I would like to take a moment away for the political part of my life that fuels this blog. Let me say thanks to all who have come to my blog. I hope you enjoy you time here, and i hope everything that is on here, whether it is from me or from others, makes sense to each of you. I strive to do nothing more than make a sensible out of the unsensible world of Politics. I hope that we will one day win a free America for ALL America. So thanks to everyone that makes this possible, by their time spent reading my rants.
Please continue to enjoy, and please feel fee to give me feedback, and pass it on to your friends and family. There is nothing more important to me than to further this cause.
Anyway, back to my main reason for this post. I am based in South Carolina, so when i look at the analysis of views to this site, which is a cool thing that comes indirectly with this blog, it doesn't surprise me very much to see that most views come from this state (mainly because i have told a good number of people about my site). However i looked today and i noticed something quite interesting. Since it is not the easiest to find when doing a search, i would to thank the people from the following areas:
Madison, Alabama
Millersville, Maryland
St Ann, Missouri
Fresno, California
Now for the people viewing from these cities, send me an email to let me know who you are so i can truly say thank you, and also pass on the word of this blog.
Now i don't want to forget all the people in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia that have been the main source making this site be what it is. Continue the great job, and pass it on to others.
Right now this blog is getting about 75 to 100 hits a week. With your help we can get this up to 100 or more per day. The sky's the limit.
Thanks Again. Truly. And as always, i sign off saying....
Viva Liberty!!
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Gun Grabbing Schemes Fizzle
Boston and D.C. Gun Grabbing Schemes Fizzle
Kurt Nimmo
It's not working, much to the displeasure of the Boston cops.
"Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents,
have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would
allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a
warrant," reports the Boston Globe. "The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was
supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times
because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start
date."
It should be dubbed homes outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment. But
thankfully some residents and community groups have a handle on the scheme,
designed to get people accustomed to surrendering their liberty. "One
community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police
officials trying to assuage residents' fears have been drowned out by
criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials."
"Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes
where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns,"
the Globe continues. "Police would only enter homes into which they have
been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the
juveniles."
Bostonians are not buying it, though. It is not so much the flimsy rules
about what is to be searched. It is rather the very idea of allowing police
to enter without justification coupled with a search warrant issued by a
judge.
Meanwhile, in the District of Criminals, the cops are having difficulty with
an anti-Fourth Amendment scheme of their own. "D.C. police are going
door-to-door Monday in one of the city's crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking
residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal
contraband," reports ABC News 7. "The program, called the Safe Homes
Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing
any contraband found by police."
Notice the identical name with the striking difference that the district
scheme will snoop out "other illegal contraband" as well. Of course, this
could be almost anything in your home, epsecially considering the fact
police departments now strive to hire cops with the IQ average of a dullard,
unable to tell rosemary from marijunana and table salt from cocaine.
In an effort to soften people up - in other words, brainwash those least
able to resist, the kids - the D.C. police "department initiated its program
by distributing literature at police stations and Boys and Girls Clubs to
gauge public interest. It plans to begin the searches in two weeks."
"Police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said the Safe Home program attempts to
reach parents or guardians who think or know their children have guns and
will offer amnesty for certain gun- and drug-possession charges," reports
the Washington Times.
For "certain gun- and drug-possession charges," in short for none, as the
point will be to show off the program's smashing success and the number of
criminals apprehended.
In response, the ACLU dispatched workers to hand out window signs. "To the
Police: NO CONSENT TO SEARCH OUR HOME," the signs declare.
Of course, this will surely anger the police and the government, under
orders to induce compliance and obedience in the masses, beginning with the
children at their Boys and Girls Clubs. As Orwell knew, subserviance to the
state begins with the little ones.
"D.C. Council member Marion Barry said the plan violates the Fourth
Amendment, which bars illegal search and seizure. He also said it infringes
on parental responsibility."
It looks like our rulers will have to go back to the drawing table on this
one. Or they may be obliged to engineer another 9/11 or Katrina event to
break down the will of the people, most who simply want to be left alone
without police intervention and the intrusions of the state.
© 2008 Alex Jones
Viva Liberty!
Kurt Nimmo
It's not working, much to the displeasure of the Boston cops.
"Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents,
have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would
allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a
warrant," reports the Boston Globe. "The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was
supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times
because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start
date."
It should be dubbed homes outside the purview of the Fourth Amendment. But
thankfully some residents and community groups have a handle on the scheme,
designed to get people accustomed to surrendering their liberty. "One
community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police
officials trying to assuage residents' fears have been drowned out by
criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials."
"Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes
where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns,"
the Globe continues. "Police would only enter homes into which they have
been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the
juveniles."
Bostonians are not buying it, though. It is not so much the flimsy rules
about what is to be searched. It is rather the very idea of allowing police
to enter without justification coupled with a search warrant issued by a
judge.
Meanwhile, in the District of Criminals, the cops are having difficulty with
an anti-Fourth Amendment scheme of their own. "D.C. police are going
door-to-door Monday in one of the city's crime-plagued neighborhoods, asking
residents for permission to search their homes for guns and other illegal
contraband," reports ABC News 7. "The program, called the Safe Homes
Initiative, will offer homeowners and renters limited amnesty for possessing
any contraband found by police."
Notice the identical name with the striking difference that the district
scheme will snoop out "other illegal contraband" as well. Of course, this
could be almost anything in your home, epsecially considering the fact
police departments now strive to hire cops with the IQ average of a dullard,
unable to tell rosemary from marijunana and table salt from cocaine.
