Remember that story that consumed our news media three months ago about the U.S. Department of Agriculture manager who was accused of being a racist? Yeah, remember, she was caught on tape saying she wouldn’t be zealous in helping a farmer because he was white? And it turns out those quotes were taken out of context from a speech in which she was talking about something that happened years ago, a story she was using as an exhortation to her audience never to act that way?

Yeah, that was crazy. People trying to drum up more racism in America. While that was going on, another group of “media journalists” were asserting that the “tea party is full of racists” – never mind the troubling facts that the “tea party” is a large, non-centralized movement with no clear identity (“journalists” hate anything that isn’t centralized) and that there was absolutely no evidence anywhere that anyone in association with any tea party event or group ever exhibited any racist behaviors.

No evidence? No problem. Not in this age of what passes as “journalism” in this country.

Here we are now, three weeks before the mid-term U.S. elections, and it’s Stupid Season. Judging from the ads we see and hear in a constant daily bombardment, we are supposed to be stupid enough to believe anything, and evidence would only confuse us.

A commercial in Florida pulls sound-bites from a candidate’s speech that makes him sound like a right-wing Christian zealot who expects his wife to obey him… he was giving a speech in which he was making exactly the opposite point.

A major governor’s race is mired in an accusation that one candidate employed and then heartlessly fired a self-proclaimed illegal immigrant. The candidate’s opponent (who happens to be the state attorney general and has done nothing to prosecute the only sure criminal in the case – the illegal immigrant) asserts that the other candidate knew she was employing an illegal when it was to her economic benefit, and then quickly scrapped the poor unfortunate when she decided to run for governor because it would look bad, of course. There are absolutely no facts to substantiate any of those assertions; in fact, there are a few facts that refute them.

A national ad proclaims that one party’s supporters are taking “secret foreign money” – it even shows a ruffling stack of Chinese yuan bills – and paints the picture for Us Stupid (U.S.) Dummies that, basically, the Chinese are putting forth that evil party’s candidates to take over the country and do their bidding. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is implicated (those capitalist pigs!). David Axelrod, the president’s longtime friend and advisor, appeared on a “media journalism” program over the weekend and was actually asked if he had any evidence of this serious charge – in reply to which Mr. Axelrod asked the “journalist” whether he had any evidence that it WASN’T true.

No evidence? No problem.

These are supposed to be our leaders. Oh, boy. I suggest you not wait around to be led by these people, because you don’t want to go where they’re going! Start a business of your own so you can build your entrepreneurial skills and have an income of your very own… don’t expect your employer to take care of you. Start a health-kick so you can keep yourself energetic and vital… not just because you’ll need that energy to drive your business and run your household, but because you can’t expect the government’s health care program to take care of you. And start getting a real education about the global conspiracy against your money, before it’s too late.

It’s Stupid Season. Let the stupid have their season… meanwhile, take this time to quietly build a future around personal responsibility and personal values. After all, if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Hume, M.S.
-
About the Author:
 
Michael Hume is a speaker, writer, and consultant specializing in helping people maximize their potential and enjoy inspiring lives. As part of his inspirational leadership mission, he coaches executives and leaders in growing their personal sense of well-being through wealth creation and management, along with personal vitality.
Those with an entrepreneurial spirit who want to make money “one less thing to worry about” can learn more about working with Michael at http://oneyearplan.net/michaeldhume
Anyone wanting to jump-start their vitality can browse through the best (and most travel-friendly) nutraceuticals on the market at http://shop.enivausa.com/239824
Michael and his wife, Kathryn, divide their time between homes in California and Colorado. They are very proud of their offspring, who grew up to include a homemaker, a rock star, a service talent, and a television expert. Two grandchildren also warm their hearts! Visit Michael’s web site at http://michaelhume.net
Article Source

The mainstream German media (newspapers, radio, and motion pictures) had, by 1936, been forcibly intimidated by the Nazi government into publishing and broadcasting only Nazi propaganda to the German people. The publishers of the smaller newspapers and magazines in various German cities, who refused to go along with the fascist Nazi agenda, were harshly seized by the brown-shirted SA and, eventually, the SS, and shipped-off to concentration camps. Yet, despite the attempts of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, to indoctrinate the entire German populace with Nazi lies, approximately 18 percent of all the adult Germans had, and maintained, a silent but adamant assurance that Adolf Hitler was not the Christian that he had claimed to be, but, rather, an atheistic megalomaniac. From 1933 until 1945, around 43 percent of the adult Germans remained unsure about Hitler’s Christian principles, while fully supporting the Nazi regime politically and militarily. It was actually the 39 percent of the adult German citizens, and 99 percent of the German soldiers, sailors, airmen, and the Gestapo, who fully believed in Adolf Hitler, that constituted the means of monitoring and controlling the behaviors of the German dissidents and eventual doubters throughout the course of the 2nd World War.

Do these percentages from the past sound recently familiar? In the Friday, August 20, 2010, edition of the “Washington Post,” a Pew Research Center poll was published showing that 18 percent of the American poll-sample firmly believed that Barack Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim. A surprising 43 percent of those polled reported that they were unsure whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim, and only 34 percent of the respondents reported a firm belief that Obama is Christian. Interestingly, in 1936, the dissident 18 percent of the population were absolutely correct in their belief about Hitler not being a Christian, despite what the controlling majority proclaimed. Beneath the current Pew poll results was the article written by Jon Cohen and Michael D. Shear, which seemed to reflect the words of Joseph Goebbels strongly worded 1934 German press release, “Adolf Hitler is, without a doubt, the Christian ambassador for God.” Cohen and Shear disputed the unbelieving 18 percent of the recent Pew poll by saying, “Americans increasingly are convinced – incorrectly – that President Obama is a Muslim, and a growing number are thoroughly confused about his religion.” If, perhaps, the “Washington Post,” the “Los Angeles Times,” the “Chicago Tribune,” “The New York Times,” “The Wall Street Journal” and other major U.S. newspapers readily dispute the growing belief among adult members of the American electorate that Obama is not a Christian, but a Muslim, there will be a desperate clamor in the Democratic Party leadership to assert that the voters are absolutely wrong. This might also be the case if CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and even PBS weigh into the controversy by calling the voters ignorant of the facts.

