There was an error in this gadget
0
--
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.
Hackers plan space satellites to combat censorship
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16367042
By David Meyer
Technology reporter
Computer hackers plan to take the internet beyond the reach of censors by
putting their own communication satellites into orbit.
The scheme was outlined at the Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin.
The project's organisers said the Hackerspace Global Grid will also involve
developing a grid of ground stations to track and communicate with the
satellites.
Longer term they hope to help put an amateur astronaut on the moon.
Hobbyists have already put a few small satellites into orbit - usually only
for brief periods of time - but tracking the devices has proved difficult
for low-budget projects.
The hacker activist Nick Farr first put out calls for people to contribute
to the project in August. He said that the increasing threat of internet
censorship had motivated the project.
"The first goal is an uncensorable internet in space. Let's take the
internet out of the control of terrestrial entities," Mr Farr said.
Beyond balloons
He cited the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in the United States as
an example of the kind of threat facing online freedom. If passed, the act
would allow for some sites to be blocked on copyright grounds.
Whereas past space missions have almost all been the preserve of national
agencies and large companies, amateur enthusiasts have in recent years sent
a few payloads into orbit.
These devices have mostly been sent up using balloons and are tricky to
pinpoint precisely from the ground.
According to Armin Bauer, a 26-year-old enthusiast from Stuttgart who is
working on the Hackerspace Global Grid, this is largely due to lack of
funding.
"Professionals can track satellites from ground stations, but usually they
don't have to because, if you pay a large sum [to send the satellite up on a
rocket], they put it in an exact place," Mr Bauer said.
In the long run, a wider hacker aerospace project aims to put an amateur
astronaut onto the moon within the next 23 years.
"It is very ambitious so we said let's try something smaller first," Mr
Bauer added.
Ground network
The Berlin conference was the latest meeting held by the Chaos Computer
Club, a decades-old German hacker group that has proven influential not only
for those interested in exploiting or improving computer security, but also
for people who enjoy tinkering with hardware and software.
When Mr Farr called for contributions to Hackerspace, Mr Bauer and others
decided to concentrate on the communications infrastructure aspect of the
scheme.
Mr Bauer says the satellites could help provide communications to help put
an amateur into space
He and his teammates are working on their part of the project together with
Constellation, an existing German aerospace research initiative that mostly
consists of interlinked student projects.
In the open-source spirit of Hackerspace, Mr Bauer and some friends came up
with the idea of a distributed network of low-cost ground stations that can
be bought or built by individuals.
Used together in a global network, these stations would be able to pinpoint
satellites at any given time, while also making it easier and more reliable
for fast-moving satellites to send data back to earth.
"It's kind of a reverse GPS," Mr Bauer said.
"GPS uses satellites to calculate where we are, and this tells us where the
satellites are. We would use GPS co-ordinates but also improve on them by
using fixed sites in precisely-known locations."
Mr Bauer said the team would have three prototype ground stations in place
in the first half of 2012, and hoped to give away some working models at the
next Chaos Communication Congress in a year's time.
They would also sell the devices on a non-profit basis.
"We're aiming for 100 euros (£84) per ground station. That is the amount
people tell us they would be willing to spend," Mr Bauer added.
Complications
Experts say the satellite project is feasible, but could be restricted by
technical limitations.
"Low earth orbit satellites such as have been launched by amateurs so far,
do not stay in a single place but rather orbit, typically every 90 minutes,"
said Prof Alan Woodward from the computing department at the University of
Surrey.
Continue reading the main story
"
Start Quote
Any country could take the law into their own hands and disable the
satellites"
Prof Alan Woodward
Surrey University
"That's not to say they can't be used for communications but obviously only
for the relatively brief periods that they are in your view. It's difficult
to see how such satellites could be used as a viable communications grid
other than in bursts, even if there were a significant number in your
constellation."
This problem could be avoided if the hackers managed to put their satellites
into geostationary orbits above the equator. This would allow them to match
the earth's movement and appear to be motionless when viewed from the
ground. However, this would pose a different problem.
"It means that they are so far from earth that there is an appreciable delay
on any signal, which can interfere with certain Internet applications," Prof
Woodward said.
"There is also an interesting legal dimension in that outer space is not
governed by the countries over which it floats. So, theoretically it could
be a place for illegal communication to thrive. However, the corollary is
that any country could take the law into their own hands and disable the
satellites."
Need for knowledge
Apart from the ground station scheme, other aspects of the Hackerspace
project that are being worked on include the development of new electronics
that can survive in space, and the launch vehicles that can get them there
in the first place.
Until now launching communications satellites has proved to be too expensive
for amateur groups
According to Mr Farr, the "only motive" of the Hackerspace Global Grid is
knowledge.
