Tom in NC catscanner150 | November 24, 2011 at 8:13 am | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-aOV Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/jfk-would-be-so-proud-not/

Thanks for flying with 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.

Thank Our Troops By Bringing Them Home

Thank Our Troops By Bringing Them Home
November 23rd, 2011
by R. Lee Wrights

BURNET, Texas (Nov. 24) -- Once again, we're entering a season of thanksgiving and joy, when Americans gather with their friends and families to give thanks for their blessings and prosperity, enjoy the camaraderie and warmth of being with those they love, and pray for peace and a better world. It saddens me to know that hundreds of thousands of Americans once again won't be able to be with their families at this special time of year. For far too many of the men and women of our Armed Forces serving in far-off lands, this won't be their first holiday season away from home -- nor will it be their last. Sadder still is that for some of those brave souls serving their country, this could be the last holiday season of their lives. That should not be.

In the spirit of the season, there are a multitude of organizations and thousands of people who unselfishly endeavor to make the holidays a little brighter for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines away from home. I've been a recipient of their graciousness, and it did make my holiday a little better. Yet while I greatly admire and respect their sincerity and efforts, nothing they can do -- nothing anyone can do -- can truly make up for being separated from your family and loved ones on any occasion, for any reason.

Nothing can replace the precious memories lost by a young father or mother who can only see their child celebrate their first Thanksgiving and Christmas via a Skype call. Nothing can ease the pain of parents who wonder whether their son or daughter will be home for Thanksgiving or Christmas next year -- or will even live to see it. No electronic marvel, no taped messages aired on TV and radio, no "CARE package" however lovingly wrapped, no sumptuous meal of turkey with all the trimmings, however fondly prepared, can substitute for actually being home for the holidays.

On this Thanksgiving, I not only will give thanks for the service and sacrifice of the members of our Armed Forces, but I will also renew my promise to support our troops by bringing them home. The greatest gift our nation can give to the brave men and women who have pledged their lives in our nation's defense is to honor that commitment by never again sending them into harm's way capriciously, unnecessarily, for political gain or to line the pockets of those who profit from their sacrifice. America is indeed the home of the brave and we should bring the brave home so that they can enjoy the "blessings of liberty" in the bosom and safety of their families.

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/11/lee-wrights-thank-our-troops-by-bringing-them-home/

Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?

Why Is Immigration Illegal Anyway?
November 20, 2011
Benjamin Powell, Art Carden
Birmingham News

As two economists interested in immigration, one an Alabamian by birth, we've kept an eye on the fury surrounding the Alabama's new immigration law. Proponents tout it as a matter of law and order and promise it will "save jobs." There's a larger question at stake, though: Should we even be restricting immigration in the first place?

American immigration restrictions have a long history, but they have never been a good idea. Economist Thomas Leonard documents how even some Progressive Era economists supported immigration restrictions and minimum wages because they wanted to shut members of what they called "low-wage races" out of the American labor market. American reformers who pulled up the ladder in the early 20th century condemned many potential immigrants and native-born Americans to poorer, less fulfilling lives than they would have had if the United States had welcomed more immigrants.

Fears that immigrants will wreck our economy are probably the biggest reason substantial barriers to legal immigration remain on the books. But immigrants don't take our jobs, lower our wages or depress the American economy.

Virtually all economists who study immigration find that it provides a small but positive impact on the economy. It should be obvious that immigrants don't steal jobs from the native-born. Since 1950, the labor force has more than doubled but long-run unemployment is essentially unchanged. As we've added more workers, we've added more jobs.

Immigrants tend to be either high-skilled or low-skilled; Americans tend to be more toward the middle of the skill distribution. This means that immigrants aren't substitutes for American labor but, instead, free up American labor to do jobs where it is more productive. That's one reason economists don't find that immigration depresses the wages of the native-born.

As a number of economists have pointed out, immigrants don't "do jobs Americans won't do." They do jobs that wouldn't exist if the immigrants weren't there to do them. By making life harder for a population of undocumented immigrants, the state government has ensured that future generations of Alabamians will be poorer than they would otherwise be.

