Golly, I'm going to run right out and convert, so I can be just like that lazy, hateful...
It's nice that she's saying aloud what so many over there think. We should make posters of her, with the words "What we're fighting against," underneath in very big letters.
#1
What century is it anyway? Slavery is justified in the Qur'an? Who would have known that such a concept exists in the religion of peace and love (sarc)?
I wonder how many missing young women in the West end up as slaves in some rich sheik's harem? Can they get reparations?
#5
What century is it anyway? Slavery is justified in the Qur'an?
Video: Shaykh al-Huwayni: "When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her" [...] It is clear that offensive jihad, which I was talking about in that interview, that its purpose is to call people to Islam, and it is not permissible for anyone to hide the divine guidance from the people, under any name. They rejected Islam and the jizya, that's it. The Prophet (PBUH) said: "If they refuse, then seek Allah's aid and fight them." If fighting occurs, there is going to be a winner and a loser. If the army of the Muslims is victorious, it will take spoils. Taking spoils is a fixed ruling in the Qur'an. ...
Do you understand what I'm saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars--there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point--there is no disagreement from any of them.
#8
Well if all their women look like this fat pig, they may have no alternative. Other than silky haired goats. And the "pitching-catching" thing none of them like to talk about...
#9
If this part of the Koran represents Islamic theology, then Islam is incompatible with the Christian values that form the basis of civilization. Yet again Islam shows itself to be a heresy on the one catholic church, and is yet another wound on the body of the Lord.
Galatians 3
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, comes from the empirical school of economic thought: He rejects ideology and hifalutin theories in favor of cold, hard data. He believes in what works. Or what he thinks will work. Or is told will work.
*sigh* Dana Milbank is getting folksy again.
But when he brought his family from Chicago to Washington two and a half years ago and joined the Obama administration, he found a culture based on ancient superstitions: liberals who think the religion of government holds all the answers, and conservatives who adhere to a religious belief that all ills can be cured by dramatic cuts in government spending and taxes. Goolsbee is a voice of sweet reason in a town that resists common sense.
His methodical approach has reinforced Obama's own instinct to take the long view.
That's 'cause he's smarter than all o' us put together, poor man. How it must pain him just to be in the same universe with the rest of us.
In returning to Chicago, Goolsbee is guessing that little economic policy will be made in Washington over the next 17 months and that he will be of more use to Obama as a surrogate for the reelection campaign. But his departure also increases the risk that Obama will panic, that he will be spooked by a continuing trend of monthly jobs report or month after month of poor poll numbers and feel pressure from his political advisers to give in to the ideologues' demands. The ideologues. The bad people. The ones put there by The One.
Waitaminit -- really, really smart people don't panic, they plan. Why on earth would Mr. Milbank say such a thing?
I've known Goolsbee since we went to college together nearly a quarter-century ago. Though he has been discreet with me about his role in the administration, my other reporting suggests that his moderating influence on Obama should not be underestimated. Hey! Who knows? Without Austen, the "stimulus" might've been $3 trillion.
So he's saying that President Obama is Professor Goolsbee's puppet, and without the good professor he'll swing thoughtlessly from panic to panic? Surely not.
The two men met when Obama was still an unknown state senator seeking to assemble a 2004 Senate campaign in Illinois. Obama called economists at Harvard, but they didn't return his calls.
Racists!
Goolsbee, then a University of Chicago wunderkind, was happy to call him back. When Obama first met the lanky 34-year-old, his first words were, "You can't be Professor Goolsbee! Professor Goolsbee smokes a pipe." And they say Sarah Palin says stoopid things.
Obama has heeded Goolsbee's counsel ever since -- forgiving him when he caused a kerfuffle during the 2008 campaign over Obama's position on NAFTA -- and reportedly was not thrilled with Goolsbee's decision to return to Chicago. That's understandable: Obama's middle-of-the-road for Karl Marx economic policy may be the right one, but it is difficult to defend against pressure to do more to reduce stubborn unemployment. Goolsbee has been better than the rest at defending Obama's package of relatively small items, such as worker training and R&D incentives alternately (and unsuccessfully) labeled the "New Foundation" agenda and "Winning the Future." Better slogans. He needs better slogans. Somebody get him a Slogans Czar!
Goolsbee endorsed many of the now that we look back we can call them extreme measures Obama took two years ago, because the private sector was in free-fall and massive government spending was the only option according to Our Savior. The only one who said it was the only option was The One who won.
