[Bangla Daily Star] Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami, which calls for establishing the rule of Islam through organised efforts, has strongly claimed that its charter has never had any clause that contradicts the country's constitution.
But Jamaat's claim does not match with the landmark Supreme Court verdict that the constitution of the republic does not allow establishing any rule but the rule of law in the country.
Whoops! Never saw that one coming, did they.
According to the verdict, the basic structural pillars of the country's constitution are sovereignty of people, supremacy of the constitution, democracy and secularism. It says none of these can be changed, even by amending the constitution.
"The structural pillars of the constitution stand beyond any change by amendatory process. Any amendment will be subject to the retention of these basic structures," former chief justice Shahabuddin Ahmad, who was one of the judges in the then Appellate Division, said in the historic verdict on the constitution's eighth amendment case in 1989.
Jamaat's aims and objectives for establishing the rule of Islam in the country as stipulated in its charter require bringing drastic amendments to the basic structures of the constitution.
Jamaat Secretary General Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojaheed in a statement on Tuesday said, "I want to make it crystal clear that there has never been any anti-constitutional clauses in Jamaat's charter."
The two-page statement signed by Prof Tasnim Alam, secretary of Jamaat's publicity department, also accused newspapers of carrying misleading and "syndicated reports" and protested those.
He said as a legitimate political party Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami submitted to the Election Commission its permanent constitution consistent with the Representation of the People Order (RPO).
According to the RPO, a political party will be disqualified from being registered as a parliamentary party with the EC if provisions in its charter contradict with the country's constitution.
"In some newspapers, Jamaat's commitment to establish an Islamic society has been labelled as contradictory to the democratic polity. This manifests their ignorance of democracy and Islam. Democracy might be honoured duly only when a truly Islamic society is established," Mojaheed said.
He also claimed that there is no discrimination against women and non-Muslims in his party. But Jamaat's constitution does not ensure equal rights to all irrespective of sex, religion and caste.
On women's representation, the Jamaat statement said it has finalised a provision of keeping 20-25 percent women in party committees at all levels.
The RPO, however, says a registered political party's charter must have provision for keeping 33 percent reserved posts for women at all levels and achieve the target by 2020.
In a special note incorporated in its charter, Jamaat claimed that it already has 20-25 percent women's representation in all its committees.
But in reality, the two top policymaking bodies of Jamaat--the 51-member central working committee and 15-member central executive committee--do not have a single woman member.
About non-Muslim members, the Jamaat secretary general said the party had non-Muslim members earlier and at present it has 20,000 non-Muslim associated members. The issue has been updated in the party constitution. The difference between Muslim and non-Muslim members is only religion-based. Muslim members say Bismillah at the time of taking oath, which is not applicable for non-Muslim members, Mojaheed claimed.
"The objections raised through syndicated [newspaper] reports on religious issues are related to our religious belief. The mention of Allah, the prophet and the after world in Jamaat's constitution are very much part of our Iman [belief]. Our constitution and international law preserve this belief and rights. The Representation of the People Order does not create any obstacle to this. If it had, that would have violated the constitution," Mojaheed said.
"We believe democracy is the only way to change a government in a multi-party democracy system. People of the country are catalyst for change of government," he said.
Mojaheed expressed hope that following the statement "propaganda against Jamaat's charter" will come to an end.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Jamaat-e-Islami
Amid the widespread relief that American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee have avoided the brutal fate meted out to them by a North Korean court, it may seem captious to consider the long-term implications of President Bill Clinton's trip.
The impulse to save two young women from 12 years of hard labor in a North Korean gulag is powerful. Yet now that this goal has been achieved, we need to balance the emotions of the moment against the precedent for the future.
It is inherent in hostage situations that potentially heartbreaking human conditions are used to overwhelm policy judgments. Therein lies the bargaining strength of the hostage-taker. On the other hand, at any given moment, several million Americans reside or travel abroad. How are they best protected? Is the lesson of this episode that any ruthless group or government can demand a symbolic meeting with a senior American by seizing hostages or threatening inhuman treatment for prisoners in their hand? If it should be said that North Korea is a special case because of its nuclear capability, does that create new incentives for proliferation?
Context matters. Less than six months ago, Pyongyang conducted a nuclear test and resumed the production of weapons-grade plutonium in violation of an agreement signed in February 2007 at the "six-power" conference in Beijing. Recently, North Korea refused a visit by the new U.S. envoy charged with discussing its proliferation efforts. Pyongyang has rejected various U.N. Security Council resolutions to desist from these activities and to return to the talks with the United States, South Korea, China, Japan and Russia. A visit by a former president, who is married to the secretary of state, will enable Kim Jong Il to convey to North Koreans, and perhaps to other countries, that his country is being accepted into the international community -- precisely the opposite of what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has defined as the goal of U.S. policy until Pyongyang abandons its nuclear weapons program.