The last refuge of the defenders of the new Alabama legislation is to protest that this is not about immigration per se, but about illegal immigration. Perhaps you acknowledge that we are a nation of immigrants but protest that your ancestors came here legally. That dodges the issue. To move to the United States legally in the 19th century and to move to the United States legally in the 21st century are two very different undertakings. We are willing to bet that our ancestors­and yours­would find themselves in the same position as many potential immigrants today: effectively denied entry by layers and layers of red tape.

Defenders of restrictions might insist that the restrictions are still the law, but lots of immoral and unwise things­like slavery and Jim Crow­used to be "the law." Simply repeating "what part of 'illegal' don't you understand?!" misses the real question: Why does the law make it illegal to migrate here? Immigrants are a boon to our economy and restrictions on immigration seem as immoral as many other past laws. Yes, the "illegal" part of illegal immigration is a problem. Alabama's legislators are addressing it the wrong way. As our friend Mark LeBar, a philosopher at Ohio University, has put it, illegal immigration is one of very few issues that really has a magic wand solution: Legalize it.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=3188

"Republicans Are Endangering National Security." By Which We Mean Uncontrolled Defense Spending.

"Republicans Are Endangering National Security." By Which We Mean Uncontrolled Defense Spending.
Nick Gillespie | November 22, 2011



Here's former Defense Secretary William Cohen -- a former GOP senator from Maine who served in Bill Clinton's cabinet -- tossing a big smoke grenade in the New York Times to provide cover for a new push for increased defense spending:

I have long been concerned that my party's rigid antitax ideology is harming the fiscal health of our nation. Now it is harming our national security as well, as cuts in defense spending on a calamitous scale are about to be triggered. Congressional Republicans need to look back at this sad episode and decide: Do they care more about keeping "a no tax pledge" or giving our troops the tools they need to protect the nation?

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta is already cutting deeply into the Pentagon's budget, reducing spending by $465 billion over the coming decade. He has indicated that he plans to cut areas once considered untouchable, like military medical and retirement benefits. Savings might also be found in commissaries and exchanges, tuition assistance and duplicative family-support programs....

The Navy is likely to mothball 60 ships, including two carrier battle groups ­ a possibility that led Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, the chief of naval operations, to testify that the cuts could "impact the fleet for 20 to 50 years." The Air Force might have to give up one-third of its fighters and a quarter of its long-range bombers, calling into question our nuclear deterrent. The Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, testified that the Air Force "may not be able to overcome dire consequences." And the Army is likely to have to give up nearly a third of its Army Maneuver Battalions ­ which is why the Army chief of staff, Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, has warned that the cuts would leave us with "an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk." The cuts would also decimate the Marine Corps, leaving it "below the end strength level that's necessary to support even one major contingency," the service's commandant, Gen. James F. Amos, has warned.

Whole bit here.

Where do you start with something like this? Because the super committee failed in its mission to generate plan to cut $1.2 trillion in spending over the next decade, the automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts that go into effect beginning in 2013 will be really bad for the military, argues Cohen. Exactly how anti-tax ideology figures into any of this is unclear, since Cohen could have argued just as easily that Democrats' unwillingness to offer spending cuts created the committee's impasse.

Defense Secretary Panetta "might" find savings in commissaries and "duplicative" programs? Well have at it already! Nothing's stopping you. Has a decade-plus of elective wars done anything to degrade our defense capabilities? Cohen's not saying.

But let's focus in on the former secretary's completely phony notion that the Defense budget is in any way threatened by "cuts." Most of us would take this to mean that you spend less money on something from year to year. That isn't what's happening.

Here's a chart created by Reason columnist and Mercatus Center economist Veronique de Rugy that shows the effect of the sequester cuts on spending over the next decade.