He said many participants are frustrated that no person has been sent past
low Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission in 1972.
"This [hacker] community can put humanity back in space in a meaningful
way," Farr said.
"The goal is to get back to where we were in the 1970s. Hackers find it
offensive that we've had the technology since before many of us were born
and we haven't gone back."
Asked whether some might see negative security implications in the idea of
establishing a hacker presence in space, Farr said the only downside would
be that "people might not be able to censor your internet".
"Hackers are about open information," Farr added. "We believe communication
is a human right."
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
--
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.
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.
--
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.
He's a Muslim, of COURSE he's mentally disturbed. No excuse there.
I'm allowed to kill infidels, man tells judge
Dec 29, 2011
ABU DHABI // A mentally disturbed man who stabbed a witness to death in court told an appeals court judge yesterday that as a Muslim he was entitled to kill "infidels".
The judge told BAM, an Egyptian, that he should exercise his rights by using the law, "and not go around killing people".
BAM first appeared in court last year, accused of causing a permanent injury to a Nepalese man, LK. Released on bail, he then stabbed LK to death in his room.
Later he took the murder weapon to court and killed another Nepalese man who was giving evidence on behalf of LK.
Abu Dhabi Criminal Court of First Instance found him guilty, and ordered that he receive psychiatric treatment.
Prosecutors appealed on the ground that BAM was not mentally ill but knew perfectly well what he was doing. They pointed out that while claiming he killed the two men because they were infidels, he chose to kill only people who were giving evidence against him in a criminal court case.
The Court of Cassation returned the case to the Court of Appeals.
"I'm an Arab Muslim and in an Arab Muslim country," BAM told the court yesterday. "Those infidels are killing Muslims all around the world … there was a Muslim doctor just killed in Germany and when her husband wanted to defend her they attacked him as well."
The judge said he was not concerned with what happened in other countries, and that justice would be served.
He said it was never part of Islamic law, even in an Islamic state, to kill people because of their beliefs, or to take revenge.
A representative from the Nepalese Embassy told the court relatives of the two victims would be seeking blood money.
The judge reserved his verdict, and adjourned the case until January 11 for the representative to present his certificate showing that the men's families had given him power of attorney.
--
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.
You'll Never Guess Who's Second Among Evangelicals In Iowa
Posted by Kathryn Muratore on December 30, 2011 07:40 PM
The front page of the WSJ today has an article titled Iowa's Evangelical Rift that relates a 3-way split of evangelical support between Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum. It references a CNN/Time poll that shows, "Mr. Romney leading the field and earning the support of more born-again voters than Mrs. Bachmann or Mr. Perry." Needless to say, Ron Paul is only mentioned to say that a group of pastors had dismissed him and Romney from the running.
Curious to see the results of the poll, I googled it. The top hit was this ABC news article titled Rick Santorum Jumps To Third In New CNN/Time Iowa Poll. In the second paragraph we learn that Santorum has 16%, compared to Paul's 22% and Romney's 25% overall. Among evangelicals, Santorum is indeed leading at 22%, but no other information is included.
After clicking through to the CNN/Time poll write-up itself, I finally found what I was now beginning to suspect:
- ...[Santorum] now tops the list among that crucial voting bloc, with support from 22% of born-agains compared to 18% for Paul, 16% for Romney, and 14% for Gingrich...
December30th
Commissars Demand We Shun Ron Paul
Tom Woods
All the respectables agree: we can support anyone we like, except Ron Paul. That's what the New York Times, much of the progressive left, and much of the fake-conservative talk-radio right in other words, the whole spectrum of people who have wrecked the country agree on.
Here is my blunt translation of what the phonies on right-wing radio are really saying:
- Citizen, you appear to be unhappy with the choices our political system offers you. We do not understand this. Bill Clinton vs. Bob Dole, Barack Obama vs. John McCain -- what historic contests these were, what great men these are, whose profound reflections on the human condition will be remembered down the ages.
- Your wise public servants have your best interests at heart. What a privilege, citizen, for you to choose between them. Now it is true, to be sure, that they pursue essentially the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same policy on drugs, the same policy on civil liberties, and so on, but they're really, really super different. Super, super different. They are safely different, you might say.
- Now there's this fellow Ron Paul, and we have to tell you, he's just beyond the pale. He isn't playing fair. He is offering you a choice. Citizen, your betters have already decided that anyone who dissents from the bipartisan consensus on the Federal Reserve, or foreign policy (remember, citizen, that Hillary Clinton, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and other liberals were strong supporters of George W. Bush's foreign policy), on centralized versus decentralized power, on presidential war powers, and countless other matters, is probably some sort of crank.
