Saturday, June 30, 2012
Portman potential VP betrays us on Reconciliation. #tcot #tlot #teaparty
For Opponents of Health Care Law, No Easy Road to Repeal - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/politics/politics-and-popular-provisions-make-health-law-hard-to-erase.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper ....“You can’t get everywhere with reconciliation,” said Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, referring to the Congressional process that Democrats used, which allows certain budget measures to pass with 51 votes instead of the 60 that would be required to block a filibuster vote on a full repeal. “You will need to use other procedures,” he said. He added later: “We may get a majority. But we will need to work with the other side.”. RRD:This is a lie.
It was passed through Reconciliation & it can be repealed through Reconciliation.
The only way it could not is if the Democrats changed the rules and Repblicans refused to change them back.
That or Republicans want to keep some "goodies" in the bill.
It was passed through Reconciliation & it can be repealed through Reconciliation.
The only way it could not is if the Democrats changed the rules and Repblicans refused to change them back.
That or Republicans want to keep some "goodies" in the bill.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Did a PJM columnist just float a trial balloon for a #RINO sellout? #tcot #tlot #teaparty
RRD:He is just speculating?
Based on what?
All the evidence indicates that it would be political suicide for Republicans to not campaign on repealing Obamacare(at least that MUST be part of their platform.). Where is the evidence that people think that this is over? Or that the loss of those voters would outweigh the collapse of support for the GOP among those who do demand a repeal?
Or will Moran tell us that we must "be reasonable" & drop the demand to repeal Obamacare to get the Independents? I may be misjudging Moran but this smacks of appeasement. The PJ Tatler » Did President Obama Just Win Re-Election? http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/28/did-president-obama-just-win-re-election/
..."Despite the unpopularity of the individual mandate, certain elements of Obamacare that were upheld are very popular. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre -existing conditions, the expansion of Medicaid, insurance subsidies for most Americans, and reducing out of pocket costs for drugs by seniors all enjoyed a majority of support in polls. People also like the idea of getting goodies from the federal government. You can bet that the Obama campaign will hit these points hard in the coming months, reminding voters who is responsible for providing them with such largess."...
..."There may be some backlash against Republicans in continuing their agitation for repeal of Obamacare. There are many voters who might believe that now that the Supreme Court has spoken, we should move on from this debate and that Republican advocacy for repeal could be seen as more partisan politics than standing on principle."....
Based on what?
All the evidence indicates that it would be political suicide for Republicans to not campaign on repealing Obamacare(at least that MUST be part of their platform.). Where is the evidence that people think that this is over? Or that the loss of those voters would outweigh the collapse of support for the GOP among those who do demand a repeal?
Or will Moran tell us that we must "be reasonable" & drop the demand to repeal Obamacare to get the Independents? I may be misjudging Moran but this smacks of appeasement. The PJ Tatler » Did President Obama Just Win Re-Election? http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/28/did-president-obama-just-win-re-election/
..."Despite the unpopularity of the individual mandate, certain elements of Obamacare that were upheld are very popular. Forcing insurance companies to accept those with pre -existing conditions, the expansion of Medicaid, insurance subsidies for most Americans, and reducing out of pocket costs for drugs by seniors all enjoyed a majority of support in polls. People also like the idea of getting goodies from the federal government. You can bet that the Obama campaign will hit these points hard in the coming months, reminding voters who is responsible for providing them with such largess."...
..."There may be some backlash against Republicans in continuing their agitation for repeal of Obamacare. There are many voters who might believe that now that the Supreme Court has spoken, we should move on from this debate and that Republican advocacy for repeal could be seen as more partisan politics than standing on principle."....
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Does the government have the right to prohibit real or imagined lies,even when no fraud is involved? #tcot #tlot
RRD:The Stolen Valor act signed into law by George W.Bush,makes it a crime to falsely claim that you served in the military.Apparently this is the case even if no fraud (financial gain) was involved and even if it is not for the purpose of espionage or sabotage. While I find these liars despicable,I find many things despicable,the fact that I regard something as despicable does not mean that the government should prohibit it,or that it has the right to do so. The case is coming before the Supreme Court.Alvarez is the name of the person challenging the law(he is one of those who boasted of medals they have not earned). Stolen Valor is Offensive, But Is It A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/09/stolen-valor-is-offensive-but-is-it-a-crime/ ”The federal court of appeals in San Francisco ruled in his favor in two separate opinions. Now the case will go to the Supreme Court, where the Obama administration will argue that the First Amendment does not protect lies as it does true statements. Under this logic, Congress would be able to criminalize statements solely because they are lies, alleging some type of amorphous social harm. ”....
RRD:I am not a lawyer & have not read the briefs,but if Mr.Turley is correct then this has ramifications that go far beyond whether someone can falsely claim to be soldier.
What is equally bizarre is the contention of some of the bill's supporters that men who risk death(or die)do so for the sake of medals.A claim that flies in the face of the overt statements of many medal awardees.
....”Supporters of the bill insist that prosecutions are needed to maintain the value and dignity of our military citations.The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation has taken this argument one step further in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court. It says these medals are not just recognitions of heroism but the very inducement for heroism. It chastised the federal court for its “lack of appreciation” when the court said it was insulting to suggest that heroes are motivated by the desire for medals. The foundation insisted that heroes do seek these medals in risking their lives, curiously citing the tradition of Roman generals giving spears and cups to soldiers who distinguished themselves in battle.”....
RRD:First I agree that it is unjust and insulting for those who have not earned these medals to claim to have won them it is no more so than to write editorials that insult our soldiers and denounce them as rapists and murderers,something which I believe is protected speech and should remain protected speech.
Second while it is certainly true that men--particularly young men-- often join the military with visions of "glory" in their heads,such notions are quickly disabused by military service. There is heroism in military service,there is nobility,but there is little of the green recruit's vision of "glory".And if you have reached the point where you are worthy of receiving a medal you most likely have more pressing things on your mind then medals:things like keeping your bleeding friends alive,while holding off the enemy. This is harrowing and nightmarish. It is not some kind of game show where people win prizes. Most likely the soldier wishes that he had never been put in that kind of nightmarish position.
We give medals because it is just and right to honor the service and valor of men,not because such valor would not exist without the medals. In fairness to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation
,perhaps they knew that this argument made no sense,but wanted to "cover all the bases" to ensure that the bill is upheld,and were motivated by concern for the memory of the dead and living awardees.
A previous post by Mr.Turley is below. The Better Part of Valor: Should Lying About Medals Be A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/19/lying-about-receiving-a-medal-of-honor-its-shameful-but-it-shouldnt-be-a-crime/
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/03/09/stolen-valor-is-offensive-but-is-it-a-crime/ ”The federal court of appeals in San Francisco ruled in his favor in two separate opinions. Now the case will go to the Supreme Court, where the Obama administration will argue that the First Amendment does not protect lies as it does true statements. Under this logic, Congress would be able to criminalize statements solely because they are lies, alleging some type of amorphous social harm. ”....
RRD:I am not a lawyer & have not read the briefs,but if Mr.Turley is correct then this has ramifications that go far beyond whether someone can falsely claim to be soldier.
What is equally bizarre is the contention of some of the bill's supporters that men who risk death(or die)do so for the sake of medals.A claim that flies in the face of the overt statements of many medal awardees.
....”Supporters of the bill insist that prosecutions are needed to maintain the value and dignity of our military citations.The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation has taken this argument one step further in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court. It says these medals are not just recognitions of heroism but the very inducement for heroism. It chastised the federal court for its “lack of appreciation” when the court said it was insulting to suggest that heroes are motivated by the desire for medals. The foundation insisted that heroes do seek these medals in risking their lives, curiously citing the tradition of Roman generals giving spears and cups to soldiers who distinguished themselves in battle.”....
RRD:First I agree that it is unjust and insulting for those who have not earned these medals to claim to have won them it is no more so than to write editorials that insult our soldiers and denounce them as rapists and murderers,something which I believe is protected speech and should remain protected speech.
Second while it is certainly true that men--particularly young men-- often join the military with visions of "glory" in their heads,such notions are quickly disabused by military service. There is heroism in military service,there is nobility,but there is little of the green recruit's vision of "glory".And if you have reached the point where you are worthy of receiving a medal you most likely have more pressing things on your mind then medals:things like keeping your bleeding friends alive,while holding off the enemy. This is harrowing and nightmarish. It is not some kind of game show where people win prizes. Most likely the soldier wishes that he had never been put in that kind of nightmarish position.
We give medals because it is just and right to honor the service and valor of men,not because such valor would not exist without the medals. In fairness to the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation
,perhaps they knew that this argument made no sense,but wanted to "cover all the bases" to ensure that the bill is upheld,and were motivated by concern for the memory of the dead and living awardees.
A previous post by Mr.Turley is below. The Better Part of Valor: Should Lying About Medals Be A Crime? « JONATHAN TURLEY http://jonathanturley.org/2012/02/19/lying-about-receiving-a-medal-of-honor-its-shameful-but-it-shouldnt-be-a-crime/
Tehran's Vice President: Zionists behind drug trade #iranelections #jcot
More UN Anti-Semitism From Iran « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/more-united-nations-anti-semitism-from-iran-drug-conference/ ....”The “Zionists” are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said,..... “The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict,” Mr. Rahimi said. “They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade.” Mr. Rahimi … told stories of gynecologists’ killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously no Jews died in that uprising. He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think they are a superior race. “They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them,” he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who “honestly follow the prophet Moses” and the Zionists who are “the main elements of the international drug trade.”
RRD:Though I am secular,(& not a scholar)I wish to point out that this claim that the Jews regard themselves as being "racially superior" is false and a lie long promoted by anti-semites.
Judaism does not espouse the idea that ”the nations of the world” exist to serve Jews.The closest Jewish tradition comes to that belief,is the statement about such and such a pagan enemy being defeated and becoming God's "footstool" that, plus the statement that ”your enemies shall serve you”.(Presumably through compensation & reparations,as the Egyptians gave the Jews riches as they made their exodus)
But it is clear that,that statement is in reference to the idolatrous oppressors of the Jews--who sought their destruction--and is not in reference to a idea that the ”nations of the world” exist to serve Jews. As to the distortion of the term ”The Chosen People”,in truth, this term refers to the Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
The Covenant states that since Abraham alone worshipped the one true God,God will reward Abraham's descendents,the Jews(and converts to Judaism) if they are virtuous( & ”keep his commandments”),and punish them if they are sinful (”and don't keep his commandments”),but he will never permit Abraham's "seed" (his descendents,& converts & their descendents) to perish from off the earth.He may permit some to die, due to their immorality,but not all.
But he does not let immorality go unpunished.
Further evidence that it is absurd to say that Judaism espouses the idea that Jews are innately superior by their blood,irrespective of their piety,can be found in the fact that anyone can convert to Judaism. People who convert to Judaism:such as Ruth,and Moses' adopted mother(the Pharaoh's daughter)Bithiah,become Jews. According to Jewish tradition (in the
Aggadah,the part of the Talmud dealing with narrative),Bithiah became a Jew,and married Caleb,and was one of the few people permitted to enter heaven while still alive.
Ruth for her part was the ancestor of King David,(and thereby according to Jewish tradition),the ancestor of the Messiah. Given that two people who were not of Jewish ancestry became so highly regarded in Judaism how can Judaism be said to espouse racial supremacy.
It is true that a pious Jew is regarded as being morally superior to a non-Jew,or to a sinful Jew, but Christianity and Islam hold similiar views about pious Christians and pious Muslims respectively. I say all this--again--not to advocate for Judaism,or any religion,but to debunk a slander against the Jewish people.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/27/more-united-nations-anti-semitism-from-iran-drug-conference/ ....”The “Zionists” are in firm control of the illegal drug trade, Mr. Rahimi said,..... “The Islamic Republic of Iran will pay for anybody who can research and find one single Zionist who is an addict,” Mr. Rahimi said. “They do not exist. This is the proof of their involvement in drugs trade.” Mr. Rahimi … told stories of gynecologists’ killing black babies on the orders of the Zionists and claimed that the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 was started by Jews, adding that mysteriously no Jews died in that uprising. He also said the Talmud teaches Jews to think they are a superior race. “They think God has created the world so that all other nations can serve them,” he said. Halfway through his speech, Mr. Rahimi said there was a difference between Jews who “honestly follow the prophet Moses” and the Zionists who are “the main elements of the international drug trade.”
RRD:Though I am secular,(& not a scholar)I wish to point out that this claim that the Jews regard themselves as being "racially superior" is false and a lie long promoted by anti-semites.
Judaism does not espouse the idea that ”the nations of the world” exist to serve Jews.The closest Jewish tradition comes to that belief,is the statement about such and such a pagan enemy being defeated and becoming God's "footstool" that, plus the statement that ”your enemies shall serve you”.(Presumably through compensation & reparations,as the Egyptians gave the Jews riches as they made their exodus)
But it is clear that,that statement is in reference to the idolatrous oppressors of the Jews--who sought their destruction--and is not in reference to a idea that the ”nations of the world” exist to serve Jews. As to the distortion of the term ”The Chosen People”,in truth, this term refers to the Covenant with Abraham,Isaac and Jacob.
The Covenant states that since Abraham alone worshipped the one true God,God will reward Abraham's descendents,the Jews(and converts to Judaism) if they are virtuous( & ”keep his commandments”),and punish them if they are sinful (”and don't keep his commandments”),but he will never permit Abraham's "seed" (his descendents,& converts & their descendents) to perish from off the earth.He may permit some to die, due to their immorality,but not all.
