Stormfront is Full of Lies

The White Nationalists are chronic liars who make baseless claims and
rarely provide any evidence to support their claims.Moreover, the
moderators of the group protect their lies from exposure by not
approving any messages that challenge their claims.

--
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.

Want to See an Unhinged, Deranged, Psychotic B*tch?

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Want to See an Unhinged, Deranged, Psychotic B*tch? by catscanner150 Get your barfbags ready! Now I'm sorry to submit our loyal readers and fellow posters to this rabid, utterly insane cow but I thought you should know what we are up against. The evil that permeates through this woman and through the democrat party as a whole is not to be taken lightly, it needs to be defeated and vanquished from our society. Her along with Obama, Reid and Pelosi and all democrats are a disease eating away at the very fabric of our nation, They have to be stopped, they have to exorcised from the political arena once and for all. ~Tom in NC catscanner150 | February 16, 2012 at 6:45 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-cxG 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/2012/02/16/want-to-see-an-unhinged-deranged-psychotic-btch/ 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.

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ?

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ?
by Tommy Ester on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 1:14pm ·
What if they left .....Somebody really did their homework on this one.
Best on the subject to present date.

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America ?

I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a
column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament".
I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting
Denver last week. Hernandez said, "illegal aliens pay rent, buy
groceries, buy clothes. What Happens to your country's economy if 20
million people go away?" Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?

So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS
I found below.

It's a good question it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of
Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But
what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America ? The
answers I found may surprise you!

In California , if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico,it
would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school
systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave
highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand
one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado , 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and
grandchilds would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico . That would save
Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion)
annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and
incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of
Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the
terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens.
Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not
have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate
because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different
languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our grid locked
cities in Colorado . Denver 's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as
our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida , 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back
to America , the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois , 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals,
schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free
experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would
return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American
citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of
taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would
result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected
annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in
American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that
degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded
schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost
of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more
than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members
who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our
country.

In cities like L.A. , 20,000 members of the ' 18th Street Gang' would
vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft
from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways
and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American
deaths by illegal aliens!

America 's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get
rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home
countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money
untaxed, which further drains America 's economy which currently
suffers an $8.7 trillion debt. $8.7 trillion debt !!

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country,
costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in
California , Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of
being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the
EMTOLA Act.

Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant
in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and
grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the
horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our
greenhouse gases.
Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and
along our border from Brownsville, Texas to San Diego, California in
what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods.
Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where
grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and
worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads,
electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America's new ' Third World '
inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate,
they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. (I've seen them
personally in Texas and Arizona ; it's sickening beyond anything you
can imagine.)

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico . We
should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries
and/or make a better life in Mexico . We already invite a million
people into our country legally more than all other countries combined
annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more
anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in
our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization
and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics !

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope
they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many
times that the reader gets sick of reading them:

1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare
to illegal aliens. (that's Billion with a 'B') http://tinyurl.com/zob77.html

3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal
aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary
school education for children here illegally and they still cannot
speak a word of English!http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/
ldt.01.html

5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the
American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal
aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for
welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are
caused by the illegal aliens. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's
two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular,
their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in
the US . http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-
eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth,
heroin, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S.from the
southern border.http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of
mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average
cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period
and nbsp; http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/publications.php?b=deportation

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back
to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.
http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex
crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States !
http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!

If this doesn't bother YOU, then just delete the message. Otherwise,
forward this to everyone YOU know!

IN GOD WE TRUST

We live in the land of the free, because of the brave!

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

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

Who Won World War II?

"Who won World War II? The communists did, along with the lovers of big government here at home, who then used the communist threat to turn America into a garrison warfare state."

Thursday, February 16, 2012
Who Won World War II?
by Jacob G. Hornberger

I'm always intrigued by those in the pro-interventionist crowd who trot out World War II to justify U.S. imperialist interventionism in the Middle East and the rest of the world. They always act as if the United States won World War II and also saved the Jews from the Holocaust. Nothing could be so ridiculous.