In an effort to soften people up - in other words, brainwash those least
able to resist, the kids - the D.C. police "department initiated its program
by distributing literature at police stations and Boys and Girls Clubs to
gauge public interest. It plans to begin the searches in two weeks."
"Police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said the Safe Home program attempts to
reach parents or guardians who think or know their children have guns and
will offer amnesty for certain gun- and drug-possession charges," reports
the Washington Times.
For "certain gun- and drug-possession charges," in short for none, as the
point will be to show off the program's smashing success and the number of
criminals apprehended.
In response, the ACLU dispatched workers to hand out window signs. "To the
Police: NO CONSENT TO SEARCH OUR HOME," the signs declare.
Of course, this will surely anger the police and the government, under
orders to induce compliance and obedience in the masses, beginning with the
children at their Boys and Girls Clubs. As Orwell knew, subserviance to the
state begins with the little ones.
"D.C. Council member Marion Barry said the plan violates the Fourth
Amendment, which bars illegal search and seizure. He also said it infringes
on parental responsibility.
It looks like our rulers will have to go back to the drawing table on this
one. Or they may be obliged to engineer another 9/11 or Katrina event to
break down the will of the people, most who simply want to be left alone
without police intervention and the intrusions of the state.
© 2008 Alex Jones
Viva Liberty!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Because We Can
"Because you can" is a poor reason
by Robert Ronald Smith
How foolish we can be when life seems easy. For some 20 years, I've watching friends and neighbors acting foolishly, feasting on the liberal mortgage market and a home market that seemed forever escalating in value. Easy credit and a housing-value bubble seemed to go on forever, sucking in more and more people who seemed to assume that the "boom" would last forever. Many are now faced with grim outlooks... homes that are decreasing in value while mortgages and income to pay them are not.
Many simply overextended themselves by any standards, because easy mortgage credit made it possible. I was fortunate to bail out of home ownership before the nosedive. I made personal choices that decreased my income severely, and sold my house, at a profit, and under threat of foreclosure. Probably dumb luck, but 20 years ago, after a costly divorce, I had such bad credit that I never expected to own another house anyway. Bailing out of a pension is all that made it possible.
By the time I sold, the "bubble" was still inflated, my children were grown and I no longer had need of all the space. Despite bad credit and a foreclosure in progress, I still could have refinanced to keep the house. That astonished me. I told a mortgage rep that "I wouldn't loan money to me"... but, mortgage companies would. I had enough sense to decline. Many others did not. A significant number of people are now forced to simply walk away from their homes, leaving them to the holder of their mortgage... because their mortgage(s) are higher than the deflated value of their home.
For most of my life, it just wasn't possible to get into such trouble. Credit was sensibly tight. The first house I bought was with zero down payment, but only because it was under the GI Bill. At the time, that was the only way to buy without a substantial down payment. People used to save for many, many years to accumulate a down payment. My parents didn't own a home until my father was past the age of 60.
Since then, expectations of young people have skyrocketed, and home ownership has seemed available almost from the time they began earning an income, and so many simply dove into debt.
What changed? People loaning money didn't just get stupid. They were pushed and prodded, and lured, by government, into loosening credit and taking on riskier borrowers. Politicians, perhaps actually believing the farce that they could "control" our economy, encouraged bad risk and even lured lenders by buying mortgage debts and forcing interest rates down at the same time they were deflating the value of the dollar. Politicians campaigned against what they called "discriminatory lending" (which was actually common-sense risk assessment), demanding that lenders lower their standards and lend to prospects they would have once justifiably rejected. That pressure lured in lenders and borrowers alike... it set aside financially reasonable evaluation. Easy credit did create a housing boom, but, in so doing, it may have set up our economy for serious destruction.
The housing boom (bubble is more accurate) pulled in untold new developers and contractors to supply the houses for all the new buyers. Shoddy contractors found a ready and gullible market of younger and trusting buyers. Realty firms grew far larger to handle all the buying and selling(churning) that accompanied rapidly-escalating home prices. Remodeling even relatively new homes using 2nd mortgage money became common, giving rise to big-box do-it-yourself stores.
Government, meanwhile, became accustomed to being involved in housing matters, and cities began facilitating developments themselves, through TIFF financing, taking older homes and businesses via eminent domain, and pushing new and expensive housing construction. Along with their push for newer housing, cities made building codes more restrictive and expensive to follow, again helping to handicap older homes to the advantage of newer ones.
All of this government interference raised the cost of everything involved in home construction and maintenance. Taxes climbed, maintenance costs climbed, insurance costs climbed. Licensing of all kinds of contractors reduced competition, which raised prices.
Who is suffering as a result of all this government tinkering of housing? The answer to that is obvious... the poorest of those who got sucked into the housing bubble... the very ones government was pretending to give advantage to. I use the word "pretending" with intent, because any objective observer during this period of time knew what the downside to all that intervention had to be. Any politician who didn't know should never have had the power to interfere. Either we're electing people with no financial sense at all, or we're electing people who have their own ways of profiting from the inevitable suffering of the casualties of a government-induced catastrophe.
Government power always has destructive results, which is why libertarians push so hard for the reduction of government power. Government had no business interfering in the mortgage or building industries, and they have taken what was once a sensible part of our lives and turned it into a financial trap for the unsuspecting.