But he does not let immorality go unpunished.
Further evidence that it is absurd to say that Judaism espouses the idea that Jews are innately superior by their blood,irrespective of their piety,can be found in the fact that anyone can convert to Judaism. People who convert to Judaism:such as Ruth,and Moses' adopted mother(the Pharaoh's daughter)Bithiah,become Jews. According to Jewish tradition (in the
Aggadah,the part of the Talmud dealing with narrative),Bithiah became a Jew,and married Caleb,and was one of the few people permitted to enter heaven while still alive.
Ruth for her part was the ancestor of King David,(and thereby according to Jewish tradition),the ancestor of the Messiah. Given that two people who were not of Jewish ancestry became so highly regarded in Judaism how can Judaism be said to espouse racial supremacy.
It is true that a pious Jew is regarded as being morally superior to a non-Jew,or to a sinful Jew, but Christianity and Islam hold similiar views about pious Christians and pious Muslims respectively. I say all this--again--not to advocate for Judaism,or any religion,but to debunk a slander against the Jewish people.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
How would Tehran respond to a strike on its nuclear program? #irannuclear #jcot
After an Israeli Strike on Iran :: Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However ,I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained. There are no good options here. Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail. Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However ,I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained. There are no good options here. Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail. Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
How would Tehran respond to a strike on its nuclear program? #irannuclear #jcot
After an Israeli Strike on Iran :: Daniel Pipes
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained.There are no good options here.Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail.Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
http://www.danielpipes.org/11528/israeli-strike-on-iran ...”Michael Eisenstadt and Michael Knights of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy,.... provide an excellent guide to possible scenarios in "Beyond Worst -Case Analysis: Iran's Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike."... RRD:I am less sanguine than Pipes and Eisenstadt,and Knights.However I am less sanguine for precisely the same reason that would lead me to support a strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities as a last resort:I think that deterrence will not work.
That said,Pipes is correct when he notes the peculiar ”reasoning” of some who argue that Israel & the U.S. can ”live with” a nuclear armed Tehran:A Tehran with a nuclear bomb is deterrable,a Tehran without one will go berserk if struck.
Why the supposedly "rational” & ”non-nuclear seeking" Mullahs would wage a all out war over their being denied a ”peaceful” nuclear program is never adequately explained.There are no good options here.Only different levels & types of dangers.
A note:In case the above was unclear,I believe a military strike may be necessary as a LAST RESORT,should efforts at sabotage fail.Let me add that I am speaking of a military strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities,NOT a ground invasion,which I oppose.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Rep.Green calls for false equivalence between Islamists & Christian Fanatics though Islamists are responsible for the most deadly attacks #tcot #xcot
Congressman Calls for Hearings on 'Radicalization' of White Christian Women :: Raymond Ibrahim
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11907/congressman-calls-for-hearings-on-radicalization ....”Finally, Green concluded his sanctimonious attack by saying "I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue…. I look forward to the day that we'll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America"—again, all meaningless race-related rhetoric and moral relativism, the sole value of which is to obfuscate the issue at hand: the real threat of "radicalization of Muslim-Americans."....
RRD:In addition to Mr.Ibrahim's article(which I recommend reading in full),I wish to add some points of my own. For the record: I also ” know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue”.(And also what it is like to ”look like a Jew in the minds of some people”& be spat upon,& to ”look like a Mexican in the minds of some people....) I suspect that this is also true of Mr.Ibrahim & Walid Phares & Hirshi Ali as well as some Arab Jewish friends of mine.
It is disgusting(& dangerously naive) of some people to conflate Islam with a race.(”Most Arabs are Muslim,therefore most Muslims are Arab” & ”all ”swarthy” individuals are Muslim”.) How this will be corrected by Green & Ellison reinforcing this stereotype
is unclear.
None of this alters the fact that the
greatest threat is not from Christian Radicals flying jetliners into skyscrapers,or Christian Radicals plotting to blow up Time Square,or Christian organizations promoting the idea that Jews are the offspring of ”apes and pigs”.
It is from Islamists.
Even when we think of actual Christian Fanatics (such as the Christian Reconstructionists aka the Dominionists) they do not pose the same type of threat:They are either not violent or the degree of their threat and their death toll is far less than that inflicted by the Islamists. Where are the Christians blowing up subways as in Britain,or train stations as in Madrid?
Where are the Christian plots to blow up the Holland Tunnel? Brevik? Even if one regards both him & Mcveigh as Christians,the threat posed by Islamists dwarfs that posed by these individuals.
As to Green's statement that he looks forward to the day that we'll have ”that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America”. I doubt that he will have long to wait. Islamists in Europe,(the Islamists who supposedly don't exist) have succeeded in criminalizing criticism of Islam & Muslims(while Islamists go about spouting every anti-semitic slander imaginable).
And their allies like Justice Breyer apparently wish to do the same here.
We have seen Bloomberg go on television & ascribe the acts of a Islamist to opponents of socialized medicine. We have seen the recent preposterous Castle episode where the victims of terrorism go about plotting fake terrorist attacks to remind us of the threat.(This is at a time when actual Islamist terrorists are carrying out their actual atrocities). We have seen appeasement in the fact the Obama administration seeks to make Muslims ”feel good about themselves”(Something hardly ”necessary” even it were a legitimate function of the state,as many Muslims seem to have a triumphalist worldview,and a "self-esteem" that rivals any produced by the "self-esteem" movement in the U.S.) But then this should hardly be surprising.
When a ”Conservative” president goes around spouting that Islam "is a religion of peace"( ala the Quakers),why should we be suprised when this even more politically correct administration goes about denouncing Quran burnings while pretending that Islam could never,ever motivate someone to carry out their attacks.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11907/congressman-calls-for-hearings-on-radicalization ....”Finally, Green concluded his sanctimonious attack by saying "I do know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue…. I look forward to the day that we'll have that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America"—again, all meaningless race-related rhetoric and moral relativism, the sole value of which is to obfuscate the issue at hand: the real threat of "radicalization of Muslim-Americans."....
RRD:In addition to Mr.Ibrahim's article(which I recommend reading in full),I wish to add some points of my own. For the record: I also ” know what it feels like to look like a Muslim in the minds of some people and to be demeaned in a public venue”.(And also what it is like to ”look like a Jew in the minds of some people”& be spat upon,& to ”look like a Mexican in the minds of some people....) I suspect that this is also true of Mr.Ibrahim & Walid Phares & Hirshi Ali as well as some Arab Jewish friends of mine.
It is disgusting(& dangerously naive) of some people to conflate Islam with a race.(”Most Arabs are Muslim,therefore most Muslims are Arab” & ”all ”swarthy” individuals are Muslim”.) How this will be corrected by Green & Ellison reinforcing this stereotype
is unclear.
None of this alters the fact that the
greatest threat is not from Christian Radicals flying jetliners into skyscrapers,or Christian Radicals plotting to blow up Time Square,or Christian organizations promoting the idea that Jews are the offspring of ”apes and pigs”.
It is from Islamists.
Even when we think of actual Christian Fanatics (such as the Christian Reconstructionists aka the Dominionists) they do not pose the same type of threat:They are either not violent or the degree of their threat and their death toll is far less than that inflicted by the Islamists. Where are the Christians blowing up subways as in Britain,or train stations as in Madrid?
Where are the Christian plots to blow up the Holland Tunnel? Brevik? Even if one regards both him & Mcveigh as Christians,the threat posed by Islamists dwarfs that posed by these individuals.
As to Green's statement that he looks forward to the day that we'll have ”that hearing that deals with the radicalization of Christians in America”. I doubt that he will have long to wait. Islamists in Europe,(the Islamists who supposedly don't exist) have succeeded in criminalizing criticism of Islam & Muslims(while Islamists go about spouting every anti-semitic slander imaginable).
And their allies like Justice Breyer apparently wish to do the same here.
We have seen Bloomberg go on television & ascribe the acts of a Islamist to opponents of socialized medicine. We have seen the recent preposterous Castle episode where the victims of terrorism go about plotting fake terrorist attacks to remind us of the threat.(This is at a time when actual Islamist terrorists are carrying out their actual atrocities). We have seen appeasement in the fact the Obama administration seeks to make Muslims ”feel good about themselves”(Something hardly ”necessary” even it were a legitimate function of the state,as many Muslims seem to have a triumphalist worldview,and a "self-esteem" that rivals any produced by the "self-esteem" movement in the U.S.) But then this should hardly be surprising.
When a ”Conservative” president goes around spouting that Islam "is a religion of peace"( ala the Quakers),why should we be suprised when this even more politically correct administration goes about denouncing Quran burnings while pretending that Islam could never,ever motivate someone to carry out their attacks.
The Arab Spring becomes a Islamist Killing Frost #jcot #xcot #tcot
RRD:Just so that we are on the same page:a theocratic anti-woman,anti-gay,anti-religious minority political party(Norsefire anyone?)is swept into office after we were told that this would never happen.The new President is on record as saying that he wants to make the neighboring country's capital the capital of their new religious empire. On top of this the Military has announced that it will retain much of the political power.
And this is supposed to be some kind of blow for freedom?
And this is supposed to be some kind of blow for freedom?
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Thousands of Iran’s MEK take part in Paris rally Washington Post #iranelections #freeiran
Thousands of Iran’s MEK take part in Paris rally - The Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/thousands-of-irans-resistance-take-part-in-paris-rally/2012/06/23/gJQAFb6gxV_story.html ”PARIS — Thousands of Iranian exiles have led a Paris rally to demand democratic change in Iran and help for Iranian resistance members in Iraq’s refugee camps. The National Council of Resistance of Iran — which organized Saturday’s event at a convention center in the northern suburb of Villepinte — estimated the turnout at nearly 100,000 people.”.... RRD:This group's members(including children) are in danger from the Islamic Republic of Iran.I believe that they should be safe from being murdered,but I do not support or sympathize with this group.They are a "Islamist-Marxist" group,and are viewed with intense suspicion by the Green Movement and are listed on Washington's list of terrorist organizations.They are also a source of Intel on Tehran's nuclear program,which is why there have been efforts to have them removed from the terrorist list.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/thousands-of-irans-resistance-take-part-in-paris-rally/2012/06/23/gJQAFb6gxV_story.html ”PARIS — Thousands of Iranian exiles have led a Paris rally to demand democratic change in Iran and help for Iranian resistance members in Iraq’s refugee camps. The National Council of Resistance of Iran — which organized Saturday’s event at a convention center in the northern suburb of Villepinte — estimated the turnout at nearly 100,000 people.”.... RRD:This group's members(including children) are in danger from the Islamic Republic of Iran.I believe that they should be safe from being murdered,but I do not support or sympathize with this group.They are a "Islamist-Marxist" group,and are viewed with intense suspicion by the Green Movement and are listed on Washington's list of terrorist organizations.They are also a source of Intel on Tehran's nuclear program,which is why there have been efforts to have them removed from the terrorist list.
Don't let it go unheard #objectivist ( #aynrand )podcast:DOD bans criticism of Islam while Egytian pres. wants to conquer Jerusalem #tcot #jcot
Don't Let It Go Unheard 06/24 by amypeikoff | Blog Talk Radio
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/06/25/dont-let-it-go-unheard
....”PLANNED TOPICS: Just as a Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian Presidency, and his supporters call for a renewed drive to establish an Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital, here in the U.S. our Department of Defense suspends a military instructor for including, in a course, material that crticizes Islam. Why you should vote for me (or yourself) instead of Gary Johnson. Disturbing evidence of Obama's desperation to win. And more.”.... Disclaimer:Reposting does not imply agreement.(Nor does it constitute a political endorsement of Mitt Romney).
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/06/25/dont-let-it-go-unheard
....”PLANNED TOPICS: Just as a Muslim Brotherhood candidate wins the Egyptian Presidency, and his supporters call for a renewed drive to establish an Islamic Caliphate with Jerusalem as its capital, here in the U.S. our Department of Defense suspends a military instructor for including, in a course, material that crticizes Islam. Why you should vote for me (or yourself) instead of Gary Johnson. Disturbing evidence of Obama's desperation to win. And more.”.... Disclaimer:Reposting does not imply agreement.(Nor does it constitute a political endorsement of Mitt Romney).
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Obama March 2011: ”the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed… #tcot #tlot
Why President Obama’s Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is Wrong and Dangerous - Ira Mehlman - [page] http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2012/06/21/why_president_obamas_amnesty_for_illegal_aliens_is_wrong_and_dangerous/page/full/
...”When asked in March 2011 whether he could implement amnesty by executive order, the President stated, “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed… that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”....
...”When asked in March 2011 whether he could implement amnesty by executive order, the President stated, “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed… that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”....
He's right/‘Joe the Plumber’ says gun control permitted Holocaust” #secondamendment #tcot #tlot
Jewish Dems slam candidate ‘Joe the Plumber’ for Holocaust remarks | JTA - Jewish & Israel News http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/06/19/3098531/jewish-democrats-slam-joe-the-plumber-for-holocaust-remarks
RRD:Or at least partially right.I wish to be very clear about what I am,and what I am not saying.
Gun Control does make it easier for dictatorships to carry out their atrocities. No,there is no guarantee that they wouldn't suceed without gun control,but their victims would at least have the chance to fight back.