With respect to the European Jews, virtually all of them were dead by the end of the war. World War II did not save them from the Holocaust.

Equally important, the United States did not enter the war to save the Jews from the Holocaust. It entered the war because Germany declared war on the United States after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

If the Japanese had not attacked and had Germany not declared war on the United States, it's not at all clear that the United States would have ever entered the war. Recognizing that World War I had entailed a total waste of American lives and resources, most Americans were steadfastly opposed to entering another foreign war in Europe.

They ostensibly included Franklin Roosevelt, who told Americans during his 1940 presidential campaign, "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again; your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars."

Of course, most people now concede that Roosevelt was lying and, in fact, was doing everything he could to thwart the will of the American people by provoking both the Germans and the Japanese into attacking first, thereby trapping Americans into entering the war.

We also shouldn't forget about the U.S. government's attitude toward Jews, including those living in Germany and Poland. Roosevelt's government didn't like them any more than the Hitler regime did. Indeed, when Hitler offered to let the Jews leave Germany alive, Roosevelt wouldn't let them come to the United States worth. Immigration quotas was the excuse he used.

For that matter, don't forget how Roosevelt's government treated German Jews in the infamous "Voyage of the Damned," when U.S. officials refused to permit Jewish refugees from Germany to disembark at Miami Harbor, knowing that the German ship captain would likely be relegated to returning them to Nazi Germany.

No, the sad truth is that U.S. entry into World War II did not save the Jews from the Holocaust, nor was that ever a goal of the U.S. government.

"But, Jacob, we beat the Nazis. Doesn't that mean that we won World War II?"

Not exactly. You see, it turns on the meaning of the pronoun "we." By "we" the interventionists mean "Great Britain, France, the United States, and the Soviet Union."

But if you break down that pronoun into its individual parts, you immediately notice a problem. Great Britain, France, and the United States didn't win the war. The Soviet Union did.

Let's think back to who declared war on whom. When Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland, Great Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Why did they do that? Their announced goal was to free the Polish people from Nazi tyranny.

Why didn't they also declare war on the Soviet Union, given that it too had invaded Poland? Good question! The interventionists never have an answer to that one.

So, what was the result at the end of World War II? Were the Polish people freed from Nazi tyranny?

Well, yes, and interventionists love to point that out.

But there is a problem here. While "we" celebrated our victory over the Nazis for the next several decades, the Poles didn't.

Why not?

Because they remained under the control of the Soviet Union for the next several decades! Remember: the Soviet Union is part of the "we" when interventionists exclaim that "we" won the war.

What's wrong with remaining under the control of the Soviet Union? you ask. Well, the Soviet Union was governed by a communist regime, one that was as brutal as the Nazi regime. Thus, while U.S. interventionists convinced themselves that communist domination was somehow better than Nazi domination, the Poles knew that there wasn't any difference at all.

Then, to add insult to injury, U.S. interventionists used the Soviet Union -- yes, their former World War II partner and ally that is part of the "we" -- to justify the massive build-up of the U.S. military-industrial complex and the national-security state, along with their ever-growing military and CIA budgets, secrecy, assassinations, coups, regime-change operations, Cold War, Korean War, Vietnam War, MKULTRA, COINTELPRO, and all the rest that came as a result of the post-World War II "communist threat" to America.

So, World War II gave us Soviet communist control over Eastern Europe and East Germany along with an ever-burgeoning warfare state here at home, and interventionists continue to maintain that "we" won World War II. Oh, I almost forgot to mention that the post-war era also brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation against our old World War II partner and ally, the Soviet Union, with whom "we" won World War II.

The interventionists say that if the United States hadn't entered World War II, Germany would have invaded and conquered the United States. Oh? Are they referring to the nation that couldn't even successfully cross the English Channel to invade and conquer England?

Moreover, there isn't one iota of evidence that Hitler even desired to cross the ocean to invade and occupy the United States. Hitler's intentions were always to move east -- against the Soviet Union -- yes, against the nation that would ultimately turn out to be the Cold War enemy of the United States -- after serving as World War II partner and ally.

