Quote:

Hello Peter, being a subscriber to DickMorris.com I receive frequent informative emails and this one I just got today.

In this video commentary, Dick Morris explains his take on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and our economic system.

"Last week, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) announced that it was going to hold nations accountable for their economic decisions and publish quarterly yardsticks to measure their success in adopting "appropriate" policies. Who decides what's appropriate? The European central bankers who run the IMF. The United States will have to meekly comply. The next step? Sanctions against nations that beg to differ with the IMF -- our new global Czar."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFJLkoEUMY8

Quote:
Hello Friends,

Ever since the mid term elections when the Democrats were soundly beaten in the Congressional elections and their majority whittled down in the Senate we've been witness to whining and crying by all the dependent progressive socialists here and else where. Cries of don't touch my Social Security, don't touch my Medicare etc and I wonder where these criers were for the past 2 years when Social Security payments weren't raised. When Medicare was slowly going bankrupt. Now the Social Security issue is quite understandable since the monies are being siphoned off by government to pay for "other" things and yet the criers remained silent. Where were they when their elected empty suit B Hussein quadrupled the deficit in 2 short years and raised the unemployment from 8.8% at the end of the Bush presidency and now close to 10% and probably higher under B Hussein? Why didn't they ask where are the jobs???

For the first time since 1937 that the Federal Government is paying out more then it's bringing in. The dependency of the citizenry is almost total on government and their "wealth" increase is dependent on payouts of different sorts. Why should they work when they get more from the Federal Government then from the fruits of their labors. This is a dependent group that will continue whining cos the entrepreneurs who actually create jobs and benefit the welfare of their workforce make profits. What a disgusting word profit. Well why not? Why shouldn't they profit from their investment in business and creating jobs through their investments? Governments "job" isn't to create jobs even though the only jobs created by the B Hussein regime are government employees. By over taxing the business community they will not invest their monies and rightfully so. In the end those still interested in working will not find jobs cos they won't be there.

So don't bother reading Paul Ryan's economic plan and catch phrases only and cry about them. For that matter they didn't read Obamacare either else they wouldn't be supporting it. But who expected them to read and comprehend how they'd be losing their liberties if this disaster of a plan s ever implemented. It's in their best interest it be repealed but how can it be so when the great pretender and empty suit B Hussein says otherwise?

And now that S & P is on the verge of downgrading the US Governments credit rating things will only get worse. But will the whiners and criers understand the ramifications if that ever happens? NAH, they'll keep on whining and crying don't touch my Social Security and Medical Care but to their dismay they'll find that they're both bankrupt after Big Government drained all the cash from them.

Here's a great article about just this issue I found over at Atlas Shrugs. Be sure to click on all the links in the article.

Shalom,

Peter

Government Cash Handouts Now Top Tax Revenues

Well, there you have it. And Geithner wants to increase the debt ceiling by close to another two trillion. Politics, shmolitics ......it is unsustainable. Period. Atlas reader van opined:

They throw these numbers around like it was pocket change. He and Bernanke are simply criminal in their managing of the economy and should be charged as such. They are the main contributors to America's decline and ECONOMIC destruction. They should be in prison. Geithner's arrogance is almost that of Obama's. They are both beyond incompetent and criminally out of their league.

As you know, I believe that this is at least as big, or, bigger threat than terrorism. It's the Federal Reserve that is destroying America. The high gas prices are a result of this Fed policy, not Libya, as the enemedia likes to say. The entire Fed policy is a giant Ponzi scheme. They have printed close to a $Trillion in new money, Quantitative Easing, or QE2, as they refer to it and the latest news is that they may continue, causing increased inflation. They are intentionally lying when they say that there is no inflation because the Consumer Price Index (CPI) does NOT measure gas and food, the 2 biggest increases in a typical person's budget!

The average person can't even contemplate a TRILLION dollars, or, a trillion anyting. Here's an example:

A million seconds pass in 12 days.
A billion seconds pass in 31 years.
A trillion seconds pass in 31,688 years!

Here's a personal example: 2 weeks ago, oranges at Walmart Superstore were $.30 each. Last week they were $.48. A few days ago they were $.58. That's a 93% price rise in less than 2 weeks.

This Keynesean economic plan by this Administration is responsible for this assault on America. It is NOT an accident! If these two were R's, they would have been forced out of office. This war has many fronts and this is a threat equivalent to Islam.

We are close to default and at great risk of losing our status of the USD as the world's reserve currency. Life will change instantly IF that happens. Americans better wake up and quickly.

Obama is waging war against America.

Government Cash Handouts Now Top Tax Revenues FOX Business

U.S. households are now getting more in cash handouts from the government than they are paying in taxes for the first time since the Great Depression.