Already, speculation is rife that the Clinton visit inaugurates the prospect of a change of course of American policy and of a bilateral U.S.-North Korea solution. But two-party talks outside the six-party framework never made any sense. North Korean nuclear weapons threaten the North's neighbors more than they do the United States. The other members of the six-party talks are needed to help enforce any agreement that may be made or to sustain sanctions on the way to it. These countries should not be made to feel that the United States uses them as pawns for its global designs. To be sure, the Obama administration has disavowed any intentions for separate, two-power talks. But the other parties will be tempted to hedge against the prospect that these assurances may be modified. That feeling is likely to be particularly strong in Japan, where a national election campaign is underway and where Tokyo already feels it has secured inadequate support on behalf of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea.
The pains the Obama administration has taken to cast the Clinton mission as a private, humanitarian visit and the restrained manner in which the trip was conducted demonstrate an awareness of those risks. Though the distinction between private and public is likely to prove elusive when concerning a former president who is the spouse of the secretary of state, the administration is still in a position to achieve a beneficent long-term outcome.
The root cause of our decade-old controversy with Pyongyang is that there is no middle ground between North Korea being a nuclear-weapons state and a state without nuclear weapons. At the end of a negotiation, North Korea will either destroy its nuclear arsenal or it will become a de facto nuclear state. So far, Pyongyang has used the negotiating forums available to it in a skillful campaign of procrastination, alternating leaps in technological progress with negotiating phases to consolidate it.
We seem to be approaching such a consolidating phase. North Korea may return to its well-established tactic of diverting us with the prospect of imminent breakthroughs. This is exactly what happened after the Korean nuclear weapons test in 2006. Pyongyang undoubtedly will continue seeking to achieve de facto acceptance as a nuclear weapons state by endlessly protracted diplomacy. The benign atmosphere by which it culminated its latest blackmail must not tempt us or our partners into bypaths that confuse atmosphere with substance. Any outcome other than the elimination of the North Korean nuclear military capability in a fixed time frame is a blow to nonproliferation prospects worldwide and to peace and stability globally.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Way to go, California. While the Golden State stumbled its way through the opposite of the "Summer of Love" (Californians were anything but turned on when they tuned in to Sacramento), their misery didn't go unnoticed. "California's budget woes a cautionary tale," surmised "CBS Evening News." "From the tarnished Golden State, lessons for Washington," intoned the Washington Post. And this, from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "California's problems emblematic of nation's."
Indeed, in the aftermath of a protracted budget stalemate and ugly spending cuts - and the likely prospect of more such bad political theater - the rest of America should consider itself warned. That begins with the concept of a government whose eyes are too big for its stomach.
Lesson one: For decades now, California governors and legislators of all political stripes have thrown caution - and fiscal sanity - to the wind. Even under Gov. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of conservative spendthrifts, California's state budget grew by more than 120 percent, and 130 percent under Gov. Pat Brown in the eight years before Reagan. The bill finally came due on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's watch. Will his successor be any different?
Lesson two: Experience counts. Back in 1991, the last time Sacramento encountered a budget crisis of similar proportion, then-Gov. Pete Wilson and then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown could bank on a combined half-century of officeholding wisdom. Their budget fix was smart and sensible. The key players in this year's budget mess - Schwarzenegger, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg - together don't have a decade's worth of leadership experience. No wonder the budget negotiations had so many fits and starts.
Lesson three: Given a chance to drive, gas-and-brake voters eventually will send a state into a ditch. At various time in recent years, thanks to the initiative process, California's electorate has approved higher taxes, rejected higher taxes, refused to reward lawmakers by easing term limits, yet rarely, if ever, tossed incumbents out of office even though the Legislature wallows in record disapproval. It's the sort of mixed signals - wide interpretations of mandates and little fear of accountability - that give extremists on both sides an excuse to be selfishly ultrapartisan.
There's one other moral to California's story, but it's for our eyes only.
The message: If California wants to get out of the woods, maybe it's time California got over itself.
For too long, the Golden State - and by this I'd include both its elected officials and the people who put them in office - has failed to cope with the present, hasn't adequately planned for the future, and has obsessed far too much over its gilded past. Because we're a nation-state, with one-eighth the nation's population and a world-class economy, the assumption is California is "special."
