• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0







 



 

 

This should blow your mind!

 

 

check this out FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS GUTS AND A BIG WALLET !!!!

                       

2 gallons per minute and 38 miles to a $28,000 set of tires.

MSRP..$1,700,000 !
  Already sold out !

Sit back and watch this....Make sure you use full screen !
  (Small button on the right)

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=21927
 

 

 

 

 


--
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.
0
 

 
Subject: CATCHING PIGS, INTERESTING CONCEPT
 

THIS IS TRULY THOUGHT PROVOKING. TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT AND SEND IT ON TO THOSE THAT YOU THINK ARE WORTH SENDING TO, AS I HAVE DONE.

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class.

One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man, an exchange student, who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if
his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter.

The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist regime.

In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked:
"Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man said that it was no joke "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs
find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place
where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence.
They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate
to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept
their captivity."

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually
lose our freedoms, just a little at a time.

One should always remember two truths:
There is no such thing as a free lunch and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.
If you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of our republic in America, you might want to send this on to your friends.

If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably delete this email.

Watch out when the gate slams shut!



 
 

__._,_.___
 
.

__,_._,___

--
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.
0


 Witness a shoplifting...
 





Where does she put the case of beer?

 
And you thought David Copperfield was quick?















--
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: "Your" Car Won't Be After 2015


"Your" Car Won't Be After 2015

Posted: 23 Apr 2012 09:18 AM PDT

Your Car Wont Be After 2015
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist

After a certain point, it's not paranoia.

The latest brick in the wall is the predictably named "Moving Ahead For Progress in the 21st Century Act," also known as Senate Bill 1813. (See here for the full text of the bill itself; the relevant section is 31406.) This legislation — already passed by the Senate and likely to be passed by the House — will impose a legal requirement that all new cars made beginning with the 2015 models be fitted with so-called Event Data Recorders (EDRs). These are the "black boxes" you may have read about that store data about how you drive — including whether you wear a seat belt and how fast you drive — ostensibly for purposes of post-accident investigation.

These EDRs are not new. GM and other automakers have been installing them in new cars for years — in GM's case, since the late 1990s. What's new is the proposed federal mandate, which would make it illegal to not have one — or (in all likelihood) to remove or disable one in a car required to have the device.

The question arises: why?

Several possibilities come to mind:

First, the EDRs could — and almost certainly will be — tied into your vehicle's GPS. (Most new and late model cars, conveniently, already have this, too.) Then data about your driving can be transmitted — as well as recorded. To whom? Your insurance company, of course. Progressive Insurance already has such a system in place — voluntary, for the moment.

When EDRs are mandated, you will no longer have a choice.

We'll be told it's all for the sake of (groan) "safety" — just like the old 55 MPH highway speed limit and every radar trap in the country. Of course, it's really for the sake of revenue — the government's and the insurance company's. Your rates will be "adjusted" in real time, for every incident of "speeding" or not buckling up. It'll be so much more efficient than using cops to issue tickets. After all, so many fishes escape! With an EDR in every car, no one will escape. Your "adjusted" premium will be waiting for you when you get home.

You've got mail!

And naturally, they — the government, insurance companies — will be able to track your every move, noting (and recording) where you've been and when. This will create a surveillance net beyond anything that ever existed previously. Some will not sweat this: After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why worry? Except for the fact that, courtesy of almost everything we do being either "illegal" or at least "suspicious" we all have a great deal to hide. The naivety of the Don't Worry, it's No Big Deal crowd is breathtaking. Did the average Soviet citizen also "not have anything to hide," and hence why worry?

But the last possibility is probably the creepiest possibility: EDRs tied into your car's GPS will give them — the government and/or corporations — literal physical control over (hack) "your" vehicle. This is not conspiracy theorizing. It is technological fact. Current GM vehicles equipped with the same technology about to be mandated for every vehicle can be disabled remotely. Just turned off. All the OnStar operator has to do is send the appropriate command over the GPS to your car's computer, which controls the engine. It is one of the features touted by OnStar — of course, as a "safety" feature.