Households received $2.3 trillion in some kind of government support in 2010. That includes expanded unemployment benefits, as well as payments for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and stimulus spending, among other things.

But that’s more than the $2.2 trillion households paid in taxes, an amount that has slumped largely due to the recession, according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times.

And the handouts from the government have been growing. Government cash handouts account for a whopping 79% of household growth since 2007, even as household tax payments--for things like the income and payroll tax, among other taxes--have fallen by $312 billion.

That is a tough feeding trough to take away from voters.

One of the recurring themes FOX Business has been covering is “how the world has been turned upside down – well, the business world at least,” notes FOX Director of Business News, Ray Hennessey. “In a free market, profit is generated by hard work and enterprise," Hennessey notes, adding: “Because of the labor of the worker, companies generally have the ability to prosper and make more money, both for their employees and their owners," which in turn creates tax revenues.

Seems like common sense, right? That’s because it is. But not in our country today. Somehow the DNA of our country is changing. Wealth creation is coming from DC, not from America’s entrepreneurs.

In short, Americans have the government, not private enterprise, to thank for their wealth growth.

Obviously, there are big implications to this.

For instance, Hennessey asks, if indeed more households have the government to thank for their wealth, does that mean those households are more inclined to re-elect politicians who are pushing for more government handouts?

Does the workforce erode because it is easier to collect a check than answer to an alarm clock each morning?

Is our competitiveness as a nation hurt because profit is generated not by American capitalism but by European-style socialism? Can we, as taxpayers, afford to carry the burden of government-sponsored wealth creation?

All this comes at a time when a growing number of Wall Street houses, including JPMorgan Chase (JPM: 44.56, -0.09, -0.20%) and Barclays Capital (BCS: 19.38, +0.25, +1.31%), Bank of America (NYSE: BAC) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) are cutting their U.S. GDP growth forecasts by as much as a percentage point or more.

It also comes as President Barack Obama is already in re-election mode, as he bets his massive spending will woo independents. It also comes as Standard & Poor’s has joined the International Monetary Fund and Pimco, which runs the world’s biggest bond fund, in downgrading their outlook on US debt.

Please read the rest and weep for your country, for your future and for free men.

UPDATE: U.S. credit rating downgrade: the Armageddon scenario Washington Post

A credit rating downgrade for the United States would spell even more financial trouble for the U.S. government, hampering its ability to borrow money as investors demand higher yields to make up for the increased risk. That would cause its national debt to balloon further and increase the need to hike taxes or make even more painful cuts in spending.

But the real Armageddon scenario would occur when the impact of a sovereign downgrade hit the rest of the U.S. economy.

Hello Friends,

I've seen that Noam Chomsky is being used as a source for reliable information and analysis. While Chomsky is considered to be brilliant as a Professor of linguistics his alter ego as an America hater and basher is his real claim to fame. He blames America for all the evils in the world and believes the Soviet Union was a much better form of government. His only problem with Stalin was that he gave a bad name to Socialism/Marxism.

He is a rabid antisemite despite the fact that he was born Jewish and Israel is only second to the United States as the Little Satan while the USA is the Great Satan. (As an aside Chomsky and Soros could be blood brothers and are probably great friends).

After rereading the below profile I'm not surprised that there are those that use Chomsky as a reliable source and analyst. Sad but true.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. There are additional links for information on Noam Chomsky and can be found on the left hand side of the page here.

• Professor of linguistics, prolific pamphleteer, highly influential leftist
• Known for his extreme views (e.g., that America is worse than Nazi Germany)
• “The so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception”

Born to Jewish parents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 7, 1928, Noam Chomsky has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955. In 1961 he was appointed full Professor in MIT's Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy). From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Professor Chomsky is “the most cited living author” and ranks just below Plato and Sigmund Freud among the most cited authors of all time. While acknowledging that he is reviled in some quarters for his ferocious anti-Americanism, a recent New Yorker profile calls Chomsky “one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.”

Chomsky is without question the most politically influential living academic among other academics and their students. He is promoted by rock groups such as Rage Against the Machine and Pearl Jam at their concerts the way the Beatles once promoted the Guru Maharaji, with the performers solemnly reading excerpts from his work in between sets and urging their followers to read him too. The devotion of Chomsky’s followers is summarized by radio producer David Barsamian, who describes the master’s effulgence in openly religious terms: "He is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our sensei."

Manufacturing Consent, a documentary adapted from one of Chomsky’s books with the same title, has achieved the status of an underground classic in university film festivals. And at the climactic moment in the Academy Award-winning Good Will Hunting, the genius-janitor, played by Matt Damon, vanquishes the incorrect thinking of a group of sophomoric college students with a fiery speech quoting Professor Chomsky on the illicit nature of American power.