But now the data that I like to look at tell a different story: The private sector has stabilized in a flat spin, profits have returned, productivity is high, American competitiveness has improved, and large sums of money have accumulated on corporate balance sheets. And the recession ended two years ago.
The most efficient way to produce jobs, then, is to give the private sector incentives to spend its big pile of cash on new hires. Whoa! Wotta concept! Who thunk that one up? Goolsbee himself?
That's why Obama, on Wednesday, was at a community college in Northern Virginia touting little-known policies such as "Skills for America" and the Workforce Investment Act. Why are they "little known"? Where are the Zero-compliant media drones when you need them?
But as a political argument, this isn't as clean as the opposition's simple prescription -- huge tax and spending cuts -- Oops! We forgot the slashing of regulations!
or the calls from economists on the left for another massive stimulus. Goolsbee doesn't object to either idea as a matter of ideology; he looks at the data and finds that neither would boost employment as much as what Obama is doing. Which is little known.
With the disaster in Japan, the debt crisis in Europe, the spike in gas prices and all those other things Obama couldn't control that caused all this mess, including a disappointing unemployment report, it isn't getting any easier to counter the demand for action. With Goolsbee returning to Chicago, it will be that much more difficult for Obama to resist the political pressure to be rash. Goolsbee was born in Waco, Texas,[and] was raised primarily in Whittier, California [home of Richard Nixon]. [However....] He received both his B.A. and M.A. in economics from Yale University in 1991 and went on to receive his Ph.D. in economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1995. [Both well-known bastions of moderate thinking. Then he became a professor.]
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/13/2011 06:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lulz.
Dana Milbank's vision of a "moderate" is just slightly right of Karl Marx. Austen sees the "unexpected" economic future clearly. It's not Recovery Summer and the knives will start coming out for these state-control asshats that have driven the economy into the shitter with debt and unemployment as far as the eye can see (or January 2013)
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2011 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Had Goolsbee as an Economics prof. at UofC B school. Great teacher with a hilarious sense of humor. Early on in the admin. he did a funny subliminal man stand up. Should still be up on Youtube.
#3
I see debt & severe unemployment continuing for years past January 2013, no matter who wins. The questions after that point are the amount of collateral damage and whether or not the country moves off stupid towards a more useful position. My prediction only counts we can make it that far.
#5
"with the massive 2008-09 policy effort that prevented helped cause financial collapse and depression"
Fixed.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/13/2011 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Back to academia where students can hear how the most anti-business administration [in which he was proud to serve] turned a bad economic situation into a full-fledged disaster.
"The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands. . . . The power of the legislative, being derived from the people . . . [is] only to make laws, and not to make legislators."
-- John Locke "Second Treatise of Government" But that was a long time ago!
Here, however, is a paradox of sovereignty: The sovereign people, possessing the right to be governed as they choose, might find the exercise of that right tiresome and so might choose to be governed in perpetuity by a despot they cannot subsequently remove. Congress did something like that in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare.
The point of PPACA is cost containment. This supposedly depends on the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB, which is a perfect expression of the progressive mind, is to be composed of 15 presidential appointees empowered to reduce Medicare spending -- which is 13 percent of federal spending -- to certain stipulated targets. IPAB is to do this by making "proposals" or "recommendations" to limit costs by limiting reimbursements to doctors. This, inevitably, will limit available treatments -- and access to care when physicians leave the Medicare system. Cost controls. That's how to make it affordable!
The PPACA repeatedly refers to any IPAB proposal as a "legislative proposal" and speaks of "the legislation introduced" by the IPAB. Each proposal automatically becomes law unless Congress passes -- with a three-fifths supermajority required in the Senate -- a measure cutting medical spending as much as the IPAB proposal would. So the 'legislation' will be made by a Presidential panel - Czars, so to speak.
This is a travesty of constitutional lawmaking: An executive branch agency makes laws unless Congress enacts legislation to achieve the executive agency's aim. And it gets worse. Obamacare - The Law that Can't Be Changed - Ever.
Any resolution to abolish the IPAB must pass both houses of Congress. And no such resolution can be introduced before 2017 or after Feb. 1, 2017, and must be enacted by Aug. 15 of that year. And if passed, it cannot take effect until 2020. Defenders of all this audaciously call it a "fast track" process for considering termination of IPAB. It is, however, transparently designed to permanently entrench IPAB -- never mind the principle that one Congress cannot by statute bind another Congress from altering that statute. Will worries the Supremes are leaning toward delegation of difficult choices - like sentencing guidelines, which have the effect of law.