Nonetheless, if the American voters go to the polls in November 2010, with an increasing number of them saying, “If Obama looks like a Muslim, talks like a Muslim, and acts like a Muslim, he must be a Muslim,” the Democratic Party is in for a big shock, when Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority of the infamous Democrats who voted for fascist Obamacare, and the economically disparaging Stimulus Bill, are voted out of Congress. But it’s much more of a crying shame when a standing U.S. President has gone to the unscrupulous lengths that Obama has gone to keep his long form birth certificate and educational records away from public disclosure, in order to keep from being exposed as a person basically ineligible to be President. A good point to remember, and ponder, about Barack Hussain Obama is that when he was under Islamic instruction as a young person in Indonesia, he had a different name and had taken upon himself a Muslim bond and obligation that, according to the “Koran” and Islamic tradition, cannot be broken. And a noted scripture in the “Koran,” endorsed by Mohammed himself, is that Muslims are allowed, and encouraged, to deceive the infidel by lying, in order to subdue and control that infidel. This fact, in and of itself, is enough to create reasonable doubt about Barack Obama’s Christian faith in the minds of reasonable

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

The President is important, yes. He is our icon, our face, our leader. He can hire and fire people, and he can try to push whatever agenda he wants, for the most part. What the President doesn’t have is the power to change the course of American history in one single vote. This power rests in the hands of the Supreme Court. These 9 justices are what makes the major decisions that really impact our lives. Just look at the Citizens United case. The Court ruled that Corporations have the same rights as humans do under the First Amendment. And what was granted to them was the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political broadcasts. This case goes much further, so please research it in-depth. The court granted this power to the Corporations, and even foreign corporations have this same power. Foreign? Really? This was a major setback in what Americans have fought against for so long. This is why the 2012 election is more important than just electing a face, an icon.

In 2012 we face either Obama, or a Republican. What you get with a Republican, coupled with the Citizens United case, is the possibility of getting a Corporate spokes dummy in the Supreme Court. America cannot survive if that happens. So much corporate money will be pumped into advertising and the election of a Republican to ensure that the next Justice is bought and paid for. We cannot let this happen. If you’re a Democrat or Independent that disagrees with Obama, at least know that his Supreme Court Justice nominee will be fighting the fight for Americans not AmeriCo’s. Or quite possibly ForeignCo’s. So, America’s survival isn’t just pinned on how the next Court votes, it’s also pinned on YOUR next vote.

-
About the Author:
By Peter Schettkoe of Death&Taxes Designs
Article Source

This is a prime opening for the Republicans, yet in many ways it’s the Republicans who truly seem at war with one another.  From the media’s perspective, the party or Reagan now seems to view “moderate’ as a term only surpassed in distain by that deadly label – “liberal”.

The Democrats are doing their best to portray Republicans as the party of ‘no” and unless they begin to propose workable alternatives to the Democrat’s agenda, they run the risk of being viewed mainly as obstructionists, as opposed to problem solvers.  Whereas the county does seem to be veering to the right, any true success will most likely not come by making a hard right.  Britain tried that and their Conservatives paid for it.  It took a centrist, David Cameron, to begin to bring Britain’s conservatives back to the forefront.

Michael Steele doesn’t seem to be the chairman that the RNC needs at this time.  As Obama’s ratings nosedive, the Republicans need a strategic co-coordinator to rally the troops and come up with a strategic unified message, as opposed to several splintered messages. The party also needs to develop some strong presidential front runners.  Sarah Palin is definitely a strong brand name, and a wealthy one.  ABC new estimated that Palin had made in excess of $12 million since stepping down as Alaska’s governor. Yet a recent CNN pool has Obama beating her by 55% to 42% in a head-to-head battle.  More worrisome for the Palin camp, 69% stated she was not qualified to be president.  Obviously much can change between not and 2012, but at present there seems to be no urgency to develop a strong conservative platform with room for moderates.

For now, many view the Republicans as the party of obstructionism, with an intolerance that seems to view any form of cooperation or compromise as a type of blasphemy not to be tolerated.  The Tea Party could become a truly influential movement, but without a true agenda apart from big government being a bad thing, chances are it will eventually implode or begin to splinter into various factions.

This is a perfect opportunity for the Republicans to swoop in and capitalize on the current anger and dissatisfaction in the country, but without a strategic media campaign that reaches out to and resonates with the voters; it could well be a missed opportunity

Copyright © Anthony Mora 2010

-
About the Author:
Anthony Mora began his media career as a freelance journalist for such publications as Us, Rolling Stone and other local and national publications. He served as editor-in-chief of two Los Angeles-based entertainment and lifestyle-oriented publications, and co-founded Phillips & Mora Entertainment, a public relations and personal management company, which ventured into video and film production. In 1990, Anthony formed Anthony Mora Communications, Inc. a Los Angeles-based media relations company that specializes in media placement, image development, and media training. AMC Inc. has placed clients in: Time, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Oprah Winfrey Show, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other local, national, and international media outlets. Anthony has been featured in: USA Today, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, The BBC, CNN, Entrepreneur, Fox News, MSNBC, and other media. He has written three books. The most recent, \”Spin to Win,\” is a step-by-step guide on how to define goals and utilize the power of the media to achieve success in any field. Practical and user-friendly, \”Spin to Win\” can be utilized by heads of major corporations, small business owners, and entrepreneurs.
Article Source

We often think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams… presidents all, but they were not alone in building the fledgling nation. There were others who drove the cause of freedom, helping pave the way to our independence. Patrick Henry was one of these who guided the our country into the light of independence. This future governor of Virginia is credited with helping his contemporaries see the need for independence and helping them to commit to fighting for it.