Saying that does not mean that "those who support gun control want a Holocaust" a claim which is absurd.
Nor does it mean that they don't care about whether a Holocaust were to come about. But the 20th Century has given us Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot and countless other dictatorships.The Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising were not plagued with a surfeit of weapons.Neither were the victims of Tiananmen Square.(Whose murderers called for America to protect the "human rights of its citizens" by "protecting them" from firearm ownership as the dead and enslaved Chinese are.)
People from Iran,to Syria,to Libya are at the mercy of each of these dictatorships.
The UN ”Safe Haven” of Srebrenica,wasn't.The innocent were handed over to be slaughtered. Many liberals who advocate for civil liberties point out(often rightly) that this law or that provision could have long term consequences, possibly even leading
to a dictatorship.
Yet when one suggests that gun control made the work of these dictatorships easier,many of these same people turn around and say that it is slanderous to suggest that the U.S. could ever become a dictatorship.
Have they heard of Rosewood?The interment of Japanese Americans?
Rosewood History
http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html BBC News - Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/675945.stm Rosewood History
http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html
RRD:Or at least partially right.I wish to be very clear about what I am,and what I am not saying.
Gun Control does make it easier for dictatorships to carry out their atrocities. No,there is no guarantee that they wouldn't suceed without gun control,but their victims would at least have the chance to fight back.
Saying that does not mean that "those who support gun control want a Holocaust" a claim which is absurd.
Nor does it mean that they don't care about whether a Holocaust were to come about. But the 20th Century has given us Hitler,Stalin,Mao,Pol Pot and countless other dictatorships.The Jewish fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising were not plagued with a surfeit of weapons.Neither were the victims of Tiananmen Square.(Whose murderers called for America to protect the "human rights of its citizens" by "protecting them" from firearm ownership as the dead and enslaved Chinese are.)
People from Iran,to Syria,to Libya are at the mercy of each of these dictatorships.
The UN ”Safe Haven” of Srebrenica,wasn't.The innocent were handed over to be slaughtered. Many liberals who advocate for civil liberties point out(often rightly) that this law or that provision could have long term consequences, possibly even leading
to a dictatorship.
Yet when one suggests that gun control made the work of these dictatorships easier,many of these same people turn around and say that it is slanderous to suggest that the U.S. could ever become a dictatorship.
Have they heard of Rosewood?The interment of Japanese Americans?
Rosewood History
http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html BBC News - Timeline: Siege of Srebrenica
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/675945.stm Rosewood History
http://www.rosewoodflorida.com/history.html
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Ayn Rand and #freespeech #tcot #tlot #teaparty
Free Speech — Ayn Rand Lexicon
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978 ...”The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak—evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas. ”... “The Cashing -In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 258
....”The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident. The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force.”...
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_speech.html The Objectivist Calendar, June 1978 ...”The communists and the Nazis are merely two variants of the same evil notion: collectivism. But both should be free to speak—evil ideas are dangerous only by default of men advocating better ideas. ”... “The Cashing -In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 258
....”The difference between an exchange of ideas and an exchange of blows is self-evident. The line of demarcation between freedom of speech and freedom of action is established by the ban on the initiation of physical force.”...
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Max Boot 2006:Let Hamas Rule,2012 Let Muslim Brotherhood rule
RRD:One of the sickest jokes played on the human race is the idea that the Neo-conservatives(fn1) are pro-Israel or pro-American(particularly in terms of the effects of their policies.) Max Boot 2006 on Hamas:
The weakness in backing strongmen - Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/01/opinion/oe-boot1
..."It now has a choice -- either suspend its war on Israel and concentrate on delivering mundane civil services, or risk a backlash among voters."...
RRD:What voters?He spoke as if Hamas was going to permit new elections and abide by them. ....”The Hamas militants,unlike their fellow fundamentalists in Iran, don't have the luxury of oil revenues.Much of the Palestinian Authority's budget comes from European,American and Israeli largesse, which presumably will be cut off unless Hamas comes out against violence and in favor of Israel's right to exist. If Hamas sticks to a rigid ideological agenda, it will become as unpopular as the Taliban. And if Hamastan becomes a breeding ground of international terrorism, it will be even more vulnerable to a military response than Afghanistan was.".... RRD:How's that working out for you Max?
...."Palestine, like Iran, may have to pass through a period of Islamist misrule before it arrives at something better, as Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing under relatively moderate religious parties. "....
RRD:I'm sorry a period?The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in power for 33 years,and may soon have a atomic bomb.During that time that regime has either directly or indirectly killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis and god only knows how many Iranians.Hamas has remained in power six years after Boot offered this prediction.
...."That's unfortunate, but what's the alternative? There aren't many well-intentioned strongmen who will overhaul Islamic societies along Western lines and pave the way for democracy, as Kemal Ataturk did in post-Ottoman Turkey.”...
RRD:Note that Boot offers us the alternative of backing strongmen or encouraging elections which will lead to even more deranged strongmen coming to power.The possiblity that the U.S. should do neither does not seem to occur to him.
Six years later Hamas is still there & Boot believes that we should pressure the Egyptian Military to let Hamas' parent organization--The Muslim Brotherhood--come to power:
Let the Brotherhood Rule in Egypt « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/18/let-the-brotherhood-rule-in-egypt/
...."Tempting as it is for the U.S. to acquiesce in the military’s latest power grab, it is a mistake. The military is either ushering in the day of reckoning (if civil war breaks out) or delaying it (if it doesn’t). Either way, Egypt’s long-term prospects are not served by this decision, because it will allow the Brotherhood to claim the cloak of martyrdom. The best bet in the long run for weakening Brotherhood authority would be to allow it to rule. Already, the Brotherhood’s appeal seems to have declined since the parliamentary elections which ended in January. Undoubtedly, if the Brotherhood were granted full authority over Egypt’s dysfunctional state and anemic economy, its popularity would decline some more–unless it were able to moderate its wilder instincts and deliver real results. By keeping the Brotherhood out of power, the SCAF is taking upon itself all the blame for Egypt’s dire condition–not a wise long-term bet."...
RRD:You see rather than having the Muslim Brotherhood claim "martyrdom",we should have them rule Egypt for a "period"(30yrs?).And after all they will have to moderate or lose....blah...blah
I sometimes wonder if Neo-conservatives like Boot and Kristol want Islamists in power so that we will have to go to war with those regimes.This in turn will give us the "tonic" of a cause larger than ourselves.(fn2) So what should we do?
Should the US government ” acquiesce” to the power grab,or,should we not ”acquiesce” to the power grab.
Neither,the US government should act to defend American citizens from foreign threats.
That means (at a minimum) providing moral support to those who are pro-freedom when doing so would/might remove the threat of a hostile regime that means to harm our citizens:(such as helping--at least verbally--the Green Movement in Iran against the IRI);However it does not mean that we should install another dictatorial gang into power (such as the MEK),nor does it mean toppling democratically elected governments(unless they actually threaten us with military attacks or terrorism,of course).
Footnotes: fn1. RRD:I use the word "Neo-Conservative” to refer to a particular group of individuals,motivated or influenced by a particular set of ideas,as defined in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
Boot may or may not share all the characteristics listed in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
I myself was formerly sympathetic to the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" strategy i.e. promoting freedom(though not necessarily through military force) since I believed "Democracies don't go to war with one another". I still believe that the citizens in foreign countries should be free,but elections do not automatically translate into freedom. The Nazis were voted into power through elections. I do NOT use the term "Neo-Conservative" in the way that it is used by many Ron Paul supporters
i.e.,”someone who is more hawkish than Ron Paul”,or ”someone who is pro-Israel”,I am both and I am not a Neo-Conservative.If you believe that sharing a (alleged) goal with Neo-Conservatives such as stopping Tehran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons,or supporting Israel makes you a "Neo-Con" then you should also conclude that Ron Paul is a member of the Taliban since "he wants us out of Afghanistan" just as the Taliban "want us out of Afghanistan".
Conversely one could claim that I and other opponents of Obama's military intervention in Libya are in league with Gaddafi. As to Thompson's article I am largely in agreement with him,though I think that some of his statements(in other articles) about particular individuals associated with Neo-conservatism(e.g. Michael Ledeen) may be in error.I have not however delved into either Ledeen's writings or Thompson's so I am not sure.
Neoconservatism Unmasked C. Bradley Thompson Cato Unbound
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/
fn2. The Death of Neoconservatism: Six Questions for C. Bradley Thompson—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007833
The weakness in backing strongmen - Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/01/opinion/oe-boot1
..."It now has a choice -- either suspend its war on Israel and concentrate on delivering mundane civil services, or risk a backlash among voters."...
RRD:What voters?He spoke as if Hamas was going to permit new elections and abide by them. ....”The Hamas militants,unlike their fellow fundamentalists in Iran, don't have the luxury of oil revenues.Much of the Palestinian Authority's budget comes from European,American and Israeli largesse, which presumably will be cut off unless Hamas comes out against violence and in favor of Israel's right to exist. If Hamas sticks to a rigid ideological agenda, it will become as unpopular as the Taliban. And if Hamastan becomes a breeding ground of international terrorism, it will be even more vulnerable to a military response than Afghanistan was.".... RRD:How's that working out for you Max?
...."Palestine, like Iran, may have to pass through a period of Islamist misrule before it arrives at something better, as Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing under relatively moderate religious parties. "....
RRD:I'm sorry a period?The Islamic Republic of Iran has been in power for 33 years,and may soon have a atomic bomb.During that time that regime has either directly or indirectly killed hundreds of Americans and Israelis and god only knows how many Iranians.Hamas has remained in power six years after Boot offered this prediction.
...."That's unfortunate, but what's the alternative? There aren't many well-intentioned strongmen who will overhaul Islamic societies along Western lines and pave the way for democracy, as Kemal Ataturk did in post-Ottoman Turkey.”...
RRD:Note that Boot offers us the alternative of backing strongmen or encouraging elections which will lead to even more deranged strongmen coming to power.The possiblity that the U.S. should do neither does not seem to occur to him.
Six years later Hamas is still there & Boot believes that we should pressure the Egyptian Military to let Hamas' parent organization--The Muslim Brotherhood--come to power:
Let the Brotherhood Rule in Egypt « Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/18/let-the-brotherhood-rule-in-egypt/
...."Tempting as it is for the U.S. to acquiesce in the military’s latest power grab, it is a mistake. The military is either ushering in the day of reckoning (if civil war breaks out) or delaying it (if it doesn’t). Either way, Egypt’s long-term prospects are not served by this decision, because it will allow the Brotherhood to claim the cloak of martyrdom. The best bet in the long run for weakening Brotherhood authority would be to allow it to rule. Already, the Brotherhood’s appeal seems to have declined since the parliamentary elections which ended in January. Undoubtedly, if the Brotherhood were granted full authority over Egypt’s dysfunctional state and anemic economy, its popularity would decline some more–unless it were able to moderate its wilder instincts and deliver real results. By keeping the Brotherhood out of power, the SCAF is taking upon itself all the blame for Egypt’s dire condition–not a wise long-term bet."...
RRD:You see rather than having the Muslim Brotherhood claim "martyrdom",we should have them rule Egypt for a "period"(30yrs?).And after all they will have to moderate or lose....blah...blah
I sometimes wonder if Neo-conservatives like Boot and Kristol want Islamists in power so that we will have to go to war with those regimes.This in turn will give us the "tonic" of a cause larger than ourselves.(fn2) So what should we do?
Should the US government ” acquiesce” to the power grab,or,should we not ”acquiesce” to the power grab.
Neither,the US government should act to defend American citizens from foreign threats.
That means (at a minimum) providing moral support to those who are pro-freedom when doing so would/might remove the threat of a hostile regime that means to harm our citizens:(such as helping--at least verbally--the Green Movement in Iran against the IRI);However it does not mean that we should install another dictatorial gang into power (such as the MEK),nor does it mean toppling democratically elected governments(unless they actually threaten us with military attacks or terrorism,of course).
Footnotes: fn1. RRD:I use the word "Neo-Conservative” to refer to a particular group of individuals,motivated or influenced by a particular set of ideas,as defined in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
Boot may or may not share all the characteristics listed in C.Bradley Thompson's article below.
I myself was formerly sympathetic to the "Forward Strategy of Freedom" strategy i.e. promoting freedom(though not necessarily through military force) since I believed "Democracies don't go to war with one another". I still believe that the citizens in foreign countries should be free,but elections do not automatically translate into freedom. The Nazis were voted into power through elections. I do NOT use the term "Neo-Conservative" in the way that it is used by many Ron Paul supporters
i.e.,”someone who is more hawkish than Ron Paul”,or ”someone who is pro-Israel”,I am both and I am not a Neo-Conservative.If you believe that sharing a (alleged) goal with Neo-Conservatives such as stopping Tehran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons,or supporting Israel makes you a "Neo-Con" then you should also conclude that Ron Paul is a member of the Taliban since "he wants us out of Afghanistan" just as the Taliban "want us out of Afghanistan".
Conversely one could claim that I and other opponents of Obama's military intervention in Libya are in league with Gaddafi. As to Thompson's article I am largely in agreement with him,though I think that some of his statements(in other articles) about particular individuals associated with Neo-conservatism(e.g. Michael Ledeen) may be in error.I have not however delved into either Ledeen's writings or Thompson's so I am not sure.