Now they're tinkering more, in a feeble attempt to help some of those they've destroyed. We should all know that those new "efforts" are political in nature too, and will only make the damage worse. Nothing works like the free market. No individual or company, without the influence of government, would have written the mortgages that are failing now. Most of those people now losing their homes wouldn't have been able to finance them, and wouldn't have been sucked into a busted housing bubble.
Only government can create catastrophes of such proportions. Government officials refuse to accept the title of this article. They believe that because they can do something that will sound good and even benefit some people, that they should do it.
They are notorious for not looking into the future, because they know they will not be held accountable for future results, nor will the future losses affect them personally. Their natural tendency is to do whatever will please voters or contributors in the short run, at the expense of everyone else in the long run.
Politicians, of both major parties, have screwed our economy almost beyond recognition. What was an exciting, vibrant, and rapidly-expanding economy has turned so sour that it's in danger of causing recession around the globe. Despite that, Americans will no doubt go to the polls in November and return precisely more of the same into office. We do have a choice, but in order to choose it, we will all have to ignore all the money being spent to lure us once more into self-destruction.
Viva Liberty!
by Robert Ronald Smith
How foolish we can be when life seems easy. For some 20 years, I've watching friends and neighbors acting foolishly, feasting on the liberal mortgage market and a home market that seemed forever escalating in value. Easy credit and a housing-value bubble seemed to go on forever, sucking in more and more people who seemed to assume that the "boom" would last forever. Many are now faced with grim outlooks... homes that are decreasing in value while mortgages and income to pay them are not.
Many simply overextended themselves by any standards, because easy mortgage credit made it possible. I was fortunate to bail out of home ownership before the nosedive. I made personal choices that decreased my income severely, and sold my house, at a profit, and under threat of foreclosure. Probably dumb luck, but 20 years ago, after a costly divorce, I had such bad credit that I never expected to own another house anyway. Bailing out of a pension is all that made it possible.
By the time I sold, the "bubble" was still inflated, my children were grown and I no longer had need of all the space. Despite bad credit and a foreclosure in progress, I still could have refinanced to keep the house. That astonished me. I told a mortgage rep that "I wouldn't loan money to me"... but, mortgage companies would. I had enough sense to decline. Many others did not. A significant number of people are now forced to simply walk away from their homes, leaving them to the holder of their mortgage... because their mortgage(s) are higher than the deflated value of their home.
For most of my life, it just wasn't possible to get into such trouble. Credit was sensibly tight. The first house I bought was with zero down payment, but only because it was under the GI Bill. At the time, that was the only way to buy without a substantial down payment. People used to save for many, many years to accumulate a down payment. My parents didn't own a home until my father was past the age of 60.
Since then, expectations of young people have skyrocketed, and home ownership has seemed available almost from the time they began earning an income, and so many simply dove into debt.
What changed? People loaning money didn't just get stupid. They were pushed and prodded, and lured, by government, into loosening credit and taking on riskier borrowers. Politicians, perhaps actually believing the farce that they could "control" our economy, encouraged bad risk and even lured lenders by buying mortgage debts and forcing interest rates down at the same time they were deflating the value of the dollar. Politicians campaigned against what they called "discriminatory lending" (which was actually common-sense risk assessment), demanding that lenders lower their standards and lend to prospects they would have once justifiably rejected. That pressure lured in lenders and borrowers alike... it set aside financially reasonable evaluation. Easy credit did create a housing boom, but, in so doing, it may have set up our economy for serious destruction.
The housing boom (bubble is more accurate) pulled in untold new developers and contractors to supply the houses for all the new buyers. Shoddy contractors found a ready and gullible market of younger and trusting buyers. Realty firms grew far larger to handle all the buying and selling(churning) that accompanied rapidly-escalating home prices. Remodeling even relatively new homes using 2nd mortgage money became common, giving rise to big-box do-it-yourself stores.
Government, meanwhile, became accustomed to being involved in housing matters, and cities began facilitating developments themselves, through TIFF financing, taking older homes and businesses via eminent domain, and pushing new and expensive housing construction. Along with their push for newer housing, cities made building codes more restrictive and expensive to follow, again helping to handicap older homes to the advantage of newer ones.
All of this government interference raised the cost of everything involved in home construction and maintenance. Taxes climbed, maintenance costs climbed, insurance costs climbed. Licensing of all kinds of contractors reduced competition, which raised prices.
Who is suffering as a result of all this government tinkering of housing? The answer to that is obvious... the poorest of those who got sucked into the housing bubble... the very ones government was pretending to give advantage to. I use the word "pretending" with intent, because any objective observer during this period of time knew what the downside to all that intervention had to be. Any politician who didn't know should never have had the power to interfere. Either we're electing people with no financial sense at all, or we're electing people who have their own ways of profiting from the inevitable suffering of the casualties of a government-induced catastrophe.
Government power always has destructive results, which is why libertarians push so hard for the reduction of government power. Government had no business interfering in the mortgage or building industries, and they have taken what was once a sensible part of our lives and turned it into a financial trap for the unsuspecting.
Now they're tinkering more, in a feeble attempt to help some of those they've destroyed. We should all know that those new "efforts" are political in nature too, and will only make the damage worse. Nothing works like the free market. No individual or company, without the influence of government, would have written the mortgages that are failing now. Most of those people now losing their homes wouldn't have been able to finance them, and wouldn't have been sucked into a busted housing bubble.
Only government can create catastrophes of such proportions. Government officials refuse to accept the title of this article. They believe that because they can do something that will sound good and even benefit some people, that they should do it.
They are notorious for not looking into the future, because they know they will not be held accountable for future results, nor will the future losses affect them personally. Their natural tendency is to do whatever will please voters or contributors in the short run, at the expense of everyone else in the long run.
