Truth Above All

The future of America...

2006-04-13T09:00:00.000-04:00

People used to say that South Africa was 20 years behind the rest of the Western world. Television, for example, came late to South Africa (but so did pornography and the gay* rights movement).

Today, however, South Africa may be the grim model of the future Western world, for events in America reveals trends chillingly similar to those that destroyed our country.

America's structures are Western. Your Congress, your lobbying groups, your free speech, and the way ordinary Americans either get involved or ignore politics are peculiarly Western, not the way most of the world operates. But the fact that only about a third of Americans deem it important to vote is horrifying in light of how close you are to losing your Western character.

...

A Warning for Americans: A Message from a South African by Robbie Noel

The jobs myth...

2006-04-07T14:58:00.000-04:00

Don't fall for the big lie about "new" jobs.

From WhiteHouse.gov:

The
economy created 211,000 jobs in March and has created about 2.1 million
jobs over the past 12 months - and more than 5.1 million since August
2003.

From Census.gov:

	2005	2000	1990
Population	296,410,404	281,421,906	248,709,873

Let's do some math, shall we?

296,410,404 - 281,421,906 = 14,988,498 total population increase between 2000 and 2005

14,988,498/5 = 2,997,699 population increase each year, on average

2,997,699/12 = 249,808 population increase each month, on average

211,000 "new" jobs in March 2006 - 249,808 population increase in March = -38,808 ACTUAL jobs created last month

2,100,000 "new" jobs created in the last year - 2,997,699 population
increase in the last year = -897,699 ACTUAL jobs created in the past
year

Yea, a truly great economy. Negative savings rates, huge
trade deficits, enormous federal budget deficits, and an inconceivably
large federal debt.

The fall of the dollar...

2006-04-04T14:46:00.000-04:00

China should stop buying U.S. Treasuries and take steps to reduce its holdings in those bonds, a Hong Kong newspaper on Tuesday quoted a high-ranking Chinese official as saying.

Chinese Official: Don't Buy U.S. Bonds

Government schools don't work...

2006-04-04T08:25:00.000-04:00

Two great articles making clear why many parents don't even consider sending their children to government schools.

I taught for thirty years in some of the worst schools in Manhattan, and in some of the best, and during that time I became an expert in boredom. Boredom was everywhere in my world, and if you asked the kids, as I often did, why they felt so bored, they always gave the same answers: They said the work was stupid, that it made no sense, that they already knew it. They said they wanted to be doing something real, not just sitting around. They said teachers didn't seem to know much about their subjects and clearly weren't interested in learning more. And the kids were right: their teachers were every bit as bored as they were.

Against School: How Public Education Cripples Our Kids, and Why by John Taylor Gatto

It was May 2000, and the guy at Al Gore’s polling firm seemed baffled. A Yale political-science major, I’d already walked away from a high-paying consulting job a few weeks earlier, and now I was walking away from a job working on a presidential campaign to do . . . what?

How I Joined Teach for America—and Got Sued for $20 Million by Joshua Kaplowitz

Delta Force founder says Iraq is a 'debacle'...

2006-03-29T09:40:00.000-05:00

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.

Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.

We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.

We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.

Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.

The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.

I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.

'Unit's' military expert has fighting words for Bush by David Kronke

Warring Democracies...

2006-03-28T23:27:00.000-05:00

I've witnessed this debate on Usenet several times, and it always follows the same pattern:
1. Somebody casually brings up the old factoid about how no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.

2. Somebody jumps in and lists a dozen or so wars which have been fought between democracies.

3. Somebody else points out that those countries weren't democratic, not really.

4. Everybody gets into arguments over who was or was not democratic.

5. The argument fizzles out except for two guys continuing to argue over whether the American Civil War was about slavery.

In any case, here is the traditional list of wars which may or may not have been fought between democracies:

War Between Democracies by Matthew White

Economic Ignorance...

2006-03-28T22:53:00.000-05:00

I strongly recommend that every American acquire some basic knowledge of economics, monetary policy, and the intersection of politics with the economy. No formal classroom is required; a desire to read and learn will suffice. There are countless important books to consider, but the following are an excellent starting point: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat; Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt; What has Government Done to our Money? by Murray Rothbard; The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek; and Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan.

The Perils of Economic Ignorance by Ron Paul

Open letter to Rush...

2006-03-27T08:54:00.000-05:00

Dear Rush:

I started listening to you way back in the early years of the first Clinton administration. I couldn’t stand Bill and Hil or any of their associates, and hearing you and the other conservative talk-radio jocks light into them made their eight years in the White House a little more bearable for me. I even bought your books for my elderly mom, who was a big fan of yours and listened to you regularly until my elderly dad became more dependent on her and made it difficult for her to do so. While I didn’t agree with you on everything back then, we were generally on the same page and when we weren’t I wasn’t particularly bothered. That hasn’t been the case since George W. Bush took office, and particularly since 9-11 and his administration’s atrocious response to that atrocity.

...

An Open Letter to Rush Limbaugh by William R Tonso

The "bird flu" scare...

2006-03-27T08:16:00.001-05:00

Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease...

Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug by Geoffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen

America builds concentration camps...

2006-03-23T13:57:00.000-05:00

KBR announced today that its Government and Infrastructure division has been awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency. KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton (NYSE:HAL).

With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five-year term, consisting of a one-year based period and four one-year options, the competitively awarded contract will be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District. KBR held the previous ICE contract from 2000 through 2005.

“We are especially gratified to be awarded this contract because it builds on our extremely strong track record in the arena of emergency operations support,” said Bruce Stanski, executive vice president, KBR Government and Infrastructure. “We look forward to continuing the good work we have been doing to support our customer whenever and wherever we are needed.”

The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities.

The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts.

ICE was established in March 2003 as the largest investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security. ICE is comprised of four integrated divisions that form a 21st century law enforcement agency with broad responsibilities for a number of key homeland security priorities.

KBR is a global engineering, construction, technology and services company. Whether designing an LNG facility, serving as a defense industry contractor, or providing small capital construction, KBR delivers world-class service and performance. KBR employs more than 60,000 people in 43 countries around the world.

Halliburton, founded in 1919, is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the petroleum and energy industries. The company serves its customers with a broad range of products and services through its Energy Services Group and KBR. Visit the company's World Wide Web site at www.halliburton.com.

Official Halliburton press release

The lies are unraveling...

2006-03-23T08:21:00.000-05:00

Now here we are again, contemplating the seemingly unthinkable events of September 11. An official explanation has been offered up: The nation was attacked by the forces of radical Islam led by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda jihadists. Again, this narrative has been accepted by many.

But not all.

The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll by Mark Jacobson

Just Say No...

2006-03-23T08:19:00.000-05:00

Americans who are not in a self imposed coma are aware that Congress has once again shredded the Fourth and Fifth Amendments with their recent vote to extend certain provisions of the un-Patriot Act. The only problem is, the Constitution must be amended, not changed, altered or nullified depending on the vicissitudes dictated by political corruption.

Tell Your Sheriff: No Enforcement of the "Patriot" Act by Devvy Kidd

Elections are a Scam...

2006-03-22T09:10:00.000-05:00

As in every election we’re now being bombarded with propaganda about how “your vote makes a difference” and associated nonsense. According to the official version ordinary citizens control the state by voting for candidates in elections. The President and other politicians are supposedly servants of “the people” and the government an instrument of the general populace. This version is a myth. It does not matter who is elected because the way the system is set up all elected representatives must do what big business and the state bureaucracy want, not what “the people” want. Elected representatives are figureheads. Politicians’ rhetoric may change depending on who is elected, but they all have to implement the same policies given the same situation. Elections are a scam whose function is to create the illusion that “the people” control the government, not the elite, and to neutralize resistance movements. All voting does is strengthen the state & ruling class, it is not an effective means to change government policy.

...

Elections are a Scam

Distinguishing chattel from human life...

2006-03-16T11:45:00.000-05:00

The notable Dred Scott Case brought before our courts in 1856-57 addressed the right of a Negro slave and his child born in free territory to become citizens of the United States. Scott sued for citizenship on the ground that he was taken from Missouri to live in the free territory of Minnesota, where his child was born, before being brought back to Missouri. The lower courts ruled that he had no standing before the court. On March 6, 1857, the United States Supreme Court upheld the lower court decision that Negro slaves and/or their descendants could not be citizens and that they had no rights before the court.

The written majority opinion was of more concern than the decision of the court. The opinion contended that Scott was mere chattel which might be dealt with by its owner as any other property. That historic opinion did much to widen the breach between North and South and to hasten the Civil War.

A present-day case which also began in the courts of Missouri was decided by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973. In effect, the decision of the Roe vs. Wade Case declares that the unborn child has no rights before the court and that it may be dealt with as nothing more than chattel.

Now, fortified by that decision, the abortionists raise the popular cry that the unborn child is a part of the woman's body, that she has the right over her own body, and that she can deal with it as she pleases, even to the termination of its life.

With their humanitarian views, the Abolitionists pressed for the human rights of slaves at a time when many of the citizens of our country denied that a Negro had a soul. He was not considered to be a human being.

Strangely, now those who contend for the equal rights for women, minorities, and the blacks both in America and South Africa are denying that the unborn child has a soul or human rights. It is not considered to be a human being.

Although it is said to be a part of the woman's body, the fetus is not even esteemed as highly as an eye, a hand, or a finger. It would be considered inhuman to destroy one of those parts for any reason short of necessity. The fetus is given about the same consideration as a tumor or an inflamed appendix. To sterilize a woman as a preventative to pregnancy is considered to be a destruction of her human rights, but to terminate her pregnancy is thought to be neither inhuman nor destructive of the infant's rights.

We hear little from the abortionists about the sins of fornication and adultery. Rather, they contend that freedom of sexual activity of the unwed is another human right which we dare not discourage. Promiscuity is encouraged by our society as a whole. With the abandonment of sexual morality has come a disregard for the life that results from the lack of sexual restraint. When we abandon the concept of sin, we deny responsibility.

Slave owners were "pro-choice," contending that the choice of whether to own slaves or not was a private and personal matter and that one's personal values should not be pushed onto others. The "pro-choice" ideology was urged to protect slavery then, and it is designed to destroy life now. God is "pro-choice," demanding that we choose to refrain from the sexual activity that might result in a an unwanted pregnancy.

Both the slave and the fetus are human in essence, an essence which is not measured by degree of maturity, legal standing, or possession.

Who would have thought that, more than a century after the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War, we would hear the infamous decision of the Dred Scott Case revived so loudly and adamantly? Once it was the slave and his child who had no rights or soul; now it is the unborn child who has neither rights nor soul. In those times a master could deal with his slave as chattel; now the unborn is regarded as a disposable property possessed by the mother___a part of her body which she can destroy without conscience.

Human Chattel by Cecil Hook

Asserting sovereignty...

2006-03-14T14:29:00.000-05:00

The New Hampshire State House recently...

...passed a bill prohibiting New Hampshire from participating in the federal Real ID Act, which would require state driver's licenses and ID cards to meet a federal standard.

The bill said the state finds the policy established by Congress in the Real ID Act of 2005 to be "contrary and repugnant" to the New Hampshire Constitution. Supporters of the bill called the Real ID Act a government attempt to put more restrictions on people without actually making them safer.

Concord Monitor Online

The gloomy neocons...

2006-03-13T12:03:00.000-05:00

According to Fred Barnes:

The paleocon message is not an electoral winner--unless you believe voters are eager to hear ideas that are gloomy, negative, defeatist, isolationist, nativist, and protectionist.

What is it exactly about the "neocon" message that invokes positive thoughts of prosperity and success in the geopolitical arena?

The neocons tell us that American businesses need cheap labor in the form of illegal immigrants to sustain our supposedly cutting edge economy. They tell us that American companies aren't even interested in government contracts to run port operations, that we should instead opt to pay foreigners to do the work "Americans don't want to do". In fact, the neocons emphasize the legitimacy of the opinion that certain work is beneath that which Americans should expect to be provided.

They tell us stories about international rings of "terrorists" who are plotting nuclear attacks against America with the aid of various governments around the world. The only solution to these threats, they tell us, is to relinquish our civil rights and invest our collective trust in the decision making of a President able to defeat Al Gore and John Kerry by the slimmest of margins. We are to recognize his Constitutional authority to operate outside of the limits of the document which creates his authority in the first place. In the end, we are told that a 50-70 year war fought in every corner of the globe represents optimism while diplomatic non-interventionism represents defeatism.

They tell us that a federal budget with revenues of $2.4 trillion is not enough, that our children's futures must be mortgaged in order to sustain and expand necessary social programs while creating and implementing new ones. We are told that massive foreign debts and trade deficits are necessary in the "new economy" dominated by international corporations whose constituencies consist of small handfuls of powerful stakeholders. Exploding unfunded liabilities on the brink of surpassing the established debt ceiling are optimistic, while fiscally responsibile policies of pay as we go are pessimistic.

They tell us that smaller government is preferrable, but somehow they always manage to justify each proposed expansion of federal scope on some basis or another. A political movement once led by men who believed in individual sovereignty and inalienable liberties has fallen prey to marxists who masquerade their way to power under cover of supporting traditional social values through the appropriate use of government force. Bigger and more powerful government is optimistic if it pretends to advance the social agenda of the religous right, smaller government which protects the rights of all individuals to choose the course of their own lives is pessimistic.

I just don't see the optimism in the neocon platform. Probably because I'm too busy preparing for the coming armageddon that I am told is just around every corner.

We were wrong...

2006-03-09T11:12:00.000-05:00

The application of a doctrine built upon the supposed boundlessness of US power has succeeded only in exposing its limits.

At last, the warmongers are prepared to face the facts and admit they were wrong by Rupert Cornwell

Frightful despotism...

2006-03-07T09:43:00.000-05:00

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

George Washington

Mr. Bush, meet Mr. Bush...

2006-03-06T08:37:00.000-05:00

“We’ll never back down, we’ll never give in, and never accept anything less than complete victory in the war on terror.” – President Bush, Republican National Committee dinner, October 25, 2005.

Q: Do you really think we can win this war on terror?….

A: I don’t—I don’t think we can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the—those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in part of the world, let’s put it that way.” – President Bush in an exchange with co-host Matt Lauer on NBC’s “Today” show, August 30, 2004.

Source...

Some good reading...

2006-03-01T09:07:00.000-05:00

Richard N Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of 'The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History’s Course'.

For 350 years, sovereignty — the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not in the territory of other states — has provided the organising principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

Halfway to Heaven

The 5,000-acre tomato field in southwestern Florida sure doesn't look like heaven. Bulldozers scrape the land flat while clusters of Porta Pottis signal an undeniable earthiness. But soon a massive cathedral will rise from this barren spot. Reaching 100 feet in the air behind a 65-foot crucifix, the Oratory will anchor Ave Maria, a whole new town and Roman Catholic university 30 miles east of Naples. Ground was officially broken last week, and the plan is to build 11,000 homes—likely drawing families who already hold the church at the center of their lives.

ACLU opposes creation of 'Catholic town'

There‘s one group standing in the way of Monaghan‘s lifelong dream, the American Civil Liberties Union, of course. Howard Simon is the executive director of Florida‘s ACLU. He joined Tucker Carlson from Miami.

2006 Vermont State Sovereignty Resolution

What if the Neighbors Get Nasty?

Bush says only some people get to acquire certain knowledge, for others no.

Secondly, Iran must not have a nuclear weapon. The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and in the world is for Iran to have a -- develop a nuclear weapon. And so the world is speaking with one voice to the Iranians that it's okay for you to have a civilian power -- nuclear power operation, but you shall not have the means, the knowledge to develop a nuclear weapon.

Portgate and Presidential power...

2006-02-28T08:34:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul, on Portgate:

It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.

International Terrorism does not exist...