Neoconservatism Unmasked C. Bradley Thompson Cato Unbound
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2011/03/07/c-bradley-thompson/neoconservatism-unmasked/
fn2. The Death of Neoconservatism: Six Questions for C. Bradley Thompson—By Scott Horton (Harper's Magazine)
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2010/12/hbc-90007833
"You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you're incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others... #tcot #teaparty #tlot
Atlas Shrugged - Wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
John Galt "You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you're incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others -- that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler -- that you're unable to earn your living by use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser."
John Galt "You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you're incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others -- that you're unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler -- that you're unable to earn your living by use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser."
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Don't Let It Go Unheard #objectivist ( #aynrand ) podcast @ 8pm EST Topics More Obama Speech Shredding, THE INFIDEL #2 #teaparty #tcot #tlot
More Obama Speech Shredding, THE INFIDEL #2, today at 5 p.m. PDT (8 p.m. EDT) | Don't Let It Go
http://dontletitgo.com/2012/06/17/more-obama-speech-shredding-the-infidel-2-today-at-5-p-m-pdt-8-p-m-edt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
”Planned topics for today’s “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard”: Obama’s speeches on Immigration and the Economy —time for some more shredding! Bosch Fawstin’s THE INFIDEL #2. And more if there’s time.”
http://dontletitgo.com/2012/06/17/more-obama-speech-shredding-the-infidel-2-today-at-5-p-m-pdt-8-p-m-edt/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
”Planned topics for today’s “Don’t Let It Go…Unheard”: Obama’s speeches on Immigration and the Economy —time for some more shredding! Bosch Fawstin’s THE INFIDEL #2. And more if there’s time.”
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Butchers of Tiananmen Square ”concerned” about our rights being violated by 2ndamendment #tcot #tlot #teaparty
RRD:Forgive the profanity;but you can't make this shit up. PJ Media » Is Gun Control a Human Right?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-gun-control-a-human-right/?singlepage=true
...”Take China, for instance. There, where the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is vanished by a one-child policy that forces women to abort every child after their first one, accusations are now being levied that the U.S. violates the human rights of its citizens by allowing private gun ownership. That’s right — China contends that private gun ownership is a violation of human rights.”
Why ? Because honoring the 2nd Amendment has resulted in “rampant gun ownership.” (It’s a circular argument, I know, but coming from Chinese officials, who are used to being the only ones with guns, and therefore accustomed to telling their own people when to jump and how high, it probably makes sense.)...
RRD:So the mass murdering gang that rules the Peoples Republic of China is "concerned" about the fact that our citizens would at least have the ability to shoot back should the government attempt to impose a dictatorship--and I use the term dictatorship literally in this case,as in the execution of political dissidents etc. This is the regime that gave us the "excesses" of the "Cultural Revolution(which of course does not deter some liberals from wearing pictures of the mass murderer Mao)
This regime committed atrocities against the Tibetans,slaughtered their own citizens in Tiananmen,performs forcible abortions,& uses political dissidents as slaves,and we are to stand by while these psychopaths spit in our face,and on the graves of their victims?!
As to the columnist's Hawkins use of Charlton Heston's phrase
”From my cold, dead hands.”,I disagree. If anything should be taken from anyone's dead hands it should be the reins of power,taken by the people of China, from the "dead hands" of their oppressors.
Tiananmen Square Massacre - YouTube
http://pjmedia.com/blog/is-gun-control-a-human-right/?singlepage=true
...”Take China, for instance. There, where the natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is vanished by a one-child policy that forces women to abort every child after their first one, accusations are now being levied that the U.S. violates the human rights of its citizens by allowing private gun ownership. That’s right — China contends that private gun ownership is a violation of human rights.”
Why ? Because honoring the 2nd Amendment has resulted in “rampant gun ownership.” (It’s a circular argument, I know, but coming from Chinese officials, who are used to being the only ones with guns, and therefore accustomed to telling their own people when to jump and how high, it probably makes sense.)...
RRD:So the mass murdering gang that rules the Peoples Republic of China is "concerned" about the fact that our citizens would at least have the ability to shoot back should the government attempt to impose a dictatorship--and I use the term dictatorship literally in this case,as in the execution of political dissidents etc. This is the regime that gave us the "excesses" of the "Cultural Revolution(which of course does not deter some liberals from wearing pictures of the mass murderer Mao)
This regime committed atrocities against the Tibetans,slaughtered their own citizens in Tiananmen,performs forcible abortions,& uses political dissidents as slaves,and we are to stand by while these psychopaths spit in our face,and on the graves of their victims?!
As to the columnist's Hawkins use of Charlton Heston's phrase
”From my cold, dead hands.”,I disagree. If anything should be taken from anyone's dead hands it should be the reins of power,taken by the people of China, from the "dead hands" of their oppressors.
Tiananmen Square Massacre - YouTube
Obama previously on DREAM ACT ”I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.” #tcot #tlot #teaparty
RRD:I wish to note that I favor a generally laissez faire approach to immigration (with some wartime exceptions).And I am sympathetic to those supporting the DREAM ACT(though I have not read the bill and distrust anything that comes out of Congress).However the question in this case isn't "What should law X be" on a particular issue.It's where does the legal authority reside.And Obama himself thought that he didn't have the authority to do this until he thought that it would benefit him in the election.
Krauthammer: New Obama immigration policy 'lawlessness' | The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/ “Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process — is simple constitutional decency,” Krauthammer explained. “This is out -and -out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for president — the laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.” ..”He said this appears to be the White House attempting to enact the DREAM Act, which failed to pass muster with the Congress after several attempts over the past several years.”....
....“He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation,” Krauthammer continued. “He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.”....
...“And in fact, what it is pretending to do is to use discretion,” he said. “That’s what the Homeland Security said. This is not discretion. Discretion is when you treat it on a one-by -one basis on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. That is declaration of a new set of criteria, which is essentially resurrecting the legislation that the Congress has said no to.” ....
RRD:If Obama's ”discretion” permits this,what else does it permit?
Krauthammer: New Obama immigration policy 'lawlessness' | The Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/15/krauthammer-new-obama-immigration-policy-out-and-out-lawlessness-video/ “Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process — is simple constitutional decency,” Krauthammer explained. “This is out -and -out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for president — the laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.” ..”He said this appears to be the White House attempting to enact the DREAM Act, which failed to pass muster with the Congress after several attempts over the past several years.”....
....“He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation,” Krauthammer continued. “He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law.”....
...“And in fact, what it is pretending to do is to use discretion,” he said. “That’s what the Homeland Security said. This is not discretion. Discretion is when you treat it on a one-by -one basis on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. That is declaration of a new set of criteria, which is essentially resurrecting the legislation that the Congress has said no to.” ....
RRD:If Obama's ”discretion” permits this,what else does it permit?
Friday, June 15, 2012
Poor scorned Mccain denied opportunity to work with Barack
RRD:Oh,& according to The Hill it was Mccain who ”galvanized” Republicans to oppose Obamacare. Odd,I thought the Teaparty did that. I wonder if The Hill is trying to pump up Mccain for some purpose of their own,(or Obama's own)
,or did they just regurgitate what Mccain told them.
President Obama Snubbed Me Says John Mccain: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/232693-president-obama-snubbed-me-says-john-mccain?wpisrc=nl_pmfix ..."McCain pointed out that Obama invited him to the White House in 2009 to discuss immigration reform. “I said, ‘I’d love to join you,’ and never heard from him,” McCain said. ...."Instead of helping Obama lay the groundwork for bipartisan coalition-building, McCain galvanized Senate Republican opposition to the 2009 stimulus package and the 2010 healthcare reform proposal."...
RRD:ROFL,perhaps The Hill has difficulty in comprehending the concept of citizen activism (by activists of whatever political persuasion).Everything must be guided by a Congressman or Senator.I mean it's not like the masses have minds of their own. ...“It started off pretty good, but unfortunately we’re in a contested world right now,” said Graham. “Instead of reaching out to Sen. McCain to try to find a compromise between his $450 billion package and [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi’s [Calif.] $782 billion, they jammed it through and ObamaCare was jammed through and the rest is history.”... RRD:So the problem was not with Obamacare or the Stimulus,it was again that Democrats were unwilling to compromise.
One does not compromise on fundamental principles.
”Compromise — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html
...”There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . . When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.”.... Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216
RRD:Guess who the man in the middle is Mccain?
,or did they just regurgitate what Mccain told them.
President Obama Snubbed Me Says John Mccain: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/232693-president-obama-snubbed-me-says-john-mccain?wpisrc=nl_pmfix ..."McCain pointed out that Obama invited him to the White House in 2009 to discuss immigration reform. “I said, ‘I’d love to join you,’ and never heard from him,” McCain said. ...."Instead of helping Obama lay the groundwork for bipartisan coalition-building, McCain galvanized Senate Republican opposition to the 2009 stimulus package and the 2010 healthcare reform proposal."...
RRD:ROFL,perhaps The Hill has difficulty in comprehending the concept of citizen activism (by activists of whatever political persuasion).Everything must be guided by a Congressman or Senator.I mean it's not like the masses have minds of their own. ...“It started off pretty good, but unfortunately we’re in a contested world right now,” said Graham. “Instead of reaching out to Sen. McCain to try to find a compromise between his $450 billion package and [House Democratic Leader] Nancy Pelosi’s [Calif.] $782 billion, they jammed it through and ObamaCare was jammed through and the rest is history.”... RRD:So the problem was not with Obamacare or the Stimulus,it was again that Democrats were unwilling to compromise.
One does not compromise on fundamental principles.
”Compromise — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compromise.html
...”There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . . When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil.”.... Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216
RRD:Guess who the man in the middle is Mccain?
DHS funded study: #antisemitic terror only from right,9/11 not religiously motivated,Gun Owners & #teaparty are threat #tcot
RRD:Yes the title oversimplifies,but I have to fit it into a Tweet.
Homeland Security-Funded Study Pushing Tea Party Terrorism Narrative by recognized, pjmedia.com June 11th 2012
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/11/homeland-security-funded-study-on-the-hunt-for-tea-party-terrorism/?singlepage=true .....”START was launched in 2005 with a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security, and is recognized by DHS as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December,DHS announced it had renewed START’s funding to the tune of $3.6 million.
A recent START study titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008” puts the “excellence” description in question. A press release announcing the report states the study concluded that nearly a third of all terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2008 occurred in just five major metropolitan areas. The study was based on a START database called “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States,” and both the report and database are supported by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division. Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified: But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life? And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.
...”These are reflected nowhere in the study. ”...
...”Struck by these glaring omissions, I went to the START “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States (PPT-US)” dataset that the study is based upon. START describes the findings from the database:... ...”Compare how the START researchers define “left wing” and “right wing” extremism. Left-wing extremism is defined at follows: 'Extreme left-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. In addition, this category includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical sociopolitical system (anarchists).'
..”The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty. ”... ...”It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest.” ... ..”Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. ”... ...”The recently appointed director of the START center is the Obama administration’s de facto Islamophobia czar, Bill Braniff.”..
Homeland Security-Funded Study Pushing Tea Party Terrorism Narrative by recognized, pjmedia.com June 11th 2012
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/11/homeland-security-funded-study-on-the-hunt-for-tea-party-terrorism/?singlepage=true .....”START was launched in 2005 with a $12 million grant from the Department of Homeland Security, and is recognized by DHS as one of its “Centers for Excellence.” In December,DHS announced it had renewed START’s funding to the tune of $3.6 million.
A recent START study titled “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States, 1970 to 2008” puts the “excellence” description in question. A press release announcing the report states the study concluded that nearly a third of all terrorist attacks between 1970 and 2008 occurred in just five major metropolitan areas. The study was based on a START database called “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States,” and both the report and database are supported by the DHS Science and Technology Directorate’s Human Factors/Behavioral Sciences Division. Reading through the study, some baffling issues arose. In Table 4 (p. 22), titled “Hot Spots of Religious Terrorism by Decade”, three “hot spot” areas — Los Angeles, Manhattan, and Wasco, Oregon (former home of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) — are identified: But there seems to be some data missing when it comes to known Islamic terrorist incidents in New York City and Los Angeles. The study shows no religious terrorism in Manhattan during the 1990s. How about the 1993 World Trade Center bombing? Or the 1994 Brooklyn Bridge Jewish student van shooting by Rashid Baz that killed 16-year-old Ari Halberstam after Baz heard a fiery anti-Jewish sermon at his local mosque? Or the 1997 Empire State Building observation deck shooting by Ali Abu Kamal that killed one tourist and injured six others before Kamal took his own life? And then there was the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles Airport El Al counter by Hesham Mohamed Hadayet that killed two and wounded four others. The FBI and Justice Department concluded that the attack was a terrorist attack by an Egyptian assailant bent on becoming a Muslim martyr.
...”These are reflected nowhere in the study. ”...
...”Struck by these glaring omissions, I went to the START “Profiles of Perpetrators of Terrorism in the United States (PPT-US)” dataset that the study is based upon. START describes the findings from the database:... ...”Compare how the START researchers define “left wing” and “right wing” extremism. Left-wing extremism is defined at follows: 'Extreme left-wing groups want to bring about change through violent revolution rather than through established political processes. In addition, this category includes secular left-wing groups that rely heavily on terrorism to overthrow the capitalist system and either establish “a dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marxist-Leninists) or, much more rarely, a decentralized, non-hierarchical sociopolitical system (anarchists).'