Through the years, his words have inspired many to a greater belief in both liberty and themselves. He demonstrated a single minded dedication to his country and its people. In view of the hazardous days ahead for our nation, it would be well to study these ideas coming from this man who loved his land and loved liberty.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.

Perfect freedom is as necessary to the health and vigor of commerce as it is to the health and vigor of citizenship.

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?

The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.

Fear is the passion of slaves.

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! – I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

If This Be Treason, Make The Most Of It!

Today we honor this man and his devotion. We see him as a hero of the first American revolution, yet are we ready to emulate him? Often our respect for law and order turns us into compliant servants of a government that is taking us down the road to financial and spiritual ruin. As we sing the praises of Patrick Henry, we need to remember that had the revolution failed, he would have experienced the short drop with a sudden stop at the end of a hangman’s rope… and we are afraid of minor infractions in our fight to remain free.

-
About the Author:
Larry Miller After far too many years of working in IT and involvement in political activity, Larry Miller now designs business and political websites at www.simplewebs.biz and recently began the web site and blog www.PoliticalChristian.org as a resource for Christians in the public arena.
Article Source

The austerity measures announced both by the central and regional governments are of course a step in the right direction, but without action to stimulate the economy are not in themselves sufficient and signify a dangerous downward spiral into poverty for the Spanish people and economy.

No what is desperately needed and right NOW is bold dynamic and forward looking actions. What is needed more than a reduction of salary on the part of the leaders of Junta De Andalucia is leadership, bold, brave and dynamic leadership. Is this possible?

Whilst it was very encouraging to read (Diario Sur 21.05.10) that the PP president for Andalucia  Sn Javier Arenas is proposing modifications of the disastrous LOUA and POTA laws he is not in power and the people of Andalucia cannot wait 2 years. Economic stimulation and job creation is needed right now. Come on Junta do it!

The common denominator between the current LOUA & POTA building laws and the almost lack of building laws prior to 2003 is that neither require much overseeing.  Practically speaking almost anything is ok as against almost nothing is ok is in terms of policing very similar. Modify carefully this law and the economies and opportunities for real employment for many, many inland villages could be very rapidly turned around.

What is now needed is a very carefully prepared modification of these laws for social, economic and international reasons.

I am sure that few if any people wish to see a return to the pre LOUA days of wild construction in the countryside, but equally the current situation is as bad.

1. Segregate Andalucía into different zones. There is a zone behind the coast that in general is agriculturally unproductive. Let us say from the seashore until 50-60 klms inland.

2. Within this zone reconsider the block on building and consider a minimum area of farmland that can justify a dwelling, maybe 40, or 50,000 metres.

3. Set strict guidelines as to the style/design of farmhouse that will be allowed, basically following the Andalucian style of Architecture.

4. Set a minimum distance that any new farmhouse must be from its neighbour, say between 500 and 1000 metres  (yes this would advantage the early birds).

5. Make obligatory with each license the planting of say 500-1000 trees (to be specified by the Junta)

6. Issue a 100% guarantee with each license from the Junta that if all conditions are met the license is beyond doubt and incontestable.

Basically all of this will require the creation of a sizable, skilled and well trained workforce that would effectively oversee all projects.

There remains a strong demand for a place in the Andalucía countryside amongst many people across the world, but much credibility and confidence has been lost with the endless court cases of both individual house owners and mayors across Andalucía.

There is no doubt that the above actions would rapidly stimulate the economies of many inland communities, creating employment, an inflow of funds and perhaps most importantly renewed hope and belief for the future.

Terrence Aubrey,

CEO www.confidentialmatchmakers.com

-
About the Author:
As the CEO of an International dating agency based in The Ukraine Terrence Aubrey has gained valuable insight into what these ladies are seeking. He has written many informative and helpful articles on the subject. For more information go to:- http://www.confidentialmatchmakers.com,
Article Source