In the future, it will be used to limit your driving — for the sake of "energy conservation" or perhaps, "the environment." It will be the perfect, er, vehicle, for implementing U.N. Agenda 21 — the plan to herd all of us formerly free-range tax cattle into urban feedlots. So much easier to control us this way. No more bailing out to the country or living off the grid — unless you get there (and to your work) by walking.

The pieces are all coming together.

First, computer-controlled cars. Next, widespread adoption of GPS in cars. Then, EDRs tied into them.

Viola. "Your" car is suddenly under the control of others. Just as "your" other (cough, hack) property — "your" home, for example — is under the control of others. It does not matter that you paid for it. Or even that you have the legal fiction of ownership. You do not control "your" property — hence it is really the property of others. You are merely allowed to use said property — under certain conditions, by the leave of the true owners — the government and its cronies in the corporatocracy.

And once SB 1813 is passed and signed into law, there will no longer be an opt-out. In fact, sure as the rooster crows in the morning, you can bet the next step will a law requiring older cars not originally fitted with the technology be fitted with it — or else decommissioned. It is inconceivable that they — the government and its insurance company cronies — will allow anyone to drive a vehicle not subject to this monitoring and control. They will insist it's not "safe" — and of course, "unfair" that owners of older cars not equipped with EDRs are able to "get away" with "speeding" and not wearing their seat belts.

Our cars were once a tangible expression of the freedom ideal. They are fast becoming mobile cages. And the really devilish thing is they're making us pay the costs of our own imprisonment, too.

Comments?
www.epautos.com

Are You A NMA Member? If not, read about the benefits and then join!



"Your" Car Won't Be After 2015

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.


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Before You Start A Race War, You'd Better Know What You Will Be Up Against

by catscanner150

Man Beaten By Mob, Arrests Expected Today

'Justice for Trayvon': Alabama Man in Critical Condition After Mob Beating

Mobile police expect to make arrests in the Matthew Owens beating case today.

Owens is in critical condition at USA Medical Center, three days after police say he was beaten by "multiple people" armed with chairs, pipes and paint cans Saturday night in front of his house on Delmar Drive.

Police are downplaying the Trayvon Martin comment, but the family insists one of the attackers said "Now thats justice for Trayvon" after the attack. Trayvon Martin is the unarmed teenager police say was shot and killed February 26 by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Samford, Florida.

Monday 6:55 p.m.
Mobile police need your help to catch a mob that beat Matthew Owens so badly that he's in critical condition.

According to police, Owens fussed at some kids playing basketball in the middle of Delmar Drive about 8:30 Saturday night. They say the kids left and a group of adults returned, armed with everything but the kitchen sink.

Police tell News 5 the suspects used chairs, pipes and paint cans to beat Owens.

Owens' sister, Ashley Parker, saw the attack. "It was the scariest thing I have ever witnessed." Parker says 20 people, all African American, attacked her brother on the front porch of his home, using "brass buckles, paint cans and anything they could get their hands on."

Police will only say "multiple people" are involved.

What Parker says happened next could make the fallout from the brutal beating even worse. As the attackers walked away, leaving Owen bleeding on the ground, Parker says one of them said "Now thats justice for Trayvon." Trayvon Martin is the unarmed teenager police say was shot and killed February 26 by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman in Samford, Florida.

Police canvassed the area, but did not find any suspects. They're asking anyone with information to call them at 251-208-7211, Crime Stoppers at 251-208-7000, or text a tip to 274637 and include the keyword CRIME 411.

I'm not a racist by any stretch of the imagination, but I will tell you right now that if these race baiters and black racists want to start a race war in this country then you should be warned up front, we won't be fighting back using chairs, chains, paint cans or brass knuckles. We will fight back with numbers, such as 9mm, 12 gauge, .38, .44 and .357 just to name a few.