..”The extreme far-right is composed of groups that believe that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack and is either already lost or that the threat is imminent (for some the threat is from a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group), and believe in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism. Groups may also be fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty. ”... ...”It should be no surprise that two subgroups identified in the codebook under “extreme right-wing” include “gun rights” and “tax protest.” ... ..”Anti-Semitism is included in the codebook as a subgroup for both the “racist” and “extreme right-wing” categories, but it is missing as a subgroup for the extreme left-wing. ”... ...”The recently appointed director of the START center is the Obama administration’s de facto Islamophobia czar, Bill Braniff.”..
Thursday, June 14, 2012
There is No Moral Equivalence between ”alarmism” over #antisemitism & denial of it #jcot #tcot #xcot
The Real Jewish Fight on Campus « Commentary Magazine
By Matthew Ackerman
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/12/the-real-jewish-fight-on-campus/
RRD:Matthew Ackerman posted two links one to a piece by Mr.Kogen and another to Mr.Marcus article.
My criticism is primarily directed towards Marcus but I believe Ackerman has a overly sympathetic view of Marcus' piece.
I posted this comment to Commentary:
"I cannot speak to Mr.Kogen's piece,which may be a accurate reflection of his own experiences.(Though it also may run counter to the experiences of others.)But what type of moral equivalency permits Marcus to write the following:
..."To listen to the alarmists, one would think that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post-secondary education"...
..."To listen to the quietists, one would think that anti-Semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education"...
First Who are these "alarmists" he speaks of?
Who are the people who claim "that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post -secondary education.
Do they exist?If so do they have names?
And if they do,what of it?
Is a person who has been the repeated victim of anti-semitism and who overstates the danger,somehow on the same moral plane as someone who pompously "explains" to the victim of a hate crime that "anti-semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education. "
There is no moral comparison between the two. Is he implying that there is? If he isn't why does he not condemn the ”quietests” ,and then add that some of those who are concerned about anti-semitism mistakenly see it everywhere. We do NOT have a problem with too little concern about anti-semitism.”
By Matthew Ackerman
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/06/12/the-real-jewish-fight-on-campus/
RRD:Matthew Ackerman posted two links one to a piece by Mr.Kogen and another to Mr.Marcus article.
My criticism is primarily directed towards Marcus but I believe Ackerman has a overly sympathetic view of Marcus' piece.
I posted this comment to Commentary:
"I cannot speak to Mr.Kogen's piece,which may be a accurate reflection of his own experiences.(Though it also may run counter to the experiences of others.)But what type of moral equivalency permits Marcus to write the following:
..."To listen to the alarmists, one would think that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post-secondary education"...
..."To listen to the quietists, one would think that anti-Semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education"...
First Who are these "alarmists" he speaks of?
Who are the people who claim "that anti-Semitism is everywhere in post -secondary education.
Do they exist?If so do they have names?
And if they do,what of it?
Is a person who has been the repeated victim of anti-semitism and who overstates the danger,somehow on the same moral plane as someone who pompously "explains" to the victim of a hate crime that "anti-semitism is nowhere to be found in American higher education. "
There is no moral comparison between the two. Is he implying that there is? If he isn't why does he not condemn the ”quietests” ,and then add that some of those who are concerned about anti-semitism mistakenly see it everywhere. We do NOT have a problem with too little concern about anti-semitism.”
Malkin Republican Surrenderists for #Obamacare #tcot #tlot #teaparty
Michelle Malkin » Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/13/republican-surrenderists-for-obamacare/
...”GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls). Some Republicans are even trying to out -Obama Obamacare. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio is pushing a proposal to increase the mandatory coverage age for dependents to age 31. And once a fire-breathing dragon for repeal, GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee hem -hawed when asked by the liberal Talking Points Memo website whether Republicans would be introducing specific bills to preserve the guaranteed issue and slacker mandate provisions. “Well, I think we need to be prepared,” Alexander told TPM. “And we will be prepared.”
... ”Sen. Jim DeMint notes that “multiple studies have suggested that every 1 percent increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000 to 300,000 individuals nationwide.” The slacker mandate has raised premiums by at least 1 percent since it was enacted, DeMint adds, meaning “that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage — because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.”.... RRD:Demint has problems of his own but here he is correct.
http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/13/republican-surrenderists-for-obamacare/
...”GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of “children” up to age 26 on their parents’ health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded “slacker mandate”), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue,” which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the “donut hole fix” that will obliterate the program’s cost-controls). Some Republicans are even trying to out -Obama Obamacare. GOP Rep. Steve Stivers of Ohio is pushing a proposal to increase the mandatory coverage age for dependents to age 31. And once a fire-breathing dragon for repeal, GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee hem -hawed when asked by the liberal Talking Points Memo website whether Republicans would be introducing specific bills to preserve the guaranteed issue and slacker mandate provisions. “Well, I think we need to be prepared,” Alexander told TPM. “And we will be prepared.”
... ”Sen. Jim DeMint notes that “multiple studies have suggested that every 1 percent increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000 to 300,000 individuals nationwide.” The slacker mandate has raised premiums by at least 1 percent since it was enacted, DeMint adds, meaning “that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage — because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.”.... RRD:Demint has problems of his own but here he is correct.
Yawn...Southern Poverty Law Center again exploits past reputation to smear Conservatives #tcot #tlot #teaparty
The Southern Poverty Law Center's Shameful Attack on Defenders of Freedom :: The Legal Project
http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2012/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-shameful-attack RRD:Why should we care?
The SPLC was once a ally in the fight for Individual Rights,opposing REAL domestic terrorists like the murderous KKK,and condemning actual racists.The group's current leaders --like those of another ex-ally the NAACP--are using the past reputations of those groups to try to lend credence to their smears of conservatives as racists.Pamela Geller IS a sensationalist.But I have no reason to place her alongside Klansmen.Indeed Bill Clinton ”explained” that Robert Byrd just joined the Klan to get elected.Yet there was no outcry,no scandal,after all,accusations of racism are to be used to silence conservatives,not Democrats.
We should mourn the fact that these once distinguished organizations have come under the leadership of partisan hacks who have turned them into zombie shells of their former selves,but we should not spend too much time on them.
http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2012/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-shameful-attack RRD:Why should we care?
The SPLC was once a ally in the fight for Individual Rights,opposing REAL domestic terrorists like the murderous KKK,and condemning actual racists.The group's current leaders --like those of another ex-ally the NAACP--are using the past reputations of those groups to try to lend credence to their smears of conservatives as racists.Pamela Geller IS a sensationalist.But I have no reason to place her alongside Klansmen.Indeed Bill Clinton ”explained” that Robert Byrd just joined the Klan to get elected.Yet there was no outcry,no scandal,after all,accusations of racism are to be used to silence conservatives,not Democrats.
We should mourn the fact that these once distinguished organizations have come under the leadership of partisan hacks who have turned them into zombie shells of their former selves,but we should not spend too much time on them.
Jeb Bush thinks we've got too much "purity",too little debt,& too low taxes
Jeb Bush: Reagan ‘would have a hard time’ in today’s GOP - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/232087-jeb-bush-reagan-would-have-a-hard-time-in-todays-gop
...“Ronald Reagan would have,based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in Manhattan, according to remarks reported by Buzzfeed. ...”According to Buzzfeed, Bush said he thought the rigid and highly charged political atmosphere was “disturbing” but “temporary.” “Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport,” he said, adding that Reagan “would be criticized” for reaching across the aisle today.
...”The former Florida governor also said Monday that the deficit deal his father helped craft more than two decades ago helped spur economic growth, even though his father lost his bid for a second term after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.”...
RRD:Sure,Jeb,a man who spoke of America's greatness(& meant it),cut taxes,rebuilt the "Hollow Military",made deals with Democrats but regretted them,denounced the idea of detente,someone who left the Democratic Party "because it left him",someone who spent years on the lecture circuit & coined some of the most oft repeated expressions of conservative thought would have a hard time getting the nomination.
This is said at a time when the standard bearer of the GOP is the man who created the prototype for Obamacare. In fact Jeb a New Reagan is something Conservatives have been seeking desperately,everywhere,
in everyone from your father--who betrayed Reagan--to your brother G.W.Bush to Palin to Scott Brown to Allen West to Marco Rubio to you.
It is like pursuing a mirage of a Oasis that disappears as soon as it is in your grasp.
Of those listed only Rubio,and perhaps West,come close.
No,Jeb Reagan would be welcomed by Conservatives,but he would be scorned by your father,and Murkowski,& other RINOS and CINOS. Just as he was scorned by Gerald Ford and your father.
You do remember that Ford called Reagan a "extremist",don't you Jeb.
Google does remember Jeb(fn1)
It took a great deal of time and effort to find that story. I went to Google,typed the keywords "Reagan" "Gerald Ford" and "extremist" and Behold! the past comes back to life! And then there's this:
The American Spectator : Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/31/newt-battles-mush-from-the-wim/print?nomobile=1
.... ”Ford went on at length in this March 1980 Times interview, digging moderate Republicans an even deeper political hole in 1980 than the one they were already in thanks to Dewey and the GOP Establishment. Assured the latest moderate GOP icon of the day: "Every place I go and everything I hear, there is growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election…. I hear more and more often that we don't want, can't afford to have a replay of 1964 [the Goldwater defeat by LBJ]." The Times reporter wrote the rest of the Ford interview story this way: Asked if he shared the view that Mr. Reagan could not win, Mr. Ford said "it would be an impossible situation" because Mr. Reagan is "perceived as a most conservative Republican." "A very conservative Republican," he said, "can't win in a national election." Meaning [asked the reporter] that Mr. Reagan can't win? "That's right," replied Mr. Ford. ”....
And Jeb what of your daddy(don't you remember him Jeb?).
Didn't he call the center-piece of Reagan's economic platform ”Voodoo Economics”
...”It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy...
George Herbert Walker Bush. Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980)”
But let us set aside Jeb's imaginary Reagan whose goal was ”finding accommodation"& "finding some degree of common ground”
& returning to our timeline--the one where the Earth revolves aound the Sun,and where the South lost the Civil War--let us parse the meaning of this shibboleth "working with others to find bipartisan solutions". When Jeb Bush speaks of "finding accommodation" & "finding some degree of common ground" what he means is that the Republicans should collaborate with the Democrats(again) to spend us into bankruptcy,placing our descendents into debt,all to bribe short sighted voters into voting for them,and then later to declare that since "we have so much debt it's just gosh darn irresponsible not to raise taxes" But what of ”spending cuts”?
What Jeb Bush(& politicians in general) mean by ”spending cuts” is very different from what sane,honest people mean by
term.Sane,honest people think of someone who spends $100 on something,and then spends $80 on it,thereby cutting
the amount they spend by $20.This is not how our wise leaders think.
They think that when they add less to the debt then they had originally wanted to add to the debt that that constitutes a "savings" "cutting spending". (ala Dicken's Richard Carstone in Bleak House ) (fn2)
(Indeed,it constitutes”real cuts”, "massive,painful cuts","cuts on the backs of the poor" etc ) To grasp the absurdity of our situation imagine the following: Imagine you were left your family's restaurant by your parents,(As you were the "responsible one").
Imagine that he had behaved foolishly with his life & insulted you in the past,but committed no major sin(he never stole) Imagine that you accepted your brother's apologies,and accepted his claim to have matured.
Imagine that you decide to entrust your brother with a job,and then one day with the task of taking the money of the family restaurant to the bank,(since you must attend to a emergency).
Imagine that instead of taking it to the bank,he absconds with the money to Las Vegas & spends it on drugs,prostitutes,and roulette.
Imagine that he then comes up with a brillant idea:he will forge your signature and put the family deli up as collateral to a loan shark,and then use that money to make up the money he lost gambling and make millions more to boot,by
gambling some more.
After signing your property over to a Chinese gangster named Mr.Gòngchǎn Zhōngguó
He then tries to figure out why he lost at roulette.He figures out what the problem is.He's unlucky!To solve this problem he decides to buy a lucky rabbit's foot,whose magic powers will enable him to win at roulette.
Imagine that the roulette wheel is unmoved by the rabbit's foot powers of persuasion.
Imagine that He then comes to you and tells you the following: 1."It doesn't matter who is to blame for this situation,there is no point in pointing fingers,or in assigning blame." 2."Life isn't fair to me." 3."You must work with the mobsters to give them a cut of our business.I say our business since we're all in this together,and since you and mom and dad cheated me out of my share of the family business by refusing to leave it equally to both of us." 4."If you don't work with the mobsters and share,YOU will be to blame for what happens to me." 4.He then quotes Cain from the Bible:"Cain said 'I am not my brother's keeper',do you wish to be like a murderer like Cain?What's more,not only does the Bible say it, but(even more importantly!) President Obama says that "we are our brother's keeper' too!" You answer: 1.If I were Cain you would be dead in the ground.Cain's sin was envy and murder.
2.I am not your servant because of a offhand comment made by a ancient murderer. 3.Be thankful that I don't have you arrested for theft and fraud.I won't.But never want to see you again.
4.I will call the police when the mobsters arrive,since the debt has no legal standing,there's nothing they can do to us.
Your brother is concerned:"You can't do that!You'll ruin my street cred with the other gamblers!I need to stay on good terms with them so I can borrow more money for....stuff.
"We're brothers!I'm your brother!It's your duty to help me!
Haven't you read the Parable of the Prodigal Son!