The numbers here come from the Congressional Budget Office's August update of the budget baseline. Assuming the sequester cuts actually kick in 2013, what you see is a 16 percent increase in defense spending over the next decade. An increase, not a cut. And, lest we forget, that 16 percent increase will come on top of a 71 percent increase (in real, inflation-adjusted dollars; see figure 5) between 2001 and 2010. According to CBO, annual budgets are going nowhere but up whether the sequester kicks in or not.

If Cohen's bleating about the U.S. military being hollowed out sounds familiar, it's because he's simply following the same script as right-wing groups such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, who have equated any spending restraint on defense with cheaping out on the "price of greatness." What Cohen's piece thus reveals is not a dire emergency for national defense but just exactly how the military-industrial complex works: We've always got to be spending tons more on defense. Spending less that we can imagine is exactly the sort of cut that will leave us vulnerable to any enemy you can imagine and is just unpatriotic.

Take it away, Ike (who knew war and defense as well as anyone alive today):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_II0H7X5O4&feature=player_embedded

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/22/republicans-are-endangering-national-sec

Bachmann Still Peddling False Claim That Iranians Said They Want To Attack U.S. With Nukes

Bachmann Still Peddling False Claim That Iranians Said They Want To Attack U.S. With Nukes
By Eli Clifton on Nov 23, 2011 at 2:20 pm

During last night's GOP national security debate, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) quoted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that he would use a nuclear weapon to destroy both the U.S. and Israel. Neither Ahmadinejad, nor any other Iranian official, has said any such thing but this isn't the first time Bachmann attributed the same, inaccurate, statement to Ahmadinejad.

Here's what she said last night:

BACHMANN: Why is that we're talking about Israel having to make a strike against Iran? It's because Iran has announced they plan to strike Israel. They've stated as recently as August, just before President Ahmadinejad came to the U.N. General Assembly. He stated they wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth. He has said that if he has a nuclear weapon, he will use it to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. He will use it against the United States of America. This isn't just an idle threat, this is a reality.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuCbDLFNPIY&feature=player_embedded

Bachmann's assertion is patently false. Iran has consistently denied that it has a nuclear weapon or is seeking to build one. Just three weeks ago, ABC's Christiane Amanpour called Bachmann out on her misstating of the same quote, saying:

AMANPOUR: Congresswoman, of course the United States is concerned about the nuclear program. Iran denies that it has one, so it hasn't threatened to use them.

Watch it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNxaGKkZqfc&feature=player_embedded

A simple misunderstanding of the facts, albeit a misunderstanding with potentially serious consequences, might be excused. But Bachmann's repeated misrepresentation of Iranian positions, even after being corrected, suggests a willful strategy of attributing inaccurate and incendiary quotes to Ahmadinejad.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/11/23/375332/bachmann-iran-united-states-nukes/

Ron Paul vs. the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field on Foreign Policy

Ron Paul vs. the Rest of the GOP Presidential Field on Foreign Policy
Brian Doherty | November 23, 2011

Without Ron Paul in the mix, last night's debate would have been more a bidding up of hostility to foreigners (except Israel) than any actual arena of opposing ideas on the future of American foreign policy.

Paul started off talking of "needless and unnecessary wars" making us less safe and beggering our coffers; probably slipped by using Timothy McVeigh as an example of how normal legal procedures can deal with terrorism (and I wish he'd have challenged Ed Meese on the factual significance of these alleged 42 terror assaults that Patriot Act has stopped; aren't they in fact mostly ginned-up nonsense such as Jacob Sullum blogged about earlier today?) since it allowed Gingrich to claim that the real goal are legal procedures that make sure nothing bad ever happens. Paul had a good rescue by stressing the threat to liberty of priviliging stopping crimes above any other concern, but I wonder how resonant such concerns are.

Paul reminded us that we might not want to give the president the sole power to assassinate Americans on his say so; that Israel can likely make the most intelligent decision on their own as to whether to start attacking Iranian alleged nuclear site and we should neither be dictating such decisions nor committing to help with them; that trying to buy friendship overseas with foreign aid doesn't always work; that foreign aid isn't necessary for overseas development and in fact is often more like making poor people here support rich people over there; and kept reminding his fellow alleged fiscal conservatives that foreign policy has real financial costs that they are never thinking of.