That principle may cause courts to dismiss the challenge by the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute to Congress's delegation of its powers, because courts may say that Congress can just change its mind. Except about Obamacare. How many other laws are perpetual? How many people know about it? Where's my pitchfork?
Hence the court may spurn the institute's argument on behalf of two Arizona congressmen, Jeff Flake and Trent Franks, that the entrenchment of the IPAB seriously burdens the legislators' First Amendment rights.
Diane Cohen, the institute's senior attorney, demonstrates that the IPAB is doubly anti-constitutional. It derogates the powers of Congress. And it ignores the principle of separation of powers: It is an executive agency, its members appointed by the president, exercising legislative powers over which neither Congress nor the judiciary can exercise proper control.
The Goldwater Institute's challenge to the IPAB serves the high purpose of highlighting some of Obamacare's most grotesque provisions, which radiate distrust of the public and its elected representatives. The essence of progressivism, and of the administrative state that is progressivism's project, is this doctrine: Modern society is too complex for popular sovereignty, so government of, by and for supposedly disinterested experts must not perish from the earth. Constitution? Guidelines! Just guidelines.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/13/2011 12:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Medicare is ALREADY regulated this way, and this happened prior to Obamacare.
The Clean Air Act has been run amok in exactly this way. Congress could easily, for example, exempt CO2 from regulation by the EPA. But it won't.
#2
So much of the progressive legislation that we have today, OSHA, EPA, etc. decide administratively what the law is going to be. Congress usually never sees much of this bureaucratic decision-making. Agencies have administrative judges who decide and make the law. The only way to not have this extra-legislative law-making is to get rid of this bureaucratic structure--not an easy thing to do.
In the instance of the PPACA, I wonder if SCOTUS declares the entire law unconstitutional, the IPAB will also go away.
When citizens have control over the government, it is liberty. When the government has control over the citizens, it is tyranny.
Backers of a 100 mile border security zone in the US, with a 150 mile border zone on the southwest border with Mexico, want nearly three dozen federal laws waived for the Border Patrol and Homeland Security in these border zones, including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Wilderness Act.
Critics of the proposed bill said that it would extend across all of Florida, most of the Northeast and all of Hawaii.
In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office found that environmental laws had led to restrictions on border enforcement and delays in patrolling and monitoring activities. The GAO said 14 Border Patrol agents in charge reported blocked access to land or slow response times by land agencies in issuing permits.
And when such restrictions are in place against the Border Patrol and Homeland Security, illegal aliens and drug smugglers quickly learn to use those crossing areas.
The potential for conflict in federal laws was highest in the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector, where there is a high concentration of public lands: three national wildlife refuges, two national monuments, a national conservation area, a national forest and the Tohono O'odham Reservation. It is also the heaviest trafficked border region.
Environmentalists have stated that allowing unrestricted use of these protected lands could harm species like the endangered desert pupfish, though the harm caused by federal LEOs is just a fraction of that caused by illegal traffic.
However, other critics of these extended buffer zones note that the federal security rules and regulations within these zones both far exceed local and State laws, and affect citizens as much as illegal aliens and drug smugglers.
This recently created controversy because even existing border buffer zones would have effectively outlawed many pocket knives in the US, but due a the public outcry, an amendment to the 1958 Switchblade Act was passed to negate this regulation.
But there are many more border regulations that would take effect as well, subjecting the people in the border areas to involuntary searches without warrant, identity checks, roadblocks, and other intrusions.
#1
Duncan Hunter (R-CA) had to get environmental rules waived to build the successful triple-fence in the San Diego sector. It was clear the "environmentalist" lawsuits were driven more by open-borders activism than real enviro concern
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/13/2011 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I quite agree. But this is excess vs. excess. Does border security require agents to use border control regulation, that supersede local laws, in Philadelphia or Fort Wayne?
This is why the big freakout about their additions to the switchblade law, because there are just 12 States, or so, where at least part of the State would not be under BP law.
The fence is the thing we need most for border security. And yes, some buffer zones to catch illegals and smugglers. But we don't need for US citizens to be under the whimsical authority of the border patrol, 50, 100, or 150 miles from the border.
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.
Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, comes from the empirical school of economic thought: He rejects ideology and hifalutin theories in favor of cold, hard data. He believes in what works. 
And it gets worse. 