You:"We're Jewish.Besides wasn't that a metaphor for welcoming a repentant sinner,not serving the vices of a unrepentant one?" Your brother:"Vice!Sin!Evil!Repentance!What kind of morality is that!Morality is brother love!Oh!And NOW you care about the bible!" You respond:"You brought it up!" Your Brother:”That's no excuse for your callousness!"Don't make excuses for your actions"
You throw up your hands and refuse. Your brother:
"You,you,souless beast ...you monstrous heartless fiend,you think of no one but himself!You're a bloodthirsty vampire who preys upon the innocent and profits off of the suffering and of the goodwill of others.You are a parasite who is willing to milk the human kindness of others for your own petty gain and then toss them aside!You worship Gold!
Why don't you sacrifice me to your Golden Calf!
You!You exploited me!
You made me take the money!
It was part of your PLOT!
You knew that I was weak.
You deliberately baited me with that money to tempt me!
You are S-A-T-A-N!! You respond to this by saying:have you heard of the psychological concept of projection? If you think that what I wrote above is "over-the-top",well.. it is ,but then so is our world. On to Jeb's "purity".
I would say to Jeb,define purity? Is a whorehouse too pure for you,Jeb?
Because the GOP is far less pure than a whorehouse. Yes,I am being unfair;to prostitutes.
Placing prostitutes on par with Congress is unjust to the former,since a significant percentage of women and girls who work as prostitutes are runaways,or drug addicts,or victims of abuse.Some are young children.
We should stop using the word "whorehouse" to refer to ”a kind of moral sewer” & replace it with the word ”Congress”. No,Jeb,the problem really is not a surfeit of "ideological purity",or a unwillingness to ”work across the aisle" to get your ”stuff” done.
No,the problem is neither "ideological purity" ,or for that matter "ideological impurity" (since we would not be better off if we had a "pure" totalitarian regime) There is not A single problem;there are several related problems.
One problem is that both parties believe and act upon the belief that men exist to serve other men,whether they wish to or not.They believe that they have the right to force those who disagree with them to serve whatever the statists wish to yoke us to at any given time:whether it be the poor,the trees,the owls,the earth,the worms or the weeds,or whatever wishes their deity or deities of choice allgedly communicate to them .."Jesus was a Occupier!...No,a Republican!” etc)
They believe either that Individual Rights do not exist,or that they may be swept aside for whatever "good" intention pops into their skulls.(Which is to say one and the same thing)
But that is only one political problem.
Why are these thugs in power?
Who elected them?
I could say that "we did" but since I didn't(with one or two exceptions) I would be lying.
But many Americans did vote to empower this Ship of Fools, which is destroying our rights,and leading our country into national bankruptcy and down the path to third world status.
Some voted for the fools because they lied to us about their intentions,and we either believed them or feared that the alternative would be worse (as I did on the occasions I alluded to above) . Others,however,voted to send them to Washington to spend us further into debt,or they voted to send them to Washington because "they liked them",or because "their parents were of the same political party" or some other such rubbish like that.
One wonders if these Congressmen & Senators(of both parties) who constantly speak of doing such and such "for the children" ever think of the future generations of American children who will be buying a carton of milk with baskets of cash?(as they did in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe)
That is if they can find one. Footnotes:
fn1.
Times Daily - Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19760220&id=GxksAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4sgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3152,3173004
Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19760220&id=NQ9PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dgIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4872,4880535 fn2 Richard Carstone Bleak House - Charles Dickens - Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don't think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.
The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.
"My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?" he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.
"I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses' business."
"How was that ?" said I. "Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don't deny that ?"
"No," said I.
"Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—"
"The same ten pounds," I hinted. "That has nothing to do with it!" returned Richard. "I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular."
In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it. "Let me see!" he would say.
"I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker's affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it's a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!"
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/232087-jeb-bush-reagan-would-have-a-hard-time-in-todays-gop
...“Ronald Reagan would have,based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in Manhattan, according to remarks reported by Buzzfeed. ...”According to Buzzfeed, Bush said he thought the rigid and highly charged political atmosphere was “disturbing” but “temporary.” “Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport,” he said, adding that Reagan “would be criticized” for reaching across the aisle today.
...”The former Florida governor also said Monday that the deficit deal his father helped craft more than two decades ago helped spur economic growth, even though his father lost his bid for a second term after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.”...
RRD:Sure,Jeb,a man who spoke of America's greatness(& meant it),cut taxes,rebuilt the "Hollow Military",made deals with Democrats but regretted them,denounced the idea of detente,someone who left the Democratic Party "because it left him",someone who spent years on the lecture circuit & coined some of the most oft repeated expressions of conservative thought would have a hard time getting the nomination.
This is said at a time when the standard bearer of the GOP is the man who created the prototype for Obamacare. In fact Jeb a New Reagan is something Conservatives have been seeking desperately,everywhere,
in everyone from your father--who betrayed Reagan--to your brother G.W.Bush to Palin to Scott Brown to Allen West to Marco Rubio to you.
It is like pursuing a mirage of a Oasis that disappears as soon as it is in your grasp.
Of those listed only Rubio,and perhaps West,come close.
No,Jeb Reagan would be welcomed by Conservatives,but he would be scorned by your father,and Murkowski,& other RINOS and CINOS. Just as he was scorned by Gerald Ford and your father.
You do remember that Ford called Reagan a "extremist",don't you Jeb.
Google does remember Jeb(fn1)
It took a great deal of time and effort to find that story. I went to Google,typed the keywords "Reagan" "Gerald Ford" and "extremist" and Behold! the past comes back to life! And then there's this:
The American Spectator : Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/31/newt-battles-mush-from-the-wim/print?nomobile=1
.... ”Ford went on at length in this March 1980 Times interview, digging moderate Republicans an even deeper political hole in 1980 than the one they were already in thanks to Dewey and the GOP Establishment. Assured the latest moderate GOP icon of the day: "Every place I go and everything I hear, there is growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election…. I hear more and more often that we don't want, can't afford to have a replay of 1964 [the Goldwater defeat by LBJ]." The Times reporter wrote the rest of the Ford interview story this way: Asked if he shared the view that Mr. Reagan could not win, Mr. Ford said "it would be an impossible situation" because Mr. Reagan is "perceived as a most conservative Republican." "A very conservative Republican," he said, "can't win in a national election." Meaning [asked the reporter] that Mr. Reagan can't win? "That's right," replied Mr. Ford. ”....
And Jeb what of your daddy(don't you remember him Jeb?).
Didn't he call the center-piece of Reagan's economic platform ”Voodoo Economics”
...”It just isn't going to work, and it's very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy...
George Herbert Walker Bush. Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980)”
But let us set aside Jeb's imaginary Reagan whose goal was ”finding accommodation"& "finding some degree of common ground”
& returning to our timeline--the one where the Earth revolves aound the Sun,and where the South lost the Civil War--let us parse the meaning of this shibboleth "working with others to find bipartisan solutions". When Jeb Bush speaks of "finding accommodation" & "finding some degree of common ground" what he means is that the Republicans should collaborate with the Democrats(again) to spend us into bankruptcy,placing our descendents into debt,all to bribe short sighted voters into voting for them,and then later to declare that since "we have so much debt it's just gosh darn irresponsible not to raise taxes" But what of ”spending cuts”?
What Jeb Bush(& politicians in general) mean by ”spending cuts” is very different from what sane,honest people mean by
term.Sane,honest people think of someone who spends $100 on something,and then spends $80 on it,thereby cutting
the amount they spend by $20.This is not how our wise leaders think.
They think that when they add less to the debt then they had originally wanted to add to the debt that that constitutes a "savings" "cutting spending". (ala Dicken's Richard Carstone in Bleak House ) (fn2)
(Indeed,it constitutes”real cuts”, "massive,painful cuts","cuts on the backs of the poor" etc ) To grasp the absurdity of our situation imagine the following: Imagine you were left your family's restaurant by your parents,(As you were the "responsible one").
Imagine that he had behaved foolishly with his life & insulted you in the past,but committed no major sin(he never stole) Imagine that you accepted your brother's apologies,and accepted his claim to have matured.
Imagine that you decide to entrust your brother with a job,and then one day with the task of taking the money of the family restaurant to the bank,(since you must attend to a emergency).
Imagine that instead of taking it to the bank,he absconds with the money to Las Vegas & spends it on drugs,prostitutes,and roulette.
Imagine that he then comes up with a brillant idea:he will forge your signature and put the family deli up as collateral to a loan shark,and then use that money to make up the money he lost gambling and make millions more to boot,by
gambling some more.
After signing your property over to a Chinese gangster named Mr.Gòngchǎn Zhōngguó
He then tries to figure out why he lost at roulette.He figures out what the problem is.He's unlucky!To solve this problem he decides to buy a lucky rabbit's foot,whose magic powers will enable him to win at roulette.
Imagine that the roulette wheel is unmoved by the rabbit's foot powers of persuasion.
Imagine that He then comes to you and tells you the following: 1."It doesn't matter who is to blame for this situation,there is no point in pointing fingers,or in assigning blame." 2."Life isn't fair to me." 3."You must work with the mobsters to give them a cut of our business.I say our business since we're all in this together,and since you and mom and dad cheated me out of my share of the family business by refusing to leave it equally to both of us." 4."If you don't work with the mobsters and share,YOU will be to blame for what happens to me." 4.He then quotes Cain from the Bible:"Cain said 'I am not my brother's keeper',do you wish to be like a murderer like Cain?What's more,not only does the Bible say it, but(even more importantly!) President Obama says that "we are our brother's keeper' too!" You answer: 1.If I were Cain you would be dead in the ground.Cain's sin was envy and murder.
2.I am not your servant because of a offhand comment made by a ancient murderer. 3.Be thankful that I don't have you arrested for theft and fraud.I won't.But never want to see you again.
4.I will call the police when the mobsters arrive,since the debt has no legal standing,there's nothing they can do to us.
Your brother is concerned:"You can't do that!You'll ruin my street cred with the other gamblers!I need to stay on good terms with them so I can borrow more money for....stuff.
"We're brothers!I'm your brother!It's your duty to help me!
Haven't you read the Parable of the Prodigal Son!
You:"We're Jewish.Besides wasn't that a metaphor for welcoming a repentant sinner,not serving the vices of a unrepentant one?" Your brother:"Vice!Sin!Evil!Repentance!What kind of morality is that!Morality is brother love!Oh!And NOW you care about the bible!" You respond:"You brought it up!" Your Brother:”That's no excuse for your callousness!"Don't make excuses for your actions"
You throw up your hands and refuse. Your brother:
"You,you,souless beast ...you monstrous heartless fiend,you think of no one but himself!You're a bloodthirsty vampire who preys upon the innocent and profits off of the suffering and of the goodwill of others.You are a parasite who is willing to milk the human kindness of others for your own petty gain and then toss them aside!You worship Gold!
Why don't you sacrifice me to your Golden Calf!
You!You exploited me!
You made me take the money!
It was part of your PLOT!
You knew that I was weak.
You deliberately baited me with that money to tempt me!
You are S-A-T-A-N!! You respond to this by saying:have you heard of the psychological concept of projection? If you think that what I wrote above is "over-the-top",well.. it is ,but then so is our world. On to Jeb's "purity".
I would say to Jeb,define purity? Is a whorehouse too pure for you,Jeb?
Because the GOP is far less pure than a whorehouse. Yes,I am being unfair;to prostitutes.
Placing prostitutes on par with Congress is unjust to the former,since a significant percentage of women and girls who work as prostitutes are runaways,or drug addicts,or victims of abuse.Some are young children.
We should stop using the word "whorehouse" to refer to ”a kind of moral sewer” & replace it with the word ”Congress”. No,Jeb,the problem really is not a surfeit of "ideological purity",or a unwillingness to ”work across the aisle" to get your ”stuff” done.
No,the problem is neither "ideological purity" ,or for that matter "ideological impurity" (since we would not be better off if we had a "pure" totalitarian regime) There is not A single problem;there are several related problems.
One problem is that both parties believe and act upon the belief that men exist to serve other men,whether they wish to or not.They believe that they have the right to force those who disagree with them to serve whatever the statists wish to yoke us to at any given time:whether it be the poor,the trees,the owls,the earth,the worms or the weeds,or whatever wishes their deity or deities of choice allgedly communicate to them .."Jesus was a Occupier!...No,a Republican!” etc)
They believe either that Individual Rights do not exist,or that they may be swept aside for whatever "good" intention pops into their skulls.(Which is to say one and the same thing)
But that is only one political problem.
Why are these thugs in power?
Who elected them?
I could say that "we did" but since I didn't(with one or two exceptions) I would be lying.
But many Americans did vote to empower this Ship of Fools, which is destroying our rights,and leading our country into national bankruptcy and down the path to third world status.
Some voted for the fools because they lied to us about their intentions,and we either believed them or feared that the alternative would be worse (as I did on the occasions I alluded to above) . Others,however,voted to send them to Washington to spend us further into debt,or they voted to send them to Washington because "they liked them",or because "their parents were of the same political party" or some other such rubbish like that.
One wonders if these Congressmen & Senators(of both parties) who constantly speak of doing such and such "for the children" ever think of the future generations of American children who will be buying a carton of milk with baskets of cash?(as they did in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe)
That is if they can find one. Footnotes:
fn1.
