I never expected to see this on the news.
FOX’s news studio “is too small”, so several Ron Paul supporters have volunteered to donate money to FOX to build them a bigger trailer.
In the meantime others are selling their News Corp stock.
Are you going to miss any of these corporations?
Are you an American tired of FOX News’ propaganda?
Are you tired of the war in Iraq?
Are you a Ron Paul sympathist miles across the world?
Do you despise U.S. military intervention in your country?
Are you angry?
Then it’s time to sell Newscorp [NWS].
News Corporation has excluded the most widely acclaimed presidential candidate in the world, Ron Paul, from the next debate.
Many of you have wanted to help Ron Paul in one way or another, but you are not allowed to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign, or you may have maxed out your allowable contribution. Well, here is an easy way to help, which may benefit you in more than one way: Sell all your NWS stock.
Teach FOX News a lesson. Make them bleed green until they put Ron Paul back into the debates.
UPDATE: NYSE has been on the downturn, but it is rebounding, while Newscorp is, for whatever reason, not moving in parallel.
Probably coincidental, but it need not be if people start selling now. Even if people are skeptical that it has anything to do with Ron Paul supporters, it would be smart to sell your NWS stock just to be safe.
Or just intelligent and very well-informed? Look at his comments on terrorism in 2001.
Ron Paul on Terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, my guess is that in the not-too-distant future so-called
proof will be provided that Saddam Hussein was somehow partially
responsible for the attack on the United States, and it will be
irresistible then for the United States to retaliate against him. This
will greatly and dangerously expand the war and provoke even greater
hatred towards the United States, and it is all so unnecessary. It is
so hard for many Americans to understand how we inadvertently provoke
the Arab Muslim people, and I am not talking about the likes of bin
Laden and his gang. I am talking about the Arab Muslim masses.
Looks like he was right about everything. The Austrian Economists even predicted the housing bubble recession back in 2004:
Thornton says that it ‘is difficult to predict how long bubbles will last,’ but the geoclassical half of the geo-Austrian theory does provide an indication. Historically, the real-estate cycle has had a duration of 18 years, aside from the interruption of World War II. That puts the next real estate bottom around 2008 [link mine]. If past patterns continue, and so far they are right on schedule, we can expect the next recession to take place towards the end of this decade.
Fighting terrorism the way Bush wants to fight it is stupid. IF you want to fight terrorism, the best way to start is to stop creating terrorists, and furthermore, to stop giving them reasons to attack us.
If you don’t think about why they attack us in the first place, regardless of whether it has to do with us or not, YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.
In psychology there is a phenomenon called selective perception. We perceive Iran as a terrorist regime. But how are we different? Tancredo would nuke Mecca. Bush initiated a “shock and awe” campaign, and gave Saddam a 48-hour ultimatum. Giuliani is politically illiterate. What do they have in common? Their political rhetoric sounds the same as Ahmadinejad’s.
A lot of the justification for attacking and provoking Iran is the premise that Iran is a terrorist regime; that Ahmadinejad a terrorist for threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”. Perhaps this view is accurate. However, if we view Iran as a terrorist regime, then we ought to take a closer look at our leaders and foreign policy.
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3. (formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4. an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.
Under that definition many of our presidential candidates are terrorists, especially Giuliani and Tancredo, who would gladly turn the Middle East, and in particular, Mecca, into glass.
Ahmadinejad didn’t actually threaten to wipe Israel off the map - his speech was mistranslated.
If we are going to judge terrorism by such standards, then Bush is a terrorist for stating that he’d like to wipe Al-Jazeera off the map
If you compare the speeches of political leaders around the world, you’ll find that they all sound very similar. When Bush threatened Saddam by telling him he had 48 hours to leave Iraq, that is terrorism, too.
The “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq resembles terrorism as well. The point of shock and awe was to promote fear and terror.
If you look at psychological studies, you’ll notice that Bush sounds like a terrorist to them, just like Ahmadinejad sounds like a terrorist to some of us.
Let’s not forget we’ve have organized various coups d’état that could be characterized as acts of terrorism, around the world, including Iran.
This is why a war on terrorism is a double standard, and a play on vague words. Should we truly be concerned with terrorism around the world, we’d take a closer look at our foreign policy. The political rhetoric of our leaders sounds the same as that of the world leaders they demonize.