2006-02-24T13:51:00.000-05:00

The use of the term "international terrorism" has the following goals:

1. Hiding the real objectives of the forces deployed all over the world in the struggle for dominance and control;

2. Creating a public demand for a struggle with undefined goals against an invisible enemy;

3. Destroying basic international norms and changing concepts such as: aggression, state terror, dictatorship or movement of national liberation;

4. Depriving peoples of their legitimate right to resist aggression and to reject the work of foreign intelligence services;

5. Establishing the principle of renunciation to national interests, transforming objectives in the military field by giving priority to the war on terror, violating the logic of military alliances to the detriment of a joint defense and to favor the anti-terrorist coalition;

6. Solving economic problems through a tough military rule using the war on terror as a pretext. In order to fight in an efficient way against international terrorism it is necessary to take the following steps:

To confirm before the UN General Assembly the principles of
the UN Charter and international law as principles that all states
are obliged to respect;

To create a geo-strategic organization (perhaps inspired in the
Cooperation Organization of Shanghai comprised of Russia,
China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan) with a
set of values different to that of the Atlantists; to design a
strategy of development of states, a system of international
security, another financial and economic model (which would
mean that the world would again rest on two pillars);

To associate (under the United Nations) the scientific elites in
the design and promotion of the philosophical concepts of the
Human Being of the 21st Century.

To organize the interaction of all religious denominations in
the world, on behalf of the stability of humanity's development,
security and mutual support.

The fascist American media...

2006-02-24T12:29:00.000-05:00

From Local6.com in Orlando:

Police in Orlando are asking people to stay home during a neo-Nazi march planned for the downtown area over the weekend, according to a Local 6 News report.

The same neo-Nazi group that instigated violence in Toledo, Ohio, last year will march Saturday in downtown Orlando, officials said Tuesday.

No, the neo-Nazi group did not instigate violence last year in Toledo. They exercised their rights to speak and assemble, and local residents who do NOT respect the right of people to do so instigated the violence.

In a free society, speech cannot be a precursor to violence. Anyone who responds to speech with violence must bear the full blame and responsibility of their violent acts.

For the media to paint the speech of groups whose messages they do not like as the instigation of violence clearly show that these fascists believe only certain ideas fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

From CNN (about last year's rioting in Toledo):

The Nazi march was called off, and none of the National Socialist Movement group's 80 members who showed up to participate was arrested, White said.

Hours later, aerial video showed people vandalizing buildings and setting fire to a two-story building that apparently housed a bar, Toledo police spokeswoman Capt. Diana Ruiz-Krause told CNN.

The violence was contained to a six- or eight-block area in the north Toledo neighborhood, she added.

At least 150 officers from various units -- some on horseback, bicycles and in riot gear -- were on the scene. The city's police chief said his officers showed "considerable restraint" after being pelted with rocks and bottles for "considerable hours."

"We could have made a couple hundred arrests," he said.

Ruiz-Krause blamed the mayhem on a disorganized group of the community's youth.

Most of the violence happened when residents, who had pelted the Nazi marchers with bottles and rocks, took out their anger on police, said Brian Jagodzinski, chief news photographer for CNN affiliate WTVG.

Video showed crowds at around 2:25 p.m. using bats to bring down a wooden fence as looters broke into a small grocery store.

"The crowd was very ... extremely agitated at the police ... for doing this [making arrests in] the community when they should be doing this to the Nazis," Jagodzinski said.

Spinning makes everyone dizzy...

2006-02-24T08:45:00.000-05:00

The Bush White House as a "Fifth Column" by Jonathan M. Feldman

The Bush Administration's championing of a disastrous war, its grievous neglect of homeland security in New Orleans, and its promotion of a Dubai company to manage key strategic ports all point in one direction. The Bush White House represents a fifth column, an insidious Trojan Horse aimed against not only the American people but also American democracy itself. The state is no longer a tool for rational governance, but a tool of corporate plunder. The ruling corporate elite that has taken over the White House is loyal to a transnational economy and the short term cash nexus. It is in fact the direct extension of that economy into the very workings of government itself. Despite their protestations to the contrary, this parasitic elite is not patriotic. They only use the rhetoric of "patriotism" as a cover for junking civil liberties, wrecking the economy, and enriching their cronies.

Isolationism...

2006-02-23T23:23:00.000-05:00

Remember this year's State of the Union Address when the President made repeated negative references to a philosophy he labeled as 'isolationism'?

Perhaps that was done to give talk radio and the columnists a few weeks to remind the sheep that good sheep are globalists.

Perhaps it was done with the port deal in mind, setting the stage for the spinners to remind everyone that they just got done saying they supported international business.

When that didn't work, the Benedict Arnolds declare opponents to be xenophobic racists, or even security threats.

The second in command at the Pentagon said Thursday that people who publicly oppose allowing a Middle Eastern company to take over management of some U.S. ports could be threatening national security.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told the Senate Armed Services Committee that blocking the deal could ostracize one of the United States' few Arab allies.

"The terrorists want our nation to become distrustful," England said. "They want us to become paranoid and isolationist, and my view is we cannot allow this to happen. It needs to be just the opposite."

Notice the reinforcement relating paranoia and "isolationism".

I just don't understand how the Bushbots can continue to insist that America is involved in a "Global War on Terror" as their King sells our ports and ignore our borders.

Daniel Webster...

2006-02-23T22:47:00.000-05:00

I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe . . . Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.

America's economic reality...

2006-02-23T22:39:00.000-05:00

Imperial Decline: by Bill Bonner

The new globalized capital markets are rapidly bringing both cash and technology to the place that will earn it the highest rate of return. Fifty years ago, that place was America. Now, it is Asia. So, the factories go up in Shanghai...not in Cincinnati. But still, in the Buckeye State, people hardly notice. They go about their business peacefully, even rather tickled not to have the factories. After all, that means they can now move up the socio-economic ladder. Let the Asians do the sweating. They will do the thinking! The only question is, what will they think about? Most likely, it will be about how they will refinance their house, borrowing from Asian savers, in order to continue buying gadgets and gizmos, manufactured by Asian producers.

Another failed philosophy...

2006-02-23T18:17:00.000-05:00

Neocon architect says: Pull it Down

NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.

In an extract from his forthcoming book, America at the Crossroads, Mr Fukuyama declares that the doctrine "is now in shambles" and that its failure has demonstrated "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes".

In its narrowest form, neoconservatism advocates the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones.

Mr Fukuyama once supported regime change in Iraq and was a signatory to a 1998 letter sent by the Project for a New American Century to the then president, Bill Clinton, urging the US to step up its efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power. It was also signed by neoconservative intellectuals, such as Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan, and political figures Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and the current defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.

However, Mr Fukuyama now thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong sort of war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

...

I'm still wondering why the President spend so much time and effort in his last SOTU Address to bash "isolationism" if he and his merry band of underlings were sailing along with their winning ideas.

I guess it turns out that the neo-con movement is coming unglued...

More "neo"-conservatism...

2006-02-23T09:33:00.000-05:00

From a recent interchange between Viet Dihn and Paul Craig Roberts:

Assuming some fealty to the truth remains, let me recount what I[Dihn] said during my debate with Bob Barr at CPAC. I acknowledged that conservatism derives from a tradition of healthy skepticism of governmental power. However, I said, "At times that healthy skepticism must unfortunately yield to a greater threat to our national security."

So, being a conservative today means questioning the government, only until the government is successful at casting widespread fear and panic, at which time criticism must yield to blind faith until the government tells us the cause of the fear has been thwarted?

A new twist on an old story...

2006-02-23T08:37:00.000-05:00

The Ant and the Grasshopper

by Jim Quinn

The Original Version

The ant busts his ass in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

The New Liberal Version

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

A marxist flaw...

2006-02-20T18:28:00.000-05:00

Karl Marx tried to advocate the idea that capitalists would enslave the masses by colluding to pay slave wages to everyone.

The flaw in that argument, of course, is that in order to stave off the inevitable tendency of liberty yielding to tyranny, the consumers and employees must be as aggressive in the marketplace as are the producers and the employers. The balance of power will be established between a smaller number of wealthy and powerful men pushing against a large number of individually weaker men. Each side must continue to push for freedom to sustain.

When the employees and consumers stop pushing, they are overrun by expensive lawyers, advertisers, propogandists and lobbyists. Finding themselves backed into a corner, the employees and consumers will turn to government, thus is born the "democracy", or mob rule. The majority ignorantly pushes back at the producers and employers through various Marxist policies, such as "free" medical care, education, price floors or ceilings, minimum wage laws, and "overtime" rules among others.

Being ignorant to the laws of economics, the employee and consumer widens and deepens his own demise, as the producers and employers invariably end up elected to the government, and thus are put in the position of pretending to legislate wealth and power away from themselves and into the hands of the powerless. Such a fanciful event has never once happened so far as I am aware!

Yesterday's Meet the Press...

2006-02-20T08:32:00.000-05:00

I don't usually bother with these MSM "news"/opinion shows, but I did happen to watch a rerun of NBC's Meet the Press last night. On the show were Michael Chertoff, Mary Matalin (Bush/Cheney spin doctor), Maureen Dowd (left-wing columnist), David Gregory (NBC White House reporter), and Paul Gigot (WSJ editorial page editor). I heard many interesting words spoken, here are some:

I think my responsibility is to try to fix the department. - Michael Chertoff

Fix a brand new department? Are all government departments and agencies broken at the point of inception? How much time to broken by design government agencies require before they are "fixed"? Does any government agency work efficiently and effectively, or all they all continuous work-in-progress with a ready-made defense against criticism?

People are entitled by law to receive a certain amount of compensation, money for food, and—and clothing and shelter. Inevitably, some people are going do misuse that. And unless we move to a voucher system, which would be a very cumbersome system, we have to try to balance the urgency of getting people some money so they’re not literally left starving and without clothing against the fact that there will always be some scoundrels who will misuse the money or try to defraud us. - Michael Chertoff

Couple things here. First, nobody is entitled to cash payments by any LEGITIMATE law. It is possible that some Congressional act or executive branch directive establishes this welfare scheme, but it is unconstitutional on its face. The federal government does not exist to take money from me in order to give it to the victim of a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or any other hardship due to circumstances within or beyond that individual's control.

Second, notice who Chertoff claims as the victim of the fraud in this case. The American people? The taxpayer?? No, the victims are "us", meaning the government.

Simply put, this scenario points out why government spending scams like this one that only apply to some Americans don't work. Government policies are legitimate so long as they apply to everyone. In other words, if they want to give $2000 to residents of New Orleans who "need it", then everyone else must also get the money. Want to pay farmers who DON'T grow certain crops, then EVERYONE who doesn't grow those crops must receive the "benefit".

So long as We the People are played against one another for a seat at the federal feeding table, our government is winning battles in the war for the future of America.

Because you don’t want to put something that’s fixed, that’s a mobile home, in a place that’s going to flood again. We originally hoped that at least some significant number would be placed in other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi. It’s turned out that some communities don’t want to have that happen, and some people don’t want to have that happen. And we’re not going to force them to take these mobile homes. - Michael Chertoff

So, it's okay to confiscate money from individual Americans in order to hand out debit cards, and to fund hotel rooms for the welfare class, but when it comes time to set up trailer communities for the "victims", the government must ask permission and abide by the responses given?

Did the government ever ask whether or not I wanted to contribute to the charity effort operated on behalf of the welfare crowd in New Orleans?

[Discussing the sale of US port control to a UAE based company]Without getting into classified information, what we typically do if there are concerns is we build in certain conditions, or requirements, that the company has to agree to to make sure we address the national security concerns. - Michael Chertoff

So, we're all set so long as we ask the company not to smuggle in contraband and they agree?

[Matalin discussing the Cheney shooting]Have Katharine be able to share with other witnesses, and she could be an eyewitness. - Mary Matalin

Well, was she a witness, or was she conveniently converted into one whose accounts now go unquestioned because nobody will come forward and admit that she did not witness the shooting?

"A Visitor from the Past" by Thelen Paulk...

2006-02-19T19:22:00.000-05:00

I had a dream the other night I didn't understand.

A figure walking through the mist with a flintlock in his hand. His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood there by my bed. He took off his three cornered hat and speaking low, he said:

"We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty. We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny. For future generations, this legacy we gave, in this, the land of the free and the home of the brave. You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun. Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one. On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent. Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money's spent."

"Your children must attend a school that doesn't educate. Your Christian values can't be taught, according to the state. You read about the current news in a regulated press. You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the foreign I.R.S. Your money is no longer made of silver, or of gold. You trade your wealth for paper, so your lives can be controlled."

"You pay for crimes that make our Nation turn from God in shame. You've taken Satan's number, as you've traded in your name. You've given government control, to those who do you harm."

"So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm. And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail. Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail. Your public servants don't uphold the solemn oath they've sworn. They defy and rape the nation, and leave it's fabric tattered and torn."

"Your leaders ship artillery and guns to foreign shores. And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people's wars. Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?"

"Or don't you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride? Are there no more values for which you'll fight to save? Or do you wish your children to live in fear as a slave?"

"People of the Republic arise and take a stand! Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land! Preserve our Great Republic, and God Given Right! And pray to God, to keep the torch of Freedom burning bright!"

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came. His words were true, we are not Free, we have ourselves to blame. For even now as tyrants trample each God Given Right, we only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you're asleep, and wonders what remains of our Rights he fought so hard to keep, What would be your answer, if he called out from the grave;

IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE AND HOME OF THE BRAVE?

"A Visitor from the Past" by Thelen Paulk

Declaration of Constitutional Principles...

2006-02-19T18:47:00.000-05:00

In a republic, all citizens are soldiers, policemen, and fire and rescue workers, with the default rank of private. Delegation of official powers to agents of government is the conferring of higher rank to those persons, and persons of lesser rank are subject to the lawful orders of persons of higher rank when persons of higher rank are present and exercising their authority legally and effectively. If not, their rank ceases and highest rank devolves on the person present who most effectively represents that authority, whatever his previous status. A citizen with the default rank of private also outranks any person who is acting in violation of law, for the rank of lawbreakers is lower than that of private, whatever their previous status.

A citizen not only has the duty to obey the law, but to help enforce it, within his ability, and to do what he can to prepare himself and others to do so.

In a constitutional republic, the constitution is the supreme law, superior to all other public acts, whether by officials or private citizens. Any statute, regulation, executive order, or court ruling which is inconsistent with that supreme law and not derived from it is unconstitutional and null and void from inception.

Declaration of Constitutional Principles

Coming Soon to a City Near You.....

2006-02-19T16:47:00.000-05:00

I was reading the news this morning and came across two stories.

One about a proposal in the city of Houston states:

Houston's police chief on Wednesday proposed placing surveillance cameras in apartment complexes, downtown streets, shopping malls and even private homes to fight crime during a shortage of police officers.

...and this proposal from Chicago:

CHICAGO Ã— Surveillance cameras Ã— aimed at government buildings, train platforms and intersections here Ã— might soon be required at corner taverns and swanky nightclubs.

After a month of listening to the debate over the President's latest surveillance program, I noticed a common theme in all stories:

Here it is:

"The safer we make the city, the better it is for everyone," says Chicago Alderman Ray Suarez, who first proposed mandatory cameras in some businesses. "If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"

"I know a lot of people are concerned about Big Brother, but my response to that is, if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?" Chief Harold Hurtt told reporters Wednesday at a regular briefing.

"If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?"--- insert radio talking head here

This is life in America?

The simple, core difference...

2006-02-17T10:34:00.000-05:00

The socialist argues in favor of one person or group of people (the government) spending the money of someone else (the taxpayer).

The capitalist argues in favor of the individual spending his own money as he sees fit.

Are you more likely to make foolish investments with your money or with someone else's money? Certainly it can be said that a person would be more likely to evaluate risk and reward when considering investing his own money than he would be were he to evaluate investing someone else's money, and therefore the individual investing his own money would more often than not make wiser choices than the government agent who has no personal stake in the outcome of the investment.

Disinformation...

2006-02-16T21:51:00.000-05:00

Keep this handy as you listen to Fox News or the talk radio Bushbots...

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

8 Traits of Disinformation

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.

Sometimes less is more...

2006-02-16T21:19:00.000-05:00

The responsibility for creating jobs for black, white, hispanic or any other American does not rest with the President of the United States, as Juan Williams is claiming on Hannity & Colmes in response to the Bryant Gumbel comment on the lack of black athletes at the Olympics.

The best thing the federal government could do for struggling people in this country would be to stop trying to help them immediately. Short of rewriting the whole tax code, eliminating Social Security withholding and the death tax would go further in helping poor and lower middle class people than all of the schemes the Congress is trying now. Not only would they be able to invest in themselves, but they would be able to pass on all of their life savings to their families.

Of course, the current crop of self-serving ego-maniacal oligarchs who run our government would never consider such ideas because they couldn't claim to have solved everyone's problems for them, or even attempted to do so.