- You must not listen to such an enemy of the people, citizen. You can know you are listening to an enemy of the people by this rule: he disagrees with both Hillary Clinton and Newt Gingrich. Who would ever want to do such a thing?
- Alan Greenspan was a wise public official who had absolutely nothing to do with the housing bubble and subsequent collapse. He enjoyed bipartisan support, citizen, and isn't that all you need to know about him?
- Citizen, we must insist you continue to support the wise public servants who have brought your country to the condition of wonderful health it presently enjoys. If you continue to support the candidates the two major parties prefer, as you have done in the past, the fortunes of our country will surely improve still further.
- However, here is our major concern: the more we shout at you that Ron Paul is dangerous, not respectable, indecent, crazy, irresponsible, and not someone we'd invite to dinner, the more you appear to like him. It is almost as if the disapproval of the New York Times, Rush Limbaugh, and Rachel Maddow has you thinking that this man must be on to something.
- It is as if you have concluded that any honest person who might actually do some good for our country would probably be treated exactly the way we and the old media have been treating Ron Paul.
- This will not do. Now please, citizen, we urge you one more time: these independent thoughts you have been entertaining have gone quite far enough. Listen to our radio programs for the talking points you are to imbibe and repeat. Do not stray from these, even when we appear to be betraying the cause of limited government and the free market. Listen to us, citizen, so you may count yourself among the respectables.
- For what could matter more than being considered respectable by the powers that be? Surely there can be no greater value than this.
- Your wise public servants have your best interests at heart. What a privilege, citizen, for you to choose between them. Now it is true, to be sure, that they pursue essentially the same foreign policy, the same monetary policy, the same policy on drugs, the same policy on civil liberties, and so on, but they're really, really super different. Super, super different. They are safely different, you might say.
Is a vote for Ron Paul a vote against George W. Bush?
Posted by Rob Anderson December 30, 2011 04:10 PM
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa -- If Ron Paul finishes first in Tuesday's caucuses in Iowa, it won't just be a speed bump in Mitt Romney's path to the GOP presidential nomination. It'll also be a powerful statement about the last Republican president. In a speech in a jam-packed auditorium here last night, Paul laid out a platform that's at odds with virtually every policy, other than tax cuts, that George W. Bush pursued. The Texas congressman criticized military spending, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, the killing of US citizens abroad without trial, and even restrictions on the Internet.
In the last year, Paul hasn't changed his message, which moves seamlessly between small-government libertarianism and some strange paleoconservative tropes. (The gold standard again?) This time, the field is just as crowded, but Paul is polling far better now than in late December of 2007. Rhetorically, it helps Paul that President Obama has continued, even extended, anti-terror policies that he inherited; Paul's riff on targeted assassination calls out Obama, not Bush. Yet the bottom line is that Republican voters are now free to cut Bush's policies loose without repudiating a sitting president of their own party.
Obviously, not all will. At least in his "town hall" in Council Bluffs last night, the Texas congressman didn't engage the question of why an undecided GOP voter who supported Bush should vote for Ron Paul now. (He didn't take questions, which makes one wonder what he means by "town hall.") It's also noteworthy that 4 in 10 likely caucus-goers deem Paul "unacceptable." Yet there may be plenty of other reasons for that -- the strange rhetoric about Fort Knox, his fixation on the Federal Reserve, and a stance on drug issues that puts him far to the left of Obama. What's clear is that some GOP voters are rethinking issues that were off the table four years ago.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_angle/2011/12/is_a_vote_for_r.html
DECEMBER 31, 2011
Why Ron Paul Matters
Among all the GOP presidential candidates, he's the only one who stands for constitutionally limited government.
By EDWARD H. CRANE
The controversy surrounding decades-old newsletters to which GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul lent his name is regrettable. First, it is regrettable because the sometimes bigoted, intolerant content of those newsletters is inconsistent with the views of the congressman as understood by those of us who know him. Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source, Lew Rockwell, head of the Alabama-based Mises Institute.
Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on . . . the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times, but it adds to the background noise surrounding Mr. Paul's candidacy, obscuring the real libertarian policy initiatives that have made his candidacy the most remarkable development of the 2012 campaign.
Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:
• Tax and spending. If ever there were sound and fury signifying nothing, it has to be the recent "debate" over the budget. Covered by the media as though it was negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles, the wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats centered on the nearly trivial question of whether the $12 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade should be reduced by 3% or 2%.
Mr. Paul would cut the federal budget by $1 trillion immediately. He can't do it, of course, but voters sense he really wants to. As Milton Friedman once explained, the true tax on the American people is the level of spendingthe resources taken from the private sector and employed in the public sector. Whether financed from direct taxation, inflation or borrowing, spending is the burden.