References:
terrorism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism
terrorist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved November 24, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist
(UPDATED - Please see the updates and comments at the bottom of the article. The article in question is factual, but inaccurately sourced)
An article posted on Digg claiming that Mexico uses racist and extremely tough immigration laws derived from the constitution turned out to be completely fake.The article in question is called: Mexican Constitution, Immigration Laws Vs. U.S. Constitution
This article on MichNews.com [deleted as of 18:26 Pacific and resposted - but also posted at The Federal Observer] was recently made popular on Digg.com here. This is the introduction:
Special Interest Groups consider U.S. Immigration laws racist, inhumane and unjust. A possible answer to the problem would be abolishing all U.S. Immigration Statutes and adopting “word for word” Mexico’s standards and law per their government constitution. How could any group in the United States including LULAC or ACLU be offended? DHS Secretary Chertoff appears to hate the idea of enforcing U.S. laws on the books because it would separate families. […]
That seems reasonable, I thought.
Then I came across this comment on Digg.com by user Zaetha, claming the article was a complete lie. Zaetha posted a copy of the Mexican constitution for everyone to see.
The problem with the article is that it’s not a mistranslation.
It is an deliberate fabrication inaccurately sourced article, deceptively claiming to reference specific articles of the Mexican constitution.
Thus, here is an online version of the Mexican Constitution in English, for your own eyes.
Now let’s look at the false claims:
Claim:
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
Factual, straight from the constitution:
Article 32. Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.
In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of pratique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.
Claim:
Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Factual:
Article 34. Men and women who, having the status of Mexicans, likewise meet the following requirements are citizens of the Republic:
1. Having reached eighteen years of age, if married, or twenty-one years of age if unmarried;
2. Having an honest means of livelihood.
Claim:
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
Factual:
Article 37.
1. Mexican nationality is lost:
1. By the voluntary acquisition of a foreign nationality;
2. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign state;
3. By residing, if a Mexican by naturalization, for five consecutive years in the country of origin;
4. By passing in any public instrument, when Mexican by naturalization, as a foreigner, or by obtaining and using a foreign passport;
2. Mexican citizenship is lost:
1. By accepting or using titles of nobility which imply submission to a foreign government;
2. By rendering voluntary services to a foreign government without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
3. By accepting or using foreign decorations without permission of the Federal Congress or of its Permanent Committee;
4. By accepting titles or functions from the government of another country without previous permission of the Federal Congress or its Permanent Committee, excepting literary, scientific, or humanitarian titles which may be freely accepted;
5. By aiding a foreigner or a foreign country, against the Nation, in any diplomatic claim or before an international tribunal;
6. In other cases which the laws may specify.
Claim:
The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Factual:
Article 38. The rights or prerogatives of citizens [emphasis added] are suspended:
1. Through failure to comply, without sufficient cause, with any of the obligations imposed by Article 36. This suspension shall last for one year and shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law for the same offense.
2. Through being subjected to criminal prosecution for an offense punishable by imprisonment (pena corporal), the suspension to be reckoned from the date of the formal order of commitment;
3. Throughout a term of imprisonment;
4. Through vagrancy or habitual drunkenness, affirmed in the manner prescribed by law;
5. Through being a fugitive from justice, the suspension being reckoned from the date of the order of arrest until the prescription of the criminal action;
6. Through final sentence imposing such suspension as a penalty.The law shall specify those cases in which civil rights may be lost or suspended and the manner of rehabilitation.
Here is the rest of the article, summed up for brevity. You can still follow the links to the English version, to compare
Claim:
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
Factual:
Article 73 -Simply outlines the structure, powers and responsibility of congress, but says nothing about “keeping track of every single person in the country” or cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Claim:
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
Factual:
Articles 85 and 86 -85 talks about the reasons and procedures for appointing interim presidents. 86 talks about acceptable causes for presidential resignation. There’s nothing about a National Population Registry.
Claim:
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Factual:
Article 87 - Outlines the presidential oath that must be taken when taking office. Article 91 - “To be a secretary it is required to be a Mexican citizen by birth, to be in exercise of his rights, and be at least thirty years of age”.
Claim:
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Factual:
Article 116 - The States have the power to fix their respective boundaries among themselves, by amicable agreements; but such agreements will not be put into effect without the approval of the Congress of the Union.
Claim:
Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Factual:
See above - Article 116
Claim:
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Factual:
Article 117 - Limits the powers of the states (for example, states cannot make coins).
Claim:
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Factual:
Article 118 - Limits states further - they may not impose certain port levies, nor start wars with foreign powers.