So no — I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. This danger will only grow if the region slides backwards and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.
Of course, this burden is not ours alone to bear. This is not just America’s war. Since 9/11, al Qaeda’s safe-havens have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them.
These facts compel us to act along with our friends and allies. Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.
To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe-haven. We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government, so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan’s future.
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity over the next 18 months.
The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 — the fastest pace possible — so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.
Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility — what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.
Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government — and, more importantly, to the Afghan people — that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.
Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security.
This effort must be based on performance. The days of providing a blank check are over. President Karzai’s inauguration speech sent the right message about moving in a new direction. And going forward, we will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance. We will support Afghan ministries, governors, and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable. And we will also focus our assistance in areas — such as agriculture — that can make an immediate impact in the lives of the Afghan people.
The people of Afghanistan have endured violence for decades. They have been confronted with occupation — by the Soviet Union, and then by foreign al Qaeda fighters who used Afghan land for their own purposes. So tonight, I want the Afghan people to understand — America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country. We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens. And we will seek a partnership with Afghanistan grounded in mutual respect — to isolate those who destroy; to strengthen those who build; to hasten the day when our troops will leave; and to forge a lasting friendship in which America is your partner, and never your patron.
Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.
We are in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. But this same cancer has also taken root in the border region of Pakistan. That is why we need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.
In the past, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence. But in recent years, as innocents have been killed from Karachi to Islamabad, it has become clear that it is the Pakistani people who are the most endangered by extremism. Public opinion has turned. The Pakistani Army has waged an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan. And there is no doubt that the United States and Pakistan share a common enemy.
In the past, we too often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly. Those days are over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests, mutual respect and mutual trust. We will strengthen Pakistan’s capacity to target those groups that threaten our countries, and have made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe-haven for terrorists whose location is known, and whose intentions are clear. America is also providing substantial resources to support Pakistan’s democracy and development. We are the largest international supporter for those Pakistanis displaced by the fighting. And going forward, the Pakistani people must know: America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan’s security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent, so that the great potential of its people can be unleashed.
These are the three core elements of our strategy: a military effort to create the conditions for a transition; a civilian surge that reinforces positive action; and an effective partnership with Pakistan.
I recognize that there are a range of concerns about our approach. So let me briefly address a few of the prominent arguments that I have heard, and which I take very seriously.
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we are better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends upon a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can’t leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what we can achieve at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a timeframe for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
As president, I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, our or interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don’t have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I am mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, “Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs.”
Over the past several years, we have lost that balance. We have failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our friends and neighbors are out of work and struggle to pay the bills, and too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.
All told, by the time I took office the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan approached a trillion dollars. Going forward, I am committed to addressing these costs openly and honestly. Our new approach in Afghanistan is likely to cost us roughly $30 billion for the military this year, and I will work closely with Congress to address these costs as we work to bring down our deficit.
But as we end the war in Iraq and transition to Afghan responsibility, we must rebuild our strength here at home. Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power. It pays for our military. It underwrites our diplomacy. It taps the potential of our people, and allows investment in new industry. And it will allow us to compete in this century as successfully as we did in the last. That is why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended — because the nation that I am most interested in building is our own.
Now, let me be clear: none of this will be easy. The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan. It will be an enduring test of our free society, and our leadership in the world. And unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.
So as a result, America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict. We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships.
And we can’t count on military might alone. We have to invest in our homeland security, because we can’t capture or kill every violent extremist abroad. We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.
We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them. Because every nation must understand that true security will never come from an endless race for ever-more destructive weapons — true security will come for those who reject them.
We will have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone. I have spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships. And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.
Finally, we must draw on the strength of our values — for the challenges that we face may have changed, but the things that we believe in must not. That is why we must promote our values by living them at home — which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom, and justice, and opportunity, and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source — the moral source of America’s authority.
Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs. We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents. We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies. We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.
We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes. But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty.
For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination. Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations. We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours. What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.
As a country, we are not as young — and perhaps not as innocent — as we were when Roosevelt was president. Yet we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom. Now we must summon all of our might and moral suasion to meet the challenges of a new age.
In the end, our security and leadership does not come solely from the strength of our arms. It derives from our people — from the workers and businesses who will rebuild our economy; from the entrepreneurs and researchers who will pioneer new industries; from the teachers that will educate our children, and the service of those who work in our communities at home; from the diplomats and Peace Corps volunteers who spread hope abroad; and from the men and women in uniform who are part of an unbroken line of sacrifice that has made government of the people, by the people and for the people a reality on this Earth.
This vast and diverse citizenry will not always agree on every issue — nor should we. But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.
It is easy to forget that when this war began, we were united — bound together by the fresh memory of a horrific attack, and by the determination to defend our homeland and the values we hold dear. I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again. I believe with every fiber of my being that we — as Americans — can still come together behind a common purpose. For our values are not simply words written into parchment — they are a creed that calls us together, and that has carried us through the darkest of storms as one nation, as one people.
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes. Thank you, God Bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

US President Obama spoke Tuesday night at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York, about the future of the U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. The following is a transcript of his remarks:
Good evening. To the United States Corps of Cadets, to the men and women of our armed services, and to my fellow Americans. I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan — the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion. It is an honor for me to do so here at West Point where so many men and women have prepared to stand up for our security, and to represent what is finest about our country.
To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place. We did not ask for this fight. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people. They struck at our military and economic nerve centers. They took the lives of innocent men, women and children without regard to their faith or race or station. Were it not for the heroic actions of the passengers on board one of those flights, they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.
As we know, these men belonged to al Qaeda — a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam, one of the world’s great religions, to justify the slaughter of innocents. Al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban — a ruthless, repressive and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.
Just days after 9/11, Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda and those who harbored them — an authorization that continues to this day. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 0. The vote in the House was 420 to 1. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization invoked Article 5 — the commitment that says an attack on one member nation is an attack on all. And the United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks. America, our allies and the world were acting as one to destroy al Qaeda’s terrorist network, and to protect our common security.
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy — and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden — we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.
Then, in early 2003, the decision was made to wage a second war in Iraq. The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well-known and need not be repeated here. It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention — and that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world.
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform. Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance , we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.
But while we have achieved hard-earned milestones in Iraq, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated. After escaping across the border into Pakistan in 2001 and 2002, al Qaeda’s leadership established a safe-haven there. Although a legitimate government was elected by the Afghan people, it has been hampered by corruption, the drug trade, an under-developed economy, and insufficient Security Forces. Over the last several years, the Taliban has maintained common cause with al Qaeda, as they both seek an overthrow of the Afghan government. Gradually, the Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan, while engaging in increasingly brazen and devastating acts of terrorism against the Pakistani people.
Throughout this period, our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive. That’s why, shortly after taking office, I approved a long-standing request for more troops. After consultations with our allies, I then announced a strategy recognizing the fundamental connection between our war effort in Afghanistan, and the extremist safe-havens in Pakistan. I set a goal that was narrowly defined as disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda and its extremist allies, and pledged to better coordinate our military and civilian efforts.
Since then, we have made progress on some important objectives. High-ranking al Qaeda and Taliban leaders have been killed, and we have stepped up the pressure on al Qaeda world-wide. In Pakistan, that nation’s Army has gone on its largest offensive in years. In Afghanistan, we and our allies prevented the Taliban from stopping a presidential election, and — although it was marred by fraud — that election produced a government that is consistent with Afghanistan’s laws and constitution.
Yet huge challenges remain. Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards. There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border. And our forces lack the full support they need to effectively train and partner with Afghan security forces and better secure the population. Our new commander in Afghanistan — Gen. McChrystal — has reported that the security situation is more serious than he anticipated. In short: the status quo is not sustainable.
As cadets, you volunteered for service during this time of danger. Some of you have fought in Afghanistan. Many will deploy there. As your commander in chief, I owe you a mission that is clearly defined, and worthy of your service. That is why, after the Afghan voting was completed, I insisted on a thorough review of our strategy. Let me be clear: There has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010 — so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war. Instead, the review has allowed me ask the hard questions, and to explore all of the different options along with my national security team, our military and civilian leadership in Afghanistan, and our key partners. Given the stakes involved, I owed the American people and our troops no less.
This review is now complete. And as commander in chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. These are the resources that we need to seize the initiative, while building the Afghan capacity that can allow for a responsible transition of our forces out of Afghanistan.
I do not make this decision lightly. I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions. We have been at war for eight years, at enormous cost in lives and resources. Years of debate over Iraq and terrorism have left our unity on national security issues in tatters, and created a highly polarized and partisan backdrop for this effort. And having just experienced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the American people are understandably focused on rebuilding our economy and putting people to work here at home.
Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As president, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I have visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I have traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