Granted, we have qualities many other states lack: Silicon Valley's instant wealth, Hollywood's instant celebrity. But in many other respects, we're no different than the rest of America. At least 38 other states have imposed budget cuts that severely impact vulnerable citizens, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Nationwide, 14 states are facing 2010 budget gaps that exceed 20 percent of their gross domestic product. California was one of eight states that had an unemployment rate of more than 11 percent in June.
As for California's famously failed political system, there are worse places to live. Try the banana republic that is New York, where Republicans seized the state Senate in a bloodless coup - and the governor, comptroller and junior U.S. senator all weren't elected to their current jobs. Or you can cross over into New Jersey, where three mayors and two state lawmakers were arrested in an FBI sting that began with an investigation into the black-market sale of fake Gucci handbags and human kidneys.
Still, this won't stop politicians, especially those seeking office in 2010, from evoking the concept of a "California Dream" and returning the Golden State to its past glory. There's nothing wrong with optimism - it's what brought most Californians here in the first place. But there's a fine line between the politics of hope and hopeless pipe dreams.
And that's what the talk of reinventing the California of 50 years ago is: a pipe dream. In 1960 - Pat Brown's second year as governor and the same year the state's Master Plan for Higher Education was introduced and the California Aqueduct begun - the Golden State consisted of a mere 15.7 million residents.
Fifty years later, we have twice the population and an even greater exponential of problems. In Washington, President John F. Kennedy spoke of a "New Frontier." But in California, Brown referred to California as a "last frontier." That concept - the Golden State as a land still to be settled - as well as the feasibility of free college tuition and spanking new highways and frontiers, is about as outdated in this day and age as PT-109 tie clips and touch football on the White House lawn.
From the eternal optimist who governs this state to the true believers determined to once again reinvent our economy, California is a state buoyed by hopeful determination. But in building the better tomorrow, maybe it's time we put our ego in check - and, at long last, let go of the past.
#2
Experience counts. Back in 1991, the last time Sacramento encountered a budget crisis of similar proportion, then-Gov. Pete Wilson and then-Assembly Speaker Willie Brown could bank on a combined half-century of officeholding wisdom.
The benefits of term limits might be debatable but when a ballot proposition called for limiting the terms of state legislators I voted for it for the sole reason of getting rid of Willie Brown. And, as I mentioned once before, it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent because all the campaign contributions from unions and other special interests go to the incumbent. Then you get unknown, underfunded opponents crying in the wilderness about why they should be elected and nobody hears them. Think about it on a national level: if you had a chance to vote for a constitutional amendment to limit terms for the Senate and House of Representatives, would you consider the experience of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as reasons to vote against it or would you leap at the chance to get rid of them? Throw out Lesson two. The only experience these people need is that of the voters spanking their butts and telling them NOT to raise taxes.
And remember they appoint committee chairmen and dole out staff authorizations, mostly to their own 'old guard' cronies. There is no old guard if there are term limits.
The economic problems of the future will not be about growth but about something more nettlesome: the ineluctable increase in the number of people with no marketable skills, and technology's role not as the antidote to social conflict, but as its instigator.
The battle will be over how to get the economy's winners to pay for an increasingly costly poor. In a future with higher taxes, the divide between rich and poor would be the central economic challenge.
The last great hope may be to design a more efficient tax system. Much of the present system takes from people with one hand then gives back with the other, after bureaucracy eats its share. Taxes for Social Security, Medicare and roads all show elements of such recycling. A more efficient system would tax only where there is a need for some specific public good or a transfer to the poor.
Unfortunately, such measures are only stopgaps. In the end, we may be forced to learn to live in a United States where, by stealth, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" becomes the guiding principle of government -- or else confront growing, unattended poverty. And the Big Zero is just the one to lead us there.
This is ridiculous. It's not that hard for most people to acquire the kind of skills necessary to work in a warehouse or a McDonalds or as a Walmart greeter, merely a willingness to work. As for stealth taxing, the poor will move to the states with the best benefits, the rich will move across the borders to states with lower taxes... as has been happening for years. And last I heard, President Obama refused to give California a handout, so there isn't likely to be much help for struggling states from this administration. Gregory Clark, professor of economics at the University of California at Davis (according to the blurb at the bottom of the op-ed) is doing a bit of propagandizing here trying to create submission to his idea of what the future should be.
#1
It's a cost of government issue, the problems Clark sees are due to the massive size, scope & cost of our many layers of government.