Paul also last night hit the drug war as "another war we ought to cancel," at length, concluding "the federal war on drugs is a total failure" with specific hat tips toward the absurdity of federal assaults on states with medical pot; and that meddling in the Middle East is what gins up terror against us in the Middle East, with his usual calls to empathetic understanding, considering what we would think/do if other countries did to us what we blithely do to other countries--"it's just looking for trouble, why don't we mind our own business?"

Paul's most summational quotable quote, applicable to not only foreign policy but so much about the current plans and ambitions of the U.S. government: "It's a road to disaster. We better wake up."

Here's the Paul-centric highlights clip from last night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZAW2spbZys&feature=player_embedded

In other Paul observations and news:

*Paul as the only voice last night against racial profiling in the name of the war on terror.

*AEI sums up the debate it co-sponsored, giving as much attention to Jon Huntsman's wan anti-nation-building comments as to Paul's concerted assault on the roots of GOP and American foreign policy.

*Glenn Greenwald from Salon attacks the nature and character of the interlocutors at the debate, and hat-tips to Paul's rare sense:

It was like a carnival of war criminals, warmongers, torturers, and petty tyrants: Reagan Attorney General Ed Meese, best known for his 1980s war on pornography, was dredged up to demand that the government be vested with more Patriot Act powers (because he's a believer in individual liberty and small government); there was long-time supporter of Ahmad Chalabi and a war on Iran, Danielle Pletka; Iraq War propagandist and torture regime architect Paul Wolfowitz; and Fred Kagan of the mighty Kagan warrior family. But remember: as the supremely "objective" CBS' Bob Schieffer made clear in his snickering, scornful interview on Face the Nation this weekend, it is Ron Paul who is crazy and bizarre for suggesting that U.S. aggression played a role in motivating 9/11 and for being worried that bellicose actions against Iran are making things worse and may lead to war.

*From Paul's campaign web site blogger Jack Hunter, a set of media stars giving Paul props for schooling Romney last night on the myth of defense cuts.

*The Christian Science Monitor from a few days ago collecting examples of major media now taking Paul seriously, in a story that was front-page linked on Drudge. While I don't follow Drudge meticulously, various Paulistas believe this might have been his first big-time positive play for Paul on that site, which they see in itself as a further sign of Paul's reputational rise.

*In a poll commissioned by Paul-supporting superpac RevolutionPAC, Paul actually is winning in Iowa with 25 percent. Here's why they think their poll is better than others:

 The TeleResearch survey is the first to incorporate disaffected Democrats and Independents who will not vote to reelect Obama and will instead crossover to participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, as well as likely Republican caucus-goers.

Survey sample size is approximately 2,900, with almost 700 likely Republican caucus-goers. Indiana's TeleResearch Corp., which has been polling voters for more than 18 years, reports that the margin of error is less than 3%.

Factoring in both Republican caucus-goers and disaffected Democrats and Independents who've indicated that they will participate in the Iowa Republican Caucus, Ron Paul leads at 25%, with an approximate 4-point advantage over Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/23/ron-paul-vs-the-rest-of-the-gop-presiden

Fwd: [LA-F] Public sector workers earn £4,000 a year pay premium compared to private staff

--------


Public sector workers earn £4,000 a year pay premium compared to private staff

By Becky Barrow

Last updated at 7:49 AM on 24th November 2011

The average public sector worker earns nearly £4,000 a year more than a typical private sector worker, official figures revealed yesterday.

The figures emerged days before state workers hold what union leaders hope will be the biggest strikes for a generation.

The Office for National Statistics said the average public sector worker, who works full-time, is paid an annual salary of £28,802.

</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133d521d4e9cd624&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>

Well paid: The average public sector worker, including teachers, nurses and civil servants, earns nearly £4,000 a year more than a private sector worker

By comparison, the average full-time worker in the private sector receives a salary of only £25,000, a gap of £3,802.