• Foreign policy and military spending. As the only candidate other than Jon Huntsman who says it is past time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Mr. Paul has tapped into a stirring recognition by limited-government Republicans and independents that an overreaching military presence around the world is inconsistent with small, constitutional government at home.
The massive cost of these interventions, in treasure and blood, highlights what a mistake they are, as sensible people on the left and right recognized from the beginning. Of course we want a strong military capable of defending the United States, but our current expenditures equal what the rest of the world spends, which makes little sense. It is futile to try to be the world's policemanto try to create an American Empire as so many neoconservatives promote. And we can't afford it.
• Civil liberties. Libertarians often differ with conservatives over issues related to civil liberties. Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution. He would work to repeal significant parts of the so-called Patriot Act. Its many civil liberties transgressions include the issuance by the executive branch of National Security Letters (a form of administrative subpoena) without a court order, and the forbiddance of American citizens from mentioning that they have received one of these letters at the risk of jail.
The Bush and Obama administrations have claimed the right to incarcerate an American citizen on American soil, without charge, without access to an attorney, for an indefinite period.
President Obama even claims the right to kill American citizens on foreign soil, without due process of law, for suspected terrorist activities. Meanwhile, the Stop Online Piracy Act moving through the House is a clear effort by the federal government to censor the Internet. Mr. Paul stands up against all this, which should and does engender support from limited government advocates in the GOP.
• Austrian economics. Mr. Paul is often criticized for references to what some consider obscure economists of the so-called Austrian School. People should read them before criticizing. Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek and his mentor Ludwig von Mises were two of the greatest economists and social scientists ever to live.
Modern Austrian School economists such as Lawrence H. White, now at George Mason University, and Fred Foldvary at Santa Clara University predicted the housing bubble and the recession that followed the massive, multitrillion-dollar malinvestment caused by government redirection of capital into housing. Mr. Paul, like Austrian School economists, understands that we would be better off with a gold standard, competing currencies or a monetary rule than with the arbitrary and discretionary powers of our out-of-control Federal Reserve.
Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He'd be the first to admit he's not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.
Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.
As for the Ron Paul newsletters, the best response was by my colleague David Boaz when the subject was raised publicly in 2008. About them he wrote in the Cato Institute's blog:
"Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect 'paleoconservative' ideas, though they're not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, 'Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.' Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism. Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them."
Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul's philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577129132189244456.html
Posted on Thu, Dec. 29, 2011
GOP Establishment wrong to 'disenfranchise' Ron Paul supporters
BY COLIN MCINTOSH
Don't tread on me.
Recently, something's been amiss in the mainstream media when discussing Ron Paul's candidacy. As the Texas congressman's support has surged to 15 percent nationally in the latest Washington Post poll, the "Very Serious Republicans" who write columns and give their opinions on TV and radio shows have changed their tune. They aren't as confident, as cocky or as arrogant as they used to be when predicting the 2012 presidential election.
Now, they sound scared; they sound nervous; they sound shaken. But most important, they sound resolute that they, and not their audience, represent the opinions of mainstream America. They are wrong, and their gamble will be costly.
In the absence of facts to support the Establishment candidates, the media have turned to personal insults, childish mockery, and deliberate misinterpretation of Dr. Paul's lessons. Their goal, quite shamefully, is to convince Ron Paul supporters that the candidate that they believe in has no chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election. Here are some recent headlines from around the web:
- "Huckabee slams Ron Paul, says he has 'no chance' to win Republican nomination" The Hill
- "Ron Paul can't be allowed to win Iowa" Daily Caller
- "Why Ron Paul Can't Win" Wall Street Journal
- "If Ron Paul wins Iowa, does that make the state irrelevant?" Christian Science Monitor
- "Ron Paul can't be allowed to win Iowa" Daily Caller
They will never tell us that 21 percent of Americans polled chose to vote for Ron Paul as a third party candidate over the hypothetical choices of President Obama or Romney/Gingrich.
This last statistic leads me to my main point: if the GOP nominates anyone besides Ron Paul, Barack Obama will win the 2012 election.
Why?
Currently, Establishment Republicans are issuing an obvious warning to Paul's base: vote for Romney, or the Democrats will win in November. Clearly, they hope this ominous bit of advice also reaches the millions of Americans who are still learning about Ron Paul's views. Well, Dr. Paul's supporters have a retort: we don't give a damn.
There are worse things than having a Democrat in the White House, and disenfranchisement is among them. We will not vote for whom we are told. We will not vote for a candidate who espouses a policy of preemptive war. We will not vote for the continuation of a flawed, costly, discriminatory drug war. We will not vote for the circumnavigation of the U.S. Constitution. We will not vote for a candidate (Romney) who has received just 10 percent of his campaign donations from actual people (from opensecrets.org). And we will not feel remorse for a Republican Party that has abandoned us.