Consider a post-tax dollar spent on goods or services: on average 20-30% of the dollar is consumed by embedded tax & tax compliance costs, another 15-30% is consumed by embedded regulatory compliance costs & litigation (another government-imposed cost of doing business), if you live in an area with a sales tax another 5-10% is lost there, every wage earner pays at least half of their FICA taxes which consume another 7.65%. Consider that this breakdown neglects property taxes, vehicle registration, excise taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes and all other sorts of levies, fees & taxes imposed prior to our hypothetical American having a single post-tax dollar in hand and that in this best of all possible cases our average American loses something on the order of 48-78% of the purchasing power of her post-tax dollar to the cost of government.
Consider that in the context of a young family earning & spending $40,000/year and paying no (or minimal) income taxes. These folks would lose $20,000 - 30,000 of that total to the cost of government even though they pay $0 in income taxes. Want to give 'em a dramatic raise? Slash the tax & regulatory burden on businesses. Then we can stop fretting so much about wage stagnation.
The employment picture is similar: our net tax & regulatory burden is an enormous anchor dragging down the dynamism of the American economy. Cast that anchor off (or at least off small business) and there'll be so much growth and so massive a demand for employees that the only ones not working will do so purely by choice.
Drives me a bit bananas that no one ever stops to consider the real economics of massive government imposed on the middle & lower middle class of America.
#3
the ineluctable increase in the number of people with no marketable skills
Most of whom are immigrants or their descendants.
Note how during times of high employment the mantra was immigrants are needed to do the unskilled jobs the native population won't do.
BTW most of Europe is already at the point where higher taxes reduce revenue because high skilled people simply work less or stop working altogether. Significantly higher taxes is economic fantasy.
Five trillion dollars (+) after the War on Poverty was declared by President Johnson. You've lost. You lost because you failed to grasp a basic understanding of human free will. You fail to grasp the proverb 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'. The poor who choose behaviors that keep them poor can not be a justification to covet and steal from others. There are consequence for one's actions or non-actions. Punishing the successful and continually rewarding bad choices is not the basis of any successful civilization.
#5
Procopius2k nails it perfectly. Our Founders, namely Ben Franklin who was quite industrious preached about handicapping the poor by giving them handouts.
#6
Basically, the writer is saying can either accept communism or "or else confront growing, unattended poverty". He uses this argument to justify ObamaCare. But then everybody will be poor. I hate to sound callous but in my observations poor people are poor because they are too lazy and/or stupid to get up off their butts. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
#7
I hate to sound callous but in my observations poor people are poor because they are too lazy and/or stupid to get up off their butts.
Since I stopped working for others and began working for myself I've told an awful lot of people that if they really want to help the less fortunate they should start a business and hire a few of them. It doesn't take long to learn that "less fortunate" is usually a self-imposed state of existence. Nothing like trying to get a few of those folks to help themselves to drain one's remaining sympathy.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/10/2009 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
We in the United States are beginning to reap the "rewards" of our union-run, dumbed-down education system. My youngest daughter is dyslexic, and had a miserable time in school. She graduated with a low "C" average. She went back to school, and completed all her degree requirements last month, and will graduate in January. She learned quickly that her high school "education" didn't prepare her for anything but a minimum-wage job. A HUGE problem for this nation is the number of high-school drop-outs. Most are black or Hispanic, most from low-income households, and most end up on the streets sooner or later. They are the most likely to end up in jail for criminal behavior or drug addiction.
This moron wants to treat the symptoms of a failed education system without ever trying to change the "root causes". That's a loser's game, and the sooner everyone realizes it, the better off we all will be.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2009 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
Politics is getting increasingly violent as Democrats desperately try to salvage their health care bill.
Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, said last week that public protest against the government health care plan "is close to Brown Shirt tactics." For Mr. Baird to characterize his constituents as Nazi storm troops is distasteful, to say the least. Yet it is fully in line with the tone set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who misleadingly decried protesters "carrying swastikas." Closer examination revealed that in every case, the symbol was being used as a warning against the arrogance of power of which Mrs. Pelosi has become emblematic.
Democratic talking points characterize the spontaneous grass-roots opposition to the planned government takeover of the health care system as being organized by a shadowy cabal of lobbyists and insurance companies. However, the real storm troops are being deployed openly by organized labor in an attempt to squelch dissent.
On Aug. 6, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney sent marching orders to his members to confront concerned citizens at town-hall forums. In St. Louis, members of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reportedly attacked and beat Kenneth Gladney, who was passing out yellow flags outside a forum held by Rep. Russ Carnahan, Missouri Democrat. SEIU President Andy Stern has summed up his philosophy as, "We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use ." We expect to see his grim-faced "purple shirts" using intimidation at other events during the congressional recess.