<form accept-charset=”UNKNOWN” enctype=”application/x-www-form-urlencoded” method=”get”>

Source: The News

</form>

-
About the Author:
Mohsin Ali Farhad
Islamabad Pakistan
Article Source

causes of the diversifying the productive and not-productive fields into multiple divisions of the societies in the world.

Alienation of productive force from the production work for the whole society at that time, the reasons were demanded them to set aside from the mere and little responsibility of the production work to the high degree of total responsibilities on the newly emerged needs they adopted to the system of uniformity in decisions in implementation of the activities they carried out in the new areas at that time

.

The alienation from the productive work had the universal sanction to deal the new challenges from the new responsibilities they all were to resume. The new challenges they had to face from the old responsibilities to new tasks. Consequently the non-productive sections in which they allowed to work were more widened with the new needs and demands.

The burden of the production work was consistent with the need of all, with the reduced strength of the productive forces. The pressure was mounted to full fill the growing demand of the needs in food habits, which were taken new turn from the raw to the boiled or roasted in its form. At the same time the work of eating from the temporary ‘spots’ to the permanent shelters was given a new ground to engage the new men to work in the ‘preparation’ of food ‘, taking care of the food,  and bringing the food material from the distant areas were made to engage a courageous and well built men into it.

The divisions of the non-productive work field occupied a wide are to adopt more men from the production work to non-production work. Resultantly, the skilled and non-skilled portions of bifurcation were taken place in their lives at that time at the time of shift of their dwellings to plane areas. The skilled and non-skilled work both in productive and non-productive fields were taken place within the unit under the pressure of the protection of the people from both natural, and wild animals under the conditions of which they were to live.

 While living under the threat perception and their moves, could never be understood by any body in the world, because they want to see the past and remote events which were changing under the differences of the changes for identifying the factors that had to play in both material and in mental forms of the people, who were only able to know what decisions could be taken in according to the circumstances under which they were allowed to live

At the same time, these types of changes in all fields were taken place under the need of the growing demands which could be taken over by the efficient and capable individuals. At least four fields were in open before them to meet the task of the changes, which could be seen as follows.

Productive field which was under pressure and that had given birth to the need of selecting the skilled workers in proving a food to all with leading, some minors for the purpose to train them, during the traveling, while their work. Here the selections and the selections of the skilled, training, at the same time, casual, regular works divisions were taken place.

In the non-productive field, the coordination of all four sections were needed as to see how much of the guarantee they were secured from the men who were on that responsibilities had been entrusted to, to be verified, and the depositing of the food with finding out the durability of what were to collect with protection of it from its own people were the reason to actively work with muscle and with their minds. At the same time, the foods responsibility was to carry out in a same way where the men were appointed for that had to be verified with the balance of the needy men and excessive use of the working at the spot of the society.

The imbalance of utilizations was automatically accrued there due to the allotment and work divisions of the men into productive and non-productive forces. It means the side effect was shown its result on the whole system of the society in which they were to over come it without going back to the original phase of their journey. The result of the emergence of the two fields from varying each from its own origin were moving its own way from many hurdles in their long run. In every field at the dwelling centers from where the origin of finding the irrigation, domestication of animals, cultivation, planting and other fields were emerged within its own set of laws

.The non-productive field had been reduced to the broadened responsibilities of keeping unifying members by avoiding a clashes at the women, at the work of guarding the food storage, and at the selecting the men to all other works within the society that kind of attraction from both sides of productive and non productive fields were made them to kill with the support of the others who were mostly entrusted to the most key centers of the society. By formulating the developments in the society, I do not like to lead it towards the principle of the fittest was survived

. But I like to say the fittest system was survived and made to continue from that ancient time to the present modern times. All these developments were taken place at the African jungles and at the surrounding places of the Egyptians, and Sumerians dwelling centers. I am not talking about the developments that also were taken place at the Indian subcontinent. Because Indian and its south Asian history does not consist all transitional periods as claimed by the world Marists and Indian Marxist in India. In my earlier article I explained the system of slavery which was jumped out to the feudal system without passing the phase of the slave system.