Politicians, of both major parties, have screwed our economy almost beyond recognition. What was an exciting, vibrant, and rapidly-expanding economy has turned so sour that it's in danger of causing recession around the globe. Despite that, Americans will no doubt go to the polls in November and return precisely more of the same into office. We do have a choice, but in order to choose it, we will all have to ignore all the money being spent to lure us once more into self-destruction.
Viva Liberty!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE GOP
March 25, 2008
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE GOP!
By Chuck Baldwin
I think it is time that we all stood up and gave the Republican Party a big
round of applause. I mean, they have done us all a huge favor. By an
overwhelming majority, the GOP has prevented a potential plague from
enveloping these United States of America, and I think it is time that we
acknowledged it. Yes, the GOP stopped a potential catastrophe. Without the
combined efforts of millions of Republicans, there is no telling what kind
of disaster might have ensued. Let's hear it for the GOP! Hip Hip Hooray!
For a few minutes there, I thought the GOP might have lost its mind, but I
am glad to report that all is well with the Republican Party. The
international bankers and oil companies, and the military-industrial
complex, as well as the presidents of Mexico and Canada, can breathe easy.
With John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the globalist power
brokers who have dominated the last three Presidential administrations can
know that they are still in charge. There will be no changing of the guard
this November.
It was scary there for a while. You see, there was this kook who was running
for the Republican nomination that had the potential to upset the applecart
real good. But thankfully, the fine people within the GOP rose to the
occasion and beat back the attempts of his nutty supporters to vault him to
the nomination.
After all, just think what would have taken place if this kook Ron Paul had
won the Republican nomination for President. This nut case actually believes
that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Imagine that.
That means he would never take America to war except with a Declaration of
War by Congress. Think how such a thing would prevent America's meddling and
interventionism worldwide. Think of the billions and even trillions of tax
dollars that would not need to be spent overseas. Think of how much money
Halliburton would lose. Think of how much money the Federal Reserve bankers
would lose by not being able to loan money to the U.S. government. It is too
ghastly to think about.
This Ron Paul kook would also have put a stop to the incessant spying on the
American people by their own federal government. Egad! This Paul character
would have set America back two hundred years. Think of it. No more illegal
wiretaps. No more reading private emails, letters, and telegrams. No more
harassment by the BATFE of law-abiding firearms dealers for honest errors in
paperwork. No more using the wars on "terror" and "drugs" to violate the
Fourth Amendment. Think of the money that would be lost by the feds not
confiscating the private property of the American people.
In addition, if this Ron Paul nut had actually become President, he might
have succeeded in abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and overturning
the Sixteenth Amendment. Holy Horrors! Can you imagine the tragedy that
would have ensued? No more income taxes. No more tax forms to fill out. No
more IRS agents arresting hard-working citizens for "tax evasion." No more
government tracking of our private financial transactions. Think of the US
attorneys whose services would no longer be necessary. Imagine that. The
federal government would actually be required to live within its means; it
could no longer raise taxes, because there would be no more taxes to raise.
And if all of the above is not bad enough, this Ron Paul kook would actually
demand that the federal government obey the Tenth Amendment. This, all by
itself, would reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at
least fifty percent. Imagine if the American people suddenly had the federal
government out of their pocketbooks and off their backs? What would they do
with all that newfound freedom? It is too scary to contemplate.
Do not worry, however. Thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican
Party, John McCain will carry their standard into the November elections.
Yes, my dear friends, David Rockefeller and his fellow travelers at the
Council on Foreign Relations can rest easy. Should McCain win the general
election, they will retain their influence in the White House. Indeed, we
can all rest easier knowing that John McCain will be the Republican nominee
for President.
And did I mention the advantage a John McCain Presidency will provide to
incumbents in future elections? Because John McCain does not believe in the
U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment means nothing to him. This is good,
because he can use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to promote his
McCain/Feingold bill that would make it illegal for citizens to voice their
concerns and opinions regarding the voting records of incumbents during a
general election. That means those sinister organizations such as the
National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America will no longer be able
to publicly promote their views regarding the anti-Second Amendment voting
records of congressmen and senators.
That Ron Paul kook would never have tolerated such a law as McCain/Feingold.
But thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican Party, we do not need
to worry about these little inconveniences such as the First and Second
Amendments (or any of the other articles within the Bill of Rights, for that
matter), because they wisely selected John McCain to be their
standard-bearer.
Furthermore, because the good men and women of the GOP decided to nominate
John McCain, we can look forward to one hundred years of war in the Middle
East. We can all anticipate the opportunity of sending our troops into
harm's way all over the world to promote the interests of international
corporations, nation-building, and other U.N. machinations.
Had that nut Ron Paul been elected, he would have practiced a
non-interventionist foreign policy. He would have sought peace with all
nations. And, instead of preemptively invading foreign countries, he would
have dealt constitutionally with terrorists, resulting in their capture or
death, the protection of America, the absence of long-term war, and the
respect of nations throughout the world. Furthermore, that nut Paul would
have refused to use U.S. forces to do the bidding of the United Nations and
other international entities.
However, we do not need to worry about old-fashioned, out-of-date ideas such
as constitutional government, conservative principles, or common sense,
because the fine men and women of the Republican Party wisely chose John
McCain as their presumptive Presidential nominee. Yes, indeed. Let's hear it
for the GOP!
© 2008 Chuck Baldwin
Viva Liberty!