This effort is fully consistent with the general contempt that the Democratic majority has shown for those who oppose its radical agenda. The promised era of bipartisanship is long gone. The government's new slogan is "sit down and shut up." In an appearance in McLean last week, President Obama advised opponents of his plan to "get out of the way" and said he didn't want them "to do a lot of talking." The Obama White House made history when it set up an e-mail snitch line for people to report on the "fishy" ideas of their fellow citizens.
The Democrats would do better to try to understand the root causes of this unprecedented spontaneous outpouring of public concern and frustration than to resort to intimidation tactics. There are many serious questions about the growth of government and the planned takeover of health care that need to be answered, not beaten down. Deploying thugs will only lead to violence, which serves no one's interest. If the people are shouting, it is because the politicians have stopped listening.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/10/2009 06:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yet it is fully in line with the tone set by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who misleadingly decried protesters "carrying swastikas."
Nazis and evil, goyim rascists? Yes, yes, we know, the usual suspects. Yawn.
"DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOT"... . No, wait, that bumper sticker expired Jan. 20.
Under the stimulus bill, there's a new, $1.3 trillion bills-for-bumpers program whereby if you peel off old slogans now recognized as environmentally harmful ("QUESTION AUTHORITY") you can trade them in for a new "CELEBRATE CONFORMITY" sticker, complete with a holographic image of President Obama that never takes his eyes off you.
"The right-wing extremist Republican base is back!" warns the Democratic National Committee. These right-wing extremists have been given their marching orders by their masters: They've been directed to show up at "thousands of events," told to "organize," "knock on doors". . . .
No, wait. My mistake. That's the e-mail I got from Mitch Stewart, director of Organizing for America at BarackObama.com. But that's the good kind of "organizing." President Obama is a community organizer. We're the community. He organizes us. What part of that don't you get?
When the community starts organizing against the organizer, the whole rigmarole goes to pieces. Not that these extremists showing up at town-hall meetings are real members of the "community." Have you noticed how tailored they are? Dissent is now the hautest form of couturism. Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, has denounced dissenters from Mr. Obama's health care proposals as too "well-dressed" to be genuine. Only the emperor has new clothes. Everyone knows that.
Decrying the snarling, angry protesters, liberal talk-show host Bill Press (no relation to the Corby Trouser Press) says, "Americans want serious discussion" on health care. If only we'd stuck to the president's August timetable and passed a gazillion-page health care reform entirely unread by the House of Representatives or the Senate (the world's greatest deliberative body) in nothing flat, we would have all the time in the world to sit around having a "serious discussion" and "real debate" on whatever it was we just did to one-sixth of the economy.
But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, "Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don't read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?"
The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed.
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/10/2009 06:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
NORMALLY, I'm not one to get fired up about political issues, but this White House crowd is getting to be more than a little overbearing. The paragraph above comes from an Aug. 4 entry on the White House blog.
I'm sure my good and liberal friend, columnist Rich Osborne over on the other page, reads that paragraph as a benign public service announcement from a benevolent administration.
When I read it, I blew a gasket. The White House, basically, is asking me and you to rat out anyone who disagrees with the Obama version of the "truth" on health reform. Free speech? Not if it's something "fishy" that you hear in a "casual conversation" with your neighbor or co-worker. The White House wants you to report those deviant thoughts to "flag@whitehouse.gov" because they just can't keep up with all the people who disagree with them.
Talk about KGB tactics, Chicago-style.
Please don't chime in now about "Bush spied on us."
Neither one of the Bush presidents ever asked Americans to turn in people who disagree with policy proposals. Neither Bush, nor Bill Clinton, ever called here to complain about one of our daily "Our View" editorials.
"Flag" this column to the White House if you want, but they've already got our number.
I know that because one day, only two months after President Obama was inaugurated, a White House functionary called here before noon. She called to complain about an "Our View" editorial that had first hit the street and gone on our Web site only a matter of hours earlier, chastising Obama.
The White House wanted a letter of rebuttal printed. A letter was e-mailed here by a friend of the administration later in the day and we printed it the next day. No problem. Giving readers a diversity of opinion is what this page is all about.
What really burned me up, though, was the lightning speed with which the White House detected some dissent in small, faraway Lorain, and made it a priority to attack within hours. Forget North Korea; put Afghanistan on hold; don't worry about the economy; the White House wants that squeaky wheel in Lorain oiled.
Today, five months later, there must be so many of us squeaks across the nation that the White House can't detect and oil them all. So the Obama Administration is calling upon you to watch and to listen for unfavorable squeaking, and then to squeal to the guardians of the One Truth at flag@whitehouse.gov.