Any analysis of Chomsky must address linguistics, the field he remade so thoroughly by his scholarly work of the late 1950s that he was often compared to Einstein and other paradigm shifters. Those who admire this achievement but not his politics are at pains to explain what they take to be a disjunction between his work in linguistics and his sociopolitical ideas. They see the former as so brilliant and compelling as to be unarguable -- in all a massive scientific achievement -- and the latter as so venomous and counter-factual as to be emotionally disturbing.

Paul Postal and Robert Levine, linguists who have known and worked with Chomsky, take the view that the two aspects of his life’s work in fact manifest the same key properties: "a deep disregard of, and contempt for, the truth; a monumental disdain for standards of inquiry; a relentless strain of self-promotion; notable descents into incoherence; and a penchant for verbally abusing those who disagree with him."

Chomsky’s work in linguistics allowed him to make a transition from the university to the public arena in the mid-1960s and to be taken seriously as a critic of the war in Vietnam. In a series of influential articles that appeared in the New York Review of Books and other publications, he distinguished himself by the cold intellectual ferocity of his attacks on American policy. Although a generation older than most members of the New Left, he shared the latter's eagerness to romanticize the Third World.

Chomsky was one of the chief deniers of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, which took place in the wake of the Communist victory and American withdrawal from Indochina. He directed vitriolic attacks towards the reporters and witnesses who testified to the human catastrophe that was taking place there. Initially, Chomsky tried to minimize the deaths (a “few thousand”) and compared those killed by Pol Pot and his followers to the collaborators who had been executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. By 1980, however, it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Communists. But Professor Chomsky continued to deny the genocide, proposing that the underlying problem may have been a failure of the rice crop. As late as 1988, Chomsky returned to the subject and insisted that whatever had happened in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.

This conclusion is the principal theme of what may be loosely termed Chomsky's intellectual oeuvre: Whatever evil exists in the world, the United States is to blame. His intellectual obsession is America and its “grand strategy of world domination.” In 1967 Professor Chomsky wrote that America “needed a kind of denazification.” The Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor for his own country ever since.

The long conflict with the Soviets and the fact that it was fought out primarily in the Third World allowed Chomsky to elaborate on his analogy with the Nazis and to spin his narrative on the evils of American power. The Soviet dictatorship was not only "morally equivalent" to democratic America, in Chomsky’s view, but actually better because it was less powerful. The chief sin of Stalinism in his eyes was not the murder of millions, but the fact that he had given socialism a bad name.

Professor Chomsky has denounced every U.S. President from Woodrow Wilson and FDR to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the front men in “four-year dictatorships” by a ruling class. In his view, the U.S., led by a series of lesser Hitlers, picked up where the Nazis left off after they were defeated in 1945. According to Chomsky, a case could be made for impeaching every President since World War II because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.”

Chomsky also detests the state of Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an “offshore military and technology base for the United States.”

According to the website Stand4Facts.org, Chomsky has made the following statements about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust:

• “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.”
• “I objected to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state.”
• Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state…”
• “Israel is virtually a U.S. military base, an offshoot of the U.S. military system.”
• “There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one, the world's longest military occupation. There's little doubt that those under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?”
• “Of course [suicide bombers are] terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it….But it's very small as compared with the U.S.-backed Israeli terrorism.”
• “I mean you’d have to go back to the worst days of the American South to know what it’s been like for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.”
• “What this wall [separation barrier] is really doing is…helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.”

Of a pattern with this animus toward Israel is Chomsky’s involvement with neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionism. This saga began in 1980 with Chomsky’s support of Robert Faurisson, a French anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. (“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie,” Faurisson wrote.) Chomsky penned a preface to a book by Faurisson, explaining that the latter was an “apolitical liberal” whose work was based on “extensive historical research” and contained “no hint of anti-Semitic implications.”

In the post-9/11 political ferment, Professor Chomsky’s reputation, which had suffered because of his support of Pol Pot and his dalliance with figures like Faurisson, was revived by the anti-war Left. His following has grown, particularly in Europe and Asia, where his views have helped inform an inchoate anti-Americanism, and on the university campus, where divesting from Israel (a cause he has championed) and attacks against the War on Terror are de rigueur.

Professor Chomsky’s most recent book, Hegemony or Survival (2003), casts America as a threat to global survival. The New York Times and Washington Post both treated Hegemony and Survival as a significant work, with Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power writing in the Times that Chomsky’s book was “sobering and instructive.

Chomsky dismisses the atrocity of 9/11 as one that was dwarfed in magnitude by Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile attack on a factory in the Sudan following the bombings of two U.S. embassies by al Qaeda, in which no one was injured.