Moreover, if the United States could survive a world in which the Soviet Union controlled East Germany and Eastern Europe, why couldn't it have done the same with a world in which Nazi Germany controlled Germany and Eastern Europe?

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that the U.S. victory over Japan, while succeeding in causing Japanese forces to leave China, also ended up with China in the hands of Mao and the Chinese communists, a situation that remains to this day. I suppose though that U.S. interventionists would say that that's not necessarily a bad thing given that the Chinese communist regime loaned the U.S. government the money to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who won World War II? The communists did, along with the lovers of big government here at home, who then used the communist threat to turn America into a garrison warfare state.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-02-16.asp

Welcome To The "I Hate Obama Book Club"

From Bob

Welcome To The "I Hate Obama Book Club"

Tue, 02/14/2012 - 1:16am —
Bill Press

The following is an excerpt from Bill Press' new book, "The Obama Hate
Machine," published by Thomas Dunne Books.

The American landscape, unfortunately, is peppered with presidential
libraries, most of which are not worth the time or money for a visit.
Each president gets one.

But with Barack Obama, it's going to be different. He will become the
first former president to require two presidential libraries: one to
house the personal papers and historical record of America's first
African-American president;

the second to house the mountain of Obama hate books that have been
published during his time in office.
Who says President Obama hasn't helped grow the economy? Just ask
conservative imprints Regnery Publishing or Encounter Books .

The Daily Beast's John Avlon was the first to track down the
anti-Obama literature in detail. By his count, there were five books
attacking Obama published even before he reached the White House. By
year three of his presidency, a staggering sixty-seven books, at a
minimum, had been published that demonized Barack Obama — far more
than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush had to contend with — and
the number keeps growing.

Even though throwing mud at Bill Clinton was a favorite pastime of the
far right, keeping Regnery and other publishers busy, only eleven
anti-Clinton books had been published by his two-year anniversary.
George Bush got off even easier. According to Avlon, only five
anti-Dubya books had hit the shelves by the same time in his
presidency. Only in 2004, after his contentious reelection campaign,
did the number of anti- Bush books reach forty-six.

Granted, some of these anti-Obama books can be dismissed as nutty
screeds written by crazies nobody ever heard of and self- ublished
through services like CreateSpace. But most were in fact released by
mainstream publishing houses. And the list of authors includes a
former attorney general of the United States, a former ambassador to
the United Nations, a former Speaker of the House, a former Ohio
secretary of state, prominent conservative commentators, and at least
four top national radio and TV talk- show hosts: Sean Hannity, Bill
O'Reilly, Michael Savage, and Laura Ingraham.

Together, they command a broad audience. And together, in print as on
the airwaves, they have decided that the only way to bring down
President Obama is not to challenge his policies but to undermine his
personal credibility. In their warped world, Obama is not just wrong
on the economy; he is a Marxist-socialist Manchurian candidate
channeling the radical, antiimperial politics of his father and
grandfather.

With such a flood of hate literature— its lies duly repeated and
promoted on radio, cable television, and online— it's no surprise that
so many Americans are willing to believe demonstrably false things
about Barack Obama. As this book goes to print, 25 percent of all
Americans, and 41 percent of all Republicans, believe Obama was not
born in the United States. One of every five Americans still believes
he is a Muslim, and a whopping 55 percent are convinced he's a
socialist. "I read it in a book, I saw it on television, so it must be
true."

But, as with all the other arms of the Hate Obama Machine, the hate
Obama literature differs both in quantity and intensity. It's not a
handful; it's an avalanche. It's not thoughtful political dissent;
it's a wave of ugly personal attacks— as evidenced by even a quick
glance through each of the anti- Obama titles.