Tom in NC

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/2012/04/24/before-you-start-a-race-war-youd-better-know-what-you-will-be-up-against/

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.
                     *  Exported from  MasterCook  *

                        Stewed Dog (wedding style)

Recipe By     : Joe Sweeney
Serving Size  : 30   Preparation Time :3:00
Categories    : Ethnic                           Lamb
                Philippines

  Amount  Measure       Ingredient -- Preparation Method
--------  ------------  --------------------------------
   3      kg            dog meat -- * see note
   1 1/2  cups          vinegar
  60                    peppercorns -- crushed
   6      tablespoons   salt
  12      cloves        garlic -- crushed
     1/2  cup           cooking oil
   6      cups          onion -- sliced
   3      cups          tomato sauce
  10      cups          boiling water
   6      cups          red pepper -- cut into strips
   6      pieces        bay leaf
   1      teaspoon      tabasco sauce
   1 1/2  cups          liver spread -- ** see note
   1      whole         fresh pineapple -- cut 1/2 inch thick

1. First, kill a medium sized dog, then burn off the fur over a hot fire.
2. Carefully remove the skin while still warm and set aside for later (may be
used in other recpies)
3. Cut meat into 1″ cubes. Marinade meat in mixture of vinegar, peppercorn,
salt and garlic for 2 hours.
4. Fry meat in oil using a large wok over an open fire, then add onions and
chopped pineapple and suate until tender.
5. Pour in tomato sauce and boiling water, add green peper, bay leaf and
tobasco.
6. Cover and simmer over warm coals until meat is tender. Blend in liver spread
and cook for additional 5-7 minutes.

* you can substiture lamb for dog. The taste is similar, but not as pungent.
** smooth liver pate will do as well.


                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Suggested Wine: San Miguel Beer
Serving Ideas : Rice, naturally.

NOTES : During my wedding reception, my brother- in-law suggested we add to the
feast by having dog stew.  Wanting to be part of the family, and having been
subjected to all sorts of socials tests already,  I agreed. The result was...
well.. a lot better than I expected. In fact, it was great!

It was only later I found out that dog should *not* be served at weddings, as
it may make the bride and groom flight like dogs during the honeymoon. But what
the heck. It didn't seem to have that effect... at least not until a few year
later. :-)

For the faint of heart, you can always substitute lamb in place of next door's
rover, but the meat will not be as sweet or as rich in flavor.

Nutr. Assoc. : 3831 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 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.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Majors
Date: Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Subject: The Mental Recession:20 Black Adults Beat White Man In Attempt to Get 'Justice for Trayvon'
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


Bruce Majors has sent you a link to a blog:



Blog: The Mental Recession
Post: 20 Black Adults Beat White Man In Attempt to Get 'Justice for Trayvon'
Link: http://mentalrecession.blogspot.com/2012/04/20-black-adults-beat-white-man-in.html

--
Powered by Blogger
http://www.blogger.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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apTouMWnMGo&list=UUuGUeweabuRpAZOustJAIkQ&index=10&feature=plcp

--
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.

0


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

GOP's 2012 campaign theme song

by Dr. Eowyn

And if it's not, it should be!

Crank up the volume and sing along  :D

H/t beloved fellow Joseph

~Eowyn

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/2012/04/24/gops-2012-campaign-theme-song/

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.


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Was Islam's founder Muhammad a real man or an invention?

by Dr. Eowyn

Robert Spencer is an authority on Islam and the author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. He is also the director of Jihad Watch.

In his new book Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry Into Islam's Obscure Origins, Spencer asks if Muhammad was a real man or a later invention by those who had fashioned an Arab empire via wars and conquer.

Writing in American Thinker, April 23, 2012, Spencer makes a case for Muhammad being more fictive than real:

Why would it matter if Muhammad never existed?  Certainly the accepted story of Islam's origins is taken for granted as historically accurate; while many don't accept Muhammad's claim to have been a prophet, few doubt that there was a man named Muhammad who in the early seventh century began to claim that he was receiving messages from Allah through the angel Gabriel. [...]