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE GOP!
By Chuck Baldwin
I think it is time that we all stood up and gave the Republican Party a big
round of applause. I mean, they have done us all a huge favor. By an
overwhelming majority, the GOP has prevented a potential plague from
enveloping these United States of America, and I think it is time that we
acknowledged it. Yes, the GOP stopped a potential catastrophe. Without the
combined efforts of millions of Republicans, there is no telling what kind
of disaster might have ensued. Let's hear it for the GOP! Hip Hip Hooray!
For a few minutes there, I thought the GOP might have lost its mind, but I
am glad to report that all is well with the Republican Party. The
international bankers and oil companies, and the military-industrial
complex, as well as the presidents of Mexico and Canada, can breathe easy.
With John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the globalist power
brokers who have dominated the last three Presidential administrations can
know that they are still in charge. There will be no changing of the guard
this November.
It was scary there for a while. You see, there was this kook who was running
for the Republican nomination that had the potential to upset the applecart
real good. But thankfully, the fine people within the GOP rose to the
occasion and beat back the attempts of his nutty supporters to vault him to
the nomination.
After all, just think what would have taken place if this kook Ron Paul had
won the Republican nomination for President. This nut case actually believes
that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Imagine that.
That means he would never take America to war except with a Declaration of
War by Congress. Think how such a thing would prevent America's meddling and
interventionism worldwide. Think of the billions and even trillions of tax
dollars that would not need to be spent overseas. Think of how much money
Halliburton would lose. Think of how much money the Federal Reserve bankers
would lose by not being able to loan money to the U.S. government. It is too
ghastly to think about.
This Ron Paul kook would also have put a stop to the incessant spying on the
American people by their own federal government. Egad! This Paul character
would have set America back two hundred years. Think of it. No more illegal
wiretaps. No more reading private emails, letters, and telegrams. No more
harassment by the BATFE of law-abiding firearms dealers for honest errors in
paperwork. No more using the wars on "terror" and "drugs" to violate the
Fourth Amendment. Think of the money that would be lost by the feds not
confiscating the private property of the American people.
In addition, if this Ron Paul nut had actually become President, he might
have succeeded in abolishing the Internal Revenue Service and overturning
the Sixteenth Amendment. Holy Horrors! Can you imagine the tragedy that
would have ensued? No more income taxes. No more tax forms to fill out. No
more IRS agents arresting hard-working citizens for "tax evasion." No more
government tracking of our private financial transactions. Think of the US
attorneys whose services would no longer be necessary. Imagine that. The
federal government would actually be required to live within its means; it
could no longer raise taxes, because there would be no more taxes to raise.
And if all of the above is not bad enough, this Ron Paul kook would actually
demand that the federal government obey the Tenth Amendment. This, all by
itself, would reduce the size and scope of the federal government by at
least fifty percent. Imagine if the American people suddenly had the federal
government out of their pocketbooks and off their backs? What would they do
with all that newfound freedom? It is too scary to contemplate.
Do not worry, however. Thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican
Party, John McCain will carry their standard into the November elections.
Yes, my dear friends, David Rockefeller and his fellow travelers at the
Council on Foreign Relations can rest easy. Should McCain win the general
election, they will retain their influence in the White House. Indeed, we
can all rest easier knowing that John McCain will be the Republican nominee
for President.
And did I mention the advantage a John McCain Presidency will provide to
incumbents in future elections? Because John McCain does not believe in the
U.S. Constitution, the First Amendment means nothing to him. This is good,
because he can use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to promote his
McCain/Feingold bill that would make it illegal for citizens to voice their
concerns and opinions regarding the voting records of incumbents during a
general election. That means those sinister organizations such as the
National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America will no longer be able
to publicly promote their views regarding the anti-Second Amendment voting
records of congressmen and senators.
That Ron Paul kook would never have tolerated such a law as McCain/Feingold.
But thanks to the fine men and women of the Republican Party, we do not need
to worry about these little inconveniences such as the First and Second
Amendments (or any of the other articles within the Bill of Rights, for that
matter), because they wisely selected John McCain to be their
standard-bearer.
Furthermore, because the good men and women of the GOP decided to nominate
John McCain, we can look forward to one hundred years of war in the Middle
East. We can all anticipate the opportunity of sending our troops into
harm's way all over the world to promote the interests of international
corporations, nation-building, and other U.N. machinations.
Had that nut Ron Paul been elected, he would have practiced a
non-interventionist foreign policy. He would have sought peace with all
nations. And, instead of preemptively invading foreign countries, he would
have dealt constitutionally with terrorists, resulting in their capture or
death, the protection of America, the absence of long-term war, and the
respect of nations throughout the world. Furthermore, that nut Paul would
have refused to use U.S. forces to do the bidding of the United Nations and
other international entities.
However, we do not need to worry about old-fashioned, out-of-date ideas such
as constitutional government, conservative principles, or common sense,
because the fine men and women of the Republican Party wisely chose John
McCain as their presumptive Presidential nominee. Yes, indeed. Let's hear it
for the GOP!
© 2008 Chuck Baldwin
Viva Liberty!
Monday, March 24, 2008
Taking Back the Constitution--A Case for Impeachment
March 21, 2008
Taking Back the Constitution--A Case for Impeaching George W. Bush
by Kevin R. C. GutzmanOn Saturday, March 8, 2008, President George W. Bush vetoed a congressional bill that would have explicitly banned interrogation techniques like waterboarding. In doing so, Bush cemented his worthiness of impeachment. The impeachment power allows Congress to keep the other two branches from grasping at powers that the Constitution gives to the Legislative Branch. Congress is described in Article I of the Constitution, and its structure was the chief issue in the Philadelphia Convention. Why? Because in are public, it is to be the most important branch.