Don't worry. You don't have to read them all. I've skimmed them for
you. (Click here to see the list of 67 anti-Obama books in full,
including six that take a more traditionally populist -- and less
right-wing -- tone.) This is the URL:

http://www.nationalmemo.com/article/67-anti-obama-books

Here's a quick look at some of my favorites:
10. Cullen, Mike. Whiny Little Bitch: The Excuse-Filled Presidency of
Barack Obama.
Publisher: Quite Right Books, June 2010.
Between the Covers: The title says it all. Don't expect much from this
book, and you won't be disappointed. Even one sympathetic reviewer had
to acknowledge that it's no "in- depth" account of the Obama
administration. It's a thin book, full of thin and stale criticisms of
Obama's messianic complex, his slighting of allies, his being too hard
on Wall Street, his surrounding himself with cronies, his race
baiting, etc., etc. Cullen proves there's an audience for any
anti-Obama drivel, no matter how shallow.

18. Geller, Pamela and Robert Spencer. The Post-American Presidency:
The Obama Administration's War on America.
Publisher: Threshold Editions, July 2010.

Between the Covers: If you truly believe that Barack Obama is "the
most radical individual ever to occupy the White House," this is the
book for you. Geller and Spencer sound yet another call to arms to
Americans concerned about Obama's plot to destroy our free- market
system and nationalize major segments of our economy. Billed as "the
true patriot's handbook," Geller's book urges conservatives to rise up
and stop Obama in his tracks, while there is still any America left to
defend.

51. O'Leary, Brad. The Audacity of Deceit: Barack Obama's War on
American Values.
Publisher: WND Books, September 2008.

Between the Covers: Lucky for Barack Obama I didn't read this book
before the 2008 election, or I would never have voted for him. How
could anyone other than an outright Communist vote for him after Brad
O'Leary told you what his real agenda was. No kidding. Few people
realized that Barack Obama had these seven top goals: to raise the top
tax rate to 60 percent; to grant citizenship to twelve million illegal
immigrants; to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the
Second Amendment; to take 25 percent of farmland out of production; to
transfer care of children under five from parents to government; to
set up new government agency to decide which medical procedures
seniors qualify for; and to make it easier for more Democrats to get
elected by allowing felons to vote. Of course, that may have been a
good way to scare people. But it didn't work. And, needless to say,
not one of O'Leary's predictions has come true.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/content/welcome-i-hate-obama-book-club

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
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.

It’s Not about Contraception

"Women have the right to contraception (and any other product) in the sense that they have a right to spend their money on it or to try to persuade someone else to do so. There can be no right to force (or have the government force) others to pay. This controversy is not about contraception. It's about freedom versus compulsion."

The Goal Is Freedom
It's Not about Contraception
Negative versus positive
Sheldon Richman
Posted February 17, 2012

When you bake a bad ingredient into a cake, no matter how nicely you decorate it, the cake will still be bad.

That's the lesson to take from the controversy over Obamacare, Catholicism, and contraception. To recap, under Obamacare all employers will be required to arrange for "health insurance" for their employees. Coverage must include various disease-preventive health services and women's contraception at no charge to employees. No premium-sharing, no copays -- nothing.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which has ominous rule-making power under Obamacare, exempted Catholic churches (as employers) from this rule because Catholicism teaches that contraception is sinful. However, HHS did not exempt Catholic institutions whose mission (the government says) extends beyond religion, namely, colleges, hospitals, and charities. Those institutions would have to pay (nominally at least) for their women employees' birth-control products and services.

That seemingly arbitrary distinction set off a political firestorm intense enough to force the Obama administration back to the drawing board. Under President Obama's so-called "accommodation," all Catholic institutions would be exempt from paying for contraception after all, but their insurance companies would have to provide the coverage at no cost.

Top Catholic officials are still unhappy, though other prominent Catholics are satisfied. The matter isn't settled yet. (Aside: Is there a significant difference between a Catholic institution's being forced to pay for employees' birth control and its being forced to arrange the match between its employees and the insurance company that will pay for it?)

In announcing his "accommodation," Obama said that religious liberty has been squared with a "core principle": "a law that requires free preventive care will not discriminate against women." We need not "choose between individual liberty and basic fairness for all Americans." Since men's contraception is not mandated for free coverage, Obama's remark about discrimination is puzzling.