How ironic that the more they try to do, the less they end up with. Only by doing nothing will the US Congress have done everything it needs in order to "help" struggling Americans.

(UPDATE: Hannity just accused a college professor of "advocat[ing] extreme views like overthrowing the government", making one wonder if Hannity has heard of the Declaration of Independence and understands the meaning of its simple language!)

Bush's economy...

2006-02-16T13:03:00.000-05:00

Buchanan sets the record straight about our economy, and demonstrates that the picture painted by the neocon globalists seems to be somewhere between wishful thinking and treason.

Pat, please challenge Hillary in 2008. The country needs you sir, now more than ever.

Neocons quick with the brooms once again...

2006-02-16T09:16:00.000-05:00

According to the Dallas Morning News (registration required, see LP thread here):

Sitting in the hunting car, Armstrong didn't know there was a problem until she saw Cheney's security detail running. "The first thing that crossed my mind was (Cheney) had a heart problem," she said.

Yet, according to Cheney's own words, in his interview with Brit Hume:

I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing.

So, did Cheney lie in his interview, or was the AP report wrong?

Why does it seem so difficult to get a simple story straight, such as how many drinks a person had on a day when he shot somebody?

Hume indicated that Cheney called last Saturday's accidental shooting "one of the worst days of my life," but that the vice president was certain that he handled it correctly by waiting nearly a day to make it public. He also revealed that Cheney disclosed having a beer with lunch that day, but stressed that it was several hours before the shooting occurred.

Ranch owner Katharine Armstrong has said no one hunting that day had any beer. The Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that it had been told that the hunters that day "broke for a lunch of antelope, jicama salad and camp bread, washed down with Dr. Pepper." Armstrong later modified her remarks, saying there may have been beer in coolers but she didn't think anyone who was hunting that day had any.

CNN today reports that Armstrong had told CNN she never saw Cheney or Whittington "drink at all on the day of the shooting until after the accident occurred, when the vice president fixed himself a cocktail back at the house."

Cheney admitted to the one beer at lunch during his interview with Brit Hume, but again, this seems to bring credibility issues in regarding Ms. Armstrong who apparently stated that nobody drank at all.

If Cheney were drinking, that would explain the delay in reporting the story, and it would also give him time to consume enough alcohol after the fact to cloud any investigation into whether or not he had been intoxicated at the time of the shooting.

In the end, it seems to me that should Mr. Whittington die, there is probable cause to arrest the VP for negligent manslaughter, and to proceed forward with a grand jury hearing.

Of course, it will never happen, because as we now know after the wire-tapping story, our elected officials are above the law.

Being a Bushbot (aka liberalism) is a mental disorder...

2006-02-13T08:40:00.000-05:00

What exactly are the Bushbots (Hush, Hannity, various GOP talking heads, Weekly Standard, etc...) supporting when they defend virtually every action of Bush and Cheney on a daily basis?

To be fair, there are occasional token criticisms usually limited to overspending and apparent inattentiveness to the Mexican invasion. Anyway...

Jamie O'Neill wonders Do Bush Supporters Hate Their Country?

Sometimes the people who still fervently support George W. Bush seem just plain stupid, and other times it seems they must be dishonest and even malevolent, harboring a hatred for their country that allows them to support misguided ideas and private agendas over the public good. In more reasonable moods, I want to believe that the Bush supporters are just like me in simply wanting what is best for the country safety, security, fairness and a commitment to a government that observes the principles upon which our nation was founded. When I'm thinking that way, I assume we don't disagree on goals and objectives, just on the most effective way to achieve those goals and objectives.

It's hard to keep that thought, though, when the lies keep piling up higher and deeper, and when so much of the energy of Bush supporters goes into evading reality. Is it really possible for there to be an honest difference of opinion about the calamitous Bush decision to invade Iraq? No weapons of mass destruction there, as we were told there were. No link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, as we were told there was, and as we continue to be urged to believe by deceptive administration rhetoric. Almost no likelihood that a stable democracy will be possible in an Iraq rent by ethnic feuds and anti-democratic traditions. Billions upon billions of dollars squandered in Iraq, and billions more stolen by corrupt U.S. contractors. Meanwhile, the Homeland Security entity Bush created has shown itself to be yet another huge government boondoggle, and utterly witless in responding to a national emergency.

Beyond that, we have the shameful spectacle of Americans who call themselves patriots urging a forfeiture of our rights and liberties as U.S. citizens the rights to due process and the protections devised by the founding fathers to guard against abuses of power.

And beyond that, we have breaches of national security in the outing of a CIA agent for no better reason than spite. We have the staffing of all kinds of highly paid and important government jobs with incompetent administration cronies and partners in crime. We have repeated and massive failures of imagination. No one could have imagined a) people flying planes into U.S. skyscrapers, b) a storm of the magnitude of Katrina, or c) a Palestinian militant group like Hamas winning elections in Palestine these being just a few of the things Condoleezza Rice has said the administration couldn't imagine.

Beyond all of that, we have the growing gap between rich and poor, the exportation of American jobs by the hundreds of thousands, the wasteful and exploitive health care system that continues to bankrupt American industries, the packing of the Supreme Court with judges confirmed despite their stonewalling before the congressional oversight committees charged with vetting them before they assumed lifetime appointments. We have been unable or unwilling to secure our borders. We have seen corruption on an unprecedented scale and massive neglect of dozens of urgent national needs. Science has been disregarded whenever it runs afoul of the profit motive, and we have a foreign policy no one, least of all the people in charge of it, seems to understand.

Our actions in Iraq have fueled the most extreme anti-Western views throughout the Islamic world, and the entire Middle East is less stable than it was when the Bush bunch took office.

Meanwhile, we build for our children and grandchildren a legacy of international hatred, plus a huge debt burden as the Bush administration spends and spends as though there is no tomorrow.

...

Death of the West by 1000 cuts...

2006-02-10T15:55:00.000-05:00

The Twilight of Freedom of Speech by Onkar Ghate

To fathom our government's contemptible treatment of a handful of unbowed journalists, you must see the roots of that treatment in the moral ideal Christianity bequeathed the West.

In the face of the intimidation and murder of European authors, film makers and politicians by Islamic militants, a few European newspapers have the courage to defend their freedom of speech: they publish twelve cartoons to test whether it's still possible to criticize Islam. They discover it isn't. Muslims riot, burn embassies, and demand the censorship and death of infidels. The Danish cartoonists go into hiding; if they weren't afraid to speak before, they are now.

How do our leaders respond? Do they declare that an individual's freedom of speech is inviolable, no matter who screams offense at his ideas? No. Do they defend our right to life and pledge to hunt down anyone, anywhere, who abets the murder of a Westerner for having had the effrontery to speak? No--as they did not when the fatwa against Rushdie was issued or his translators were attacked and murdered.

Instead, the U.S. government announces that although free speech is important, the government shares "the offense that Muslims have taken at these images," and even hints that it is disrespectful to publish them.

Neocon logic...

2006-02-10T09:09:00.000-05:00

Having admitted that his invasion of Iraq is based on incorrect intelligence, why did Bush claim in his state of the union address that his war in Iraq is central to the war against terrorism? He must mean that his mistake created terrorism where it did not exist, and, having created the terrorism, he must now fight it even if doing so creates yet more terrorists.

A rational response to Bush’s mistake would be to remove the cause of the insurgency by apologizing for the mistake and withdrawing US military forces. Neoconservatives say that the US cannot withdraw because Iraq would fall into civil war. This is an admission that by removing Saddam Hussein, Bush created the conditions for civil war in Iraq. How, then, was removing Saddam Hussein a good thing?

The Adulation of Ignorance

Creative accounting...

2006-02-07T10:21:00.000-05:00

US in Technical Default by Dr. C. H Martenson

In a shocking development, the Treasury Department website is openly stating that as of January 24th 2006 our national debt stood at $8,185.3 billion.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Yet the US national debt 'ceiling' stands at $8,184 billion - a full billion less. Although called upon by John Snow, congress has not passed an expansion of the debt ceiling and so the US government is now operating in technical default.

The last debt-ceiling adjustment was $800 billion and was passed in November 2004. Now, on January 24th 2006, it is entirely gone. $800 billion in only 16 months for an average of $50B a month.

Factoring out the plundering of excess social security contributions, the US government borrowed $52B in 3Q05, $96B in 4Q05 and expects to borrow $171B in 1Q06. A trend nearly as mind-boggling as the soon to be discontinued M3 series.

Why do I even bother to pen such distressing factoids?

Because in all my time studying economics I have determined only one thing; there's no free lunch. Pay now or pay later but pay we will.

Or, more accurately, we hope that our kids will, and not stiff us for the bill. But if they did, who could blame them?

I say yes, those who have accepted and advanced the welfare state ideas of past Presidents should bear the pain of funding them, not me. I reject entirely the idea of government force to redistribute property from me to older generations, on the implied promise that the government will be sure to plunder the next generation for my benefit.

This repulsive trend must stop, and those who should feel the pain in the transition are they who gave birth to these social diseases.

Military industrial complex...

2006-02-07T08:11:00.000-05:00

President Eisenhower's farewell address:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

Political Science 101 by Butler Shaffer

My wife and I watched the film Why We Fight, a wonderful exposé of the military-industrial-congressional complex. With Chalmers Johnson and Karen Kwiatkowski providing clear focus, the present war system is revealed for what it is: a racket for siphoning money from the pockets of gullible people willing to be convinced of the presence of ever-evolving bogeymen who pose a never-ending threat to their lives. These “threats” can, of course, only be repulsed by a strong government that (a) has sufficient police powers to detect their presence both at home and abroad, and (b) can generate weapons systems to “protect” Americans – and their hot tubs – from attack by these sinister forces. Boobus Americanus – like its cousin Boobus Britannia and other close relatives – has become so conditioned to both the concocted threats of the ogre du jour and to an omnipotent and omnipresent government scarecrow, that it is willing to surrender, without question, its wealth and liberty for the sake of “protection.”

To demonstrate the effectiveness of this shakedown racket, look at the Bush administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2007: $2.8 trillion in government spending, with $439 billion to be tossed into the national defense trough. This budget is twenty-eight times greater than the $99.9 billion budget proposed by President Kennedy, who did not want to be the first president to have a $100 billion budget!

With numerous untold stories of military-industrial corruption inviting their inquiries, members of the established media can be counted upon to supply diversions. Like the purple smoke or multi-colored strings of silk used by magicians to distract their audiences, television newscasts will continue their in-depth reporting on missing teenagers and bridegrooms; tunnels used to smuggle marijuana into the United States from Mexico; unsolved murders; and chickens that can play the xylophone.

Military industrial complex

Think again...

2006-02-03T08:53:00.000-05:00

This essay, originally written in 1951, completely undercuts all of the reasons given by the neocons for our military adventures around the world. If you want to read a soundly written argument based in history and reason, read this. If you prefer to delude yourself, and to think that George Bush is a genius with revolutionary ideas never before contemplated, go read the Weekly Standard.

Liberty

Oprah vs. Home schoolers...

2006-02-02T09:46:00.000-05:00

From Oprah's site:

On January 16, 2006, The Oprah Winfrey Show is doing something we've never done before. In addition to announcing my new book club selection—which I promise is mandatory reading for every human being on the planet—I will also announce Oprah's National High School Essay Contest to accompany it.

Contest open to all legal residents of the US, who are currently enrolled full-time (and in good standing) in a public or state-accredited private or parochial school, grades 9–12.

Home schoolers are not welcome? Is Oprah afraid that public schools might be shown for the failures they are, similar to the spelling and geography bees at which public school students routinely perform much worse than their counterparts who are home-schooled or attend private religous schools?

And I thought the left was about tolerance and including everyone...

Translating the Emperor's speech...

2006-02-02T09:28:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Anthony Gregory

Although not quite as slickly eloquent as Willy before him, Dubya, like his predecessor, is proficient and experienced in the art of speaking one thing and meaning another. Just as often, he makes statements more flowery than they have to be, possibly intentionally so as to make what he’s saying sound less aggressive than if you were cut away the extraneous poetry to reveal the plain meaning of his words. Below are highlights from his State of the Union speech, translated into clear and candid English.

"Every time I'm invited to this rostrum, I'm humbled by the privilege, and mindful of the history we've seen together. We have gathered under this Capitol dome in moments of national mourning and national achievement. We have served America through one of the most consequential periods of our history – and it has been my honor to serve with you."

Translation: I’m very important. I rule this great big country at a very important time. I am obviously infinitely more important than you – notice that I'm speaking to the entire country – but I like to pretend that I believe that it’s you who is important.

"In a system of two parties, two chambers, and two elected branches, there will always be differences and debate. But even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger. To confront the great issues before us, we must act in a spirit of goodwill and respect for one another – and I will do my part. Tonight the state of our Union is strong – and together we will make it stronger."

Translation: I haven’t completely forgotten that this is a two-party dictatorship. Settle down, Democrats, go along with my program, and you’ll get your chance again soon.

"In this decisive year, you and I will make choices that determine both the future and the character of our country. We will choose to act confidently in pursuing the enemies of freedom – or retreat from our duties in the hope of an easier life. We will choose to build our prosperity by leading the world economy – or shut ourselves off from trade and opportunity. In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting – yet it ends in danger and decline. The only way to protect our people, the only way to secure the peace, the only way to control our destiny is by our leadership – so the United States of America will continue to lead."

Translation: The United States is the most important country in the world. And the government of the United States, which I rule, is the most crucial institution to the future of humanity.

"Abroad, our nation is committed to an historic, long-term goal – we seek the end of tyranny in our world. Some dismiss that goal as misguided idealism. In reality, the future security of America depends on it. On September the 11th, 2001, we found that problems originating in a failed and oppressive state 7,000 miles away could bring murder and destruction to our country. Dictatorships shelter terrorists, and feed resentment and radicalism, and seek weapons of mass destruction. Democracies replace resentment with hope, respect the rights of their citizens and their neighbors, and join the fight against terror. Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer – so we will act boldly in freedom's cause."

Translation: Those of us who live in the United States can’t be safe if we don’t make sure the whole world is free. We tried leaving the world alone, but people came from across the planet to kill us. If the world lived under a form of government whereby the people voted on their rulers, or at least some of them, we’d be safe from the terrorists. It is our job to make the world safe for that form of government.

"Terrorists like bin Laden are serious about mass murder – and all of us must take their declared intentions seriously. They seek to impose a heartless system of totalitarian control throughout the Middle East, and arm themselves with weapons of mass murder."

Translation: People that I describe as being similar to that man who killed 3,000 Americans want to kill more of you. We must listen to what they have to say, or at least those things they say that I focus on. (When they say that U.S. foreign policy is why they attack us, and that if the U.S. withdrew from the Middle East they would stop attacking, you should not listen to them.)

"Their aim is to seize power in Iraq, and use it as a safe haven to launch attacks against America and the world. Lacking the military strength to challenge us directly, the terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear. When they murder children at a school in Beslan, or blow up commuters in London, or behead a bound captive, the terrorists hope these horrors will break our will, allowing the violent to inherit the Earth. But they have miscalculated: We love our freedom, and we will fight to keep it."

Translation: When you think about the war in Iraq, I want you to think about foreign terrorists that want to kill innocent people in their own countries. When you think of our troops killing people in Iraq, I want you to think of us fighting for our freedom.

"America rejects the false comfort of isolationism. We are the nation that saved liberty in Europe, and liberated death camps, and helped raise up democracies, and faced down an evil empire. Once again, we accept the call of history to deliver the oppressed and move this world toward peace."

Translation: Speaking on behalf of all the people who live in the United States, I have to say that we would never want the U.S. military to stop invading, bombing and attacking other countries. We should be proud of ourselves, since we are the Chosen Ones, destined to improve the entire world through force.

"[W]e’re continuing reconstruction efforts, and helping the Iraqi government to fight corruption and build a modern economy, so all Iraqis can experience the benefits of freedom."

Translation: Not only should you believe that the U.S. government is responsible for economic progress in America, you should believe that the U.S. government, working through the Iraqi government it set up, is responsible for economic progress in Iraq, too.

"Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy. In less than three years, the nation has gone from dictatorship to liberation, to sovereignty, to a constitution, to national elections. At the same time, our coalition has been relentless in shutting off terrorist infiltration, clearing out insurgent strongholds, and turning over territory to Iraqi security forces. I am confident in our plan for victory; I am confident in the will of the Iraqi people; I am confident in the skill and spirit of our military. Fellow citizens, we are in this fight to win, and we are winning."

Translation: Remember while you’re seeing all the carnage and chaos in Iraq on TV that the people there did not used to be free, but now that the U.S. government has conquered them and implemented a new government there, not only are the people free – they can vote! And if you think that their voting isn’t doing them a lot of good, seeing as how they’re still in the midst of a fledgling civil war and all, well, the answer is to stay the course.

"The road of victory is the road that will take our troops home. As we make progress on the ground, and Iraqi forces increasingly take the lead, we should be able to further decrease our troop levels – but those decisions will be made by our military commanders, not by politicians in Washington, D.C."

Translation: I make the decisions around here, and if I want to stay in Iraq, that's what we'll do. And if I want to say that my decisions are made by "military commanders," and "not by politicians in Washington, D.C.," that’s also my prerogative, because I am the most important Washington, D.C., politician of them all.

"Our coalition has learned from our experience in Iraq. We've adjusted our military tactics and changed our approach to reconstruction. Along the way, we have benefitted (sic) from responsible criticism and counsel offered by members of Congress of both parties. In the coming year, I will continue to reach out and seek your good advice. Yet, there is a difference between responsible criticism that aims for success, and defeatism that refuses to acknowledge anything but failure. Hindsight alone is not wisdom, and second-guessing is not a strategy.

"With so much in the balance, those of us in public office have a duty to speak with candor. A sudden withdrawal of our forces from Iraq would abandon our Iraqi allies to death and prison, would put men like bin Laden and Zarqawi in charge of a strategic country, and show that a pledge from America means little. Members of Congress, however we feel about the decisions and debates of the past, our nation has only one option: We must keep our word, defeat our enemies, and stand behind the American military in this vital mission."

Translation: Whether or not you agree with me, I took the country to war, and to criticize my policy now that we’re all in it together is to help the terrorists who want to kill you and your fellow Americans.

"Our men and women in uniform are making sacrifices – and showing a sense of duty stronger than all fear. They know what it's like to fight house to house in a maze of streets, to wear heavy gear in the desert heat, to see a comrade killed by a roadside bomb. And those who know the costs also know the stakes. . . . Our nation is grateful to the fallen, who live in the memory of our country. We're grateful to all who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform – and as we honor our brave troops, let us never forget the sacrifices of America's military families."

Translation: Not only is failing to support my policy helping the terrorists, but it is turning your back on the people who died fighting in the war that you might not believe in, but that you must nevertheless support or else you hate freedom.

"The great people of Egypt have voted in a multi-party presidential election – and now their government should open paths of peaceful opposition that will reduce the appeal of radicalism. The Palestinian people have voted in elections. And now the leaders of Hamas must recognize Israel, disarm, reject terrorism, and work for lasting peace."

Translation: Egypt, just because you had elections doesn’t mean I’m not watching you. Hamas, just because you won in an election doesn’t mean you’re off the hook. Elections are great and worth going to war for, but they are subject to my approval.

" Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity."

Translation: What's is a democracy, anyway? Well, I'm not sure. I can't describe it. It might just be a vague abstraction. When in doubt, I'd prefer that we think about it as another word for freedom. Democracy is certainly worth killing thousands of people to establish, but don’t complain if when we establish one it empowers a bunch of fanatics or it does not look at all like you thought it might.

"The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon – and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons."

Translation: I will not let Iran get any weapons nearly as powerful as that one kind of which the government I head has thousands. I am willing to pressure other countries to go along with my efforts to stop Iran from having even a thousandth of the killing power I have.

"To overcome dangers in our world, we must also take the offensive by encouraging economic progress, and fighting disease, and spreading hope in hopeless lands. Isolationism would not only tie our hands in fighting enemies, it would keep us from helping our friends in desperate need. We show compassion abroad because Americans believe in the God-given dignity and worth of a villager with HIV/AIDS, or an infant with malaria, or a refugee fleeing genocide, or a young girl sold into slavery. We also show compassion abroad because regions overwhelmed by poverty, corruption, and despair are sources of terrorism, and organized crime, and human trafficking, and the drug trade.

"In recent years, you and I have taken unprecedented action to fight AIDS and malaria, expand the education of girls, and reward developing nations that are moving forward with economic and political reform. For people everywhere, the United States is a partner for a better life. Short-changing these efforts would increase the suffering and chaos of our world, undercut our long-term security, and dull the conscience of our country. I urge members of Congress to serve the interests of America by showing the compassion of America."

Translation: Not only is the U.S. government responsible for freedom throughout the world, but it is also responsible for solving every problem on this earth, or at least attempting to by spending the money that the American people earn and that the government extracts through force. I take credit for the whole process, calling myself compassionate for my willingness to spend your money.

"It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. We now know that two of the hijackers in the United States placed telephone calls to al Qaeda operatives overseas. But we did not know about their plans until it was too late. So to prevent another attack – based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute – I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program to aggressively pursue the international communications of suspected al Qaeda operatives and affiliates to and from America. Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority. Appropriate members of Congress have been kept informed. The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."

Translation: My being able to do pretty much whatever I want as commander of the United States during war is absolutely necessary to stop you from being killed by terrorists. I have the right to spy on you without judicial review to protect you. I am not the first top official of the U.S. government to see it this way.

"In all these areas – from the disruption of terror networks, to victory in Iraq, to the spread of freedom and hope in troubled regions – we need the support of our friends and allies. To draw that support, we must always be clear in our principles and willing to act. The only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world."

Translation: The U.S. government, which I run, is what keeps the world safe and secure. It couldn't possibly be any other way.

"Yet we also choose to lead because it is a privilege to serve the values that gave us birth. American leaders – from Roosevelt to Truman to Kennedy to Reagan – rejected isolation and retreat, because they knew that America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

Translation: Great rulers don't keep their rule to their country alone. Neither will I.

"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources – and we are on the threshold of incredible advances."

Translation: Listen up, lefties. Forget my administration’s ties to the oil industry or the idea that I waged war for oil profits. I’m just as willing as Democrats to channel billions of dollars in other people’s money to new alternative energy special interests, not just the classic old energy special interests.

"Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

Translation: I’m prepared to take credit for successes nineteen years before they happen.

"Tonight I announce an American Competitiveness Initiative, to encourage innovation throughout our economy, and to give our nation's children a firm grounding in math and science. First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources. . . . Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead advanced-placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms, and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good, high-wage jobs."

Translation: I am the source of the nation’s mental strength, and I will graciously make everyone smarter and more knowledgeable.

"In recent years, America has become a more hopeful nation. Violent crime rates have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1970s. Welfare cases have dropped by more than half over the past decade. Drug use among youth is down 19 percent since 2001. There are fewer abortions in America than at any point in the last three decades, and the number of children born to teenage mothers has been falling for a dozen years in a row.

"These gains are evidence of a quiet transformation – a revolution of conscience, in which a rising generation is finding that a life of personal responsibility is a life of fulfillment. Government has played a role. Wise policies, such as welfare reform and drug education and support for abstinence and adoption have made a difference in the character of our country. And everyone here tonight, Democrat and Republican, has a right to be proud of this record."

Translation: Politicians of both major parties deserve credit for the moral character of the country – at least when it’s positive.

"A hopeful society depends on courts that deliver equal justice under the law. The Supreme Court now has two superb new members – new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law, and not legislate from the bench"

Translation: I will continue to nominate judges who can be expected to toe the Republican line and allow the executive branch to get away with whatever it wants.

"A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency – and stays at it until they're back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. We're removing debris and repairing highways and rebuilding stronger levees. We're providing business loans and housing assistance. Yet as we meet these immediate needs, we must also address deeper challenges that existed before the storm arrived.

"In New Orleans and in other places, many of our fellow citizens have felt excluded from the promise of our country. The answer is not only temporary relief, but schools that teach every child, and job skills that bring upward mobility, and more opportunities to own a home and start a business. As we recover from a disaster, let us also work for the day when all Americans are protected by justice, equal in hope, and rich in opportunity."

Translation: The answer to a big problem isn't just to throw a bunch of tax dollars at it. The answer is a whole new revolutionary spending program along the lines of the New Deal.

"Lincoln could have accepted peace at the cost of disunity and continued slavery. Martin Luther King could have stopped at Birmingham or at Selma, and achieved only half a victory over segregation. The United States could have accepted the permanent division of Europe, and been complicit in the oppression of others. Today, having come far in our own historical journey, we must decide: Will we turn back, or finish well?"

Translation: Do you believe in slavery? Racial oppression? Totalitarianism? If not, you must support my war and my powers.

"Before history is written down in books, it is written in courage. Like Americans before us, we will show that courage and we will finish well. We will lead freedom's advance. We will compete and excel in the global economy. We will renew the defining moral commitments of this land. And so we move forward – optimistic about our country, faithful to its cause, and confident of the victories to come."

Translation: On behalf of the United States, I pledge to continue dominating the world for the better. Expect more war.

"May God bless America."

Translation: The government I lead has God on its side.

Alito joins the left...

2006-02-02T08:36:00.000-05:00

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., one day after joining the Court, cast his first significant vote on Wednesday evening, and in the process split with the Court's other conservatives: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Story

I'm completely shocked. Samuel Alito voted: to increase the power of the federal government, against the 9th and 10th amendments, and against the idea that the People of Florida are smart enough to figure out if lethal injection is cruel and unusual.

Good thing Sam Alito is there to keep us dummies down here in Florida from having to govern ourselves...

State of the World Union....

2006-02-01T09:38:00.000-05:00

I was reading Neal Boortz's daily rant page and read the following:

Last night President Bush spent quite a bit of time talking, not about America, but about other areas of the world. Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, and Iran and the rest of the Middle East. He talked about poverty and disease in Africa. He talked about ending tyranny in the world. These are all crucial issues and need to be addressed, but the "union" referred to in the requirement for a presidential report to the congress is ours; the United States of America. This was the occasion to discuss what needs to be done at home, not how we're going to fight HIV in Africa or build schools in Iraq. It wasn't until the second half of the speech that President Bush actually started talking about the actual state of the union.

I observed the same thing and it pissed me off. I started to listen to the second half and I just couldn't take it. Channel change, click.

The fact is, if George Bush had a "D" after his name, the Democrats would be hailing him as the second coming of FDR. It is sad that the Republican party, for the most part, has become the party of FDR and Kennedy. While, the remaining party has slipped deeper towards being hard left socialists and border line communists.

Is there a true Conservative movement any more?

Ho, hum.

Getting carried away...

2006-01-31T13:52:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin continues her plunge into the neo-con abyss of thoughtless rhetoric with her latest post talking about buying Danish products in order to fight the islamofascists.

If buying a nation's products had an impact on the threat and success of the islamofascists, wouldn't it make sense for us to buy our own products (at least those few that we still make here...)?

Tomorrow's State of the Union speech...

2006-01-30T13:36:00.000-05:00

Any chance President Bush's speech will sound anything like this one?

How about this one?

Sadly, I doubt any such ideas will creep their way into the speech. Instead I suspect we'll hear mostly old ideas repackaged to appeal to the sheep and their shephards on talk radio.

The Marlboro Man of Iraq wouldn't go again...

2006-01-30T08:31:00.000-05:00

It's very easy for Rush or Hannity to sit on the sidelines and cheer for soldiers and Marines who fight wars on behalf of the American government. However, fighting in those wars is much more difficult.

The 'Marlboro Man', a.k.a. James Blake Miller of Kentucky, has now come home and had time to reflect on the war so many Americans find noble and heroic.

"I mean, how would we feel if they came over and started something here?" he [Miller] asked. "I'm glad that I fought for my country. But looking back on it, I wouldn't do it all over again."

The real A.D.D. ...

2006-01-26T13:27:00.000-05:00

Many Americans have little or no idea how government works or who is holding the reins on their lives. The majority of American voters do not know the name of their congressman, the length of terms of House or Senate members, what the Bill of Rights guarantees, or what the government is actually doing in the vast majority of its interventions. A survey after the 2002 congressional election revealed that less than a third of Americans knew "that the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives prior to the election." Recent polls show that almost two-thirds of Americans could not name a single Supreme Court justice and that 58 percent of Americans could not name a single cabinet department in the federal government.

Americans are assured that they are free because rulers take power only with the people’s informed consent. What does "informed consent" mean these days? It means knowing the names of the president’s pets but not knowing his record on key issues. It means knowing the sexual orientation of family members of candidates for high office, but falling prey to their rewriting of history. It means recalling the phrases the government endlessly repeats, and screening out evidence of government atrocities.

Attention Deficit Democracy by James Bovard

Supporting the troops...

2006-01-25T14:51:00.000-05:00

A recent column by Joel Stein is likely generating major ripples across the dial as the talk-radio shephards turn their venom on the newest critic of Bush's failed war.

His column begins as follows:

I DON'T SUPPORT our troops. This is a particularly difficult opinion to have, especially if you are the kind of person who likes to put bumper stickers on his car. Supporting the troops is a position that even Calvin is unwilling to urinate on.

Free Republic is all over this guy, exhibiting their supposed Christian beliefs in the usual hypocritical fashion. (Agree with us, and we'll pray for you. Disagree with us, and we want you dead.)

Now, clearly some of Mr. Stein's column is hyperbolic rhetoric, designed to make waves by saying that which most are unwilling or politically unable. But the bottom line is that American kids are killing and dying to advance the failed policies of recent American Presidents.

Who really supports the murders of nameless, faceless people thousands of miles away who pose no threat to anyone whatsoever, except those in positions to profit from our current foreign policy?

Authoritarianism...

2006-01-25T14:47:00.000-05:00

The New American blog has a bone to pick with Pat Buchanan over his willingness to permit Bush to ignore laws at his own discretion.

I don't often disagree with Pat, but in this case I do. I am very nervous about the centralizing of power in the White House, especially the way Bush thinks he is beyond Congressional or judicial review.

What if we're told that the 2008 election cannot be held, due to national security threats, in accordance with some mysterious provision deep within the FISA law or the bill granting Bush power to invade Iraq?

Sure, I don't think "it could happen", either. I also didn't think "it could happen" until the Supremes ruled on the Kelo v. New London case, either.

Competition and privatization...

2006-01-25T11:52:00.000-05:00

Competition improves quality. Monopolization of a market or industry leads to reduced quality, as a producer has no incentive to improve the quality of its product.

One area in which this rule demonstrates itself regularly is in the realm of education. Given a chance, people overwhelmingly opt out of government schools and into charter schools or private schools.

Another area that the government has failed to manage successfully is our roads. Joe Mysak says privatize them.

Cintra-Macquarie to take over Chicago Skyway for $1.8b

Wishful thinking...

2006-01-23T08:28:00.000-05:00

Dr. Curtis from Laurel, MD on Potential v. Opportunity:

"When I see a repeated pattern of failure or low-level performance, I treat potential as noise and not data. My colleagues often talk about a patient's potential when there is chronic failure, but it always requires an if.

The data is that Maurice Clarett and others like him have repeatedly done what is necessary to produce the negative outcomes that they have experienced. His predicament today is a summary of his actions from a series of yesterdays. Clarett's athletic success is an interruption in his criminal career, not the other way around.

This behavioral approach to reality applies to individuals and to political philosophies. In politics, the left gets caught up in if statements and other forms of wishful thinking. Socialists and their siblings will insist that Hayek is wrong and that socialism fails because it has not been done right. In other words, that socialism has a lot of potential but...It is the ifs, buts, and shoulds that underpin it, not the devastating reality of it. Its potential, like Clarett's potential, is pure noise. The good that socialism may do on rare occasion is a distraction form the overwhelming pattern of failure that it has produced wherever it has been tried.

I wish Maurice Clarett had what it took to make better decisions, but he didn't. His story is written by what he did, not by what he should have done or could have done. I also wish that 9/11 had not occurred, but it did. I voted for Bush because he did not use wish statements about our enemies. The left did, and still does, as in, "If only we understood why they hate us..." I refused to give the people who would not look at the data squarely my vote. Our enemies want us dead. I can wish it were different, but I would place my wife and children in peril with that wish. As with people, so too with policy.

Michelle Malkin: GOP cheerleader...