You had better keep a close eye on this White House. Because the Obama White House apparently has its eyes and ears out on the streets watching, listening and ready to 'flag' anyone who doesn't sing their tune.
That is loathsome, and un-American.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting. So now the click counters will record your visits?
#3
That is loathsome, and un-American.
Posted by Fred 2009
Violates a few laws as well:
5 US Code §552a(e)(7) commands that any Federal agency
"(7) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity;"
And there is always my personal fav, Executive Order (EO) 12333, more commonly knows as "One Two tripple three" which specifically prohibits collection against USCITS.
#7
"What's really surprising is that no one thought "Hang on, that sounds a bit fascist!""
It's not surprising with this crowd of fools, BP.
With them, fascist isn't a bug, it's a feature. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/10/2009 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#8
What's really interesting to me is that this latest move by the 0 administration only strengthens the argument put forward in Jonah Goldberg's excellent book, Liberal Fascism.
In other words, the roots of today's liberal-progressive movement are deeply intertwined with the rise of Fascism in the early 20th century and the fascist movement of that era. So it's really no wonder they didn't stop to think, "Hang on, that sounds a bit fascist."
The truth is, they are so blinded by their allegiance to the notion of "the greater good" (whatever that means) that they are unable to see the forest through the trees.
#10
O'Bumble hasn't learned the difference between "governing" and "ruling". Free citizens are governed. Only peasants are ruled. We are not peasants. If it takes whacking a few people over the head with a clue-bat, then that's what we need to do.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/10/2009 18:55 Comments ||
Top||
Deep-Democrat-blue New Jersey is on a direct course to go Republican-red this fall, and it does not look like even Obama-esque hope and change can stop that.
To the middle-right (the only way New Jersey can reasonably go red) is former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie. To his left is Gov. Jon Corzine, running in one of two (Virginia is the other) off-year gubernatorial elections.
RealClearPolitics' average of recent polling shows a 51-39 lead for Christie. For an incumbent, being not only behind, but far under 50 percent, is deadly. Just ask Pennsylvania's former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, a Republican whose numbers in a 2006 race against now-U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. mirror Corzine's today.
One highly respected national pollster for the Democrats says he doesn't like the tea leaves he sees in this race, admitting privately that "this may be over" for Corzine.
"Corzine has been around the block," with two U.S. Senate terms and one as governor, so "his Republican challenger may be able to look like a plausible alternative" to tired voters, says political scientist Bert Rockman.
Corzine was not helped when 44 mayors, state lawmakers and miscellaneous public officials - many of them Democrats - were arrested as part of a bizarre live-organ, Gucci-handbag racketeering ring.
Last week, Corzine, feeling boxed-in by his own personality flaws and lack of traction, played the "Bush card" - with an ad tying his opponent to the former president.
In last year's hope-and-change cycle, that would have been a big hit. This year, not so much. The narrative in this race is all about Corzine and the Democrats' brand, not whether or not Christie liked George Bush, or even Christie's record.
Overall, this is a bad time to be an incumbent governor. Corzine's mistakes over several years - such as paying off his ex-girlfriend (the New York Times reported the number as $6 million) - and his more-than-the-legal-limit of personal hubris, only add to his problems.
In fairness, Corzine did inherit structural budget problems created by his predecessor, a difficult task to deal with in a good economy but horrendous to face during a major economic downturn.
Undecided voters tend to swing toward a challenger. The one thing that will keep people guessing in this state is that, in several past elections, undecided voters have swung to the Democrats. So what looked like very close elections for Sen. Robert Menendez, Corzine and former Gov. Jim McGreevy basically turned, in their closing days, into blowouts of their Republican rivals.
While New Jersey is reliably Democrat in national politics, it remains a place where Republicans can do well at the statehouse level.
It also is extremely tax-sensitive; taxes there are high, so voters instantly rebel at any attempt to raise them - issues that play against Corzine and his party brand.
Politically, New Jersey is divided north and south; North Jersey swings heavily Democrat, because of a heavy growth in ethnic minorities and highly educated voters who commute into New York. South Jersey is more Republican.
But let's be honest: New Jersey is true-blue, and the last time it went Republican was in 1993, when Christine Todd Whitman came out of nowhere to win the governorship. That year's election helped to set up the 1994 Republican landslide in Congress - so you have to wonder if a Chris Christie win will send the same signal to Washington.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/10/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Almost coinciding with the 13th round of Sino-Indian border talks (New Delhi August 7-8, 2009), an article (in the Chinese language) has appeared in China captioned 'If China takes a little action, the so-called Great Indian Federation can be broken up' (Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang, www.iiss.cn, Chinese, August 8, 2009).