 Here the entire Marxist believes that the interpretation of the history through the phases were the same and India also has such history and they tries to apply the other model of proposition to India and its historical developments.  It was the different story about the Indian transitional period which was and is quite opposite to the Marxist interpretations in its philosophy. The responsibility of the coordination of the many diversifying needs and its filling-ups with men was stood to the top of the position like a post at that time. In its true sense it is the name of ‘state’. It was in its responsibility to lead the society into the further advancement based on the coming new and newest challenges in the hands of the coordinator. The non-productive fields such as protecting the society, guarding the storages, food preparations at the society, and the responsibility of feeding the children and women who were allowed to be at the wishes of the head of the society

.

As these developments were taking place at the society, the inventions and findings were lead them towards progress and advancements, such as developing irrigation channels, tiles, metal equipments, in plowing, and other inventions were taken place in the same way. Simply, this kind of historical interpretation from the point of materialistic way what I like to assess the past to understand the present conditions of the world in its exact manner without committing bias against the whole history of man kind.

At the same time, from the past to the another form of social system which was known by all those who have a political knowledge or any political affiliations in interpreting the past and remote developments in the history which had the role to play the same role in further developing the society from one phase to another.

The known history, through the available sources at present could be broadly said that the inventions from the first book bible, which states that there was slavery and it, had social sanctions at that time when the bible was written. And many more evidences are available to claim that the slave system was come into being without knowing its prior system which had lead to its advanced system at that time. Aristotle, in his writings, and in Greek philosophy the slave system as a legalized system was existed. And they supported while their life times. Before going into depth on the subject of the slavery, it is necessary to inquire the leading and the most striking features on the society upon which the entire system was and is based and on the stable process of progress any society could emerge as a powerful and resourceful of the time in the interest of the people

.

To identify the exact factors of the society with its features which lead it from stage to stage on each and every findings and innovations, every factor behind every invention, which are discussed here below

there must be a need to which the people was in relentlessly trying and bearing the losses on unsuccessful attempts like a factor, if we take as example, the people did not know about the swimming, they needed to learn the swimming and built a ferries or logs they used to cross the rivers, which was the new for the new people and the old were drowned

The code of Manu, which had a section in the list of punishments on proof of guilt by throwing him into water because the reason at that time the people did not learn swimming. So that the section of punishment of throwing the guilt into water was the reason they were in belief that the guilt did not swim out of the waters.  The act of swimming was made them to cross the rivers and they got their settlements wherever they believed as the place of safety.

The sensing of the need should come out of skilled, cleverish and personal emotions, while resuming the responsibilities in the entrusted fields irrespective of the productive and non-productive sections

.

In every filed, the lead role played by active people who may be even one or two as an indicators of such need as an essentiality while discharging their works.

Those men who were engaged in their respective works were in feeling that all were doing the work with equal responsibility under the single command or force on one or few with their help in discharging their works

An organizational vacuum was come with the differences between the two major sections of that society besides its own and internal differences among the newly emerged sections through the skilled works of the capabilities which were the basic and primary need at that time to take birth another section from its own that lead one stage of advancement and progress to another.

The clear cut demarcation between the productive and non productive sections were taken place within which every advancement and progress taken place within its own spectrum of each field beside its major fields of productive and non-productive.

In the similar way of the developments in the productive side with its extended braches now we all are evident about its existence in present time in all societies from the right from beginning, at least three major braches through which all fields of the present day of progress and advancement of the societies we should note which are named as follows.

As a major section in the society, the productive field from its ancient origin to present that feeds the whole society with its all extended branches of the present society in all over the world. The transition of the phase of the society from one stage to another stage in each country was and is very different from each other. No common model of Marxist philosophy, or its extended Leninism, in U.S.S.R, and the last model of Maoism could never be applied to the other parts of the world. To understand this particularity principle from the principle of generality which was I previously discussed in my another article, some two three months back, to all the states in the world may need many more decades or centuries, I do not expect, because the philosophy is such that would never allow anybody to review the past of its possible applications to the global countries

. The whole philosophy and a thought to state any ideas or a set of ideas by somebody, though, it may be in a materialistic form, against idealism, and utopian way of presenting the ideas about the people ,society, state, and other important things with were and are proved that as a facts  and the same were and are proved correct through its reasonable and in rational way in the interest of the society, nation and for the people who lives in the society by entrusting the general responsibility of their protection as their first priority and prioritized nature in the set of other natures of the human beings whose nature and mind to calculate in every time hundreds of theories were and are come up but could not succeed to present the human nature and their behaviors would be such in the when they face such conditions in particular time and place with the particular factors that cause them to come up with their decisions, the only philosophy in the world on the serious observations on the change of the nature through the industries in the industrial revolution and its consequences with progress and developments it was formulated by the great philosopher Karl Marx and Engel. Both saw the results and they represented the whole theory and their philosophy in their literature which had given the two models of Marxian states in the world. The other was and it’s some level of progress in gauging the minds of the people in achieving their task of the removal of the monarchy in Nepal. Hence these models are known that all were and are the direct contributions of Karl Marx, Engel, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, how many lives were behind the success of these two states, and what were the factors really played in that socialist system of the governance have been told by many more than the Indians. But the British and American universities were allowed to carry out research works more on Marxian philosophies than any other subjects of social sciences.

In India there are more working groups on these oldest philosophies than the recognising the new findings  of the philosophical contributions to the social science from the side of Marxian philosophy in India. Coming back to other section of the society which relates completely to non-productive sections whatever we have in present day that had their origin in the ancient socienties.

As a part of the society, the non-productive filed which did not share in the productive work of the society. And it is completely depended upon the productive field of the society. Since the say of alienation of this diction from participation of the productive work, it has been played a lead role in development and progress of the society as a whole but through it’s extended and sub-sections of its major field. It has no power in the direct way of interfering in the affairs of the productive works and its relations within its own sub-sections of the branches.