I am a registered Republican, but when I listen to my so-called party leaders, I become infuriated and despondent. When did preemptive war become our national defense? When did the desire to police the world become so mainstream that we forgot that our nation was birthed from a repugnance to imperialism? When did we concede that the federal government has the right to regulate our lives to the point of quiet despotism?
And most important, when did we become convinced that our votes and voices only matter if we support the perceived frontrunner?
As an advocate of liberty, I will vote on principle over party, every time. If the Republican Party took the time to educate its members on the issues, rather than simply bullying them into submission, their party wouldn't be so splintered right now, and perhaps Dr. Paul would have a unified force behind him heading into November. Instead, GOP leaders seem committed to promoting the status quo, to increasing their own power and influence, and to keeping the support of moneyed interests.
If the GOP Establishment is successful in convincing Republicans to nominate Romney instead of Paul, and Paul does indeed run as an independent, Obama will win with 45 percent of the vote, and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.
Colin McIntosh, a resident of Fort Lauderdale and graduate of St. Thomas Aquinas High School, is a senior at Emory University in Atlanta and will graduate this spring with bachelor degrees in economics and business administration.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/12/29/2566016/gop-establishment-wrong-to-disenfranchise.html
The Center for American Progress' Jihad Against the Free World
Friday, 30 December 2011 05:08 Daniel Greenfield
The colors of the American flag are red, white and blue, but the colors of the Center for American Progress are red, white and green. Red for the left and green for Islam.
The Center for American Progress is not just any organization. Headed up by John Podesta, a co-chairman of Obama's transition team and backed by a 38 million dollar annual budget, it is George Soros' most ambitious attempt to turn his Shadow Party into a shadow government. CAP is the organization with the single greatest influence on the Obama White House and its foreign and domestic policy.
CAP is more than just another think tank; it's a lever for shifting the Democratic Party further to the left, bought and paid for by George Soros and a roster of secret donors whose names are not made public by the secretive and powerful organization. Those who buy influence with it also get anonymity as part of the package.
But the Center is more than a rogue billionaire's brand of progressivism turned into talking-point groupthink by Washington insiders. It is a link between the American left and the Muslim right, articulating the Islamist agenda as a vehicle for the foreign policy of the post-American left. It's where Ali Gharib can run pieces whitewashing the Muslim Brotherhood while Zaid Jiliani attempts to justify the ambassador to Belgium's comments denying the existence of Muslim anti-Semitism.
A CAP report co-authored by Wajahat Ali, a defender of Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, and a board member of the Muslim Students Association, a Muslim Brotherhood front group, claimed that counterterrorism analysts were misrepresenting the threat of Sharia law and that Sharia was "overwhelmingly concerned with personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws." That particular revelation might come as a shock to raped women in Pakistan and gay men in Iran.
Ali's Islamist leanings drove him to call on Obama to "interact with democratically elected Muslim governments and representatives, such as Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran." But despite Ali's extremism, the Center allowed him to co-author a report on Islamic law and another report titled "Fear Inc." which attempted to demonize Muslim and non-Muslim critics of Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
ThinkProgress, the Center for American Progress' blog, is run by Faiz Shakir, who also serves as the organization's vice president. The ThinkProgress blog has become extreme even by CAP standards, forcing Ken Gude, CAP's national security director, to attempt to distance his center's policy arm from its blogs. In a post jointly co-authored by Faiz Shakir and Ken Gude, the two men denied that their work was anti-Semitic, but avoided similarly ruling out that their work was anti-Israel, probably because such an assertion would have simply been unsupportable.
CAP and its various affiliated blogs have taken an enthusiastically uncritical approach to the Islamist Arab Spring and a hostile, critical approach to the State of Israel. At the ThinkProgress blog, Matt Duss described Israel's border controls with Hamas-run Gaza as a "moral abomination" and compared the deaths of Islamist radicals who attempted to murder Israeli soldiers to the murders of Goodman, Chaney, and Schwerner in the South during the Civil Rights movement.
Duss, writing at Middle East Progress, a spinoff CAP blog, ran a piece on Rashid al-Ghannushi. Al-Ghannushi is one of the leaders of Tunisia's Islamist Ennahda organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In the past he has called for a war against America, branding it an "enemy of Islam."
Al-Ghannushi has also called for the genocide of Israeli Jews, writing: "There are no civilians in Israel. The population– males, females and children… are the army reserve soldiers, and thus can be killed." True to form, Duss tossed softball questions to the gruesome Al-Ghannushi while praising him as a non-violent intellectual. This was business at usual at CAP where Netanyahu is a monster who must be kicked to the curb, but real monsters like Al-Ghannushi are moderates who deserve our support.