People commonly repeat the idea today that the federal government features three equal branches. This is an error. Congress is to be the most important branch.
The Founders generally feared the power of the executive and assigned the traditional royal powers in foreign policy to Congress instead of the president. The courts were to be even weaker, the "least dangerous" branch.
Yet, over time, the three have come to be more equal. This is the result of Congress's supine attitude toward the other branches' overreaching. When federal courts legislate, Congress does nothing. When presidents and their subordinates-generals, cabinet officials, and others-ignore statutory law, refuse to comply with congressional demands for information, or flat-out lie to Congress, Congress does nothing. Each instance of the other branches' grabbing at congressional power is later cited by that branch as a precedent justifying additional arrogations. Over time, the sum of these usurpations has been to reduce Congress's stature within the federal government, and to make the federal government more unaccountable.
Bush vetoed a law banning a type of torture. Federal law already bans torture in general, but Bush has declared that his administration will continue to reserve the right to inflict this treatment on captives. Called to say whether waterboarding was torture, numerous of Bush's subordinates have refused to answer. The Senate alternately has confirmed their nominations to high office anyway and has simply allowed them to refuse to answer.
Congress's remedy to situations like this, in which the executive flouts clear laws, is to impeach the offenders. It might start in this instance with the attorney general, or it might go straight to the top.
England experienced a similar period of executive overreaching in the 17thcentury. Ultimately, Parliament responded with a series of impeachments. Those culminated in the House of Lords' execution of the king's foremost advisor. From then on, royal advisors were on notice that failure to comply with Parliament's decisions would cost them their heads. This left the matter between Parliament and the king himself. In the end, Charles I paid for his refusal to submit to the authority of the law with his life, and the principle of the king's subordination to the law was established.
The grounds for impeaching Bush extend beyond his simply refusing to be bound by the ban on torture. Bush has demonstrated contempt for Congress's role in the constitutional system in other ways. So, for example, George W. Bush has made extensive use of signing statements to redefine the meanings of statutes he dislikes. While his predecessors have used such statements, Bush has been especially aggressive in saying that he would read particular statutory language with which he disagreed in a way that was satisfactory to him.
One is reminded of the way that Congress has allowed the Supreme Court to behave in a similar way; justices guilty of the same crime against the Constitution merit the treatment Bush merits. Thirdly, Bush merits impeachment because of his ongoing policy of remaking Iraq, even by, as one prominent Bush supporter put it, a hundred-year occupation. He has no constitutional authority for this. Congress has the sole constitutional power to declare war. Its substitute for doing this was a joint resolution empowering the president, in relevant part, to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Unless Iraq poses an ongoing threat to the national security of the United States, Bush no longer has constitutional authority to occupy Iraq. He should remove American troops from that country as soon as possible.
In furtherance of his Iraq policy, Bush has also endeavored to secure perpetual basing in Iraq; Congress should be involved in his efforts in this area, but it has not been. Bush can use the veto power to prevent Congress from legislating itself into this process. The only way for Congress to defend its constitutional role in this area, then, is via the impeachment power.
I do not arrive at this conclusion lightly. In fact, I twice voted for George W. Bush for president. The first time, I did so because I thought that Bush was more likely than Vice President Al Gore to appoint constitutionalist judges, limit federal taxing and spending, and pursue an on interventionist foreign policy. At the time, I was discontented with BillClinton's appointment of judges such as Ruth Ginsburg, sponsorship of the largest nominal tax increase in history, and intervention on the side of the Islamists in Bosnia and Kosovo. I mistrusted the Bush family, but it seemed clearly the preferable option.
The second time around, with incumbent Bush opposed by Sen. John Kerry, who had once promiscuously accused Vietnam veterans such as my father of warcrimes, I had no problem in choosing Bush. It was clear by then that "Compassionate Conservatism" meant reckless spending, but Kerry had neverdone anything, either in foreign policy or in domestic, to please me.
Today, for the reasons described above, Bush should be removed from office. Congressional failure to employ the impeachment remedy against this lawless president will move us further from the original constitutional design toward executive dictatorship, as Bush's behavior will constitute still more precedents for future presidential lawlessness.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to theConstitution, Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic,1776-1840, and, with Thomas E. Woods Jr., Who Killed the Constitution?: TheFate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (forthcoming inJuly).© 2008 Taki's Magazine.
I agree whole heartedly. It is time to Impeach. Impeach anyone in government who does not STAND UP to uphold the Constitution. With that said:
VIVA LIBERTY!
Taking Back the Constitution--A Case for Impeaching George W. Bush
by Kevin R. C. GutzmanOn Saturday, March 8, 2008, President George W. Bush vetoed a congressional bill that would have explicitly banned interrogation techniques like waterboarding. In doing so, Bush cemented his worthiness of impeachment. The impeachment power allows Congress to keep the other two branches from grasping at powers that the Constitution gives to the Legislative Branch. Congress is described in Article I of the Constitution, and its structure was the chief issue in the Philadelphia Convention. Why? Because in are public, it is to be the most important branch.
People commonly repeat the idea today that the federal government features three equal branches. This is an error. Congress is to be the most important branch.
The Founders generally feared the power of the executive and assigned the traditional royal powers in foreign policy to Congress instead of the president. The courts were to be even weaker, the "least dangerous" branch.