Yet the numerous indications that the standard account of Muhammad's life is more legend than fact actually have considerable implications for the contemporary political scene. These are just a few of the weaknesses in the traditional account of Muhammad's life and the early days of Islam:

  • No record of Muhammad's reported death in 632 appears until more than a century after that date.
  • The early accounts written by the people the Arabs conquered never mention Islam, Muhammad, or the Qur'an.  They call the conquerors "Ishmaelites," "Saracens," "Muhajirun," and "Hagarians," but never "Muslims."
  • The Arab conquerors, in their coins and inscriptions, don't mention Islam or the Qur'an for the first six decades of their conquests.  Mentions of "Muhammad" are non-specific and on at least two occasions are accompanied by a cross.  The word can be used not only as a proper name, but also as an honorific.
  • The Qur'an, even by the canonical Muslim account, was not distributed in its present form until the 650s.  Casting into serious doubt that standard account is the fact that neither the Arabians nor the Christians and Jews in the region mention its existence until the early eighth century.
  • We don't begin to hear about Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and about Islam itself until the 690s, during the reign of the caliph Abd al-Malik.  Coins and inscriptions reflecting Islamic beliefs begin to appear at this time also.
  • In the middle of the eighth century, the Abbasid dynasty supplanted the Umayyad line of Abd al-Malik.  In the Abbasid period, biographical material about Muhammad began to proliferate.  The first complete biography of the prophet of Islam finally appeared during this era-at least 125 years after the traditional date of his death.

The lack of confirming detail in the historical record, the late development of biographical material about the Islamic prophet, the atmosphere of political and religious factionalism in which that material developed, and much more, suggest that the Muhammad of Islamic tradition did not exist, or if he did, he was substantially different from how that tradition portrays him.

How to make sense of all this?  If the Arab forces that conquered so much territory beginning in the 630s were not energized by the teachings of a new prophet and the divine word he delivered, how did the Islamic character of their empire arise at all?  If Muhammad did not exist, why was it ever considered necessary to invent him?

Every empire of the day had a civic religion.  The Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire was Christian.  Its rival Persia, meanwhile, was Zoroastrian.  The Arab Empire quickly controlled and needed to unify huge expanses of territory where different religions predominated.  The empire was growing quickly, soon rivaling the Byzantine and Persian Empires in size and power.  But at first, it did not have a compelling political theology to compete with those it supplanted and to solidify its conquests.  It needed a common religion -- a political theology that would provide the foundation for the empire's unity and secure allegiance to the state.

Toward the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth, the leaders of the Muslim world began to speak specifically about Islam, its prophet, and eventually its book.  Stories about Muhammad began to circulate.  A warrior-prophet would justify the new empire's aggressive expansionism.  To give those conquests a theological justification -- as Muhammad's teachings and example do -- would place them beyond criticism.
This is why Islam developed as such a profoundly political religion.  Islam is a political faith: the divine kingdom is very much of this world, with God's wrath and judgment to be expected not only in the next life, but also in this one, to be delivered by believers.  Allah says in the Qur'an: "As for those disbelieving infidels, I will punish them with a terrible agony in this world and the next. They have no one to help or save them" (3:56).  Allah also exhorts Muslims to wage war against those infidels, apostates, and polytheists (2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29).

There is compelling reason to conclude that Muhammad, the messenger of Allah came into existence only after the Arab Empire was firmly entrenched and casting about for a political theology to anchor and unify it.  Muhammad and the Qur'an cemented the power of the Umayyad caliphate and then that of the Abbasid caliphate.

This is not just academic speculation.  The non-Muslim world can be aided significantly in its understanding of the global jihad threat -- an understanding that has been notably lacking even at the highest levels since September 11, 2001 -- by a careful, unbiased examination of the origins of Islam.  There is a great deal of debate today in the United States and Western Europe about the nature of Islamic law; anti-sharia measures have been proposed in at least twenty states, and one state -- Oklahoma -- voted to ban sharia in November 2010, although that law was quickly overturned as an infringement upon Muslims' religious freedom.  Others have been successfully resisted on the same grounds.