This could cover the cost of a two-week foreign holiday for a family of four, or nearly 40 trips to the supermarket spending an average of £100 on each visit.

Teachers, NHS staff, civil servants and many more of Britain's six million state workers will walk out next Wednesday in a row over changes to their gold-plated pensions.
</mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=133d521d4e9cd624&attid=0.1.2&disp=emb&zw>

Divorce from reality: Matthew Sinclair said the figures showed there was no justification for upcoming strikes

Matthew Sinclair, director of the TaxPayers' Alliance campaign group, said: 'This is yet more evidence that the justifications for disruptive public sector strikes are divorced from the economic reality faced by ordinary workers.

'For years, private sector workers have struggled to pay ever higher taxes with meagre raises, while public sector workers have enjoyed inflation-busting pay hikes.

'These figures disprove the spin from union bosses that the generous pension deals found in the public sector are somehow compensation for lower pay than the private sector.'

The majority of private sector workers do not get a pension from their boss. If they do have a pension, the average pension pot they will have built up is only £26,000, which is equal to a retirement income of around £1,400 a year.

The average annual pension in the public sector is worth £7,841, according to a report, commissioned by the Government and produced by former Labour minister Lord Hutton.

Millions of cash-strapped families are being forced to 'simply go without' as they struggle to make ends meet, a Bank of England report warned yesterday.

The study highlighted the problems facing workers trying to survive austerity Britain with poor pay rises, tax increases, soaring household bills and benefit cuts.

It said families are 'budgeting ever more keenly', trading down to cheaper shops, taking 'fewer, shorter holidays', and 'shopping around for the cheapest deals on hotels and restaurants'.

These include delaying buying big items, such as a new dishwasher, until a 'replacement becomes unavoidable'.

The number using public transport has increased because people can no longer afford to use their car due to the high price of petrol and diesel.

Meanwhile, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that over the last year, workers' average weekly earnings have risen by only 0.4 per cent, while bosses' pay has gone up by 10 per cent.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065479/Public-sector-workers-earn-4-000-year-pay-premium-compared-private-staff.html#ixzz1ec7j52Z9

--
Mario Huet
Libertarian Alliance Forum
List Administrator

**********************************************
Words cannot picture her; but all men know  
That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought
**********************************************
James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night

--
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.

here is a new anti-poverty summit addendum for your agenda i hope you will you consider

--
yorkton environment directorate

may god bless all creative inspirations

--
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.

Thailand : Urgent Appeal for an Urgent intervention to insure the immediate release of Ampon Tangnoppakul

For Immediate Release

24 November 2011

Mr. Frank La Rue
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10
Switzerland
Fax: +41 22 917 9006
Email: freedex@ohchr.org
Re: Urgent Appeal for an Urgent intervention to insure the immediate release of Ampon Tangnoppakul

Dear Mr. Frank La Rue,

I am William Nicholas Gomes, a Bangladeshi Journalist and Human Rights Activist. I came to know from Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) about serious situations where the freedom of expression is highly violated.

I wish to express grave concern over the latest conviction and sentence of a person in Thailand for a crime of freedom of expression. On 23 November 2011, in Black Case No. 311/2554, Ampon Tangnoppakul (also known as 'Arkong'), a 61-year-old man, was sentenced to twenty years in prison for four alleged violations of Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. Ampon's crime was to allegedly send four SMS messages to Somkiat Klongwattanasak, personal secretary of the former prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva. iLaw, a Thai legal NGO, reported that the four SMS messages were alleged by the authorities to contain vulgar language and to defame the Thai queen and to insult the honor of the monarchy. The precise content of the SMS messages has not been made public by the authorities and because repetition of alleged lesè majesté content itself constitutes a violation of the law, reporters are unable to report the precise content of the messages without then becoming subject to criminal prosecution themselves.