Competing Liberty Interests?

Washington Post column E. J. Dionne, a Catholic and an enthusiast for Obamacare, put it this way: "There were legitimate liberty interests on both sides of this debate." He is satisfied that both "liberty interests" have been served.

What exactly are the two liberty interests? One is clear: an institution wishes not to be compelled to facilitate what it regards as morally abhorrent. (The validity of that moral judgment is irrelevant.) But what's the other one? One infers from the discussion that it's women's liberty to use contraception. (A third liberty interest -- an insurer's wish not to be forced to give away its services -- is strangely overlooked.)

How exactly was the liberty to use contraception jeopardized by the Catholic exemption? In no way would a woman's freedom in this respect be infringed simply because her employer was free to choose not to pay for her contraceptive products and services. (See last week's TGIF on why volitional acts such as using contraception and other preventive measures are neither free nor insurable.)

Yet advocates of Obamacare insist on conflating these issues. They repeatedly portray opposition to forced financing of contraception as opposition to contraception itself. (Alas, some conservatives have encouraged this conflation.) Must the difference really be spelled out?

This sort of argument is nothing new, of course. In The Law (1850), Frederic Bastiat noted that advocates of government-run schools accused those who opposed them of being against education itself.


Prohibitive Expense

When pressed, proponents of "free" employer-provided contraception will claim (as though this were responsive) that many women can't afford birth control and that insurance companies would save money by giving it away. (Why haven't the insurers thought of that?)

Taking these in reverse order, the second argument begs the question. Insurance companies allegedly would save money because they wouldn't have to pay for medical services associated with having children. That assumes that if the insurer were not providing  free contraception, women would have to do without. But that is precisely what is in dispute. Why assume that?

As for the claim about the allegedly prohibitive expense, one may properly ask how that could justify forcing others to pay. It's amusing to watch advocates of free contraception cite as evidence for their position polls showing that women overwhelmingly support no-cost contraception. Since when have people not wanted free stuff? Women have managed to obtain birth control up until now (we're repeatedly told that nearly all women, including Catholics, have used it), and low-income women can resort to Planned Parenthood if necessary, which already gets taxpayer money (which is not to say it should).


When a "Right" Is Not a Right

What we have in this debate is a clash not between two liberty interests, but rather between two rights-claims – one negative (genuine), the other positive (counterfeit). All that is required for the exercise of a negative right (to life, liberty, and one's legitimately acquired belongings) is other people's noninterference. But the fulfillment of positive rights requires that other people act affirmatively even if they don't want to ­ say, by providing products or paying the bills. If one person's freedom depends on the infringement of someone else's freedom, the first claim is illegitimate. To hold otherwise is to reject the principle of equality.

Women have the right to contraception (and any other product) in the sense that they have a right to spend their money on it or to try to persuade someone else to do so. There can be no right to force (or have the government force) others to pay. This controversy is not about contraception. It's about freedom versus compulsion.

As long as that bad ingredient -- the principle that government may coerce people to buy things for others -- is baked into the cake, it will be rotten no matter how it's nicely decorated.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/its-not-about-contraception/

Take meaningful steps towards a democratic transition, peace and national reconciliation

16 February 2012

 

H. E. Dr. Surin Pitsuwan

Secretary General of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations

The ASEAN Secretariat

70A Jl. Sisingamangaraja

Jakarta 12110 · Indonesia

 

 

Your Excellency,

 

I write to you today  to share my lingering concerns about on-going human rights violations in Burma/Myanmar ahead of your mission to the country on 20 February 2012.

I would like to request that you use this opportunity to urge President Thein Sein and his government to take meaningful steps towards a democratic transition, peace and national reconciliation as well as to put an end to gross human rights violations in the country.