Telling an MIT audience of 2,000 that the U.S. military response against the terrorists in Afghanistan was a calculated “genocide” that would cause the deaths of 3 to 4 million Afghanis, Chomsky denounced America as “the world’s greatest terrorist state.” He also traveled to the Muslim world to repeat the charges of U.S. genocide and terror to millions in Islamabad and New Delhi. (None of Chomsky’s predictions of “genocide” and “famine” came to pass in Afghanistan, thanks to $350 million in food shipments supplied by the United States. Chomsky himself was aware of these shipments even as he made his accusations.)

Chomsky sees the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in history when the guns that were historically trained on the Third World by imperialist powers like America, were turned around. He sees this as a positive development, because in Professor Chomsky’s eyes unless American “hegemony” is destroyed, the world faces a grim future.

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

In 2010, Chomsky lauded Bradley Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who had stolen and distributed, to the Julian Assange-founded website WikiLeaks, hundreds of thousands of classified documents containing sensitive information about the American government and its military. According to Chomsky, Manning was a man of "courage" and "integrity." At one time, WikiLeaks listed Noam Chomsky as a volunteer administrator of its Facebook page, although Chomsky denied the association.


Much of this profile is adapted from the Introduction to the book, The Anti-Chomsky Reader, which is edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. Peter Collier is the author of that Introduction.

Copyright 2003-2010 : DiscoverTheNetworks.org

Oh my Peter, what an evil man. I also read some of the links you mention. How can a Jewish person deny the holocaust? Maybe he should go tour Israel's Holocaust History Museum in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, a memorial to those who perished, you told me about, and listen to some of the recordings made by some of the survivors, including the ones your mother did. I doubt that would sway his opinion though. It has been my experience that people like that, who are evil to the core, will never change.

I found this article from the Canada Free Press to be most interesting.

Quote:

Hello Friends,

I've seen that Noam Chomsky is being used as a source for reliable information and analysis. While Chomsky is considered to be brilliant as a Professor of linguistics his alter ego as an America hater and basher is his real claim to fame. He blames America for all the evils in the world and believes the Soviet Union was a much better form of government. His only problem with Stalin was that he gave a bad name to Socialism/Marxism.

He is a rabid antisemite despite the fact that he was born Jewish and Israel is only second to the United States as the Little Satan while the USA is the Great Satan. (As an aside Chomsky and Soros could be blood brothers and are probably great friends).

After rereading the below profile I'm not surprised that there are those that use Chomsky as a reliable source and analyst. Sad but true.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. There are additional links for information on Noam Chomsky and can be found on the left hand side of the page here.

• Professor of linguistics, prolific pamphleteer, highly influential leftist
• Known for his extreme views (e.g., that America is worse than Nazi Germany)
• “The so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception”

Born to Jewish parents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 7, 1928, Noam Chomsky has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955. In 1961 he was appointed full Professor in MIT's Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy). From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Professor Chomsky is “the most cited living author” and ranks just below Plato and Sigmund Freud among the most cited authors of all time. While acknowledging that he is reviled in some quarters for his ferocious anti-Americanism, a recent New Yorker profile calls Chomsky “one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.”

Chomsky is without question the most politically influential living academic among other academics and their students. He is promoted by rock groups such as Rage Against the Machine and Pearl Jam at their concerts the way the Beatles once promoted the Guru Maharaji, with the performers solemnly reading excerpts from his work in between sets and urging their followers to read him too. The devotion of Chomsky’s followers is summarized by radio producer David Barsamian, who describes the master’s effulgence in openly religious terms: "He is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our sensei."

Manufacturing Consent, a documentary adapted from one of Chomsky’s books with the same title, has achieved the status of an underground classic in university film festivals. And at the climactic moment in the Academy Award-winning Good Will Hunting, the genius-janitor, played by Matt Damon, vanquishes the incorrect thinking of a group of sophomoric college students with a fiery speech quoting Professor Chomsky on the illicit nature of American power.

Any analysis of Chomsky must address linguistics, the field he remade so thoroughly by his scholarly work of the late 1950s that he was often compared to Einstein and other paradigm shifters. Those who admire this achievement but not his politics are at pains to explain what they take to be a disjunction between his work in linguistics and his sociopolitical ideas. They see the former as so brilliant and compelling as to be unarguable -- in all a massive scientific achievement -- and the latter as so venomous and counter-factual as to be emotionally disturbing.

Paul Postal and Robert Levine, linguists who have known and worked with Chomsky, take the view that the two aspects of his life’s work in fact manifest the same key properties: "a deep disregard of, and contempt for, the truth; a monumental disdain for standards of inquiry; a relentless strain of self-promotion; notable descents into incoherence; and a penchant for verbally abusing those who disagree with him."