A more accurate name for CAP would be the Center for Islamist Progress. There is no Islamist thug or regime too awful for the Center, whose number one priority is backing Islamist takeovers in the Middle East. Its number two priority is fighting military action on Iran, and even decrying sanctions against Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs, and its number three priority is portraying Israel as the greatest threat to peace in the region.
But if the Center wanted to avoid allegations of anti-Semitism it would have been wise to also avoid picking a fight with the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a non-partisan organization started by Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal that tracks expressions of hate against the Jewish people. Instead, in response to a simple policy statement from the Wiesenthal Center against returning to the indefensible 1948 borders, ThinkProgress' Ben Armbruster called it a "far-right" organization and accused it of branding Obama a Nazi.
The Wiesenthal Center had done no such thing and blasted CAP and Media Matters, the former home of Ben Armbruster, for conspiring to intimidate any group taking a pro-Israel position. CAP's goal is to shift the Democratic Party further into the anti-Israel camp and attacking and silencing pro-Israel voices is an effective means of doing so. This Kulturkampf being waged against pro-Israel groups by Soros' prodigies extended even to an attack on the most prominent Jewish anti-Nazi group in the world. An attack doubtlessly approved of by Soros, who was after all an unashamed Nazi collaborator.
Jewish liberals who attempted to denounce the harmful influence of the Center have been silenced. Josh Block, a former fellow at the Truman National Security Project (TNSP), was purged after he denounced Duss and co. for their bigotry. The purge was unsurprising considering that John Podesta of CAP is on the advisory board at TNSP and Rachel Kleinfeld, TNSP's executive director who fired Block, has consulted for Soros' Open Society Institute.
The Truman National Security Project was created to bolster the Democratic Party's image on national security. Instead it has chosen to follow the CAP line and that has ominous implications for the Democratic Party. The Center for American Progress has done its best to revive the Carter-era Green Belt program of passing off Islamist empowerment and Israel bashing as policies that are in our national interest.
The American left has rolled out the red carpet for the Islamists without paying any attention to the bloody footprints that the Muslim Brotherhood's various affiliates leave behind. The red, white and green flag that they have raised over the White House, the State Department and over their party has already helped turn major portions of the Middle East and North Africa into another Iran. Unless moderate Democrats stand up to the extremists at the Center for American Progress, then their party will be permanently red, white and green all over.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century. From NY to Jerusalem, Daniel Greenfield Covers the Stories Behind the News
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/30/the-center-for-american-progress%e2%80%99-jihad-against-the-free-world/
--
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.
NMA Blog: 2012 Cadillac Escalade ESV Review |
| 2012 Cadillac Escalade ESV Review Posted: 29 Dec 2011 09:51 AM PST
It stands alone, unchallenged … the master of all it surveys. Not merely surviving but thriving. The Hummer came – and went. So also the Ford Excursion – a mere Ford, too for that matter. No, if you want the Biggest Kahuna – a luxury SUV that can swallow the others whole and beat them to a bloody pulp – then there's really only one choice. A Cadillac Escalade ESV Platinum Edition. Nearly as long (222.9 inches) as a "deuce and quarter" '70s era Buick Electra 225. Six thousand pounds, almost … empty. 6.2 liters of V-8 and 403 horsepower. 13 MPG… . And $85,095 out the door. I stand in awe…. WHAT IT IS The eight-passenger Escalade ESV is the ultimate-in-size Escalade; almost two feet longer stem to stern than a standard (and already enormous) Escalade – and about two feet longer than a Range Rover (195.8 inches), Lexus LX570 (196.5 inches) or Mercedes-Benz GL550 (200.7 inches). A Lincoln Navigator L is the same size, physically – but it's packing a just 310 hp (vs. the ESV's heroic 403 hp) and the Nav L's sticker price of $59,940 loaded is just a solid down payment on an $82,585 Platinum Edition ESV covered in Tehama Aniline leather and riding on 22 inch ree-uhms. The Platinum model I tested crested $86,000. You could gold-plate a Navigator L and not spend that much cash! WHAT'S NEW for 2012 The King ages but sees few major changes, other than a new design USB port and a $2,315 uptick in the price of the base model. Weirdly (or luckily, for buyers) the top-of-the-line Platinum model's price goes down by $40. It's like getting a quarter-tank of gas for free! WHAT'S GOOD The Ultimate. Nothing bigger in size, power or personality. Easy to drive, despite its size. Classy, beautifully finished interior. WHAT'S NOT SO GOOD Ultimate price tag. Buy a Navigator L – loaded – for $20k less. A beast to park and maneuver in traffic (so's the Navigator L). Cost to feed it more than some people's car payments. The proles around you will hate you all the more. UNDER THE HOOD The Escalade ESV comes standard with a mondo 6.2 liter, 403 hp V-8 with GM's Active Fuel Management technology as well as E85 (ethanol) fuel compatibility. It completely outclasses its sole competitor, the Lincoln Navigator L, which comes with a 5.4 liter, 310 hp engine. And not just in terms of power. Despite producing almost 100 hp more than the Lincoln's smaller V-8, the Caddy's 6.2 liter engine virtually matches the Nav's performance at the pump. Both eat gas like Elvis ate 'nanner sammiches with a pound of fried bacon on top – but the much more powerful Cadillac gets the same 14 city that the Lincoln touts, and its rated 18 MPG highway is just 2 MPG less than the Lincoln's. Hardly noticeable. But the power-performance gulf is immediately obvious. A 2WD ESV can get to 60 in about 7 seconds – an amazing feat of athleticism for a 6,000 lb.