Interestingly, it has been reproduced in several other strategic and military Web sites of the country and by all means, targets the domestic audience. The authoritative host site is located in Beijing and is the new edition of one, which so far represented the China International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Claiming that Beijing's 'China-Centric' Asian strategy, provides for splitting India, the writer of the article, Zhan Lue, has found that New Delhi's corresponding 'India-Centric' policy in Asia, is in reality a 'Hindustan centric' one. Stating that on the other hand 'local centres' exist in several of the country's provinces (excepting for the UP and certain northern regions), Zhan Lue has felt that in the face of such local characteristics, the 'so-called' Indian nation cannot be considered as one having existed in history.
The Chinese nation might be thought of the same way, from a certain angle ...
According to the article, if India today relies on any thing for unity, it is the Hindu religion.
Other than that India has the largest number of Muslims within its borders of any country in the world ...
The partition of the country was based on religion. Stating that today nation states are the main current in the world, it has said that India could only be termed now as a 'Hindu religious state'. Adding that Hinduism is a decadent religion as it allows caste exploitation and is unhelpful to the country's modernisation, it described the Indian government as one in a dilemma with regard to eradication of the caste system as it realises that the process to do away with castes may shake the foundation of the consciousness of the Indian nation.
The writer has argued that in view of the above, China in its own interest and the progress of Asia, should join forces with different nationalities like the Assamese, Tamils, and Kashmiris and support the latter in establishing independent nation-States of their own, out of India.
Likewise, Uighur and Tibetan nationalists should be assisted in establishing independent nation-states out of China. Maybe even Manchuria should have its own state ...
In particular, the ULFA (United Liberation Front of Asom) in Assam, a territory neighboring China, can be helped by China so that Assam realises its national independence.
The article has also felt that for Bangladesh, the biggest threat is from India, which wants to develop a great Indian Federation extending from Afghanistan to Myanmar. India is also targeting China with support to Vietnam's efforts to occupy Nansha (Spratly) group of islands in South China Sea.
Hence the need for China's consolidation of its alliance with Bangladesh, a country with which the US and Japan are also improving their relations to counter China.
It has pointed out that China can give political support to Bangladesh enabling the latter to encourage ethnic Bengalis in India to get rid of Indian control and unite with Bangladesh as one Bengali nation; if the same is not possible, creation of at least another free Bengali nation state as a friendly neighbour of Bangladesh, would be desirable, for the purpose of weakening India's expansion and threat aimed at forming a 'unified South Asia'.
We could assist the Koreans in China to re-unite with their brethren in the South ...
The punch line in the article has been that to split India, China can bring into its fold countries like Pakistan, Nepal and Bhutan, support ULFA in attaining its goal for Assam's independence, back aspirations of Indian nationalities like the Tamils and Nagas, encourage Bangladesh to give a push to the independence of West Bengal and lastly recover the 90,000 sq km territory in southern Tibet.
Wishing for India's break-up into 20 to 30 nation-States like in Europe, the article has concluded by saying that if the consciousness of nationalities in India could be aroused, social reforms in South Asia can be achieved, the caste system can be eradicated and the region can march along the road of prosperity.
If only the Beijing government could be broken up the various nationalities of China could be aroused, social reforms in East Asia could be achieved, and the region could march along the road of shared prosperity.
The Chinese article in question will certainly outrage readers in India. Its suggestion that China can follow a strategy to dismember India, a country always with a tradition of unity in diversity, is atrocious, to say the least. The write-up could not have been published without the permission of the Chinese authorities, but it is sure that Beijing will wash its hands out of this if the matter is taken up with it by New Delhi.
Likewise I am certain Washington will wash its hands of my humble suggestions ...
It has generally been seen that China is speaking in two voices -- its diplomatic interlocutors have always shown understanding during their dealings with their Indian counterparts, but its selected media is pouring venom on India in their reporting. Which one to believe is a question confronting the public opinion and even policy makers in India.
In any case, an approach of panic towards such outbursts will be a mistake, but also ignoring them will prove to be costly for India.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/10/2009 11:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Despite any official cause, I still suspect that the demographic imbalance in both countries may push them to a population reduction war. 30-50 million "excess" males is a nightmare scenario. With no jobs and no chance for marriage, unless they kill each other off, they will turn into a giant army against their own nations.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/10/2009 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hmmmmm.