Thein Sein's government has taken a number of indisputably positive steps since November 2011, when Burma/Myanmar was granted the chairpersonship of ASEAN for 2014. These include the release of close to three hundred well known political prisoners, changes in the election laws to allow the National League for Democracy, a popular opposition party, to participate in an upcoming by-election, and the loosening of pre-publication censorship requirements. While I welcome these encouraging developments, Burma/Myanmar should put forth the necessary effort in order to lead ASEAN in 2014, particularly given the fact that the ASEAN Charter commits member states "to the principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, respect for protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

I note with concern that the recent negotiations between government representatives and ethnic armed groups have not led to an end to conflict and the Burma Army continues to perpetrate gross human rights abuses against ethnic civilians. On 6 February 2012, despite the presence of a ceasefire agreement signed on 2 December 2011, Burma Army units shelled a base belonging to the Shan State Army-South in Mong Ping Township in Eastern Shan State. In a statement dated 5 February 2012, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Myanmar, Mr. Tomas Ojea Quintana, commented that he "received continuing allegations of serious human rights violations committed during conflict, including attacks against civilian populations, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, internal displacement, land confiscations, the use of human shields, the recruitment of child soldiers, as well as forced labor and portering." The reigning culture of impunity empowers Burma Army soldiers to continue perpetrating such abuses without fear of punishment. Mr. Quintana also stated that "I remain of the firm conviction that justice and accountability measures, as well as measures to ensure access to the truth, are fundamental for Myanmar to move forward towards national reconciliation."

 

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the recent easing of media censorship and other "openings" that have been hailed by the international community has not been accompanied by legislative reforms. Repressive laws in Burma/Myanmar which include restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly and the press remain on the books, unamended consequently, the people of Burma/Myanmar continue to fear arrest for their political activities, thus limiting their ability to participate in public life.

 

 

The recent release of political prisoners has been praised as one of the most significant steps on the road to democracy. However, hundreds of political prisoners still remain behind bars. Additionally, those prisoners released on 13 January 2012 were freed under Article 401(1)[3] of the Code of Criminal Procedure which allows for prisoners' sentences to be suspended or remitted. Since the prisoners had their sentences suspended, rather than receiving amnesty as occurred in past prisoner releases, these sentences can be reinstated should the former prisoners commit another breach of the law.

 

Given that laws prohibiting freedom of expression remain in place, speaking out against the government will endanger them to be imprisoned again. Furthermore, we are disturbed by the fact that a Buddhist monk, Ashin Gambira, one of the leaders of the Saffron revolution, was re-arrested on 10 February 2012, less than a month after his release, reportedly because of his attempts to open monasteries closed by the government. While Ashin Gambira was thankfully released later that day, this was an apparent act of intimidation on the part of the government, seeking to silence an outspoken individual who is viewed as threatening their hold on power.

I believe that Burma/Myanmar needs to complete genuine democratic reforms as an essential prerequisite to leading ASEAN in promoting "regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law." Special Rapporteur Quintana stated in his 5 February press conference that "prior to its assumption of the Chairpersonship of ASEAN in 2014, I would encourage Myanmar to demonstrate concrete progress in improving its human rights situation. The international community should remain engaged and should support and assist the Government during this important time."

Recognizing your important visit at this critical juncture is aimed at encouraging the government of Burma/Myanmar "to seize the moment to mobilize its collective efforts to promote continuing peace, stability and prosperity in Myanmar and ASEAN", I therefore specifically request you to urge the government of Burma/Myanmar to take the following actions:

 

·         Release all remaining political prisoners unconditionally;

 

·         Immediately stop intimidation and surveillance of released political prisoners;

 

·         Reach a nationwide ceasefire that addresses the root causes of conflict with ethnic armed groups;

 

·         Address the issue of accountability for human rights abuses and put an end to the ability of the Army to perpetrate crimes with impunity; and

 

·         Amend or repeal those laws that restrict the fundamental freedoms of the people of Burma/Myanmar in order to allow all of the country's people to fully participate in public life.

 

Sincerely yours,

William Nicholas Gomes

William's Desk

www.williamgomes.org

Download: MAYANMAR-Take meaningful steps towards a democratic transition, peace and national reconciliation

http://www.williamgomes.org/?p=492
https://www.facebook.com/williamnicholasgomes
--
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.