Compounding the injustice of this sentence, Ampon Tangnoppakul is suffering from laryngeal cancer and had been unable to access proper treatment during detention before and during his trial. There is no reason to believe that this will change now that he has been convicted, and, in fact, depending on what prison he is transferred to, there may be further concerns over his safety and well-being. As has been clear in the case of Daranee Charnchoengskilpakul, currently serving an eighteen-year sentence for alleged lesè majesté and who suffers from severe jaw disease, the authorities have no qualms about denying necessary medical treatment and violating the rights of political prisoners.

On 3 August 2010, a group of 15 police officers raided Ampon Tangnoppakul's house and arrested him. He was detained for 63 days of pre-charge detention before being granted bail on 4 October 2010. He was then formally charged by the prosecutor on 18 January 2011 with violations of Article 112 and the Computer Crimes Act, and has been incarcerated since then. The court refused bail on the basis of the gravity of his crime and the possibility of flight. His trial took place on 23 and 27-30 September 2011. From the beginning, Ampon maintained his innocence, noting that he did not know to send SMS messages and that the number that sent the message to Somkiat was not his number.  The response of the prosecutor to this was to discount it, and note that as the IMEI number of the cell phone that sent the messages to Somkiat belonged to Ampon, then he was responsible.
In the years since the 19 September 2006 coup, and particularly in the last 2 years, there has been a vast expansion of the use of both Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. iLaw, a Thai legal rights NGO, noted that while Ampon was convicted of violations of Article 112 and the Computer Crimes Act of 2007, he was sentenced under Article 112, as it provides for harsher penalties. Since the passage of the Computer Crimes Act, the two have increasingly been used together to silence dissenting speech and intimidate activists and citizens. Article 112 of the Thai Criminal Code notes that, "Whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, Queen, the Heir-apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years." The relevant section of the Computer Crimes Act in this case is Section 14, Parts 2 and 3, which specify: "If any person commits any offense of the following acts shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than one hundred thousand baht or both: (2) that involves import to a computer system of false computer data in a manner than it likely to damage the country's security or cause a public panic; (3) that involves import to a computer system of any computer data related with an offence against the Kingdom's security under the Criminal Code." The definition of "computer system" is noted in Section 3 as "a piece of equipment or set of equipment units, whose function is integrated together, for which sets of instructions and working principles enable it or them to perform the duty of processing data automatically." The way in which this law is written, and as this case evidences, means that the Computer Crimes Act of 2007 may be used to target communication and speech using various forms of transmitting technology, not only computers per se.  This conviction sends a clear message to people in Thailand: be careful, because your SMS messages may be scrutinized for criminal content and then you will be liable to a long prison sentence. The lack of a definition of "security" within the law means that there are wide opportunities for abuse as the authorities can define any dissident or otherwise objectionable content to violate the "security" of the nation.
In a statement released by the Human Rights Lawyers Association (HRLA) and the Ratsadornprasong Legal Institute (RLI) prior to yesterday's reading of the conviction, a letter written from Ampon's daughter to another detainee who was taking care of her father in jail noted:
"What we are most concerned about is our father's mental fatigue and despondency. Strength is almost gone already. Our requests for bail is always denied ... But the suffering of our family is eased because of you being by our father's side giving him strength...I know that we are not alone fighting for justice , there are many other people who also fight injustice. They fight for justice and freedom for the people who face injustice like us. We are all brothers and sisters, so do not get discouraged and keep on fighting for our father. We must be strong for people who are detained inside. We never thought that this would happen to us as it seem unreal for our family as Thais who greatly love and admire the monarchy. We are regretful that this institution is used for political purposes without them knowing it. It is painful for all us Thais because we love and respect the monarchy more than anything else. We have to fight against injustices in this country because this kind of case is used as a political tool against small people like us whom are treated like ants, termites and used as scapegoats."
I wish to express grave concern over this conviction and sentence of a person in Thailand for a crime of freedom of expression --.  Ampon Tangnoppakul has been sentenced to the longest period in prison to date for alleged violations of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. Particularly given the weak nature of the evidence deployed against him, and the extenuating circumstances of health and age, this case indicates that the Thai judiciary has become a place where justice is foreclosed and injustice flourishes. When murderers walk free, as they did in the case of the disappearance of Somchai Neelaphaijit, yet a 61-year-old man can be imprisoned for twenty years for allegedly sending four SMS messages with alleged anti-monarchy content, it is clear than human rights are in deep crisis in Thailand. 