 In its apex seat, the state what we call to the chief of the non-productive sections of its own, from post of the president to the least and lower post of contract labor of the local bodies, all does not participate in the production works in the society. But all those who belong to the border security force personnel to India’s telecom company’s night watchman lives like members of the same society from the days of alienation from the participation in productive works.

As an unavoidable need was its emergence in ancient period and from that period to till now they have been diversified and extended its roots to every branch of the government in present society by resuming the responsibilities of their respective fields. In other words, if we say correctly all the major sections of executive, legislative and judiciary all of its related branches and other sections of the society like press/media, education, entertainment, etc.  

All those who do not have the direct participation in the productive field, were and are known that they are non-productive and dependents of the productive forces. And it was not easy at the time of its emergence and growth, but now it has become easy to work. So that most of the members of the society seeks these fields. And the productive field which was and is the base of all members of any society from ancient societies to the present modern societies. I go on about it later, but coming to another important section of the society which was and is the key in fastening the pace of the progress and development of the society. It is still in the hands of the people who play multiple roles in the society both in two to three fields of the society.

Productive tools, which were and are the key players in the society from ancient times to the present day of every progress and development of the society and played a predominant role in all times since the ancient days to present day. From the period of stone tools to the nuclear weapons, the growth and origin of the tools and equipments were used in the production fields for feeding the whole society at that time.

 And now its peak stage of industries which are now producing the products for the benefit of its owners has a different story that may be detailed some time later. But the role of the productive tools which were used in feeding to fighting against the enemies has the same origin and its developments from that time to present period especially after the industrial revolution. But all these are in whose hands have another story to discuss in another article. One tool of iron on the development in this field, by finding the iron for hunting the animals, had been made useful in plowing the land in the Sumerian civilization, iron use was made in the transport of a carts as a development and contribution for another invention by using it for digging water storages on finding the scarcity of it in summer times. At the same way all these developments in the filed of tools taken place for the list of serializing such finding are not possible to discuss here.

 How did the state had paid its role from the needy time to present day is discussed in detail in the next article.

Ayub Mohammed 

-
About the Author:
have spent a lot at the cost of my dad while my olden days, and got some degrees in education without knowing its value and validity at that time and continued the same habit at my own cost since then that time to present now.And i saw and realized that my life is spent out in the search to know the society,state,and about the people from the ancient civilizations to the present clock-like capitalism as well as about myself too. At last i satisfied myself that i know what i wanted to know that what i am now, is a subject to u all to know.Do u want to judge the whole thing in seconds?But i estimate u in single part of the second before your judgement about me ayub mohammed
Article Source

Since before his election, in 2008, Mr. Obama has fought litigation efforts of plaintiffs in several U.S. District Courts, to the tune of nearly 2 million dollars, to judicially mandate the disclosure of his original long form Hawaiian birth certificate. In this exclusively private endeavor to keep from publicly disclosing his long form birth certificate, and, apparently, all of his educational records, Obama has illicitly used federal tax money in the form of legal services provided by the US. Department of Justice, in addition to Democratic Party campaign contributions used to retain the very expensive services of the DC office of Perkins Coie Law Firm, in order to oppose the just attempts of plaintiffs, like Alan Keyes, to force him to prove that he is a natural born citizen of the United States, and not an American citizen born in Africa. And after a little of the dense smoke has dissipated from the legal battleground, a very simple question remains. Why doesn’t Obama enlist the trust of the millions of the electorate who distrust, and regard, him as an interloper, by simply disclosing his long form birth certificate for public scrutiny?

Perhaps, the loose use of the term “misrepresentation,” in regard to the allegations and statements made by the media supporting Obama in this constitutional controversy, has not been so subtly changed to that of “lying” by those opposing Obama’s credibility on network television and Internet news broadcasts. What does it actually take for a media misrepresentation to equate a lie? Well, according to the great late American humorist and satirist, Will Rogers, if it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, don’t you dare call it a dog.” If professional television journalists know substantially that the correct facts do not support the content of their statements on network broadcasts, then what might be innocent misrepresentation through honest ignorance becomes deliberate, fraudulent misrepresentation, or an intentional lie.

In the most recent edition of the Internet’s “World Net Daily,” the Western Center for Journalism’s July 21, 2009 publication, of a report of an investigation commissioned privately by an unnamed retired CIA officer in December 2008, was republished for public benefit. In this report, as I read it, the most disturbing two facts which emerged from its words were, (1), that the many American voters who regularly watch CNN were probably duped by the assertion (lie?) of television journalist Katy Pilgrim, when she stated, on July 17, 2009, that “the Obama campaign had produced “the original birth certificate” on the internet and that FactCheck.org had examined the original birth certificate.” The (2nd) disturbing fact was the February 23, 2009 assertion (lie?) of Jonathan Alter, MSNBC Political Analyst, in response to the question by MSNBC’s “Countdown” host, Keith Olberman, of “But as long as you feed that community that is looking for some excuse to question the legitimacy of a presidency, have you not-to some degree-done your job? I mean, has Alan Keyes not-to some degree-done his job in this?” Alter’s response was, “Well, you know, I don’t really think so, because I think it’s just sort of makes him and the other Clinton critic-the other Obama critics look ridiculous. And so, that doesn’t really, you know, help their cause in the debate. They are a party that is out of ideas, so they have to resort to these lies, you know, about the fact that he is not a citizen. You know, this came up during the campaign, Keith, and the Obama campaign actually posted his birth certificate from a Hawaii hospital online.”