Chomsky’s work in linguistics allowed him to make a transition from the university to the public arena in the mid-1960s and to be taken seriously as a critic of the war in Vietnam. In a series of influential articles that appeared in the New York Review of Books and other publications, he distinguished himself by the cold intellectual ferocity of his attacks on American policy. Although a generation older than most members of the New Left, he shared the latter's eagerness to romanticize the Third World.

Chomsky was one of the chief deniers of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, which took place in the wake of the Communist victory and American withdrawal from Indochina. He directed vitriolic attacks towards the reporters and witnesses who testified to the human catastrophe that was taking place there. Initially, Chomsky tried to minimize the deaths (a “few thousand”) and compared those killed by Pol Pot and his followers to the collaborators who had been executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. By 1980, however, it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Communists. But Professor Chomsky continued to deny the genocide, proposing that the underlying problem may have been a failure of the rice crop. As late as 1988, Chomsky returned to the subject and insisted that whatever had happened in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.

This conclusion is the principal theme of what may be loosely termed Chomsky's intellectual oeuvre: Whatever evil exists in the world, the United States is to blame. His intellectual obsession is America and its “grand strategy of world domination.” In 1967 Professor Chomsky wrote that America “needed a kind of denazification.” The Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor for his own country ever since.

The long conflict with the Soviets and the fact that it was fought out primarily in the Third World allowed Chomsky to elaborate on his analogy with the Nazis and to spin his narrative on the evils of American power. The Soviet dictatorship was not only "morally equivalent" to democratic America, in Chomsky’s view, but actually better because it was less powerful. The chief sin of Stalinism in his eyes was not the murder of millions, but the fact that he had given socialism a bad name.

Professor Chomsky has denounced every U.S. President from Woodrow Wilson and FDR to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the front men in “four-year dictatorships” by a ruling class. In his view, the U.S., led by a series of lesser Hitlers, picked up where the Nazis left off after they were defeated in 1945. According to Chomsky, a case could be made for impeaching every President since World War II because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.”

Chomsky also detests the state of Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an “offshore military and technology base for the United States.”

According to the website Stand4Facts.org, Chomsky has made the following statements about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust:

• “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.”
• “I objected to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state.”
• Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state…”
• “Israel is virtually a U.S. military base, an offshoot of the U.S. military system.”
• “There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one, the world's longest military occupation. There's little doubt that those under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?”
• “Of course [suicide bombers are] terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it….But it's very small as compared with the U.S.-backed Israeli terrorism.”
• “I mean you’d have to go back to the worst days of the American South to know what it’s been like for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.”
• “What this wall [separation barrier] is really doing is…helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.”

Of a pattern with this animus toward Israel is Chomsky’s involvement with neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionism. This saga began in 1980 with Chomsky’s support of Robert Faurisson, a French anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. (“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie,” Faurisson wrote.) Chomsky penned a preface to a book by Faurisson, explaining that the latter was an “apolitical liberal” whose work was based on “extensive historical research” and contained “no hint of anti-Semitic implications.”

In the post-9/11 political ferment, Professor Chomsky’s reputation, which had suffered because of his support of Pol Pot and his dalliance with figures like Faurisson, was revived by the anti-war Left. His following has grown, particularly in Europe and Asia, where his views have helped inform an inchoate anti-Americanism, and on the university campus, where divesting from Israel (a cause he has championed) and attacks against the War on Terror are de rigueur.

Professor Chomsky’s most recent book, Hegemony or Survival (2003), casts America as a threat to global survival. The New York Times and Washington Post both treated Hegemony and Survival as a significant work, with Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power writing in the Times that Chomsky’s book was “sobering and instructive.

Chomsky dismisses the atrocity of 9/11 as one that was dwarfed in magnitude by Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile attack on a factory in the Sudan following the bombings of two U.S. embassies by al Qaeda, in which no one was injured.

Telling an MIT audience of 2,000 that the U.S. military response against the terrorists in Afghanistan was a calculated “genocide” that would cause the deaths of 3 to 4 million Afghanis, Chomsky denounced America as “the world’s greatest terrorist state.” He also traveled to the Muslim world to repeat the charges of U.S. genocide and terror to millions in Islamabad and New Delhi. (None of Chomsky’s predictions of “genocide” and “famine” came to pass in Afghanistan, thanks to $350 million in food shipments supplied by the United States. Chomsky himself was aware of these shipments even as he made his accusations.)

Chomsky sees the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in history when the guns that were historically trained on the Third World by imperialist powers like America, were turned around. He sees this as a positive development, because in Professor Chomsky’s eyes unless American “hegemony” is destroyed, the world faces a grim future.