Yet, over time, the three have come to be more equal. This is the result of Congress's supine attitude toward the other branches' overreaching. When federal courts legislate, Congress does nothing. When presidents and their subordinates-generals, cabinet officials, and others-ignore statutory law, refuse to comply with congressional demands for information, or flat-out lie to Congress, Congress does nothing. Each instance of the other branches' grabbing at congressional power is later cited by that branch as a precedent justifying additional arrogations. Over time, the sum of these usurpations has been to reduce Congress's stature within the federal government, and to make the federal government more unaccountable.
Bush vetoed a law banning a type of torture. Federal law already bans torture in general, but Bush has declared that his administration will continue to reserve the right to inflict this treatment on captives. Called to say whether waterboarding was torture, numerous of Bush's subordinates have refused to answer. The Senate alternately has confirmed their nominations to high office anyway and has simply allowed them to refuse to answer.
Congress's remedy to situations like this, in which the executive flouts clear laws, is to impeach the offenders. It might start in this instance with the attorney general, or it might go straight to the top.
England experienced a similar period of executive overreaching in the 17thcentury. Ultimately, Parliament responded with a series of impeachments. Those culminated in the House of Lords' execution of the king's foremost advisor. From then on, royal advisors were on notice that failure to comply with Parliament's decisions would cost them their heads. This left the matter between Parliament and the king himself. In the end, Charles I paid for his refusal to submit to the authority of the law with his life, and the principle of the king's subordination to the law was established.
The grounds for impeaching Bush extend beyond his simply refusing to be bound by the ban on torture. Bush has demonstrated contempt for Congress's role in the constitutional system in other ways. So, for example, George W. Bush has made extensive use of signing statements to redefine the meanings of statutes he dislikes. While his predecessors have used such statements, Bush has been especially aggressive in saying that he would read particular statutory language with which he disagreed in a way that was satisfactory to him.
One is reminded of the way that Congress has allowed the Supreme Court to behave in a similar way; justices guilty of the same crime against the Constitution merit the treatment Bush merits. Thirdly, Bush merits impeachment because of his ongoing policy of remaking Iraq, even by, as one prominent Bush supporter put it, a hundred-year occupation. He has no constitutional authority for this. Congress has the sole constitutional power to declare war. Its substitute for doing this was a joint resolution empowering the president, in relevant part, to use force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." Unless Iraq poses an ongoing threat to the national security of the United States, Bush no longer has constitutional authority to occupy Iraq. He should remove American troops from that country as soon as possible.
In furtherance of his Iraq policy, Bush has also endeavored to secure perpetual basing in Iraq; Congress should be involved in his efforts in this area, but it has not been. Bush can use the veto power to prevent Congress from legislating itself into this process. The only way for Congress to defend its constitutional role in this area, then, is via the impeachment power.
I do not arrive at this conclusion lightly. In fact, I twice voted for George W. Bush for president. The first time, I did so because I thought that Bush was more likely than Vice President Al Gore to appoint constitutionalist judges, limit federal taxing and spending, and pursue an on interventionist foreign policy. At the time, I was discontented with BillClinton's appointment of judges such as Ruth Ginsburg, sponsorship of the largest nominal tax increase in history, and intervention on the side of the Islamists in Bosnia and Kosovo. I mistrusted the Bush family, but it seemed clearly the preferable option.
The second time around, with incumbent Bush opposed by Sen. John Kerry, who had once promiscuously accused Vietnam veterans such as my father of warcrimes, I had no problem in choosing Bush. It was clear by then that "Compassionate Conservatism" meant reckless spending, but Kerry had neverdone anything, either in foreign policy or in domestic, to please me.
Today, for the reasons described above, Bush should be removed from office. Congressional failure to employ the impeachment remedy against this lawless president will move us further from the original constitutional design toward executive dictatorship, as Bush's behavior will constitute still more precedents for future presidential lawlessness.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman is the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to theConstitution, Virginia's American Revolution: From Dominion to Republic,1776-1840, and, with Thomas E. Woods Jr., Who Killed the Constitution?: TheFate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (forthcoming inJuly).© 2008 Taki's Magazine.
I agree whole heartedly. It is time to Impeach. Impeach anyone in government who does not STAND UP to uphold the Constitution. With that said:
VIVA LIBERTY!
The Socialist Movenment
This guy definitely makes sense.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis125.htm
March 24, 2008
BACK TO THE 1930s - "PAPIERE, BITTE"
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
As I've indicated many times previously, the power elite wants a World Socialist Government, but how will they get the people of the U.S. to accept Socialism? Well, first there will have to be a crisis. For example, today oil and commodity (e.g., corn) prices are skyrocketing (the price of wheat has tripled in the past 10 months). And with increased demand from China,India, etc., global demand will eventually outrun supply. This crisis will lead to calls for "National Planning" similar to that under FDR in the1930s.
National Planning is a hallmark of Socialism. The British PoliticalEconomic Planning (PEP) organization was sponsored by Fabian Socialists, and in the May 3, 1934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Rep. Louis McFadden quoted PEP member Israel Moses Sief as saying: "Let's go slowly for a while, until we can see how our plan works out in America."
Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith had supported FDR for the presidency in 1932. However, on January 25, 1936, Smith delivered a speech stating: "Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table side by side.. Study the record of the present Administration to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform.