2006-01-19T15:37:00.000-05:00

Michelle Malkin has posted some excerpts from a speech given today by VP Cheney. One of them is as follows:

Another absolutely vital requirement in the War on Terror is that we use whatever means are appropriate to try to find out the intentions of the enemy. To this end, in the days following 9/11, the President authorized the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications.

Wait a minute. I thought we've been told that Bush's NSA spying program is merely a continuation of decades worth of prior precedent. Now we're told that Bush extended the scope of the NSA even more than was done by Clinton and his band of criminals?

It's too bad, I used to think Michelle was truly on the side of individual liberty and government restraint. It appears she's fallen into the government-media complex trap in order to sell books and get on television. Once upon a time, I think Michelle would have thrown a flag on this flagrant attempt by President Bush and his followers to grab power and to centralize it inside the White House.

What happened?

America's last hope...

2006-01-19T13:10:00.000-05:00

Ron Paul is the only member of the United States Congress who takes his oath seriously and who governs according to the original intent of our once sacred Constitution. Perhaps as many as a handful of others come close, but it seems to me that only Ron Paul is unwilling to "play the game" when it comes to supporting or opposing legislation or spending bills.

Yesterday, he gave this speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives about the recent "lobbying scandal" involving Jack Abramoff and several as yet unnamed Congresspeople.

Here are some of the more noteworthy excerpts from Rep. Paul's speech:

It’s been suggested we need to change course and correct the way Congress is run. A good idea, but if we merely tinker with current attitudes about what role the federal government ought to play in our lives, it won’t do much to solve the ethics crisis. True reform is impossible without addressing the immorality of wealth redistribution. Merely electing new leaders and writing more rules to regulate those who petition Congress will achieve nothing.

This system of government is coming to an end – a fact that significantly contributes to the growing anxiety of most Americans, especially those who pay the bills and receive little in return from the corrupt system that has evolved over the decades.

The theft that the federal government commits against its citizens, and the power that Congress has assumed illegally, are the real crimes that need to be dealt with. In this regard we truly do need a new direction. Get rid of the evil tax system; the fraudulent monetary system; and the power of government to run our lives, the economy, and the world; and the Abramoff types would be exposed for the mere gnats they are. There would be a lot less of them, since the incentives to buy politicians would be removed.

The system of special interest government that has evolved over the last several decades has given us a national debt of over eight trillion dollars, a debt that now expands by over 600 billion dollars each year. Our total obligations are estimated between fifteen and twenty trillion dollars. Most people realize the Social Security system, the Medicare system, and the new prescription drug plan are unfunded. Thousands of private pension funds are now being dumped on the U.S. government and American taxpayers. We are borrowing over 700 billion dollars each year from foreigners to finance this extravagance, and we now qualify as the greatest international debtor nation in history. Excessive consumption using borrowed money is hardly the way to secure a sound economy.

The biggest rip-off of all – the paper money system that is morally and economically equivalent to counterfeiting – is never questioned. It is the deceptive tool for transferring billions from the unsuspecting poor and middle-class to the special interest rich. And in the process, the deficit-propelled budget process supports the spending demands of all the special interests – left and right, welfare and warfare – while delaying payment to another day and sometimes even to another generation.

The enormous sums spent each year to support the influential special interests expand exponentially, and no one really asks how it’s accomplished. Raising taxes to balance the budget is out of the question – and rightfully so. Foreigners have been generous in their willingness to loan us most of what we need, but even that generosity is limited and may well diminish in the future.

The prime beneficiaries of a paper money system are those who use the money early – governments, politicians, bankers, international corporations, and the military industrial complex. Those who suffer most are the ones at the end of the money chain – the people forced to use depreciated dollars to buy urgently needed goods and services to survive. And guess what? By then their money is worth less, prices soar, and their standard of living goes down.

Whether government programs are promoted for “good” causes (helping the poor), or bad causes (permitting a military-industrial complex to capitalize on war profits), the principles of the market are undermined. Eventually nearly everyone becomes dependent on the system of deficits, borrowing, printing press money, and the special interest budget process that distributes loot by majority vote.

Today, most business interests and the poor are dependent on government handouts. Education and medical care are almost completely controlled and regulated by an overpowering central government. We have come to accept our role as world policemen and nation builder with little question, despite the bad results and an inability to pay the bills.

The question is, what will it take to bring about the changes in policy needed to reverse this dangerous trend? The answer is: quite a lot. And unfortunately it’s not on the horizon. It probably won’t come until there is a rejection of the dollar as the safest and strongest world currency, and a return to commodity money like gold and silver to restore confidence.

If we’re inclined to improve conditions, we should give serious consideration to the following policy reforms, reforms the American people who cherish liberty would enthusiastically support:

1. No more “No Child Left Behind” legislation;
2. No more prescription drug programs;
3. No more undeclared wars;
4. No more nation building;
5. No more acting as the world policemen;
6. No more deficits;
7. Cut spending – everywhere;
8. No more political and partisan resolutions designed to embarrass those who may well have legitimate and honest disagreements with current policy;
9. No inferences that disagreeing with policy is unpatriotic or disloyal to the country;
10. No more pretense of budget reform while ignoring off-budget spending and the ever-growing fourteen appropriations bills;
11. Cut funding for corporate welfare, foreign aid, international NGOs, defense contractors, the military industrial complex, and rich corporate farmers before cutting welfare for the poor at home;
12. No more unconstitutional intrusions into the privacy of law-abiding American citizens;
13. Reconsider the hysterical demands for security over liberty by curtailing the ever-expanding and oppressive wars on drugs, tax violators, and gun ownership.

Beginning to have doubts...

2006-01-19T09:38:00.000-05:00

Notice the date on this Ron Paul column - 9/3/2001. Any chance that 9/11 was an inside job, designed to provide a smokescreen behind which our government and the Fed could disquise an overdue devaluation of our markets and our currency?

Is there any real reason to have full faith in the official story put out by the federal government? After all, the 9/11 commission was a whitewash, and much of the evidence has been destroyed or securely hidden and off limits to the public.

Couple that with the rest of the lies we've gotten from the Bush administration on topics ranging from non-existent WMD in Iraq, to the supposed strength of our economy, to their lackluster attempts at securing our borders, to the chronic spending that has led to huge deficits and inflation, to the secret statist philosophies of Supreme Court appointments Roberts and Alito.

As much as I try to tell myself that such theories are too disgusting even for evil men like Cheney and Rumsfeld, I cannot shake the thoughts presented in Martial Law 9/11: The Rise of the Police State (2005).

Paleo-con Vs. Neo-Con: A war worth fighting.

2006-01-18T18:54:00.000-05:00

Pat Buchanan wrote a great article today. It is worth a read if you want a contrasting difference between old world Conservatism and New World order smoke and mirror conservatism.

The democracy crusaders have been beating the war drums pretty hard lately.

Target Iran.

Of course, the drummers are using the same rhetoric they used for the Iraq war. Reasons that have morphed at least three times according to my count.

How many US service men has Iran killed? How much range does an Iranian missile have? Is it enough to hit the United States? With our current track record in the middle east of invading countries and overthrowing governments, can you blame them for wanting to have their own deterrents to a US led invasion? They realize we could ruin their country, what advantage do they have for going to war with us? The United States and the Soviets had nuclear weapons aimed at each other for years with not one being used. We both new it would ruin us all.

If we cannot even Americanize immigrants within our own borders, how are we going to Americanize those in foreign borders? What does that mean for Iran? Abortion, taxes, and social security?

Once we went to war with Iraq, we lost Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri. If we rush off to war with Iran, we will leave Zarqawi alive. Is this part of the Neo-con plan to have an open ended war for 50-70 years?

Lets finish what we already started and come home. The world is a much different place. Lets rethink our position within it.

Assisted suicide...

2006-01-18T15:22:00.000-05:00

The United States government does not rightfully or legally have any legitimate claim on your life. It belongs to you, and according to natural law, every individual retains sole decision-making authority to end his own life.

I am rather mystified by the split in the Supreme Court decision that came down recently, most specifically the thought process used by Clarence Thomas.

Now, the shephards on talk radio and the Democrat party will tell you that Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are birds of a feather, but they are not. Scalia is much more of a statist when it comes to many issues. Thomas, on the other hand, believes fiercely in the Federalist concept, and recognizes that the United States of America is a plural noun.

In his dissent of the Oregon physician assisted suicide case, Thomas lambasted his colleagues who voted previously to use the Controlled Substances Act to overrule the California law which had made medical marijuana legal in certain circumstances, yet somehow in this case found a way not to apply the same doctrine to doctors who prescribe and administer lethal doses of otherwise legal narcotics.

Using their own language from the prior decision, Thomas asks how the same justice can say that using medical marijuana violates the "legitimate medical usage" requirement of the CSA while being prescribed lethal doses of narcotics does not.

Of course, I don't think that the federal government has any role to play in determing what constitutes "legitimate medical usage" of a drug, nor does it have a responsibility to prevent individuals from making decisions which may be detrimental to their health. Are we to allow the government the power to force a cancer patient to undergo chemotherapy? How about allowing the government to prevent a person with no hope of recovery the ability to obtain chemotherapy treatment if he so desires it?

I'm not surprised at all that Roberts and Scalia (statists, both) voted to expand the scope of federal legislation while ignoring the 9th and 10th amendments, but Thomas' opinion seems to make no sense. If he were true to the principles of federalism as he claimed in the medical marijuana case, and again in this dissent, wouldn't have have voted in the affirmative, thereby recognizing the power of the State of Oregon and its people to determine for themselves a solution to this difficult question?

I believe that America would be much better off if States reasserted their sovereignty. After all, the Constitution is not a pact that grants the federal government all the power that it seeks or desires.

If the People of Alabama want a stone monument displaying the 10 commandments in their State Supreme Court building, that is their right.
If the People of California wish to allow its residents access to medical marijuana, that is their right.
If the People of Oregon wish to allow doctor-assisted suicide, that is their right.
If the People of Massachusetts wish to allow same-sex couples the benefits of legal marriage, that is their right.
If the People of Pennsylvania wish to declare abortion to be murder within their State, that is their right.

Overuse of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution has needlessly led to an enormous division in this country on social issues. The only ones who win are the politicians who bamboozle the sheep year after year with empty talk about solving these problems, yet never quite getting around to doing it. (See H.R. 4379, a bill that would reign in the federal judiciary as Republicans have told us they want to do in recent campaigns)

If Americans were less focused on religion, guns, and abortion at a national level, perhaps we could begin to seriously address the actual problems which face our Republic, instead of endlessly fighting the culture wars while our politicians continue to rob us blind and get us into illegal wars for no legitimate purpose.

Up is down, left is right...

2006-01-18T11:02:00.000-05:00

I'm getting tired of hearing the socialist Democrats complain that "the far right" wants to limit civil rights, and how only Democrats are truly interested and capable of preserving individual rights as enumerated in the Constitution.

Of course, the leftists are interested in preserving all sorts of invented rights which appear nowhere in our Constitution, such as the rights to public school, housing, medical care, infanticide, affirmative action, etc...

But the bottom line is that only those who seek to restrain the size and scope of government actually advocate real protection of individual rights because it is government that tramples on the rights of the individual. As such, it stands to reason that the bigger the government, the more power it has to constrain the rights of the individual seeking to be free from unnecessary governmental regulation.

In the end, people like myself who advance the ideas of federalism are the only ones who honestly believe in the sovereignty of the individual, and the unalienable right he enjoys to his life and property.

Authoritarians who use government force to redistribute wealth have no respect for the right of property once enjoyed by Americans. Is that not precisely the bedrock foundation upon which today's Democrat party is built, namely the use of government force to reallocate property from one individual to another, while taking a healthy cut for themselves along the way?

Empty Republican rhetoric...

2006-01-16T13:41:00.000-05:00

H.R. 4379 states the following:

The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court--

(1) shall not adjudicate--

(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and

(2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

How many United States Representatives have co-sponsored this bill?
How many members of the "pro-life" Republican party have agreed to back this piece of legislation which actually seeks to return power and responsibility of legislating into the Congress where it belongs?
How many individuals have signed onto this bill which, if passed, could have an immense impact towards restoring our Constitutional Republic, as well as restoring political power into local and State arenas where People are once again free to participate in their government?

Zero. Ron Paul is again on his own, standing up for the principles used as campain fodder by Republican politicians every other year. To him, those words are more than obligatory statements needed to satisfy a constituency. To the rest, they mean nothing.

Second annual UN flag burning...

2006-01-16T08:19:00.000-05:00

The People of New Hampshire make me proud, and give great comfort in knowing that I am not alone in this struggle against the tyranny and the authoritarians who believe themselves to be entitled to power by birthright.

Watch the video

The writing is on the wall...

2006-01-13T12:36:00.000-05:00

According to Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley Chief Economist:

It is quite possible that we’re being too analytical in attempting to discern why it all went so well on the global macro front in 2005. It may simply be that the stars were in near perfect alignment, enabling the world to buy an extra year of time. I think the odds are low that an unbalanced world economy will continue to draw support from such a favorable constellation of forces. Reversals are possible on three fronts -- the liquidity cycle, the US property market, or the dollar. Shifts in any one of these areas could well be enough to transform the global outcome from benign to malign. The interplay between these forces could be especially lethal.

According to John Snow, United States Treasury Secretary:

[T]he U.S. economy is the picture of economic health and we remain, as the president often notes, the economic envy of the world.

Let's see, the federal government is selling one version of the truth, and the chief economist of one of the largest corporations in the world is selling quite a different version.

I'll go with the latter, but as they say, buyer beware.

The failing empire...

2006-01-13T09:50:00.000-05:00

Coercion by force never works. Every time that a society has tried to expand itself through the use of force, it has failed. Look back through history at the examples from China, Rome, the Mongols, the English, the Russians, the Turk, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese. Now, compare that with today's modern American empire.

We have troops in more than 100 countries. In recent decades we've tried to covertly or overtly affect the stability of dozens of governments around the world. I believe that we are now reaching the end of our empire building road as today's young Americans are increasingly unwilling to fight for the welfare state that we have become.

As James Burnham says:

[Modern liberalism] does not offer ordinary men compelling motives for personal suffering, sacrifice, and death. There is no tragic dimension in its picture of the good life. Men become willing to endure, sacrifice, and die for God, for family, king, honor, country, from a sense of absolute duty or an exalted vision of the meaning of history… . And it is precisely these ideas and institutions that liberalism has criticized, attacked, and in part overthrown as superstitious, archaic, reactionary, and irrational. In their place liberalism proposes a set of pale and bloodless abstractions—pale and bloodless for the very reason that they have no roots in the past, in deep feeling and in suffering. Except for mercenaries, saints, and neurotics, no one is willing to sacrifice and die for progressive education, medicare, humanity in the abstract, the United Nations, and a ten percent rise in Social Security payments.

Unless you are a ditto-head sheep, you can probably figure out that our economy only appears strong because of the hidden fraud committed by the Federal Reserve as it continues to print money at record pace.

Unless and until our politicians dramatically change course, and begin to curb their borrowing and spending on social programs and pork barrel projects, our Republic inches closer to depression or collapse.

It is my view that the American ideal of individuals who enjoy the unalienable rights to life, liberty and property by birthright is the best concept ever committed to paper. Sadly and predictably, corruptible men have twisted and mangled the concepts over the years as the American people continue to ignore the warnings given by our founding fathers who implored us to be ever-vigilant against tyranny and democracy.

We now find ourselves in a terrible position where our government has transformed into precisely the same as that of King George, who was defeated by George Washington and his Army of liberty-loving Patriots in the Revolutionary War.

How does this all tie together? Our supposed leaders trample on the once respected unalienable rights of Americans as they seek to impose what they proport to be the “American way of life” around the world. In order to confuse the average American fool, the federal government artificially inflates the strength and stability of our economy in attempt to boost its credibility both domestically and internationally.

We are being told at the war in Iraq is all about spreading freedom through the Middle East, yet I dare ask, how can America spread a concept in which most of us do not subscribe?

How can we possibly teach Iraqis about the value of free speech or private property when our government recognizes neither?

Why would somebody believe that free and fair elections are virtuous when our own elections are anything but free and fair? If Iraqis utilize finger ink to ensure the one man/one vote concept, why not use the same system in America?