If it is understood that the political aspect of Islam preceded the religious aspect, that might change.  But that will happen only if a sufficient number of people are willing to go wherever the truth my take them.

~Eowyn

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/2012/04/24/was-islams-founder-muhammad-a-real-man-or-an-invention/

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.

Obamacare and the imaginary constitution
04/09/2012
By Jack Hunter

Sensing that there's a good chance the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- commonly known as "Obamacare" -- will be overturned by the Supreme Court, President Obama said recently:
"I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law …"
Obama added: "I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld."

It is an old joke that "judicial activism" means judges doing something you don't like. This is largely true. But it is also true that "constitutionality" is largely determined by whether or not government is doing something you do like. For example, when then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked by a reporter in 2009 which part of the Constitution gave the federal government the right to regulate health care, she replied "Are you serious?" For Pelosi, Obamacare was constitutional simply because she thought it was a good idea. Any questions to the contrary were automatically absurd in her mind. When the president says of Obamacare, "I'm confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld," he is basically saying the same thing ­ that constitutionality is determined by desirability. Democrats want Obamacare, so therefore it is constitutional. Case closed. Now that Democrats have realized that the case is not closed, they're lashing out at conservatives and "activist judges" in frustration. The American Spectator's James Antle explained the absurdity of all this in a recent column:

"What is at stake here isn't the Tea Party's Constitution. It is the Constitution written by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the American people. It is the idea that the federal government derives its power from the consent of the governed, consent given not merely every two to six years at the ballot box but when a large majority of the states and the people expressly delegate power to the central government.

"Nowhere in the confident declarations of the health care law's constitutionality do we see any evidence that the people who wrote or ratified the Constitution intended to give the federal government these powers."

Such constitutional dishonesty is by no means unique to the left. For example, it is judicial activism to allow legislation like the Patriot Act to stand as the law of the land -- the warrantless wiretaps alone are a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment -- and yet federal courts have determined the Patriot Act to be constitutional. Liberals have strongly disagreed. Those liberals are right. Are they right simply because they don't like the Patriot Act? No, they are right because the Fourth Amendment exists to prevent the government from infringing on citizens' civil liberties through legislation like the Patriot Act.

Still, many Republicans think the Patriot Act is a "good idea" and therefore it becomes "constitutional" in the same way Obamacare is constitutional to Obama and Pelosi. Republicans argue that we live in such dangerous times that we must allow the government to exercise new national security powers through legislation like the Patriot Act. Democrats argue that our health care situation is so dire that we must increase the government's power to regulate the health care system through legislation like Obamacare. Both sides have argued in various ways that the Constitution is too old, archaic and irrelevant to address these pressing modern dilemmas.

But the Founders' intent and their Constitution's purpose was to erect a bulwark against the inevitable excuses that governments throughout history have used to expand their powers. If the Patriot Act is "constitutional" because it is "necessary," then Obamacare could be considered constitutional because its proponents consider it necessary. Whether the Constitution actually allows either becomes secondary, and constitutionality becomes a matter of what Republicans and Democrats want ­ not what our nation's founding charter allows. Constitutionality simply becomes a matter of perspective.

Some might say that I'm imposing my own perspective on what should and shouldn't be constitutional on the Constitution. But my perspective is wedded to the language of the Constitution in the strictest sense ­ it doesn't depend on elastic interpretations of the commerce clause, the general welfare clause or anything else. There are a lot of things that I would like to happen that I don't think are constitutional.

It would be judicial activism for the Supreme Court to uphold Obamacare, because the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to force citizens to purchase health care. For once, the letter of the law might be obeyed and the Constitution might stand. Now let's apply this to every bit of big government both Democrats and Republicans have thought to be "good ideas" for the last century.