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

In 2010, Chomsky lauded Bradley Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who had stolen and distributed, to the Julian Assange-founded website WikiLeaks, hundreds of thousands of classified documents containing sensitive information about the American government and its military. According to Chomsky, Manning was a man of "courage" and "integrity." At one time, WikiLeaks listed Noam Chomsky as a volunteer administrator of its Facebook page, although Chomsky denied the association.


Much of this profile is adapted from the Introduction to the book, The Anti-Chomsky Reader, which is edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. Peter Collier is the author of that Introduction.

Copyright 2003-2010 : DiscoverTheNetworks.org

Quote:

Oh my Peter, what an evil man. I also read some of the links you mention. How can a Jewish person deny the holocaust? Maybe he should go tour Israel's Holocaust History Museum in Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, a memorial to those who perished, you told me about, and listen to some of the recordings made by some of the survivors, including the ones your mother did. I doubt that would sway his opinion though. It has been my experience that people like that, who are evil to the core, will never change.

I found this article from the Canada Free Press to be most interesting.

Shalom

Evelyn

Attacking Obama over his real estate dealings with convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko
Donald Trump Breaks Through the MSM Iron Curtain

By Fred Dardick Friday, April 22, 2011
Billionaire Donald Trump may be a publicity junkie and questionable presidential material. Athough who am I to say, just look at what we got right now—but he makes for one awesome Obama attack dog. With the self assurance that only money, power and celebrity can buy, Trump has been knocking down the walls the main stream media have erected around the President to expose parts of his background that liberals would prefer never see the light of day.

Trump has raised the issue regarding Obama’s birth certificate from conspiracy theory to legitimate topic of conversation. Finally someone has destroyed the false MSM narrative that a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a birth certificate are the same thing.

Last week Trump raised the stakes by attacking Obama over his real estate dealings with convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko. While MSM reporters have been happily reporting the Trump birther issue, something they believe most Americans will just laugh away, they have not spent anywhere near the same energy publicizing Obama’s connections to Rezko, a story that could really hurt Obama should it become common knowledge.

There is no chuckling away Rezko’s purchase of the lot next to Obama’s Chicago home and the subsequent sale of a strip of land to Obama that “conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford”. In other words it was a payoff from a Chicago power player to an up and coming politician for services yet to be rendered. Already the MSM are circling the wagons on this story as a Google News search for “Trump and birther” shows 2,917 results while a search for “Trump and Rezko” yields only 13.

This past week CBS carried water for Obama once again by refusing to release the complete “hot mic” recording of his meeting with Democratic donors. It would seem CBS doesn’t want audio of the President referring “to a group of Americans as ‘slugs’” making it to the airwaves. One can only imagine how quickly it would have been released had the President been named Bush.

Trump has shown that direct confrontation with Obama is the best way forward in 2012 - Trump is only down 2 points to Obama in the latest Newsweek/Daily Beast poll. No longer can Republican candidates pull a John McCain and sit calmly on the sidelines while the liberal controlled media decides which Obama stories are newsworthy and which are not. The more Republicans expose of Obama’s shady past and unethical presidency to the American people, the better chance we have of putting the worst President in modern times behind us.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35754

Fred Dardick Most recent columns
Fred Dardick is the owner and operator of a medical staffing company based in Chicago. Prior to the business world, he worked as a biological researcher at Northwestern University and The University of Chicago. He has BS and MS degrees in biology and maintains a blog at conservativespotlight.com.

Quote:

Hello Friends,

I've seen that Noam Chomsky is being used as a source for reliable information and analysis. While Chomsky is considered to be brilliant as a Professor of linguistics his alter ego as an America hater and basher is his real claim to fame. He blames America for all the evils in the world and believes the Soviet Union was a much better form of government. His only problem with Stalin was that he gave a bad name to Socialism/Marxism.

He is a rabid antisemite despite the fact that he was born Jewish and Israel is only second to the United States as the Little Satan while the USA is the Great Satan. (As an aside Chomsky and Soros could be blood brothers and are probably great friends).

After rereading the below profile I'm not surprised that there are those that use Chomsky as a reliable source and analyst. Sad but true.

Shalom,

Peter

P.S. There are additional links for information on Noam Chomsky and can be found on the left hand side of the page here.

• Professor of linguistics, prolific pamphleteer, highly influential leftist
• Known for his extreme views (e.g., that America is worse than Nazi Germany)
• “The so-called War on Terror is pure hypocrisy, virtually without exception”

Born to Jewish parents in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on December 7, 1928, Noam Chomsky has taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology since 1955. In 1961 he was appointed full Professor in MIT's Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics (now the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy). From 1966 to 1976 he held the Ferrari P. Ward Professorship of Modern Languages and Linguistics. In 1976 he was appointed Institute Professor.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Professor Chomsky is “the most cited living author” and ranks just below Plato and Sigmund Freud among the most cited authors of all time. While acknowledging that he is reviled in some quarters for his ferocious anti-Americanism, a recent New Yorker profile calls Chomsky “one of the greatest minds of the 20th century.”