Mr. Frank La Rue, I call for your urgent intervention to insure the immediate release of Ampon Tangnoppakul and all others imprisoned for crimes of freedom of expression under Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act. I will continue to closely follow all other cases of alleged violations of Article 112 and the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, and encourages all others concerned with human rights and justice in Thailand to do so as well.

I thank you for the attention you give to this letter.

Sincerely,


William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book: www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter: twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org
Cc:
Advocates for Public Interest Law, South Korea
African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Studies (ACDHRS)
African Democracy Forum (ADF)
Algerian League for the Defense of Human Rights
AlKarama, Switzerland
Al-Khatim Adlan Centre for Enlightenment & Human Development, Sudan
Amnesty International
Arab Coalition for Darfur
Arab Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI)
Arab Program for Human Rights Activists
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA)
Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC), Hong Kong, China
Association for Freedom of Thought and Expression, Egypt
Bahrain Center for Human Rights (BCHR)
Brazilian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Association (ABGLT), Brazil
Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
Cambodian Center for Human Rights, Cambodia
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
Collectif des Familles de Disparus en Algérie
Community Action Network (ICMICA-Malaysia), Malaysia
Committees for the Defense of Democracy Freedom and Human Rights, Syria
Conectas Direitos Humanos, Brazil
The Democracy Coalition Project (DCP), United States
East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project (EHAHRDP)
Egyptian Foundation for Advancement of the Childhood Condition
Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR)
Emirates Center for Human Rights, UAE
Euro Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN)
Franciscans International, Switzerland
Freedom Against Censorship Thailand (FACT), Thailand
Habi Center for Environmental Rights, Egypt
Hisham Mubarak Law Center, Egypt
Home for the Victims of Torture, Sri Lanka
Human Rights Organization in Syria (MAF)
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
Instance Marocaine des Droits Humains
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
International Service for Human Rights (ISHR)
Iraqi Human Rights Organization, Denmark
Joint Committee for Migrants in Korea, South Korea
Journalists for Human Rights (JHR), Sudan
Justice for Peace Foundation (JPF), Thailand
Korean House for International Solidarity, South Korea
Kurdish Committee for Human Rights-Rased, Syria
Kurdish organization for the defense of human rights and public freedoms in Syria (DAD)
Lawyers for Justice in Libya
LBH Masyarakat (Community Legal Aid Institute), Indonesia
Les Democrates Syriens
National Organization for Human Rights, Syria
Network for Glocal Activism, South Korea
Palestinian Human Rights Organization, Lebanon
SARANGBANG Group for Human Rights, South Korea
Shabab: Youth Center for Cultural Change, Sudan
Sisters Arab Forum for Human Rights (SAF), Yemen
Sudan Social Development Organization (SUDO)
The Arab Organization for Human Rights, Syria
The May 18 Memorial Foundation, South Korea
MINBYUN - Lawyers for a Democratic Society, South Korea
Tunisian League for the Defense of Human Rights
West Africa Human Rights Defenders Network (WAHRDN)
Yemeni Center for Transitional Justice
Yemeni Organization for Defending Rights and Democratic Freedoms
World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)

Link : http://williamnicholasgomes.blogspot.com/2011/11/urgent-appeal-for-urgent-intervention.html

--
William Nicholas Gomes
Journalist & Human Rights Activist
80/ B Bramon Chiron, Saydabad,
Dhaka-1203, Bangladesh.
Cell: +88 019 7 444 0 666
E-mail:William [at] williamgomes.org,editorbd[at]gmail.com
Skype: William.gomes9
Face book: www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
Twitter: twitter.com/williamgomes
Web site :www.williamgomes.org

--
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.