Jack Hunter (also known by his radio moniker the "Southern Avenger") is a frequent guest on Fox Business, Michael Savage's nationally syndicated radio program "The Savage Nation" and a frequent guest host on The Mike Church Show on Sirius XM. Hunter is the co-author of "The Tea Party Goes to Washington" by Sen. Rand Paul, assisted Sen. Jim DeMint with his book "Now or Never: How to Save America from Economic Collapse" and writes the Paulitical Ticker blog for the Ron Paul 2012 Campaign.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/09/obamacare-and-the-imaginary-constitution/2/
0

Future Killer
by Laurence M. Vance

Thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act, passed by some of the very Republicans who are now calling for its repeal, "each local educational agency receiving assistance under this Act shall provide, on a request made by military recruiters or an institution of higher education, access to secondary school students names, addresses, and telephone listings."

But students at some high schools don't need to be conned by military recruiters into enlisting in the military – their parents will do it for them.

In Fairfax County, Virginia, some parents say that spring graduation ceremonies should recognize students who have chosen to enlist in the military instead of go to college. They are pressing the county school board "to acknowledge that volunteering for the armed forces is a commitment worthy of a public display of respect, with red, white, and blue 'honor cords' that graduates would wear around their necks as they receive diplomas."

Honor cords are generally reserved for members of academic honor societies. If schools are going to give out honor cords to students for non-academic reasons, then they ought to be giving them out to recognize those students who have decided to pursue taxi driving, plumbing, and other practical occupations instead of joining the military.

Some parents, however, don't wait until high school to influence their children to join the military.

One of the benefits I enjoy as a writer for LewRockwell.com is the information I receive from perceptive readers, and especially veterans. Some of these veterans are so radically anti-war and anti-military that they make me look like a lightweight. A veteran and friend in Pennsylvania who is always on the lookout for military propaganda was browsing in the gift section of a Cracker Barrel restaurant and came across a T-shirt that he thought I would be interested in. He has since gone back and purchased it and mailed it to me. Here is a picture of it:

[]

There is a sticker on the shirt that says "official licensed product of the U.S. Army." If the shirt looks small it's because it is designed for a toddler. But you don't need to go to Cracker Barrel to get one. You can purchase the shirt online at armedforcesgear.com in size 3T or 4T. "How cute will they look in their Army Future Soldier T-Shirt," says the ad copy.

But if the Army told the truth (the Army didn't tell the truth to the family of Pat Tillman), it would change the wording on the T-shirt from Future Soldier to Future Killer.

It's not just that toddlers who wear these shirts might end up accused of murdering Afghan civilians like Army sergeant Robert Bales, it's that they have a good chance of being sent to kill in some foreign war in the first place. None of the killings in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified since U.S. troops had no business traveling thousands of miles away to invade, bomb, and occupy countries that were not a threat to the United States. These wars were criminal from the very beginning.

As others and I have said again and again, U.S. troops aren't defending our freedoms, guaranteeing our First Amendment rights, keeping us safe from our enemies, protecting us from terrorists, avenging 9/11, safeguarding the American way of life, fighting "over there" so we don't have to fight "over here," defending this great nation, or any of the other phony-baloney slogans used as excuses for fighting unjust and immoral wars.

But as bad as it is to be a Future Killer is, it's not just a Future Killer that these kids might become. There is a good change that they might also become a:
  • Future suicide
  • Future victim of sexual assault
  • Future substance abuser
  • Future basket case
  • Future traumatic brain injury case
  • Future disabled veteran
  • Future paraplegic
  • Future quadriplegic
  • Future death in vain
  • Future cannon fodder

Parents, do your children a favor: encourage them to be all they can be without being in the Army.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance288.html

Why Conservatives Have Lost the Political Battle for America's Soul
by Gary North

This was posted on one of GaryNorth.com forums.


The battle for America's political soul is always fought on the battlefield of federal politics. That's why conservatives lose, generation after generation."
Dr. North, would you please elaborate on this, why you believe the battle for America's political soul is fought in Federal politics and why it is that conservatives continue to lose, generation after generation?