How could an Iraqi learn to appreciate the concept of warrant requirements when it comes to search and seizure when our President does not uphold the practice, even when he has a court at his disposal that rubber-stamps warrants with alarming regularity?

I challenge anyone to select a single Article or clause in the Bill of Rights (except perhaps the 3rd or 7th ) that has not been dramatically altered in favor of the government and against the individual since its inception.

No, the truth is that this war has nothing to do with freedom, and our government has no respect for individual rights or human liberty. If there was any doubt left in my mind before this week, it was erased permanently when I heard Judge Alito explain his view that there is no check or balance on the Supreme Court outside of its members themselves.

Understandably, the big government socialist Democrats didn't object, but nary a word was uttered by the Republicans who supposedly believe in limited government.

Judge Alito stated clearly that he believes in government power when it comes to limitations on free speech, such as the “free speech zones” set up at the 2004 RNC Convention, and he believes in giving very wide latitude when it comes to the scope of search warrants, as evidenced by his opinion in the case of a strip-search of a 10-year-old girl who happened to find herself in the wrong house at the wrong time.

The American Republic is collapsing before our eyes, and most of us are either asleep or busy rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic that is America and our Constitution.

My only solution is to prepare myself and my family for the inevitable dark times which surely await us in the coming decades.

American Empire

Bush calls this freedom...

2006-01-12T13:40:00.000-05:00

First we had Campaign Finance Reform.

Then we had "free speech zones" at the 2004 RNC convention.

Now, we have the "annoying email" law.

You can be sure the true believers like Rush and Hannity will continue to lead their mindless followers into deluding themselves that George Bush cares about individual liberty and believes that the government's primary role is to preserve said rights.

Thankfully, I have realized that Bush Co. sees the primary role of government to be their own personal enrichment.

Doctors have had enough...

2006-01-12T13:32:00.000-05:00

It seems that doctors are getting tired of having their patients chosen for them by the government.

California physicians turning away new patients

As Medicare’s 4.4% pay cut is compounded by a 5% cut in Medi-Cal, California Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries are finding it more difficult to find a doctor.

Greg Knoll, an attorney who directs the Consumer Center for Health Education and Advocacy in San Diego said that he frequently cannot find a doctor for poor patients.

Escondido internist Akber Safi closed his practice in June and opened an import-export business. He said that “Medicare, Medi-Cal and insurance company bureaucracy wouldn’t allow me to do what I’m trained to do—take care of patients.”

According to AMA projections, physicians’ expenses will increase 15% between now and 2011, while Medicare fees are to be slashed by 26%. Medi-Cal fees in California are near the bottom of Medicaid payments nationwide, and HMO payment rates, which often track Medicare’s, are 30% less than the national average.

If Congress overrides the cut, Medicare beneficiaries will have to absorb $3 to $4 billion of the $10.8 billion in restored payments, said Kirsten Sloan, a spokeswoman for the American Association of Retired Persons. She accuses physicians of trying to make a point at the expense of patients’ health

Don't get me wrong. I do not draw any joy from people who cannot obtain health care that they seek. However, I do draw joy at the collapse of government orchestrated health care systems. I believe that a withdrawl from the medical field by politicians, coupled with sensible reform of our legal system in the area of malpractice suits would dramatically reduce the numbers of "poor" people unable to find the health care they seek.

The chains of bondage...

2006-01-11T09:05:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year again to begin thinking about filing your tax returns with the Internal Revenue Slavemasters. That means I'm angered about the state of affairs in America, and need to rant.

Mises has a great article on this subject here.

The bottom line is simple. Either a man owns his own labor in its entirety, or he does not. There can be no other option.

If he owns his own labor, he is to be considered a free man. He may choose to enter the marketplace in an attempt to trade his labor to an employer for whatever compensation he will agree upon with that employer.

However, were a man not the sole owner of his labor, he would be considered a slave in bondage, and rightly so. Just as the plantation slaves of centuries past were not the owners of their labor, neither am I.

Of course, I am always free to bargain with my employer or seek another one all together if I feel that my wages are insufficient to meet my needs, but either way the reality of my circumstance remains the same.

The federal government confiscates some portion of each dollar I earn in exchange for my labor before I take possession of it. Therefore, it cannot be said that I own my labor because I am only able to take possession of that portion of compensation that the government does not take first.

If the government has the first claim to the fruit of my labor, I cannot simultaneously make the same claim. If I cannot make first claim to the fruits of my labor, how can it be said that I own them?

Sadly, I thought that the men who fought and died to establish this Republic secured for the People the unalienable rights to life and property. Unfortunately, that is not the case anymore.

Each and every day we get up and go to work, we are working first for the government and only secondly for ourselves. Yet, our leaders have succeeded in convincing millions and millions of Americans across successive generations that this is called liberty.

We are told what a wonderful system of government we have in America, most surely the finest one ever established for its revolutionary and historically unrivaled protections of individual rights and for the ways in which it secures the liberty of the people by restraining the size and scope of the government.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Today's American government is no different than so many that have come before it, and like those, it too will collapse and fall into the faded memories of history along side the rest of the tyrannically abusive empires that have come before and will come in the future.

What you didn't learn in government school...

2006-01-10T15:06:00.000-05:00

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
-- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 4 March 1861

According to John Denson:

The Orwellian historians have falsified the true purposes or motives behind most of America’s wars, and have instead given us glorified accounts designed to mislead the public in order to justify the sacrifices the people have made. All wars, whether won or lost, tend to centralize and increase the power into the national government, increase the debts and taxes and diminish the civil liberties of the citizens. It is time we begin to see through the myths and false propaganda about American wars so that we can prevent future wars. Americans have a strong tendency to accept as true the false wartime propaganda which now appears in the history books and which is repeated by politicians and intellectuals to the effect that all of America’s wars have been just, necessary and noble. This tendency of the Americans to accept this false propaganda tends to prevent them from questioning the alleged reasons for current wars. There is also a strong tendency by Americans to measure a person’s patriotism by how much that person supports an American war rather than how much the person supports the concept of American freedom and the ideas of our Founders, which includes a noninterventionist foreign policy

I must admit, I once fell victim to this type of rhetoric by the President and his propogandists on talk radio, but with the recent revelations about the NSA I have come to a very different conclusion about the motives of this "war" in Iraq.

Lincoln

The Iraq debacle...

2006-01-10T12:30:00.000-05:00

What have you heard about the situation in Iraq?

More words....

2006-01-09T19:26:00.000-05:00

If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.
- Winston Churchill

Americans living "in poverty"...

2006-01-06T13:04:00.000-05:00

Aside from the simple reality that "poor" Americans still live better than most of the rest of this planet's 6 billion residents, the message being peddled by communists in Democrat clothing via the MSM about the "poor" in America is simply a lie.

Here's one example from a Palm Springs, CA newspaper:

When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, American television viewers were aghast at the sight of thousands of poor people who did not have the resources to flee the city before it flooded.

That same week, the Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans living in poverty rose in 2004 for the fourth consecutive year to 37 million, or 12.7 percent, up by 5.4 million from 2000.

What they never tell you is what "living in poverty" actually means. They know that most people who read their "news" story will automatically dream up pictures in their heads of starvation, squalor, sickness, homelessness, etc...

Not to mention, these "news" stories are designed on the notion that it is the responsibility of "society" to see that everyone in that "society" has some minimum standard of living, an idea which is not realistic nor beneficial to most members of society.

According to the US Census Bureau, a person is in poverty if his income for a given year does not meet or exceed a given "poverty threshold". In 2004, a four person household with two children under 18 has a threshold of $19,157.

A person who works a full-time, minimum wage job grosses just over $10,000 in a year. If two parents both work a 40 hour per week job all year, they are not "living in poverty".

Not to mention, wealthy people who recognize no income (other than capital gains) during a given year are considered to be "living in poverty".

College students who do not live in a dormitory are "living in poverty", though many receive loans, grants or support from family.

Also, since the thresholds do not vary by geographical area, someone living in an expensive area (urban/suburban areas in the northeast or west coast) making $15,000 is deemed to be in an identical financial position as someone living in a very inexpensive area (rural areas in the South).

Of course, the communist left in America has so skewed our culture that it is now racist or bigoted to even suggest that the time-tested family planning model of graduating high school, getting married, then having kids actually proves superior to single-parenthood by high school dropouts who rely on the taxpayer for survival.

The State has replaced the father, and I believe this effort has been pushed forward deliberately and systematically. Karl Marx would be proud to know that his ideas, though empirically discredited, have been almost fully adopted in America.

A home run from Steyn...

2006-01-04T10:00:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn's article here clarifies a simple but critical point. Western populations ("civilized people") are dying off and being replaced by imports from the Middle East, Asia, or Africa.

Couple this trend with the continuing rise of the American welfare state and the money printing addiction of the Fed and our politicians, and the picture begins to look very bad.

I can only hope that the supposedly smart people who are in power have solutions for these problems that they just haven't shared with the rest of us yet, but in the meantime I can only assume that they do not.

Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries.

That's what the war's about: our lack of civilizational confidence. As a famous Arnold Toynbee quote puts it: "Civilizations die from suicide, not murder"--as can be seen throughout much of "the Western world" right now. The progressive agenda--lavish social welfare, abortion, secularism, multiculturalism--is collectively the real suicide bomb.

The default mode of our elites is that anything that happens--from terrorism to tsunamis--can be understood only as deriving from the perniciousness of Western civilization. As Jean-Francois Revel wrote, "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

For 30 years, we've had endless wake-up calls for things that aren't worth waking up for. But for the very real, remorseless shifts in our society--the ones truly jeopardizing our future--we're sound asleep

There is much more, but I'd just end up excerpting the entire article. Read it.

What are we fighting for?

2006-01-02T18:32:00.000-05:00

I was reading this article by Roger Kimball regarding the Suicide of the West. I stumbled apon an interesting quote concerning Liberal societies. In the wake of the problems France has had recently (and subsequently the rest of Europe), are the people of Europe willing to fight impending Islamofascists? Are we?

James Burnham on the subject of Modern Liberalism,

[Modern Liberalism]does not offer ordinary men compelling motives for personal suffering, sacrifice, and death. There is no tragic dimension in its picture of the good life. Men become willing to endure, sacrifice, and die for God, for family, king, honor, country, from a sense of absolute duty or an exalted vision of the meaning of history… . And it is precisely these ideas and institutions that liberalism has criticized, attacked, and in part overthrown as superstitious, archaic, reactionary, and irrational. In their place liberalism proposes a set of pale and bloodless abstractions—pale and bloodless for the very reason that they have no roots in the past, in deep feeling and in suffering. Except for mercenaries, saints, and neurotics, no one is willing to sacrifice and die for progressive education, medicare, humanity in the abstract, the United Nations, and a ten percent rise in Social Security payments.

Liberal Societies

The Problem of Govt....

2006-01-02T12:59:00.000-05:00

Government waste, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness gives way to wonderful largesse.

How dare Ms. Blanco.

Some members of the governor's staff will return from the three-day holiday on Tuesday to newly renovated offices at the State Capitol.

Shortly after the two hurricanes, Gov. Kathleen Blanco decided to renovate some of her staff's offices. At the time of her decision, Blanco also was hinting at deep budget cuts to state programs and the possibility of laying off 20 percent of the state workforce.

The project cost $564,838.

The newly refurbished office space on the sixth floor of the State Capitol includes hookups and mounts for two flat screen televisions, Swedish granite countertops, walnut paneling and frosted laminated glass. The floor, which will not be accessible to the public, was redesigned to add three new offices, a conference room and file storage areas.

...and their excuse,

Jimmy Clarke, Blanco's chief of staff, said Friday the governor's top aides considered not fixing the 6th floor.

But the sixth floor project was bid six days before Hurricane Katrina came ashore near Buras on Aug. 29. Clarke said he became concerned that the state could be sued successfully if the restoration project were shut down.

"We certainly would not have initiated this work post-Katrina and Rita," Clarke said. "Given all that the state faces at this time, these renovations would be a very low priority."

Government Waste

Words of Wisdom..

2005-12-29T13:19:00.000-05:00

You never make the poor rich by making the rich poor.
--Art Laffer

Gold, liberty, and Greenspan...

2005-12-27T11:24:00.000-05:00

I found a few interesting articles reflecting on the conversion of Alan Greenspan from an Ayn Rand style individualist into a central planning statist of the type he once reviled.

The Maestro Changes His Tune by Ron Paul

The Mess Greenspan Leaves by Stefan Karlson

Gold and Economic Freedom by Alan Greenspan

Neocons get it all wrong again...

2005-12-21T11:01:00.000-05:00

Bill Kristol has written a propoganda piece advocating for more centralization of power in the hands of the President, while dismissing all notions that the People should be aware of what the government is doing in our names to protect us from the threat they tell us exists.

The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person"--a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.

The only alternative is to spy on a US citizen with no evidence against him. Given that the FISA courts have granted virtually every warrant request ever presented to it, this argument hardly holds water.

It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have--believed the executive needed to have--some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional.

The article probably refers to Hamilton here, as he was a noted supporter of a strong executive branch, but it is important to note that Hamilton had stiff opposition, and is thought to have "lost" the debate in the final draft of the Constitution.

The problem with Kristol's knee-jerk support for Bush is two-fold. First, more and more Americans are doubting Bush's sincerity because he simply won't close down the Mexican border. Trying to sell the country on these grave threats to our national security has been more difficult lately as people have become more aware of our unguarded borders.

Second, many of us believe that there is a threat facing America in the form of radical muslim fanatics. Without debating why or where these islamofanatics originated, they exist and they do pose a threat to America. While many of us still believe in the citizen soldier concept and want to have a hand in our own defense without necessarily joining the military, our federal government is telling us to go about our lives and leave the nation's security to them.

I say no, that I want to have a part in the security of this nation, and I would be more than happy to help if the government would give the People some ideas or suggestions as to what we could do. If they don't have evidence necessary to even satisfy a FISA court, enlist the People to obtain that evidence. We will give the authorities what they need, so long as we believe that they are truly working for us and not themselves.

Here is another example of hyperbole from those who can't think through Bush's methodical centralization of power:

A delay of even a few days may render the information useless, as the terrorists will have realized that their colleague has been neutralized.

I thought that 11 Judges sit at the ready to hear evidence and grant warrants on a 24/7/365 basis?

Bush's illegal wiretaps...

2005-12-20T15:11:00.000-05:00

According to President Bush, on April 20 2004:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Not your typical Republican...

2005-12-20T14:49:00.000-05:00

Since March 2003 we have seen:

Death and destruction; 2,100 Americans killed and nearly 20,000 sick or wounded, plus tens of thousands of Iraqis caught in the crossfire;

A Shiite theocracy has been planted;

A civil war has erupted;

Iran’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Osama bin Laden’s arch nemesis, Saddam Hussein, has been removed;

Al Qaeda now operates freely in Iraq, enjoying a fertile training field not previously available to them;

Suicide terrorism, spurred on by our occupation, has significantly increased;

Our military industrial complex thrives in Iraq without competitive bids;

True national defense and the voluntary army have been undermined;

Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;

Values have changed, with more Americans supporting torture and secret prisons;

Domestic strife, as recently reflected in arguments over the war on the House floor, is on the upswing;

Pre-emptive war has been codified and accepted as legitimate and necessary, a bleak policy for our future;

The Middle East is far more unstable, and oil supplies are less secure, not more;

Historic relics of civilization protected for thousands of years have been lost in a flash while oil wells were secured;

U. S. credibility in the world has been severely damaged; and

The national debt has increased enormously, and our dependence on China has increased significantly as our federal government borrows more and more money.

How many more years will it take for civilized people to realize that war has no economic or political value for the people who fight and pay for it? Wars are always started by governments, and individual soldiers on each side are conditioned to take up arms and travel great distances to shoot and kill individuals that never meant them harm. Both sides drive their people into an hysterical frenzy to overcome their natural instinct to live and let live. False patriotism is used to embarrass the good-hearted into succumbing to the wishes of the financial and other special interests who agitate for war.

Ron Paul

Spying and border security...

2005-12-20T08:57:00.000-05:00

Another thought just came to mind in thinking about the NSA spying story.

Whatever happened to the theme of Bush Co. that we were "fighting the enemy over there so we don't have to fight him here" ??