-plus SUV. The Nav needs about 8.2 seconds – and that's a difference you can really feel. More on this below. The ESV's big V-8 is paired with a six-speed automatic with Tow/Haul and manual shift control modes. It shifts smartly, though using the stalk-mounted controller takes some getting used to. The optional 4WD system is advertised as AWD in part because it is full-time and in part because there is no driver-selectable Low range gearing or two-speed transfer case. But keep in mind that the ESV is a truck-based vehicle with a truck-type layout, including engine facing front to back (not sideways) connected to a separate transmission (not an integrated transaxle) which feeds a rear-mounted axle, which in turn feeds the power to the rear wheels most of the time – not the front wheels most of the time, as in a FWD-based AWD vehicle. When the system detects slip at the rear, it routes some of the power back to the front – the reverse of what happens in a FWD-based system. The Navigator's AWD works the same way. Neither are designed to go off-road but their AWD systems do give you a leg up on snow-slicked paved roads. There's one area where the Lincoln outclasses the Caddy – max tow ratings. The Nav can tow 9,000 lbs. vs. 8,000 lbs. for the ESV. This suggests the Nav – which is based on the Ford Expedition – has a tougher frame than the Chevy Suburban-based Cadillac. I can't say that for a fact – but the tow ratings sure suggest it. ON THE ROAD Like being comfortably settled into your lounge chair in the first-class section of a 747 at altitude, there's little sensation of massive mass in motion. The ESV glides along at 70 or 80 without even much in the way of wind or tire noise – remarkable given the aerodynamic LD of its brick-like shape and (on my tested Platinum model) those 22 inch ree-uhms, and no-give two-inch-high sidewalls on the tires they're wrapped in – which you'd expect would drone like Al Gore and be just as irritating. But they don't. You will notice potholes more but it's not jarring – you're just aware you ran over something back there. But, just like a 747 on the tarmac at JFK, when you are rolling slowly through a crowded parking lot in the ESV, the hugeness of this vehicle can become an issue. It's got nothing to do with steering (light and easy) or blind spots – of which there are few and besides, you've got an array of electronics, including a back-up camera and buzzer to warn you before you actually hit something. It is just the sheer size of this thing vs. the not-so-sheer size of everything else. For instance, most parking spots are sized to accommodate a current-era mid-sized passenger car, both width-wise as well as length-wise. Even after pulling partially in and backing out (and then doing it again) to get the ESV lined up, it is still a tight squeeze and not infrequently, you'll find you can't fully open the (also huge) door to get out or back in because you're parked so close to the cars on either side. And when you try to back out of a space, it can take a lot of minute and careful work (and time) to avoid backing into the cars parked in the next row opposite. It's not like driving a normal-sized car, that you can just jump into and go. Even when you're out on the main road, the side blind spot alert built into the outside rearview mirrors will often go off as a result of trees and berms on the shoulder – as well as passing vehicles – because of the ESV's wide-load width. You'll be much closer to things on either side of you than you would be in an average-sized car. Also, be sure you measure the length and width of your garage before you bring the ESV home. I am not kidding. If your home was built after the mid-1980s, the garage may (like parking spaces in public) have been designed to handle the typical-sized car of that era. You will need about 19 feet of length to just clear the bumper with the garage door closed. Twenty feet to make it so you can walk behind the bumper with the garage door closed. Same issue with the Navigator L. These are titanic-sized vehicles. Be sure you can deal with it, both on the road and at home. The 6.2 liter V-8 delivers godlike power, everywhere – anytime. Touch the gas, and the ESV goes. The 6.2 liter GM V-8 is also a simpler and probably more rugged powerplant than the Lincoln Navigator's 5.4 liter overhead cam V-8. Overhead cam V-8s like the Navigator's were supposed to be the future of V-8 engine design, but GM has proved that pushrod V-8s can be just as smooth, rev just as freely and produce even more power without all the extra parts (and expense) of an OHC layout. I guess it doesn't really matter in a vehicle with a starting price of $65k, but it's likely the ESV's pushrod, two-valve engine will be less expensive to maintain and repair as the