Think I should double treble my popcorn order?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/10/2009 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
All these countries are currently stuck as part of India, when they could share in the glory of being the new East Turkmenistan, their original inhabitants all living in stone huts while trainload after trainload of Han colonists take all the good jobs.
And don't worry - I wouldn't dream of using that crap.
It's real butter all the way (with an option for Smart Balance for those with cholesterol problems). :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/10/2009 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
By the way - I'm rooting for India.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/10/2009 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
India is now a US ally. Stuff like this from China is driving us closer to them. All for the good.
China has a worse demographic problem. As many have said, they'll grow old before they become rich (except for the connected elites who are now very rich). And China is just as susceptible to divisive meddling if an adversary decides to play that card.
It is worth discussing he problems of excess males here. Interesting that a log of screwed up places restrict options for marraige either via polygamy (Islam where Osama gets many wives and the cannon fodder get none) or sex selection abortions, etc. in societies that disproportionately value males for whatever reason. I realize war is often the 'release valve' for such a trend. Certainly we see this with some al Queda ops. But shut in, losers looking @ naughty websites all day seems to be a modern trend.
I laugh when I hear American women complaining they are opressed by Western Patriarchy, etc. Yet, the West is a place where parents are equally happy to have a boy or girl. That has been the case for centuries and is a distinctive aspect of various northern european cultures. Unfortunately, immigration and birth rate trends mean that these countries are now changing rapidly in a way that means the 'excess male' trend might be coming there too.
#9
The Pakistani dictator General Yahya Khan was fond of saying that India only needed a sharp shock for it to split into many pieces.
Ironically it was his country that was split, during the 1971 war, when India was led by a Brahmin Hindu woman (married to a Zoarastrian), with an "untouchable" Defence minister, a Zoarastrian army chief, a Jewish theater commander, Christian Navy admirals offshore, Muslim and Sikh Generals commanding Sikh and Naga (Southern Baptists) spearhead troops.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/10/2009 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Im in good company when I say I am fed up with China's B.S., greasy pork, and human rights issues. And my money is on India.
Posted by: Jack Chalet9975 ||
08/10/2009 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I like the greasy pork to be honest; especially in pot stickers. But other than that... screw China.
#14
If this is an example of Chinese political analysis, they are probably evaluating a great many things wrongly. No doubt our own analysts are helping improve the process.
#15
Setting one barbarian against another is an ancient strategem. Chinese empires have employed it for thousands of years, both in times of strength and weakness. More recently, China provided tens of billions in aid to Communist guerrilla groups in Southeast Asia and Africa during the Cold War. In particular, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo of Rhodesia's rival communist guerrilla organizations got a ton of aid from the Chinese.
UnBiege has a mocking post in which he states:
"Fortunately, the LA Times' art critic Christopher Knight was there to step up to the plate and swat down this so-absurd-it's-sadly-funny piece of illiterate design"
Rush Limbaugh flunks Graphic Design 101
There's just one hitch: Asserting a resemblance between the two logos is like saying Limbaugh resembles Gary Busey because both men have two eyes, a nose, a mouth and a drug addiction. Obama's healthcare logo includes no eagle, Roman symbol of imperial authority, and it has no swastika, the bent-arm cross designed by Hitler himself as the emblem of National Socialism.
FAIL. Hitler didn't design the swastika, he took the ancient Hindu symbol and reversed it, tied to his idea that the German Volk were the true Aryans. Clearly Mr. Knight is makin' stuff up.
Instead, the Obama design surmounts the red, white and blue landscape of his presidential campaign logo with a caduceus, the winged staff entwined with serpents that derived from the rod of Asclepius, son of Greek god Apollo. An ancient symbol of healing, the rod is often used as a medical logo. So the Obama design shows a medical symbol above the American landscape.
Make that two hitches: The claim that Nazism embraced healthcare is obscene.
Lets look at his claims:
A Caduceus is not a Rod of Asclepius, although the two are often confused especially in North America.
The Caduceus preceded the Rod of Asclepius, by hundreds of years.
The Caduceus in Roman iconography was often depicted being carried in the left hand of the Greek god Hermes (Roman god, Mercury), the messenger of the gods, guide of the dead and protector of merchants bankers, shepherds fleecers, gamblers, liars and thieves. Which just about describes Obuma's administration.
As for his second statement, false again. Nazi Germany had an excellent health care system, if you overlooked the bit about euthanasia when you became a burden on society (just like ObumaCare)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Politics is getting increasingly violent as Democrats desperately try to salvage their health care bill. 
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Deep-Democrat-blue New Jersey is on a direct course to go Republican-red this fall, and it does not look like even Obama-esque hope and change can stop that.