Times Daily - Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19760220&id=GxksAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4sgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3152,3173004
Toledo Blade - Google News Archive Search
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19760220&id=NQ9PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dgIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4872,4880535 fn2 Richard Carstone Bleak House - Charles Dickens - Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don't think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.
The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.
"My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?" he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.
"I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses' business."
"How was that ?" said I. "Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don't deny that ?"
"No," said I.
"Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—"
"The same ten pounds," I hinted. "That has nothing to do with it!" returned Richard. "I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular."
In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it. "Let me see!" he would say.
"I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker's affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it's a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!"
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The Carstonian view of money that guides the worthies in Wash. #tcot #tlot #teaparty
Richard Carstone Bleak House - Charles Dickens - Google Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don't think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.
The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.
"My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?" he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.
"I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses' business."
"How was that ?" said I. "Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don't deny that ?"
"No," said I.
"Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—"
"The same ten pounds," I hinted. "That has nothing to do with it!" returned Richard. "I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular."
In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it. "Let me see!" he would say.
"I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker's affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it's a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!"
http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1
”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don't think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.
The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.
"My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?" he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.
"I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses' business."
"How was that ?" said I. "Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don't deny that ?"
"No," said I.
"Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—"
"The same ten pounds," I hinted. "That has nothing to do with it!" returned Richard. "I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular."
In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it. "Let me see!" he would say.
"I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker's affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it's a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!"
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Iranian official calls for Islamic countries to have Nukes #irannuclear
RRD:Alireza Forghani,who previously put forward a plan in precise detail, for how Tehran could and should ”annihilate” all Israeli jews by 2014(fn1),has now called for Islamic countries to develop the Atomic Bomb. Islamic world must have nuclear weapons, says Iran | The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/10/islamic-world-must-have-nuclear-weapons-says-iran/ See here for the source story: http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/post-99.aspx RRD:
...”Official Iranian media outlets published a commentary Sunday titled “The necessity for the Islamic world to have the atomic bomb ,” laying the groundwork for Iran’s refusal to accept limits on its illicit nuclear program. The essay’s author, Alireza Forghani, is the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province and an analyst and a strategy specialist in the camp of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The fatwa from Imam Khomeini [the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution] said ‘all Islamic countries have Islamic blood,’” Forghani wrote. “Therefore the Islamic world should rise up and shout that a nuclear bomb is our right, and disrupt the dreams of America and Israel.” “Having a nuclear bomb is our right,” he argued. “Israel would have been destroyed completely 30 years ago” but has survived because it has nuclear weapons.” RRD:This is not the first time high ranking Iranian officials have
called for Israel's annihilation. In addition to Ahmadinejad's well known call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".Basij Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Naghdi has stated: PJ Media » (BREAKING) Iran: ‘We Have No Option but to Destroy Israel’
http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-iran-we-have-no-option-but-to-destroy-israel/?singlepage=true And the wife of a slain nuclear scientist publicly boasted of
husbands desire to destroy Israel
Wife of #Iranian nuclear scientist says Husband's goal was destruction of #Israel #iranelections #freeiran - Americans for Freedom in Iran
http://americansforfreedominiran.posterous.com/wife-of-iranian-nuclear-scientist-says-husban Footnotes: fn1 Iranian Official explains in precise detail how Iran should ”annihilate” Israeli jews by 2014 - Americans for Freedom in Iran http://americansforfreedominiran.posterous.com/iranian-official-explains-in-precise-detail-h
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/10/islamic-world-must-have-nuclear-weapons-says-iran/ See here for the source story: http://alireza-forghani.blogfa.com/post-99.aspx RRD:
...”Official Iranian media outlets published a commentary Sunday titled “The necessity for the Islamic world to have the atomic bomb ,” laying the groundwork for Iran’s refusal to accept limits on its illicit nuclear program. The essay’s author, Alireza Forghani, is the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province and an analyst and a strategy specialist in the camp of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The fatwa from Imam Khomeini [the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution] said ‘all Islamic countries have Islamic blood,’” Forghani wrote. “Therefore the Islamic world should rise up and shout that a nuclear bomb is our right, and disrupt the dreams of America and Israel.” “Having a nuclear bomb is our right,” he argued. “Israel would have been destroyed completely 30 years ago” but has survived because it has nuclear weapons.” RRD:This is not the first time high ranking Iranian officials have
called for Israel's annihilation. In addition to Ahmadinejad's well known call for Israel to be "wiped off the map".Basij Brigadier General Mohammad-Reza Naghdi has stated: PJ Media » (BREAKING) Iran: ‘We Have No Option but to Destroy Israel’
http://pjmedia.com/blog/breaking-iran-we-have-no-option-but-to-destroy-israel/?singlepage=true And the wife of a slain nuclear scientist publicly boasted of
husbands desire to destroy Israel
Wife of #Iranian nuclear scientist says Husband's goal was destruction of #Israel #iranelections #freeiran - Americans for Freedom in Iran
http://americansforfreedominiran.posterous.com/wife-of-iranian-nuclear-scientist-says-husban Footnotes: fn1 Iranian Official explains in precise detail how Iran should ”annihilate” Israeli jews by 2014 - Americans for Freedom in Iran http://americansforfreedominiran.posterous.com/iranian-official-explains-in-precise-detail-h
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Don't Let It Go Unheard #Objectivist ( #aynrand ) podcast 8pm EST Topics:Obama's ”doing fine” remark,Obama #2012 data mining,How NOT to help gays & minorities #tlot #teaparty
http://dontletitgo.com/2012/06/10/check-out-the-topics-for-tonights-dont-let-it-go-unheard-and-join-in-live-at-5-p-m-pdt-8-p-m-edt/ ”PLANNED TOPICS: The right way, and the wrong way, to promote the interests of gays and other minorities. Can Obama win the election this fall by collecting more data on us than Romney does ? Also, what in the world made him say this week that “the private sector is doing fine” ? And more if there’s time.”
Hena Akhter,14yr old Bangladeshi girl murdered by Imam for ”adultery” which might have been rape #no2sharia #womensrights #tcot
Only 14, Bangladeshi girl charged with adultery was lashed to death - CNN.com
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/bangladesh.lashing.death/index.html?on.cnn=1
....”Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70.”...
Background:
....”Many months later on a winter night, as Hena's sister Alya told it, Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her. Hena struggled to escape, Alya told CNN. Mahbub Khan's wife heard Hena's muffled screams and when she found Hena with her husband, she dragged the teenage girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor. The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan's house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under sharia or Islamic law was 101 lashes; his 201. Mahbub Khan managed to escape after the first few lashes.”... RRD:In a separate,wholly unrelated story,one of Obama's advisors on Islam said:
"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance”. Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood - Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html ”Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz. During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man -made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism". They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government". Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West. She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media. "The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. "The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases." Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women. It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft. Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/29/bangladesh.lashing.death/index.html?on.cnn=1
....”Hena Akhter's last words to her mother proclaimed her innocence. But it was too late to save the 14-year-old girl. Her fellow villagers in Bangladesh's Shariatpur district had already passed harsh judgment on her. Guilty, they said, of having an affair with a married man. The imam from the local mosque ordered the fatwa, or religious ruling, and the punishment: 101 lashes delivered swiftly, deliberately in public. Hena dropped after 70.”...
Background:
....”Many months later on a winter night, as Hena's sister Alya told it, Hena was walking from her room to an outdoor toilet when Mahbub Khan gagged her with cloth, forced her behind nearby shrubbery and beat and raped her. Hena struggled to escape, Alya told CNN. Mahbub Khan's wife heard Hena's muffled screams and when she found Hena with her husband, she dragged the teenage girl back to her hut, beat her and trampled her on the floor. The next day, the village elders met to discuss the case at Mahbub Khan's house, Alya said. The imam pronounced his fatwa. Khan and Hena were found guilty of an illicit relationship. Her punishment under sharia or Islamic law was 101 lashes; his 201. Mahbub Khan managed to escape after the first few lashes.”... RRD:In a separate,wholly unrelated story,one of Obama's advisors on Islam said:
"The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance”. Obama adviser says Sharia Law is misunderstood - Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/6274387/Obama-adviser-says-Sharia-Law-is-misunderstood.html ”Miss Mogahed appeared alongside Hizb ut Tahrir's national women's officer, Nazreen Nawaz. During the 45-minute discussion, on the Islam Channel programme Muslimah Dilemma earlier this week, the two members of the group made repeated attacks on secular "man -made law" and the West's "lethal cocktail of liberty and capitalism". They called for Sharia Law to be "the source of legislation" and said that women should not be "permitted to hold a position of leadership in government". Miss Mogahed made no challenge to these demands and said that "promiscuity" and the "breakdown of traditional values" were what Muslims admired least about the West. She said: "I think the reason so many women support Sharia is because they have a very different understanding of sharia than the common perception in Western media. "The majority of women around the world associate gender justice, or justice for women, with sharia compliance. "The portrayal of Sharia has been oversimplified in many cases." Sharia in its broadest sense is a religious code for living, which decrees such matters as fasting and dressing modestly. However, it has also been interpreted as requiring the separation of men and women. It also includes the controversial "Hadd offences", crimes with specific penalties set by the Koran and the sayings of the prophet Mohammed. These include death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality and the removal of a hand for theft. Miss Mogahed admitted that even many Muslims associated Sharia with "maximum criminal punishments" and "laws that... to many people seem unequal to women," but added: "Part of the reason that there is this perception of Sharia is because Sharia is not well understood and Islam as a faith is not well understood”
Friday, June 8, 2012
Turkish PM Erdoğan: WSJ only reported on Uludere killings because of ”Jewish Lobby” #antisemitism #tcot #jcot
Uludere was a mistake and we will do whatever necessary - Sabah English
http://english.sabah.com.tr/National/2012/05/30/uludere-was-a-mistake-and-we-will-do-whatever-necessary
”We understand the exploitative efforts made by the terrorist organization. We also understand the exploitation made by the BDP, because their strings are in the terrorist organization's hands. However, it is not an acceptable situation for us to see CHP, the media and even the international press trying to exploit this tragic situation. This incident has international implications, which is namely the Wall Street Journal… What do you care? What is it to you ? Who is it that ruffled your feathers? Because they work for someone they are trying to disrupt the current administration. Why ? The current administration is on good terms with Turkey and supposedly this is a discomfort for them. Why ?Because, the Jewish lobby is uncomfortable. A conspiracy within a conspiracy. The state and the government have done more than what befalls them in regards to the Uludere incident. Nothing is being covered up."
http://english.sabah.com.tr/National/2012/05/30/uludere-was-a-mistake-and-we-will-do-whatever-necessary
”We understand the exploitative efforts made by the terrorist organization. We also understand the exploitation made by the BDP, because their strings are in the terrorist organization's hands. However, it is not an acceptable situation for us to see CHP, the media and even the international press trying to exploit this tragic situation. This incident has international implications, which is namely the Wall Street Journal… What do you care? What is it to you ? Who is it that ruffled your feathers? Because they work for someone they are trying to disrupt the current administration. Why ? The current administration is on good terms with Turkey and supposedly this is a discomfort for them. Why ?Because, the Jewish lobby is uncomfortable. A conspiracy within a conspiracy. The state and the government have done more than what befalls them in regards to the Uludere incident. Nothing is being covered up."
”Admirer” of Jews invokes #antisemitic stereotypes in attack on #AynRand
Ayn Rand Nation a book by Gary Weiss Reviewed by Sara Rolph HBL - The Harry Binswanger List
http://www.hblist.com/weiss.htm ”And he has some rather primitive emotional reactions. Riffing on Jews and capitalism, Weiss tells us "The only capitalists I ever saw were overworked storekeepers, snarling gypsy-cab drivers, and smack dealers on 135th Street. She [Rand] saw a free, unregulated market as the defining institution of a free society. To me, a free, unregulated market was Benny the Goniff selling fruit from a stall in front of a butcher shop on Kingsbridge Road, screaming "Whoaaaa! We got melons here!" in a high-pitched Yiddish accent, sneaking rotten fruit into the bag and counting out ten when a dozen were ordered."
Yes, that really is a direct quote from the book (page 14). It gets worse. Weiss continues: "Benny's spirit drifted downtown to Wall Street. In place of Benny the Goniff as my archetypical capitalist was a new cast of characters. ... Instead of red-faced Benny in his stained undershirt there was the esteemed electronic-trading advocate Bernie Madoff in his monogrammed underwear. Both blended together in my perceptions, small-time and big wheel." RRD:I have not read the book,but if this passage is at all a accurate representation of Weiss' views then he is a loathsome anti-semitic wretch.(Again if accurate): ...” Yes, that really is a direct quote from the book (page 14). It gets worse. Weiss continues: "Benny's spirit drifted downtown to Wall Street. In place of Benny the Goniff as my archetypical capitalist was a new cast of characters. ... Instead of red-faced Benny in his stained undershirt there was the esteemed electronic-trading advocate Bernie Madoff in his monogrammed underwear. Both blended together in my perceptions, small-time and big wheel."... RRD:
You see what happens when you let the moneychangers into the temple.
Perhaps ”Benny's spirit” corrupted the poor Christians of Wall Street.
Perhaps Benny is Satan? One wonders if "Benny the Goniff"--if he exists--has a big nose?
Does ”Benny the Goniff" count his Ducats obsessively?
Does ”Benny the Goniff" really "act his color",as racists say of African-Americans.
Once again we are presented with the anti-semitic ”madonna-whore” trope of the ”good selfless Jew”(Portia mayhap?) vs the ”bad selfish Jew” (Shylock).