Claim:
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Factual:
Article 119 - Each State has the obligation to deliver without delay the criminals of another State or of a foreign State to the authorities who claim them.
Article 120 - The governors of the States are required to publish and enforce federal laws.
Article 121 - States must respect each others’ laws.
Claim:
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
Factual:
Article 123 - Why would a constitution contain the specific monetary fine? Either way, this talks about Labor and Social Security.
Claim:
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Factual:
Article 125 - “No individual may fill two popularly elected federal offices at the same time […]”
Claim:
Foreigners who “attempt contempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Factual:
Article 126 - “No payment may be made that is not included in the budget or provided for by a subsequent law.”
Claim:
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Factual:
Article 127 - President, Supreme Court Justices, and other public officials receive compensation specified and paid by the national treasury.
Claim:
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132) *1917 Mexican Constitution… ref. Center for Security Policy
Factual:
Article 132 - Certain buildings used by the government for public service and common use are under federal jurisdiction.
So what “Mexican Constitution” was John W. Slagle using? [See 9/2/07 update].
UPDATE: The fabricated mis-sourced article has made its way to about seven different websites. Some places where it was posted include: ALIPAC (message board post), Newsvine, The Federal Observer, MichNews, Shankradio, The Conservative Voice.
UPDATE (9/2/07): It may not be an intentional fabrication, but rather a bad honest mistake: They are quoting the General Law of the population, and not the Mexican Constitution, even though they claim to be quoting the Constitution.
UPDATE (9/3/07): I apologize for passing judgment hastily. The source of the article is simply The General Law on Population, and not the Mexican Constitution as originally claimed.
The short answer according to Pat Buchanan: “Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby: Cheney and Lieberman”. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a strategic and hypocritical excuse. Sensational intelligence is irrelevant. If we go to war, it will be based on Cheney’s whim.
Pat Buchanan puts it beautifully,
Who is pushing for attacks on Iran? Israel and its lobby. Vice President Cheney. Sen. Joe Lieberman, who has been calling for air strikes on al Quds camps for months. And a War Party facing lasting disgrace for having lied the country into an unnecessary war and for having assured the American people it would be a “cakewalk.”
The arguments for war on Iran are both strategic and political.
Israel is terrified Iran will end its nuclear monopoly in the Middle East and wants an all-out U.S. war on Iran to prevent it. The War Party fears Iran may acquire a nuclear weapon, which would inhibit U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and convince the Arab states that the United States is yesterday, and they must appease Iran or go nuclear themselves.
If you recall from a previous article on Irrelevant Intelligence, a war with Iran requires no basis in intelligence. According to Gabriel Kolko:
The function of intelligence anywhere is far less to encourage rational behavior–although sometimes that occurs–than to justify a nation’s illusions, and it is the false expectations that conventional wisdom encourages that make wars more likely, a pattern that has only increased since the early twentieth century.
We have made the strategic decision to label Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization for “supplying the weapons that are killing a growing number of American soldiers in Iraq”. This gives the illusion of a just war, since we are “technically” (read: semantically) at war with all terrorist organizations. Such are the wonders of a vague war on terrorism - a vague noun, incidentally.
But there is no good reason to go to war with Iran. If you recall the recent capture of British soldiers at the edge of Iranian waters, it seems that Iranian forces had more legitimacy in that area than the British soldiers did. After all, it is Iran’s neighborhood. If Iran was patrolling the border of American waters, you can be sure we’d capture and question the offending soldiers. Better yet (and I mean this in all sarcasm) we’d place them in a tripled Guantanamo and tested ‘enhanced interrogation’.
While there is no excuse for Iran’s actions, it is hypocritical to be outraged by them. And equally hypocritical is our use of Iran’s little proxy war - allegedly supplying weapons to Iraqi insurgents - as they are trying to protect their sphere of influence. According to Pat Buchanan, we did the same when we aided France during the Pastry War in 1846.
It’s only natural to want to maintain the status quo or influence in your neighborhood. This is not an good excuse to go to war with Iran.
Don’t pay attention to new sensational intelligence; it won’t make a difference in the long run. Cheney has incessantly pushed for a war with Iran, and any future problems we have with Iran can be solved by (1) ceasing our needless intervention and (2) looking for other options. If the law of averages - the tendency for a variable to remain stable in the long term - is any indicator, there is no need to be afraid of Iran. Only Cheney and Lieberman’s trigger-happy mindset.