Chomsky is without question the most politically influential living academic among other academics and their students. He is promoted by rock groups such as Rage Against the Machine and Pearl Jam at their concerts the way the Beatles once promoted the Guru Maharaji, with the performers solemnly reading excerpts from his work in between sets and urging their followers to read him too. The devotion of Chomsky’s followers is summarized by radio producer David Barsamian, who describes the master’s effulgence in openly religious terms: "He is for many of us our rabbi, our preacher, our rinpoche, our sensei."

Manufacturing Consent, a documentary adapted from one of Chomsky’s books with the same title, has achieved the status of an underground classic in university film festivals. And at the climactic moment in the Academy Award-winning Good Will Hunting, the genius-janitor, played by Matt Damon, vanquishes the incorrect thinking of a group of sophomoric college students with a fiery speech quoting Professor Chomsky on the illicit nature of American power.

Any analysis of Chomsky must address linguistics, the field he remade so thoroughly by his scholarly work of the late 1950s that he was often compared to Einstein and other paradigm shifters. Those who admire this achievement but not his politics are at pains to explain what they take to be a disjunction between his work in linguistics and his sociopolitical ideas. They see the former as so brilliant and compelling as to be unarguable -- in all a massive scientific achievement -- and the latter as so venomous and counter-factual as to be emotionally disturbing.

Paul Postal and Robert Levine, linguists who have known and worked with Chomsky, take the view that the two aspects of his life’s work in fact manifest the same key properties: "a deep disregard of, and contempt for, the truth; a monumental disdain for standards of inquiry; a relentless strain of self-promotion; notable descents into incoherence; and a penchant for verbally abusing those who disagree with him."

Chomsky’s work in linguistics allowed him to make a transition from the university to the public arena in the mid-1960s and to be taken seriously as a critic of the war in Vietnam. In a series of influential articles that appeared in the New York Review of Books and other publications, he distinguished himself by the cold intellectual ferocity of his attacks on American policy. Although a generation older than most members of the New Left, he shared the latter's eagerness to romanticize the Third World.

Chomsky was one of the chief deniers of the Cambodian genocide of the 1970s, which took place in the wake of the Communist victory and American withdrawal from Indochina. He directed vitriolic attacks towards the reporters and witnesses who testified to the human catastrophe that was taking place there. Initially, Chomsky tried to minimize the deaths (a “few thousand”) and compared those killed by Pol Pot and his followers to the collaborators who had been executed by resistance movements in Europe at the end of World War II. By 1980, however, it was no longer possible to deny that some 2 million of Cambodia's 7.8 million people had perished at the hands of the Communists. But Professor Chomsky continued to deny the genocide, proposing that the underlying problem may have been a failure of the rice crop. As late as 1988, Chomsky returned to the subject and insisted that whatever had happened in Cambodia, the U.S. was to blame.

This conclusion is the principal theme of what may be loosely termed Chomsky's intellectual oeuvre: Whatever evil exists in the world, the United States is to blame. His intellectual obsession is America and its “grand strategy of world domination.” In 1967 Professor Chomsky wrote that America “needed a kind of denazification.” The Third Reich has provided him with his central metaphor for his own country ever since.

The long conflict with the Soviets and the fact that it was fought out primarily in the Third World allowed Chomsky to elaborate on his analogy with the Nazis and to spin his narrative on the evils of American power. The Soviet dictatorship was not only "morally equivalent" to democratic America, in Chomsky’s view, but actually better because it was less powerful. The chief sin of Stalinism in his eyes was not the murder of millions, but the fact that he had given socialism a bad name.

Professor Chomsky has denounced every U.S. President from Woodrow Wilson and FDR to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the front men in “four-year dictatorships” by a ruling class. In his view, the U.S., led by a series of lesser Hitlers, picked up where the Nazis left off after they were defeated in 1945. According to Chomsky, a case could be made for impeaching every President since World War II because “they’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes.”

Chomsky also detests the state of Israel, a country he regards as playing the role of Little Satan to the American Great Satan and functioning strategically as an “offshore military and technology base for the United States.”