If there are enemies already in America worthy of spying on, wouldn't that mandate the immediate closing of our borders to prevent the arrival of more enemies to our homeland?

Mr. Bush, just close the borders and you'll be given a pass to do just about anything else you want. Until then, you can expect much trouble ahead from those who can plainly read the Constitution and demonstrate your ignorance of, and contempt for, our founding document.

Though you may not, many of us still believe in the Constitution and the Republic it established so many years ago. In the end, we will side with it and against you.

Borders

George Bush and the American police state...

2005-12-20T08:29:00.000-05:00

If we are a nation of free men living under the rule of Law, then those laws must be applied uniformly whether related to the common street dweller or the President of the United States.

By authorizing domestic spying, it seems as though President Bush may have violated federal law. If so, he must be punished up to and including impeachment.

This President has continued the construction of a full-blown police state since 9/11 in the name of the "War on Terror", invariably using "the events of September 11th" as a defense to his acts.

This time, it appears as though he's gone too far. According to the NY Times, the FBI has been spying on various political activist groups in America.

The Imperial President and the NSA Spying Scandal

“Trust me,” the president seems to continuously implore but no president (with the possible exception of Dick Nixon) has proven himself less worthy of trust than George W. Bush.

Set aside the long and tired trail of failures and deceptions, the “trust me” president tells us he is only authorizing illegal spying on American citizens linked to Al Qaeda but, if that were true, why would he bypass the legal sanction of a court that has rightly been characterized as a rubber stamp, that in fact has turned down only a handful of surveillance requests in its 27-year history?

Police State

The lies must stop...

2005-12-16T16:03:00.000-05:00

One last post for the week.

Lee Shelton writes about the moving goalposts that never seem to stop long enough for legitimate criticism of the Iraq war to gain traction.

Very well said...

2005-12-16T15:45:00.000-05:00

Though I have a few minor disagreements, such as which branch of government is to be most closely scrutinized, this post has summarized a lengthy discussion that has been taking place on "Free" Republic all day.

I think many people can see the forest for the trees but don't want to speak up for fear of the more vocal members of this forum. The twists of logic I've seen here over the course of the past year have effectively, for the most part, kept me from posting for a while (I refuse, however, to give them the satisfaction of an opus, as tempting as it may be at times).

It was not too long ago that Republicans were vehement about actual conservative principles. That is what attracted me to the Republican Party in the first place. To be conservative was to oppose government encroachment into our daily lives. It was to support small, limited government that, for the most part, was willing to operate at the state level. To be Republican was to oppose the very principle of nation building and overseas expeditions (which, one might add, has played a very considerable role in generating much of the ill-will we now face). These, along with many other principles, were the crux of conservatism. Now, even among so-called conservatives, to be truly conservative is to have a "September 10th" mindset. I seem to recall the days when Republicans, as a rule, disdained such sloganism as the venue of Democrats.

But, then again, I suppose that is what really marks the "Post-Sepember 11th Realistic Mindset" - a willingness to embrace the very policies supported by Democrats that we had opposed for years. The dirty little secret is that many Republicans seem to believe that conservatism is a failure, that it does not REALLY work, and that it is only fit for an ideal world. I think that's a shame.

And now I'll come out and say it, since many others seem unable and unwilling to do so - I think that support for broad government surveillance (especially against hated groups!), support for expanded government programs, support for overseas expeditionism and nation building, support for "strenuous interrogation techniques" (torture, for those of you in Rio Linda) on supposed "terrorists" (who are never proved to be such in a court of law... so much for the burden of the State to prove guilt) for "information gathering purposes", the use of slogans and the grossest of logical fallacies in the place of reason, the labelling of those who hold views with which some disagree as "traitors", and the calls for the destruction of the one billion plus Muslims living throughout the world are all as decidedly unpatriotic as we can get!

I think this attitude that has prevailed throughout Republican circles that has been willing to denounce those that question government action as supporting terrorists and terrorism in general is absolutely abhorrent and causes the founders of our great country to roll in their graves! It is and has always been patriotic to question the actions of those that possess power, especially when those individuals hold office in the government. To claim, as so many faux-conservatives have done for the past four years, that 9-11 has left this sane principle in the dustbin of history is to effectively turn one's back on all that this country has stood for in its 200+ years of history!

I've been here at Free Republic since May 2001. I've taken part in a great many discussions, debates, and arguments around here. I have never been suspended and have never engaged in flame wars or been told by a moderator to "cool it". I'm not in any hurry to permanently leave unless I am forced to do so (which, after this message, may very well happen). I voted for President Bush twice, and both times I was quite unaware that I was electing a King and administration beyond reproach, but rather was under the impression that I was helping to elect a man as the head of the executive branch of the federal government of the United States of America, a position that, by the designs of those that created the position, was always to be held under the closest of scrutiny. I am absolutely awed by the sheer naivety of some that seem to believe a simple (R) beside a man's name grants him the closest thing possible to infallibility as can be found in a political system. It is that same position that seems to buy into the notion that all news that is in support of one's position must, by nature, be correct, while that that seems to go against one's wishes must be biased or false.

If some want to respond to this post by calling me a liberal, so be it. I'm not the one who has turned his back on conservative principles by claiming they are representative of a 9-10 mindset. I'm not the one who is so afraid of international bullies that he has to scream, "Not in the face! Not in the face!" by willingly trading my rights not to have the government violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (the Supreme law of the land) on mere suspicion while using secret warrants. I'm not the one who has to tell myself, "I have nothing to fear from the government if I'm not doing anything wrong," as though my fundamental God-given freedoms exist merely insofar as the government does not have a problem with me. I would rather be living in my 9-10 mindset than your Orwellian 1984 mindset that is willing to believe Big Brother will leave me alone just because I go out of my way to be a good citizen.

And, as a last note, I should point out that, should such measures be entrenched in our way of life, the second amendment shall be of no avail when we decide that the government really has become too oppressive. After all, raising arms against the government, by definition, will make you a terrorist, subject to all the villification the title entails in the public eye and subject to all the measures of which you all-too-happily supported when you thought they could never be turned against you.

Patrick Henry said, "Give me liberty or give me death." How far we've seem to come since then. If we believe the Constitution, as it is worded, is tantamount to a suicide pact, then we'd be far more honest and far better off to just vote and repeal it.

Patriot Act

"The" NY Times article...

2005-12-16T12:45:00.000-05:00

Here.

You can find plenty of related reading at Malkin's blog here.

My primary response to the larger issue of the "War on Terror" and government abuse of civil liberties is relatively simple.

The President does not show nearly the same sense of urgency for controlling our borders or deporting the illegal aliens who are already in the country as he does when the discussion focuses on expanding federal police power beyond those power already demanded of it (i.e. repelling invasion).

I believe that border security is inexcticably linked to "homeland" security, in fact the two terms are essentially synonyms. Suggesting that this Republic is in anyway safe so long as our border is left virtually undefended is not only wrong, but deserves impeachment.

If President Bush took the measures that Americans have been saying they want such as tight border security, the "hysterical activists" who are more worried about the threats to the Bill of Rights by our federal government than by the "terrorists" would be more willing to go along with Bush's agenda.

As it stands right now, we are being forced to swallow one phony government solution after another. The TSA, the Department of Homeland security, the 9/11 commission which still refuses to address Able Danger, the PATRIOT Act, etc... Until the civil libertarians are given some clear sign that our government is intent on fulfilling its Constitutional obligations, we have no choice but to protest the expansion of other powers not outlined therein.

Especially with this story coming on heels of the shooting in Miami airport last week, the public is understandably nervous about trusting a government which seems more inept and untrustworthy all the time.

Simply hearing Scott McLellan state that the President believes in fulfilling his Constitutional obligations and is concerned with civil liberties is no longer enough to fool a large portion of Americans. It's time for some evidence.

National Security
Civil Liberties
Big Brother
Patriot Act

The evaporating Bill of Rights...

2005-12-16T08:58:00.000-05:00

I guess since "Free" Republic won't let me post this article there, I'd better post it here.

Andrew Napolitano, who admittedly I thought was a typical Bushbot working on Rupert's Faux News Channel, says:

The compromise version of the Patriot Act to which House and Senate conferees agreed last week and for which the House voted yesterday is an unforgivable assault on basic American values and core constitutional liberties. Unless amended in response to the courageous efforts of a few dozen senators from both parties, the new Patriot Act will continue to give federal agents the power to write their own search warrants – the statute’s newspeak terminology calls them "national security letters" – and serve them on a host of persons and entities that regularly gather and store sensitive, private information on virtually every American.

...

So, if your representative in the House has voted, or your Senators do vote, for the House/Senate conference approved version, they will be authorizing federal agents on their own, in violation of the Constitution, and without you knowing it, to obtain records about you from your accountant, bank, boat dealer, bodega, book store, car dealer, casino, computer server, credit union, dentist, HMO, hospital, hotel manager, insurance company, jewelry store, lawyer, library, pawn broker, pharmacist, physician, postman, real estate agent, supermarket, tax collectors, telephone company, travel agency, and trust company, and use the evidence thus obtained in any criminal prosecution against you.

Police State
Patriot Act
Big Brother

The death penalty case you haven't heard about...

2005-12-15T09:07:00.000-05:00

Why is Cory Maye even in prison?

Cops mistakenly break down the door of a sleeping man, late at night, as part of drug raid. Turns out, the man wasn't named in the warrant, and wasn't a suspect. The man, frigthened [sic] for himself and his 18-month old daughter, fires at an intruder who jumps into his bedroom after the door's been kicked in. Turns out that the man, who is black, has killed the white son of the town's police chief. He's later convicted and sentenced to death by a white jury. The man has no criminal record, and police rather tellingly changed their story about drugs (rather, traces of drugs) in his possession at the time of the raid.

Interestingly enough, the CBS news article contains this excerpt from the Huffington Post blog:

This case is an interesting test of the power of the blogosphere. Though the apparent injustice is two years old, it seems to have attracted exactly zero attention in the mainstream media, at least according to a Google News search for "Cory Maye."

Is the MSM deliberately not covering this story to show "the bloggers" who still controls the vast majority of the popular news cycle?

MSM media bias

Purple fingers...

2005-12-15T08:46:00.000-05:00

Using ink to stain the fingers of a voter in order to prevent a person from voting more than once seems to be a wonderful idea that the US government and the MSM are eager to report on when it happens in Iraq.

Why hasn't a single Congressman called for elections in America to be carried out in the same manner, with each voter having a finger stained with ink when he casts his ballot?

Purple fingers

An impossible goal...

2005-12-14T13:25:00.000-05:00

The entire Bush foreign policy seems to rely on the so-called “domino” theory, which holds that Iranians will rise up and overthrow their tyrannical government once the people of Iran see first hand how wonderful “freedom” is in their newly liberated neighbor.

If the Iranians don't overthrow their leaders, those leaders will have become exponentially more powerful after they takeover Iraq and its natural resources.

One problem is that human nature is not to work together cooperatively with people you don't particularly like. See this column for a wonderful illustration of this concept.

Another problem is that most people do not prefer to live freely. Most people are willing, and in many cases probably prefer, to live under a tyrannical government.

One need only look at the current state of affairs in America. Most Americans are under the false impression that we are a free people, simply because we are permitted to speak our minds or attend the church of our choosing.

I believe that we are very much less of a free society under this government than our colonist forefathers were under the British King. Yet, while they were willing to buy their freedom with their own blood, very few Americans would be so-willing to do so today.

If Americans are unwilling to bear the sacrifices necessary to secure our own liberties, how can we reasonably expect people who have no similar foundation of individual liberty as we have to rise up and overthrow their government?

The endless cycle...

2005-12-14T12:52:00.000-05:00

We are told by our government that American military forces will remain in Iraq so long as the violence continues. When we leave, the Shia faction in the South will slaughter the Sunni minority in central “Iraq”. Thus, the Sunnis must delay our departure, and the only way they can accomplish that is to continue the cycles of violence against American forces and against Iraqi civilians or government officials.

If the Sunnis stop fighting, their American protectors leave, abandoning them to face the Shia of southern Iraq and the Shia state of Iran alone. They would be annihilated or be forced to give up their land.

In either case, the big winner in the Iraq war is Iran because soon after we leave the region, Iran gains control over the Iraqi oil resources. At that point, our leaders would undoubtedly tell us that war against Iran was necessary.

Sadly, the war against Iran wouldn't be necessary if the war against Iraq hadn't been 'necessary', however that war was only necessary because of some other prior disastrous foreign policy of the United States.

Will this cycle of global American militarism ever end under the current American government when the only alternative to Bush's Wilsonian agenda is a Democrat party whose opposition makes them look as though they support American defeat?
Iraq war
Neo-con

Lies and deceptions about the Fair Tax...

2005-12-14T10:09:00.000-05:00

I found this column on Lew Rockwell today that confronts the Fair Tax plan as being pushed in the Congress right now. The author raises several valid points, yet in typical fashion, he overplays his hand and makes many statements which are outright falsehoods.

I don't mean to come off as a Boortz apologist, as I disagree with him on a variety of issues, however, I do mean to come off as someone who would prefer to have a truthful discussion of ideas void of personal slander or misdirection.

Right off the bat, the author makes this false claim:

Former attorney Boortz is the well-known Atlanta-based "libertarian" talk show host who, like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, spends an inordinate amount of time on the evils of liberalism, the Left, and the Democratic Party while turning a blind eye to big government Republicans and supporting Bush's "War on Terror." Boortz has drawn fire from Christians for his support of abortion and gay rights.

Boortz does not 'turn a blind eye' to the big government republicans, nor does he 'support abortion'. He constantly rails against the out of control fiscal policies of the Bush administration, and he merely wishes that abortion would be an issue kept beyond the perview of governmental regulation. Just as I don't 'support' heroin use, I don't think it should be a criminal offense, either.

Nonetheless, the focus of the Fair Tax concept should not be its supporters, but the idea itself. Since the IRS is no friend of the taxpayer, except perhaps the super wealthy, most Americans who pay federal taxes would welcome the abolition of the IRS and the termination of its armies of auditors.

Although the FairTax Plan would eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes, it would not eliminate the programs.

The plan would be dead on arrival were it to propose the elimination of the IRS, Social Security, and Medicare all in one shot. While I would gladly welcome such a measure, most Americans have gone much too far down the socialist road to accept such an abrupt about face. Trying to reverse the growth of government will only be done in stages. If asked point blank if he would prefer the SS & Medicare boondoggles be eliminated, I have no doubt that Boortz would concur. Concluding that a plan to eliminate the IRS and federal income tax implies support for other socialist wealth distribution schemes is faulty logic.

I believe that the Fair Tax plan would be an eye-opening experience for a great number of Americans, who after having seen the size and breadth of taxation being levied upon them would much more readily support the sorts of dramatic overhauls of the American welfare state that Mr. Vance clearly advocates.

The FairTax is designed to simplify the tax code, increase compliance, and make the government more efficient at collecting taxes. It is not about reducing the overall tax burden one cent. The book should therefore be discarded upon reading this line on page two: "This book isn't about saving us a penny in taxes." Boortz has the proverbial cart before the horse. He wants to fight for "a simpler, clearer way to fund our federal government" before he fights for "tax cuts and lower government."

Several issues are left out of this simple analysis. First, greater efficiency in tax collection implies lower costs. Therefore, almost the entire budget of the IRS could be reallocated to other areas or returned to the People. Second, the gross revenue raised by the Fair Tax would supposedly remain neutral, however, each taxpayer would see his percentage reduced because of the addition of new taxpayers such as prostitutes, drug dealers, those who work 'under the table' and the illegal aliens who work with fraudulent or non-existent identities. Currently these people do not pay federal taxes because there is no record of their incomes.

Not to mention, notice how Boortz now wants to fight for simpler taxation BEFORE cutting taxes and the size of government? Previously, the author implied that Boortz had no interest in addressing the size or scope of government.

So, instead of calling for the elimination of the various federal programs that feed off tax dollars, Boortz wants to merely change the way they are funded.

Why would anyone want to make the government more efficient at collecting taxes?

Because efficiency implies lower costs, and the money not spent on arcane bureaucratic tax collection methods could be returned to the people or used for other legitimate governmental purposes.

For even though the purpose of the "prebate" is to cover "the basic necessities of life," Boortz acknowledges that there will be "money left over" for the poor "to invest in their own futures." The trouble with this is that the "money left over" belongs to someone elseâ€”"the rich" who will pay most of the taxes just like they do now.