miles accrue. AT THE CURB Like it or hate the ESV is an attention-getter and not just because it's Hulk Hogan huge. The Navigator is about the same size, but it's a much quieter vehicle, aesthetically speaking. The ESV shares kinship with the rock star Caddies of the late '50s and 1960s but instead of jutting fins it has a gaping chromed-out grille and dazzling foot-tall LED headlights to provide the menace. Now add 22 inch ree-uhms, two inches taller than the tallest ree-uhms available on the Navigator. In black with tinted windows this is an intimidating vehicle – no surprise that federal heavies like the Secret Service favor it over the Navigator. You've gotta see the inside, too. It is a true fact that you can take a Holiday Inn (the Chevy Tahoe/Suburban) gut it to the studs, rebuild it with cost no object, and end up with the Ritz. As obstreperous as it may be on the outside, the ESV is every stitch and hand-cut piece of Olive Ash and Walnut Burl wood trim as opulent on the inside as it ought to be, given the MSRP. A tarted-up Tahoe, this isn't. In fact, I don't think there's a single common part – from the jeweled gauge cluster to the pasha-plush carpets. And no Tahoe – or Navigator – comes with heated and cooled beverage holders. Want the proverbial kitchen sink? It's gotta be in there somewhere. I know for sure there are individual high-definition DVD monitors built into the seatbacks, along with wireless headphones; auto-retractable running boards to help you climb aboard – and power folding second-row seats. Fit, finish and attention to detail cannot be faulted. You won't find a cheap-out anywhere, even if you crawl under the seats to look. You pay to play, but you do get top-of-the-line everything. The only thing missing that I could see was a case of Dom Perignon but you can probably get the dealer to throw that in. And, size does matter. Unlike the hordes of "full-sized" crossovers and even SUVs that allegedly seat seven, but really seat five adults and maybe a couple of young kids who have no choice about being condemned to third row seats that are really for-looks-only, seven big adults enjoy Texas-sized spreadin' out room in the ESV – and there's still acres of room for Stuff in the back. The ESV's second-row captains chairs are as nice – and have as much room around them – as you'll find in many RVs. Fold them and you have almost 140 cubic feet of cargo capacity. Put a Smart car back there, maybe. THE REST This is a rich man's machine – and not just MSRP-wise, either. Just feeding it will cost more than the average prole's car payment. The window sticker on my test vehicle says about $4,000 annually – which works out to about $330 a month. That'll pay for an entire Camry, just for some perspective. So, Escalade ownership is as much about status and indulgence as it is about mere functionality. Any middle manager can drive a Tahoe. And maybe his boss can drive a Navigator or perhaps a Yukon XL, if it's been a really good year. But only their boss can drive an ESV. And that's what it's all about. THE BOTTOM LINE It's the ultimate. Nothing bigger, nothing stronger, nothing more kitchen sink opulent that's also all of these things together. And in my mind, that makes it a Cadillac. Comments? Are You A NMA Member? If not, read about the benefits and then join! 2012 Cadillac Escalade ESV Review Further Reading:
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from National Motorists Association Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
--
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.
Hey, hey, ho, ho, muzzieshits you gotta go.
Islamophobia?
Not if they really are trying to kill you.
B
Muslims Demand We Stop Celebrating Christmas
Faithful Muslim leaders in Europe and their allies in United States begin a campaign to stop all of us from wishing "Merry Christmas". According to their document just released, we should all go to hell for even putting up Christmas light. They threaten hell to pay on those who celebrate the birth of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Will you be intimidated this year and only say "happy holidays" or "seasons greetings" or hide your Christmas tree in schools and censor out Christianity from the front of our public buildings out of fear of what the muslim terrorists might do to you if you dare celebrate the most important event in all of history?
To find out more of the demands of terrorist supporting muslims united in Europe and United States, watch this expose on the one demanding all Christmas celebrations to stop:
Choudary has learned to try to polish his deceitful presentations a bit, but has a hard time containing himself, as revealed during his interviews on BBC revealing his support for terrorists and calling for execution of citizens who leave islam.
Here is the islamic document with famous muslim judge's quotes from qur'an on why hellfire awaits any who dare to even put up a Christmas tree or Christmas lights during the celebration of The Nativity of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
In response to their demand, our wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas shall include a response in the language of the Arab Christians who lived peacefully for hundreds of years before islam forced its way through terrorist jihad atrocities on loving Christians and other nonmuslim people around the world. This worship hymn of our LORD is from the Church of Antioch where we were first called Christians.
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