According to the website Stand4Facts.org, Chomsky has made the following statements about Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust:

• “I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence.”
• “I objected to the founding of Israel as a Jewish state. I don't think a Jewish or Christian or Islamic state is a proper concept. I would object to the United States as a Christian state.”
• Israel is “a state based on the principle of discrimination. There is no other way for a state with non-Jewish citizens to remain a Jewish state…”
• “Israel is virtually a U.S. military base, an offshoot of the U.S. military system.”
• “There are a great many horrible regimes in the world. To take just one, the world's longest military occupation. There's little doubt that those under the military occupation would be much better off if the occupation were terminated. Does it follow that we should bomb Tel Aviv?”
• “Of course [suicide bombers are] terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it….But it's very small as compared with the U.S.-backed Israeli terrorism.”
• “I mean you’d have to go back to the worst days of the American South to know what it’s been like for the Palestinians in the occupied territories.”
• “What this wall [separation barrier] is really doing is…helping turn Palestinian communities into dungeons, next to which the bantustans of South Africa look like symbols of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination.”

Of a pattern with this animus toward Israel is Chomsky’s involvement with neo-Nazis and Holocaust revisionism. This saga began in 1980 with Chomsky’s support of Robert Faurisson, a French anti-Semite who was fired by the University of Lyon for his hate-filled screeds. (“The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie,” Faurisson wrote.) Chomsky penned a preface to a book by Faurisson, explaining that the latter was an “apolitical liberal” whose work was based on “extensive historical research” and contained “no hint of anti-Semitic implications.”

In the post-9/11 political ferment, Professor Chomsky’s reputation, which had suffered because of his support of Pol Pot and his dalliance with figures like Faurisson, was revived by the anti-war Left. His following has grown, particularly in Europe and Asia, where his views have helped inform an inchoate anti-Americanism, and on the university campus, where divesting from Israel (a cause he has championed) and attacks against the War on Terror are de rigueur.

Professor Chomsky’s most recent book, Hegemony or Survival (2003), casts America as a threat to global survival. The New York Times and Washington Post both treated Hegemony and Survival as a significant work, with Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power writing in the Times that Chomsky’s book was “sobering and instructive.

Chomsky dismisses the atrocity of 9/11 as one that was dwarfed in magnitude by Bill Clinton’s 1998 missile attack on a factory in the Sudan following the bombings of two U.S. embassies by al Qaeda, in which no one was injured.

Telling an MIT audience of 2,000 that the U.S. military response against the terrorists in Afghanistan was a calculated “genocide” that would cause the deaths of 3 to 4 million Afghanis, Chomsky denounced America as “the world’s greatest terrorist state.” He also traveled to the Muslim world to repeat the charges of U.S. genocide and terror to millions in Islamabad and New Delhi. (None of Chomsky’s predictions of “genocide” and “famine” came to pass in Afghanistan, thanks to $350 million in food shipments supplied by the United States. Chomsky himself was aware of these shipments even as he made his accusations.)

Chomsky sees the 9/11 attacks as a turning point in history when the guns that were historically trained on the Third World by imperialist powers like America, were turned around. He sees this as a positive development, because in Professor Chomsky’s eyes unless American “hegemony” is destroyed, the world faces a grim future.

In September 2007, Chomsky was praised by Osama bin Laden as "one of the most capable" citizens of the United States.

In 2010, Chomsky lauded Bradley Manning, the former U.S. Army intelligence analyst who had stolen and distributed, to the Julian Assange-founded website WikiLeaks, hundreds of thousands of classified documents containing sensitive information about the American government and its military. According to Chomsky, Manning was a man of "courage" and "integrity." At one time, WikiLeaks listed Noam Chomsky as a volunteer administrator of its Facebook page, although Chomsky denied the association.


Much of this profile is adapted from the Introduction to the book, The Anti-Chomsky Reader, which is edited by Peter Collier and David Horowitz. Peter Collier is the author of that Introduction.

Copyright 2003-2010 : DiscoverTheNetworks.org

Hello Friends,

I found some interesting graphs that might enlighten the progressive whiners and criers. They are really self explanatory but if they have any problems understanding and comprehending them please feel free to ask. Make you a bet that they (the whiners and criers) are in the 2.7 percentile group. :)

Shalom,

Peter

Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND

Written By : John Hawkins

First off, here’s a breakdown of who pays into personal income taxes. Look at those numbers and SMELL the unfairness.

So, the top 10% of income earners pay 69.9% of the income tax while the bottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make the tax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be paying less? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if you got your information from Obama speeches and MSNBC.

Now, here’s another chart that defies conventional wisdom.

Over the decades, tax rates have varied quite a bit. They’ve even gone up as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming in doesn’t change very much in relation to revenue. It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue the government can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, more inelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put more emphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fix the problem with tax increases.

Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’s going to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the 20% mark, this is one hell of a scary graph.

Notice that we’re up from 2.7% of GDP in 1965 to 9.1% (the halfway mark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may take a little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — and so it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to pay off and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides those entitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, border security, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and even Harry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look at the size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and then conclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner than we think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controlling spiraling entitlement costs.