From the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution, American politics shifted to the national level. One of the things that I realized late in my career, even though I had been trained as an historian of the colonial period, was this: it is virtually impossible to write a history of the United States after 1788 without dividing it into four-year segments. Presidential election years set the tone for the direction of the country, and this has been true ever since the early 19th century, when the federal government's share of the economy was minimal. It is not a matter simply of money; it is a matter of political legitimacy. Issues of legitimacy are much more important than issues of taxation. Legitimacy tells what the taxes will be spent on. That is far more important than the amount of taxes collected.

The problem is this: voting for the President, who is the only representative of all the people, is functionally a covenantal act. People ratify a particular President, and in doing so, they transfer authority and legitimacy to him and to his administration.

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, these events were limited to state and local governments, and before that to colonial governments that were technically under the authority of the King of England. Politics was local, and the great issues of the day were also local. These issues differed from state to state, or from colony to colony.

There was no national civil government. There was no national political issue that confronted citizens in every region. Because there was no national government, there was no means of covenant ratification, which first took place in 1788. There was no means of covenant renewal nationally. So, people did not think of themselves as Americans; they thought of themselves as residents of their particular state.

It is difficult to write a history of the United States politically prior to 1775. Other than the American Revolution, there were no national political events. There were so many different colonies, and so many different issues, that the focus of the historian of necessity moves to issues of economics, social institutions, literary trends, political theory in general, marriage patterns, church planting, and basically nonpolitical issues. These are what conservatives regard, at least in theory, as the central issues of civilization.

The problem with political conservatives today is that the Constitution created a national government, and this national government has the power to tax. It has grown systematically and without reversal since 1788. The issues of the day are increasingly those of national politics, because the federal government extracts a greater percentage of the public's wealth than any other single institution. When there is that much loot to be divvied up, everybody wants to get his hands into the pile of loot. In taking this money, the government legitimizes certain activities of the government, and these activities steadily replace private institutions and local governments. The money that the government collects baptizes the various proposals that special interest groups have for national renewal. Renewal is seen as political. It takes a lot of money to redo the whole nation.

Conservative social thought de-emphasizes politics. This is why conservative social thought never gains much of a hearing in the modern world. The modern world is so obviously political, and the power of central governments is so great over every area of life, that all issues become politicized. The traditional conservative opposition to the very suggestion of political salvation is co-opted by their enemies. Conservatives over and over go out to vote as if their votes will fundamentally change the nature of American society. Ultimately, this cannot be true if conservative social theory is correct. Ultimately, the political institutions represent the people, and the great issues of daily life are not political; they are social, ethical, economic, ecclesiastical, and educational. The great issues of life are not political, yet at the same time the central government is pushing its way into every area of life. It is politicizing that which was not political prior to the Enlightenment.

So, the conservative faces a dilemma. He wants to make the case for a particular national political candidate in terms of conservative values, but conservative values tell him that no political candidate can do much of anything to make the country any better. If the essence of social life is nonpolitical, which is what the conservative says is the case, then how can an election every four years fundamentally change the foundations of American life?

I always quote the letter written by political activist Paul Weyrich in 1999, in which he specifically said that we have lost the culture war, which ultimately is an ethical war. He did not see how politics could roll back the debauchery that America has become. He did not think that anything that could be done at the federal level through politics could fundamentally reverse what Robert Bork called slouching towards Gomorrah.

The liberal believes in something like political salvation. He believes in political healing of every area of life. He believes that federal power, coupled with federal money, can make society better. Therefore, he is active in politics, he puts faith in politics, and he puts a whole lot of money in politics. He sees political mobilization is the heart of social transformation. He becomes highly skilled at getting votes. He becomes a master at political fund-raising. He has all of the skills that a professional has in any field, and he is up against conservatives whose very philosophy of life militates against political salvation and hard-core political mobilization.