In this fantasy Jews are either helpless,martyred downtrodden victims who were ”born to suffer” (ala ”The Suffering Servant”) ,or else they act out the, ”baser aspect of the Jewish Character” as ”Capitalists” like Madoff,(actually Rand believed that Madoff would be a criminal in a capitalist society).
In fairness Weiss may not see the implications of his statements,but then--if the review is accurate--he sees so little anyway.
http://www.hblist.com/weiss.htm ”And he has some rather primitive emotional reactions. Riffing on Jews and capitalism, Weiss tells us "The only capitalists I ever saw were overworked storekeepers, snarling gypsy-cab drivers, and smack dealers on 135th Street. She [Rand] saw a free, unregulated market as the defining institution of a free society. To me, a free, unregulated market was Benny the Goniff selling fruit from a stall in front of a butcher shop on Kingsbridge Road, screaming "Whoaaaa! We got melons here!" in a high-pitched Yiddish accent, sneaking rotten fruit into the bag and counting out ten when a dozen were ordered."
Yes, that really is a direct quote from the book (page 14). It gets worse. Weiss continues: "Benny's spirit drifted downtown to Wall Street. In place of Benny the Goniff as my archetypical capitalist was a new cast of characters. ... Instead of red-faced Benny in his stained undershirt there was the esteemed electronic-trading advocate Bernie Madoff in his monogrammed underwear. Both blended together in my perceptions, small-time and big wheel." RRD:I have not read the book,but if this passage is at all a accurate representation of Weiss' views then he is a loathsome anti-semitic wretch.(Again if accurate): ...” Yes, that really is a direct quote from the book (page 14). It gets worse. Weiss continues: "Benny's spirit drifted downtown to Wall Street. In place of Benny the Goniff as my archetypical capitalist was a new cast of characters. ... Instead of red-faced Benny in his stained undershirt there was the esteemed electronic-trading advocate Bernie Madoff in his monogrammed underwear. Both blended together in my perceptions, small-time and big wheel."... RRD:
You see what happens when you let the moneychangers into the temple.
Perhaps ”Benny's spirit” corrupted the poor Christians of Wall Street.
Perhaps Benny is Satan? One wonders if "Benny the Goniff"--if he exists--has a big nose?
Does ”Benny the Goniff" count his Ducats obsessively?
Does ”Benny the Goniff" really "act his color",as racists say of African-Americans.
Once again we are presented with the anti-semitic ”madonna-whore” trope of the ”good selfless Jew”(Portia mayhap?) vs the ”bad selfish Jew” (Shylock).
In this fantasy Jews are either helpless,martyred downtrodden victims who were ”born to suffer” (ala ”The Suffering Servant”) ,or else they act out the, ”baser aspect of the Jewish Character” as ”Capitalists” like Madoff,(actually Rand believed that Madoff would be a criminal in a capitalist society).
In fairness Weiss may not see the implications of his statements,but then--if the review is accurate--he sees so little anyway.
Transcript reveals Judge's surreal contempt for #Freedomofspeech
Michelle Malkin » Going dark to urge congressional action: Who will protect the freedom to blog? http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/08/going-dark-to-urge-congressional-action-who-will-protect-the-freedom-to-blog/ ”The most alarming aspect of Vaughey’s hearing was the judge’s disregard for
Brandenburg in favor of a standard of free speech of Vaughey’s own making. From the transcript: WALKER: But it is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. That — Galloway v. State made it very specific on harassment– THE COURT: –Within reason, my friend. Within reason. [emphasis added] WALKER: Within reason ? THE COURT: Within reason. WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice ? THE COURT: You know, I shouldn’t say this, but I think you’ve got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute the crimes is the government– WALKER: –Of course– THE COURT: –and only the government, and not you. WALKER: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you’re doing this, I think, under a guise — under this new banner of, “I’ve got the right to do.” You can’t. You can’t. Suppose you didn’t like a girl and you wanted to talk about her chastity. He feels the same way. He feels violated. And [inaudible] you have to look at the reasonableness between the two of you on the content. That’s why said, “Where’s this going?” [RRD:The convicted bombers ”feelings” are not a legal standard.And how is talking about a girls chastity--which is also protected speech if it is true-- comparable to condemning a convicted felon and those who ignore his past] Vaughey then proceeded to make Walker and his blogging responsible for Kimberlin’s unsupported claims of death threats and other harassment. When Walker told the judge that Brandenburg protected his speech, Vaughey ignored Brandenburg, then described his own sense of justice: THE COURT: Forget Bradenburg [sic]. Let’s go by Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world. But you know, where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly. [RRD:Forget Bradenburg ”let’s go by Vaughey”?!
Bradenberg is a SUPREME COURT RULING,it cannot be "forgotten" in lieu of Vaughey's desires.This reads like something out of Judge Dredd... "I am the law!"] WALKER: I’m not sure what that means, your honor. THE COURT: –Very quickly. And I’m not going to talk about those ways, but boy, it ended fast. I even can tell you, when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy’s permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got some friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck. WALKER: Well, Your Honor, what– THE COURT: –That ended it. You guys have got this new mechanical stuff out here, the electronic stuff, that you can just ruin somebody without doing anything. But you started it.
[RRD:Is this man senile?He is invoking the macho vigilantism of thugs to justify prohibiting someone from pointing out a convicted bomber's past criminal record??!!
And ”You started ...”What? Condemning a convicted felon and those who seek to evade his past?I should certainly hope that someone would ”start it”,if It is criticizing a criminal for his crimes.And if he means threats or incitement then what specific comment by Walker could reasonably be understood to incite threats by the Bradenburg standard which the Judge discards in lieu of his personal whims based on his experiences growing up.] Finally, as Judge Vaughey rendered his decision, he displayed an incredible degree of ignorance of modern forms of speech. In concert with his disregard for Supreme Court precedence, his gross ignorance resulted in an illegal prior restraint on Walker’s speech and his arrest for exercising a constitutional right: THE COURT: Okay. All right, sir, this Order shall remain in effect until 11-15 2012. During that period of time, you not —shall commit any act that causes in person (ph) fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act that places the gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempted rape, sex offense, false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, [inaudible] or malicious destruction of property. The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing or any other means, and any other means is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a — smoke signals — what else is out there — sonar, radar, laser, nothing. WALKER: So I’m not allowed to speak about him for 6 months ? How about the First Amendment ? THE COURT: How many times have you been interrupting? And you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence, wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment, wherever that may be, he may be employed. Now, let me get to the — now, should this — should you violate this order, sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorney’s office as a criminal case, and if found guilty, the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and/or it’s a $500 fine, could be a $1,000 fine. Or worse than that, you could be in contempt of this court, where you could —I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from — or e-mailing him or Twitting him or Googling him or Tooting him or smoking (ph) him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know if [inaudible]. Thank you [inaudible]. [all emphasis mine]
RRD:If you wish to see what I think of when I hear people say that "Judges must have empathy",& that "they must not be legal automatons",and that "they must be bring their personal experiences to bear on their rulings" this is it. And I have witnessed this type of contemptuous disregard for the law by Judges first hand. Yet in many states it is almost impossible to get these little dictators out of office.
Ayn Rand once observed:
...”It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable.
A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in
sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.”(fn2) Judge Vaughey is certainly not a dictator in the literal sense used by Ayn Rand(as opposed to my phrase "little dictator").
He has not condemned people to death.
But the dangers of non-objective,undefined laws are the same:Chronic uncertainty & fear about what is legal & what,isn't. This is not to say that Strict Constructionist Judges are always correct(or even sincere)in their rulings. They may not be. But to come to that conclusion you must first acknowledge that there is a actual law,that it has a actual objective meaning and that can be rationally understood. "Subjective Law",practiced consistently,is not law. It replaces the society "of laws and not of men"(that is men's whims) with a society of men's whims and not of laws.
Footnotes: fn1 Judge Dredd (1995) - Quotes - IMDb
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0113492/quotes
Judge Dredd: ”I am the law!” fn2
“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 5
Brandenburg in favor of a standard of free speech of Vaughey’s own making. From the transcript: WALKER: But it is my right under the First Amendment to talk about what this man did to me. It is my right to tell the world what he did to me. That — Galloway v. State made it very specific on harassment– THE COURT: –Within reason, my friend. Within reason. [emphasis added] WALKER: Within reason ? THE COURT: Within reason. WALKER: I have had a crime committed against me. What is unreasonable about seeking justice ? THE COURT: You know, I shouldn’t say this, but I think you’ve got it twisted. The one who decides to prosecute the crimes is the government– WALKER: –Of course– THE COURT: –and only the government, and not you. WALKER: Of course, Your Honor. THE COURT: And you’re doing this, I think, under a guise — under this new banner of, “I’ve got the right to do.” You can’t. You can’t. Suppose you didn’t like a girl and you wanted to talk about her chastity. He feels the same way. He feels violated. And [inaudible] you have to look at the reasonableness between the two of you on the content. That’s why said, “Where’s this going?” [RRD:The convicted bombers ”feelings” are not a legal standard.And how is talking about a girls chastity--which is also protected speech if it is true-- comparable to condemning a convicted felon and those who ignore his past] Vaughey then proceeded to make Walker and his blogging responsible for Kimberlin’s unsupported claims of death threats and other harassment. When Walker told the judge that Brandenburg protected his speech, Vaughey ignored Brandenburg, then described his own sense of justice: THE COURT: Forget Bradenburg [sic]. Let’s go by Vaughey right now, and common sense out in the world. But you know, where I grew up in Brooklyn, when that stuff was pulled, it was settled real quickly. [RRD:Forget Bradenburg ”let’s go by Vaughey”?!
Bradenberg is a SUPREME COURT RULING,it cannot be "forgotten" in lieu of Vaughey's desires.This reads like something out of Judge Dredd... "I am the law!"] WALKER: I’m not sure what that means, your honor. THE COURT: –Very quickly. And I’m not going to talk about those ways, but boy, it ended fast. I even can tell you, when I grew up in my community, you wanted to date an Italian girl, you had to get the Italian boy’s permission. But that was the old neighborhoods back in the city. And it was really fair. When someone did something up there to you, your sister, your girlfriend, you got some friends to take them for a ride in the back of the truck. WALKER: Well, Your Honor, what– THE COURT: –That ended it. You guys have got this new mechanical stuff out here, the electronic stuff, that you can just ruin somebody without doing anything. But you started it.
[RRD:Is this man senile?He is invoking the macho vigilantism of thugs to justify prohibiting someone from pointing out a convicted bomber's past criminal record??!!
And ”You started ...”What? Condemning a convicted felon and those who seek to evade his past?I should certainly hope that someone would ”start it”,if It is criticizing a criminal for his crimes.And if he means threats or incitement then what specific comment by Walker could reasonably be understood to incite threats by the Bradenburg standard which the Judge discards in lieu of his personal whims based on his experiences growing up.] Finally, as Judge Vaughey rendered his decision, he displayed an incredible degree of ignorance of modern forms of speech. In concert with his disregard for Supreme Court precedence, his gross ignorance resulted in an illegal prior restraint on Walker’s speech and his arrest for exercising a constitutional right: THE COURT: Okay. All right, sir, this Order shall remain in effect until 11-15 2012. During that period of time, you not —shall commit any act that causes in person (ph) fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act that places the gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempted rape, sex offense, false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, [inaudible] or malicious destruction of property. The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing or any other means, and any other means is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a — smoke signals — what else is out there — sonar, radar, laser, nothing. WALKER: So I’m not allowed to speak about him for 6 months ? How about the First Amendment ? THE COURT: How many times have you been interrupting? And you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence, wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment, wherever that may be, he may be employed. Now, let me get to the — now, should this — should you violate this order, sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorney’s office as a criminal case, and if found guilty, the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and/or it’s a $500 fine, could be a $1,000 fine. Or worse than that, you could be in contempt of this court, where you could —I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from — or e-mailing him or Twitting him or Googling him or Tooting him or smoking (ph) him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know if [inaudible]. Thank you [inaudible]. [all emphasis mine]
RRD:If you wish to see what I think of when I hear people say that "Judges must have empathy",& that "they must not be legal automatons",and that "they must be bring their personal experiences to bear on their rulings" this is it. And I have witnessed this type of contemptuous disregard for the law by Judges first hand. Yet in many states it is almost impossible to get these little dictators out of office.
Ayn Rand once observed:
...”It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous, military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided these edicts were known, specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable.
A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible, the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in
sudden death; a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear.”(fn2) Judge Vaughey is certainly not a dictator in the literal sense used by Ayn Rand(as opposed to my phrase "little dictator").
He has not condemned people to death.
But the dangers of non-objective,undefined laws are the same:Chronic uncertainty & fear about what is legal & what,isn't. This is not to say that Strict Constructionist Judges are always correct(or even sincere)in their rulings. They may not be. But to come to that conclusion you must first acknowledge that there is a actual law,that it has a actual objective meaning and that can be rationally understood. "Subjective Law",practiced consistently,is not law. It replaces the society "of laws and not of men"(that is men's whims) with a society of men's whims and not of laws.
Footnotes: fn1 Judge Dredd (1995) - Quotes - IMDb
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0113492/quotes
Judge Dredd: ”I am the law!” fn2
“Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason,” The Objectivist Newsletter, Feb. 1962, 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