If there is 'money left over', then the solution is a simple one. That is to lower the poverty line from which the prebates are calculated. Nobody can deny that there is a progressive nature to a tax system in which some people pay nothing, but again, solving the welfare state mentality problem in America is a process which must be done incrementally. While I don't believe that people who pay no taxes should vote, they currently enjoy the privelege, and as such it is unreasonable to expect them to voluntarily vote themselves an increase in their own tax liability.

But not only does this ignore the basic laws of supply and demand, it is based on the fallacy that the costs of inputs in the production of a good determine the price of the output they produce.

I don't pretend to be an economist, so I'll tread lightly here, but it seems to me that the costs of inputs have at least a significant contribution to the final price of the product. After all, charging less than a product costs to make won't work, therefore one must charge at least an equal amount. Therefore, the lower the costs to produce a good, the lower the cost MUST BE. That means that if a good costs $10 to make, it must be sold for at least $10, however if it only costs $5 to make, it must only be sold for $5. The good produced for $5 could be sold for $10, but I trust market forces to keep the prices where they ought to be. However, there can be no logical dispute that the prices of a good COULD be lower than they are if the costs of making that good are reduced.

Lie #1: taxes would be voluntary under the FairTax.

One can buy a used car, a used house, and used clothes, but one cannot purchase used food.

No, one cannot buy used food, but one does not pay taxes on the amount of food necessary to survive. That is precisely the point of the prebate, to make a certain amount of utilities, clothes, food, etc. tax-exempt. Is this progressive in nature? Yes. However, the purchase of goods over and above those which qualify for the Fair Tax really are very close to voluntary.

Lie #2:the FairTax rate would be 23 percent.

The inclusive/exclusive argument is legitimate, but suggesting that Americans have any idea how much of their gross income goes into taxes today is totally irresponsible. The truth is that taxes are always going to be 'hidden' in some way, but with the Fair Tax the result is the same. A product is marked $10 on the shelf, and at the register you give the cashier $10 for it. The individual consumer may not know or care what percentage of that $10 goes to the store and what percentage goes to the government, but it doesn't matter. All the consumer must consider is whether or not he is willing to trade $10 for the product.

Lie #3: the FairTax would abolish the IRS.

Whatever replaces the IRS under the Fair Tax would not resemble one another much at all. Any tax collection scheme must necessarily have collectors who collect the tax, and it will almost necessarily have auditors to determine who didn't pay the amount levied against him. The only alternative is to have NO taxation whatsoever, which would either rely on voluntary funding of government, or no government. While I am no fan of the concept of government, there are a small number of functions that are best performed by a governing body, and in order to do so, some funds are needed. In the end, I'd rather take my chances on a system which oversees States or businesses as whole entities, as would be done under the Fair Tax plan, instead of the IRS model where each individual person is subject to audit and/or imprisonment on the whim of a government agent. Ideally, everyone would pay the amount he owes according to a perfectly equal system, but we're nowhere near that and pretending we are is not beneficial to actually getting to that point.

Problem #3: The FairTax is an income redistribution scheme.

Absolutely right. However, I believe that one of the real benefits to the Fair Tax plan would be to open the eyes of Americans currently oblivious to the enormous amounts of capital being taken out of the marketplace by governments. Again, the Fair Tax plan can be viewed as the first step in a long process of reversing the welfare mentality currently infecting the minds of most Americans.

Problem #4: The FairTax creates new tax collectors.

This argument is a non-starter. Doctors and garbage collectors already collect taxes. They collect the Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from their employees, as well as every other tax levied against a business. Is the author contending that doctors or lawyers today don't spend time and resources complying with tax laws? Surely under the Fair Tax plan, the time and energy spent on compliance would be reduced dramatically from where it is now.

Will a teenage babysitter be required to collect the FairTax from her neighbors?

Yes, just as she is currently liable for paying tax on her income under today's system. Just as no system is perfect, no collection method will ever be perfect. People have been cheating the tax collector since the first tax was levied, and there always will be tax dodgers. Permitting perfection to become the enemy of good in this case serves no one.

Problem #5:The FairTax creates new taxes.

Yes, however market forces would drive down the prices of goods or services, so again the net effect seems to be relatively minor, especially when combined with the huge increase workers would see in their income. Ultimately, people's income will go up dramatically while the prices they pay would only rise slightly, if at all.

Problem #6: The FairTax creates new taxpayers.

Here the author tries to have it both ways. Earlier, he lamented that the Fair Tax is progressive in that many people and entities enjoy the benefits of government without bearing a share of the burden. Now, the author argues the opposite. Frankly, I'd prefer to spread the tax paying burden across as many individuals as possible, rather than concentrating it to only a select few. Perhaps if the non-profits and churches were forced to pay taxes, they would fuel the movement to limit government and to abolish its agencies which serve no legitimate purpose. Again, the end result seems to be a positive one.

Problem #7: The FairTax makes it easier for the federal government to raise taxes.

Of course it does, however if the rate is kept static across all class lines, then a politician who wishes to raise revenue by raising taxes must justify doing so to the poor and the wealthy alike. Today, the politicians play the class warfare games, usually resulting in the wealthier people losing because they are fewer in number. Having one single rate for everyone would eliminate the opportunity for politicians to spread lies and deceptions as well as making revenue receipts contingent on American consumerism, which would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The better the economy works, the more consumers spend, the more the government raises. Making the government the last to get a cut of the economic pie instead of the first can only be a postive move.

Problem #8: The FairTax makes it easier for state governments to raise taxes.

As if raising taxes today is somehow difficult?

Problem #11: The FairTax has great potential for fraud.

As does any other tax system, due to the natural inclination of people to avoid paying taxes whenever possible.

Since every head of household would have one of these cards, there would be a great chance of criminals preying on people for their cards. There is also the possibility of counterfeiting, resulting in massive theft from the taxpayers.

Here, the author makes a point with no evidence whatsoever to back up the claim. Criminals also prey on people for their credit and debit cards issued by private banks, yet we've managed to survive the onslaught of the predators. While no system is perfect, I suspect that government issued debit cards would be at least as difficult to counterfeit as other non-currency methods of payment, so it's a moot point.

Problem #12:The FairTax has the potential to turn thousands of law-abiding Americans into criminals.

The IRS already does that. Virtually everyone submits an incomplete or fraudulent W-2 statement annually, not to mention, we are currently required to sign the form attesting to its accuracy, subject to a felony. Therefore, under the current system, most Americans are felons for no reason other than the complexity of the law they are supposed to follow. I cannot believe that the Fair Tax plan wouldn't improve this dramatically, though no plan will ever eliminate all tax cheats.

Problem #13: The FairTax does not repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.

The author has finally hit on the single most important issue revolving around the Fair Tax plan. I would much prefer to see the 16th Amendment repealed, or declared rightly to never have been legally passed in the first place, before any attempt is made to alter or abolish the IRS, because otherwise we'll certainly end up with a federal sales tax AND a federal income tax.

Problem #16: The FairTax doesn't even begin to address the root of the problem.

I disagree. I think the Fair Tax begins to turn the tide around, and bring to the forefront of American debate the proper role of government, and the enormous amount of money it collects today from the marketplace. Trying to go from where we are today, with most Americans either embracing the welfare state or having no idea how large the welfare state really is, will never work. The most important step is to make government revenue contingent upon the financial well-being of Americans and our markets, and by giving the federal government the last bite of the apple via the Fair Tax, rather than the first through payroll withholding taxes, a tremendous stride forward will have been made.

Problem #17: The FairTax makes welfare universal. Millions of people who never took a dime from other taxpayers in the form of food stamps, SSI, AFDC, Medicaid, WIC, or housing assistance will now be on the federal dole via the prebate.

Receiving a portion of taxes paid back from the government constitutes 'being on the dole' no more than does an employee receiving a refund in April after filing a tax return which shows that more was collected than was due. The bottom line is that the cash register at the stores which collect the taxes under the Fair Tax has no idea how much that customer owes or has paid. Thus, all purchases are taxed in the interest of simplicity, and then each person is refunded an amount for the taxes he paid or will pay for things which are not intended to be taxed in the first place.

Boortz does refer to Frank Chodorov (1887â€“1966), reminding us that he "once observed that, by enacting the income tax, the American government was proclaiming that all wealth belonged to the government, and whatever wealth the government did not seize from the person who created it should be looked on as a concessionâ€”a gift from the government." But Boortz doesn't quote Chodorov, and he gives no source that he is referencing. He subtly seems to imply that Chodorov was opposed to the income tax because it was an income tax and that, therefore, he might be inclined to support the FairTax if he were alive. But this couldn't possibly be true because Chodorov considered taxation itself to be robbery .

Unless and until a model of government is proposed which needs no revenue to operate, eliminating all taxes means eliminating government. I believe that a government which protects the rights of individuals is both beneficial and necessary, and therefore I am willing to assume a fraction of the burden needed to sustain a very limited few governmental roles, primarily the maintenance of law and order through police, courts, and prisons.

In the end, the Fair Tax plan leaves much to be desired, and the fundamental principle of the author of this article is correct that the Fair Tax plan does not directly attack the welfare mentality of Americans or our government, but it does represent a dramatic improvement over the system we currently have in place.

Were the author to propose a clear alternative other than to merely proclaim that America's welfare mentality is the root propblem, I would be inclined to consider it. However, declaring a problem and illustrating a set of preferred circumstances means nothing without a way to get from where we are now to where some of us are trying to go (low taxes, limited government,...).

Simply saying 'the problem of the ever-increasing, ever-intruding, ever-destroying welfare/warfare state ' exists does nothing to reverse the trend towards bigger and more intrusive government. Do you have a better idea than the one outlined by the Fair Tax book?
Fair Tax

Private property...

2005-12-13T15:49:00.000-05:00

The American left would have you believe that government regulation of business are necessary because otherwise the corporate executives would virtually enslave the worker while rewarding himself in a tremendously disproportionate manner.

However, they believe that various government officials don't carry out the same income redistribution schemes, always to their own benefit, despite the fact that these very officials are they who carry out the investigations into possible criminal behavior. Are we to expect that these people will prosecute themselves?

No, and in the end, I'd rather take my chances on a limited government which protected the rights of people to operate in the free markets to secure our own well-being. At least in the market, I have the choice of employers and as a consumer I can speak with my purchasing habits.

When the government is allowed to pull the strings of the national economy, I have no ability to alter the course of the policies with which I must cope, other than to vote in elections managed by the state, use courtrooms overseen by the state, and oppose armies of lawyers funded limitlessly by the state.

How can any self-respecting American patriot consider this sort of massive fraud 'freedom'?

The simplicity of this dilemna can be seen easily if one considers the following:

Most of us know that if you buy a television, it is your property. If someone takes it away from you, he has committed the crime of theft or burglary.

Therefore, if that television is your property, whatever you traded for it must also be your property, for otherwise you would have had no right to trade it away as it would have belonged to someone other than yourself, and in that case you would be guilty of theft or burglary.

Usually, a person takes cash to a store and buys a television, therefore that cash must be his property. But where did he get that cash? Most likely he traded his labor to an employer who gave him cash in return.

Going one step further, a man's labor must belong to him for were it to belong to another, we would properly recongize that to be slavery, incorrectly thought to have been abolished by Abraham Lincoln after the Civil War.

So, while a man's labor is his property, so to is whatever he may be able to acquire in exchange for his labor. Just as I am able to use my cash for a television or a bicycle, so too may a man use his labor for what he wishes, or not at all.

In the case that he chooses to trade his labor for money, that money must belong to him in its entirety, because the labor belonged to him similarly in its entirety. However, nothing could be further from the mindset of the modern American who routinely accepts the claims laid upon the fruits of his labor by a government which requires him to forfeit his property in exchange for whatever services it wishes to provide, yet all the while not offering the man an opportunity to decline the offer of the government.

As it carries out this tyranny of punishing those who attempt to withhold their own property from thieves and pillagers, the government tells us all the while that this system is known as 'freedom'. I must conclude that our founding fathers would adamantly disagree.

As Michael Rozeff asks:

What sort of Republic would this be if it had been founded by the Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, Bidens, and McCains?

Loss of freedom in America...

2005-12-13T14:30:00.000-05:00

In a very logical way, Michael Rozeff attempts to define the concept of 'financial freedom'. His column is linked today on Lew Rockwell.

Majority votes for Congressmen or by Congressmen do not create valid claims on your income, because there is no logical or valid way for any number of other folks to show that they have a right to take away from you what you have earned.

If you agreed in advance to abide by whatever the majority ruled, then the majority would have a valid claim. Show me someone who has signed such an agreement, please. If you show me such a person, I will show you a fool. If you did sign such an agreement, you’d be placing your life in the hands of others. You’d be running the risk that they make you a slave.

Freedom means not being forced to pay income taxes, withholding taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, medicaid taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, estate taxes, plus a bevy of other taxes like gasoline taxes and sales taxes.

Liberty

National socialism...

2005-12-13T14:12:00.000-05:00

From a recent column, linked today at Lew Rockwell:

John T. Flynn saw Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal as an American transposition of Fascism. Garet Garrett, another critic of Roosevelt, understood that the United States was undergoing a revolution — of the kind Aristotle had called “revolution within the form.” America was not so different from its enemies as most Americans liked to believe. By now it’s a little late for conservatism; most of the things worth conserving were destroyed a long time ago.

Still, “superficial” differences can be important. If all modern states are versions of national socialism, I’d rather live under one with habeas corpus and freedom of the press than under one without them. I’d rather be permitted to speak my mind than forbidden to.

But let’s be clear about this. Americans are still permitted to do a great many things, though not as many things as their ancestors could take for granted. Fine. But permission isn’t freedom. The privilege of a subject isn’t the right of a free man. If you can own only what the government permits you to own, then in essence the government owns you. We no longer tell the state what our rights are; it tells us.

Such is the servitude Americans are now accustomed to under an increasingly bureaucratic state. Permission, often in the form of legal licensing, is the residue of the old freedom; but we’re supposed to think that this is still “the land of the free,” and that we owe our freedom to the state, its laws, and especially its wars. The more the state grows — that is, the more it fulfills the character of national socialism — the freer we’re told we are.

Socialism

New World Order is here...

2005-12-13T12:17:00.000-05:00

Goldwater sees elitist sentiments threatening liberties

CFR Membership list?

When I watch modern politics and the phony news coverage of them, I concluded that the globalists use people's unwillingness to consider "conspiracy" theories to their advantage. People don't want to take the time to investigate "conspiracy" theories, and they don't want their beliefs that things are as they appear to be challenged.

Is it really that hard to believe that there are "secret" forces pulling the strings behind the scenes that are presented to the American people every day in our courtrooms, our media outlets, our college campuses, and our political rhetoric?

How else does one explain the virtual media blackout of whole segments of the American people, namely the far-right nationalists who are growing in number?

The 'panel' on FNC's Brit Hume show pretends that Fred Barnes is representative of the conservatives in America when he is actually a 'neocon', essentially an international socialist?

Michael Savage has been effectively blacked out of the mainstream media, especially since his brief stint on MSNBC, despite having 3 NYT best sellers?

Sean Hannity works for ABC radio, the same ABC he supposedly bashes every day for being part of the liberally biased MSM?

Nobody in the American government has been fired for the 'tragedy' that occurred on 9/11/01, in fact several members of the failed government have been given medals and awards for their 'service'?

Timothy McVeigh was rushed to the death chamber before attempts were made to fully investigate his connections with Saddam Hussein, yet within years America is at war with Saddam because of his supposed terror ties?

Historical timeline to the NWO...

2005-12-13T11:56:00.000-05:00

This page isn't the prettiest on the web, but it has oodles of fascinating links about the history and rise of the international socialist movement which I believe currently has a grasp upon the highest ranks of the United States government, including members of the Senate and key figures in the White House.

New World Order

Katrina bigotry...

2005-12-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

Given that 67% of pre-Katrina New Orleans residents were black, I think the fact that 41% of the deaths there were suffered by caucasians illustrates racism and bigotry on the part of rescue workers and various government officials. Clearly these anti-white policies carried out by Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco must be addressed, and clear explnanations given as to why so many whites, specifically the elderly, were left to die while the relief efforts were directed towards the black community.

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the stats on this.

Katrina