So, every four years the conservatives go off to vote, telling themselves that this is going to change something fundamental in the country. It never does. It can accelerate certain trends. But, given what George W. Bush did to the budget deficit, and given what he did in Middle Eastern wars, it is hard to make a case that the election of Al Gore would have made America far worse than it is today. The great thing about Al Gore was that he was indecisive. He did not trust his gut in the way the George W. Bush trusted his.

I suppose the best example in my lifetime was Franklin Roosevelt's decision in 1944 to replace Henry Wallace with Harry Truman as Vice President. Henry Wallace was the most radical political figure ever to advance to national politics. He was further to the left than Huey Long. He would have replaced Roosevelt in April of 1945. Had he done so, America would be a far better place to live in. Harry Truman personally imposed the modern national security state. It was Truman who created the CIA. It was Truman who created the foundation of the Department of Homeland Security. It was Truman who expanded America's Empire around the world. It was Truman who got us into the Korean War, and would not even call it a war, never gaining congressional approval. Wallace would never have been able to get that through Congress, because conservatives in Congress would have opposed him. Everybody knew how far to the left he was, and he had no national constituency of his own. Conservatives looked at Truman as preferable to Wallace. They make that sort of mistake all the time.

So, the conservative movement by its own nature is not an effective political competitor. Because local issues are far more tied to social issues, where conservatives say a country is established, they are better equipped to fight political battles of the local level than liberals are. Liberals look to Washington for salvation; conservatives ought to look to county government as a barrier against the expansion of the federal government into their lives. But they do not know the philosophy of local government which undergirded the foundation of this nation, beginning in the colonial era, and extending even through the period immediately preceding the ratification of the Constitution. That legacy has got to be restored, and conservatives have got to adopt it. If they do not adopt it, we are simply going to get more of the same, until the federal government finally goes belly-up.

Sadly, I think that is what is going to happen. I do not think most conservatives are going to spend the time, money, and effort to build up local resistance governments at the county level to step in when Washington's checks bounce. They will have to do it after the Great Default.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/04/18/why-conservatives-have-lost-the-political-battle-for-americas-soul/



New post on Bare Naked Islam

The woman who publicly admitted she wanted US troops to invade Israel has been appointed to chair Barack Obama's Genocide Board

by barenakedislam

Despite his phony claims of 'having Israel's back,' Barack Obama appointed Samantha Power to head his new Atrocities Prevention Board. This is the same Samantha Power who called for US forces to invade Israel and be stationed on their border to force through a 'peace' settlement.

Yid with Lid  Power was a foreign policy adviser to the Obama campaign in 2008 when she blamed the Jews for the criticism of then Candidate Obama's foreign policy platform.

"There will be situations where the priority is self-defence," she says, indicating that a preference for multilateralism only goes so far. "President Obama, like every other leader on earth, is still going to be looking out for national and economic interests. States don't cease to be states overnight just because they get a great visionary as their new president." But it is politically impossible for Obama to talk to Hamas, even if he wants to. She can't say that, though, especially when vicious internet smears are making lurid allegations about his "Muslim past"...."So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?'"

Samantha Powers has attacked Israel when it had done no wrong, and blamed the Jews for Obama's campaign troubles. The appointment of Samantha Power to head up the new Atrocities Prevention Board, which under her tutelage is sure to become a forum for false attacks against Israel, is just one more example of Obama's  actions not matching his words.

In 2002 she sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question: 

Let's say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events in Israel? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power's response seen in the video below is her advice to the President:

  • "Alienate" the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because Israeli leaders are "destroying the lives of their own people."

  •  Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money into "the new state of Palestine"

  • Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a "mammoth protection force" and a "military presence" that will be "imposed" by "external intervention"? — Interestingly she considers the exact same thing the height of arrogance and foolishness when it was done in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9U5IkFH9VyI#!

barenakedislam | April 24, 2012 at 3:57 am | Categories: ISLAMOBAMA | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-HfR

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.com/2012/04/24/the-woman-who-publicly-admitted-she-wanted-us-troops-to-invade-israel-has-been-appointed-to-chair-barack-obamas-genocide-board/




--
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.