Were the millions of American citizens who religiously watch CNN as their valid, truthful news source falsely told, on February 23 and July 17, 2009, that Obama’s original long form birth certificate was published on the Internet by an unnamed Hawaiian hospital? If so, it was much more than negligent misrepresentation, because those individuals making the statements, news professionals, knew beyond a reasonable doubt that what they were not stating the truth. The only type of Obama birth certification that has, to date, been published on the Internet, by the President’s own wishes, has been that silly green thing called a certificate of live birth, which would not be suitable, as a birth certificate, to obtain an official identification card from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

So, the prevailing situation is very much like the ludicrously absurd 9/11 mass murder investigation that was called “The 9/11 Commission,” by which authority the federally supportive powers-that-be (the media) urged, if not demanded, that a very large segment, over 80%, of the American public surrender its suspicions that the federal government surreptitiously orchestrated the mass killing that occurred on that awful day in 2001.   The mainstream electronic media, presently allied with the U.S. Executive Branch, the standing Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Senate Majority Leader are currently urging, if not demanding, that every American voter quietly accept, without authoritative proof, that Barack H. Obama is a natural born citizen of the United States.  In the name of all that’s sacrosanct, I cannot, and will not, do such a thing, and I hope that the bulk of the American electorate will follow suit.  Perhaps the mid-term congressional elections will serve to remove from Congress the incumbent legislators who don’t support constitutional government.  Without a legislative majority, the Obama administration and its unconstitutional policies will certainly fade into obscurity with no chance of regaining a governmental momentum and the confidence of the American people.

-
About the Author:
Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler plus one year of law school at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California.  He also holds an ABA-approved paralegal certification from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, is a 1985 graduate of the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff’s Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, and worked professionally as a California peace officer. In addition to the foregoing, Mr. Nowlin’s educational prowess extends 70 semester hours beyond a master’s degree in sociology, history, and law. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal, free-lance writer, and political commentator/journalist. He is a published op-ed essayist for the “Seattle Times,” while also a freelance fiction writer and published poet. He is married, the father of three grown children, and resides with his wife, the renown math and science tutor, Diane C. Nowlin, and their two very intelligent cats, in Northern Virginia.`
Article Source

They were not soldiers.  The militia lacked the same rigorous training of the normal enlisted man but at the beginning of the war it was all that America had.  Lightly armed and without uniforms, these state militias formed of average men provided the firepower to get the ball rolling.  It was not until June of 1775 that a regular army was formed by the Continental Congress.  As the historic year of 1776 started, a full one third of those fighting for independence were still militia however.

After Washington trounced the English forces at Trenton and captured a thousand Hessians following his famous, and often embellished, crossing of the Delaware on Christmas of 1776 it was the New Jersey militia that eventually caused the remnants of the British forces which had pulled back to Princeton to retreat fully back to New York.  It was the militia that won the Battle of Bennington and it was the militia who rallied to General Horatio Gates and helped turn the war with a victory at the Second Battle of Saratoga.  It was militia that rolled out of the hills and hunted down English loyalists lead by Major Patrick Ferguson and who planted his grave firmly on top of King’s Mountain in 1780.

So important was the militia to the United States that our founding fathers enshrined its place in our Constitution as one of honor not to be touched.  They did so by stating boldly that , “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Those who fight to oppress the people of this great nation through violations of our Constitution rightfully fear the militia for they have seen what happens when the American people are pushed too far.  They have seen what happened to their fellow oppressors in the past and how Americans reacted by taking to arms when redress for egregious wrongs was not given.  For years they have done their best to vilify the militia due to their own fears of what might happen when the American people have had enough of their bastardization of our government.  They have to do something after all to deflect attention away from the wrongness of their own actions because their acts are indefensible.

Those on the left, today’s “progressives” for whom progress means regressing to tyrannies long since shed, claim to be Americans but rarely, if ever, seem to put forth ideas in line with American ideals.  They call people in militias any derisive slur they can concoct.  They mock them as nut cases playing soldier among other idiotic claims that simply do not hold up to any sort of historical context.  Again, had it not been for those, “nut cases playing soldier,” back in the 1770′s America would not be here today.  King George’s Generals mocked the militia too and it was fatal for their effort.

Tyrants whether they are today’s progressive liberals or the kings of ages past are just cowards at heart and they know that the militia is to be feared.  And yes, that is indeed a good thing.  Only when tyrants and would-be tyrants fear for their futures and even their very lives do they back down.  King George after all did not let the colonies secede out of the goodness of his heart.  No, he was forced to submit to the concept of the colonies being independent from England at the point of a musket.

So, being the student of history that I am it is no real surprise that the would-be tyrants of the political left would react as viscerally as they are to the thought of people and some representatives in a state like Oklahoma actually wanting to form up a militia.  The purpose of this militia is to protect the state against an intrusive federal government breaking the compact of our Constitution more readily than Hillary Clinton changes pants suits.

For the political left who are often unable to even be bothered to muss up their own hair for fear of breaking a nail this is an unacceptable action.  They are stepping up attacks on the movement trying hard to paint those contemplating this plan as everything from lunatics to racists.  But once again they are showing how uneducated they are with such attacks which are a mile wide and barely one sixteenth of an inch deep.

We still have a federal Constitution in this country which grants only limited powers to our government in Washington.  All that is not given is reserved, as many of our Founding Fathers repeatedly told those that questioned the expanse of the power they were signing over to Congress, the President and the Supreme Court.  The militia is just the legitimate defense mechanism against those that seek to reach too far into those reserved powers.   Mock them all you want.  But in doing so you only show how little you know.

-
About the Author:
J.J. Jackson is the owner of American Conservative Daily Blog. He is also the lead designer for The Right Things – Conservative Political T-shirts and his weekly articles and exclusive content can be found at Liberty Reborn.
Article Source