"The current situation has arisen because the power elite has created a global economy via globalization. Prior to this, if there was an economic crisis in one country, many other nations would not be affected. As Pat Wood of the AUGUST REVIEW points out, though, for the first time in history all countries' economies (including stock markets) seem to be rising and falling together. Remember the global impact of the recent mortgage debacle here. It was because banking, investing, lending, etc., are now global. This is not accidental. It's part of the power elite's plan to create a global economic crisis (greatly devalued currencies, stocks, bonds, etc.).A global reduction of credit is leading to a global sale of assets at lower and lower prices, which in turn will affect the global derivatives market,etc.
Pat Wood characterizes what's going to happen as the equivalent of what happened to Enron but on a global scale, and the economies of all the nations of the world will plummet together.This will result in the world's population submitting to the power elite's "International Planning" (for International Socialism) whereby they will manage the world's (and each nation's) economy. The political structure they will form to do that will be a World Socialist Government. This will be what David Rockefeller in his MEMOIRS (2002) called "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will."
Population control is also an important part of the power elite's International Planning. In this regard, they consider people no better than animals upon whom to conduct experiments. For example, Eileen Welsome in THE PLUTONIUM FILES: AMERICA'S SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS IN THE COLD WAR (1999)revealed that 73 disabled children in a Massachusetts schools were spoon-fed oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes, and 829 pregnant women at a Tennessee clinic were given "vitamin cocktails" containing radioactive iron.
These and other horrible experiments by the U.S. government on unknowing and unwilling Americans occurred over a 30-year period. Also during this time, Frederick Jaffe (vice-president of PlannedParenthood-World Population) wrote a memo to Bernard Berelson (president of the Population Council, founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III) on March11, 1969 including "Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact." Among the examples listed was "fertility control agents in water supply," and in early March 2008 newsreports indicated that estrogen (which effects fertility) among otherchemicals had been released into the water supplies of 41 million Americans.
In order to control populations, the power elite obviously has to be able to track them. This will be reminiscent of the 1930s in which the Nazis would request I.D. by saying, "Papiere, bitte" (Papers, please) of those under its control. Everyone also had an Arbeitsbuch containing her or his personal demographic, educational, occupational, etc. information. Today in Communist China, a similar document is the "Dangan." And by 2017 A.D., all British citizens will have a National I.D. card by. In the U.S., Arbeitsbuch-type information started to become available about 10 years ago via ALMIS (America's Labor Market Information System),which was developed by the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. The data tables in ALMIS contain information about employment, occupation projections, wages, layoffs, employers, educational programs, completers (of educational programs), population demographics(e.g., who is located where), and selected economic indicators.
Relevant to a national I.D. in the U.S., on January 11, 2008 Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Security) in a press statement said regarding the"Real I.D. Act" passed by Congress: "There comes a point in time where all the discussion and analysis has to stop.. The time has come to bite the bullet.. Now if a particular state were to say, 'We opt out: we're not going to participate at all,' then the law is very clear: after May of this year,that state's driver's licenses will no longer be acceptable as a form offederal identification for getting on an airplane or getting into a federalbuilding.."The federal government plans to use these "machine-readable" statedriver's licenses, with "uniformity" among the states, as federally-approvedI.D. cards. This will be followed by future federal demands upon the public, and down the road if the people at some point refuse to bow to thesedemands, they could be forced into submission by varying means.
Foreigners in our police forces might be used (the Associated Press on May 16, 2007reported that "the Santa Fe police department is considering the possibilityof recruiting Mexican nationals to fill vacant police jobs"). Or the U.S.military could be used (such forces were used at Waco against the BranchDavidians). Or foreigners in our military could be used (THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR on December 26, 2006 published "U.S. Military May Recruit Foreigners to Serve" by Tom Regan). Or foreign troops could be used( USNORTHCOM reported that on February 14, U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart signed an agreement with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais allowing US and Canadian troops to cross each other's borders during civil emergencies note that "civil" can mean an action by the American people and not just inresponse to an attack from abroad). Or people could be labeled "domestic terrorists" simply by appearing to intend to influence a politician's pro-abortion policy, for example, by saying they won't vote for her or him (Section 802 of the Patriot Act states that the "term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"). Note that one doesn't have to "intend to influence," but only "appear" that way to be considered a "domestic terrorist." Or the President could simply label and imprison a person as an "enemy combatant" whereby they no longer have any Constitutional rights. Regarding this last possibility, it's worth remembering that Winston Churchill onNovember 21, 1943 warned: "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments whether Nazi or Communist. "Regarding all of the aforementioned possibilities, why do you thinkthe Federal government has signed contracts amounting to $385 million withHalliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root to build vast new detentioncamps across the U.S.? Both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly have saidthey don't plan to round up all the illegal aliens in the U.S., so for whom do you think these massive new detention camps are being build? It's notjust for a few foreign terrorists, so that only leaves "domestic terrorists" however the power elite's political puppets are ordered to define that term.That could mean YOU! And note that the first of these single bid contractsto a Halliburton (Vice-President Cheney's former company) subsidiary was signed in 1999 under the Clinton administration. The power elite controls both Democrat and Republican leaders.
The ability of the power elite to enforce its will, of course, reaches far beyond the borders of the U.S. As an example of this, the assassinated Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiker Ali Bhutto, when prime minister of Pakistan wrote IF I AM ASSASSINATED (1979). On page xxvii in the Introduction to this book, one reads regarding his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that the outgoing American ambassador in Islamabad, Pakistansaid "if he (Bhutto) did not back down, he would no longer stay in power." This was confirmed by Tariq Ali (who personally knew Bhutto) in his THE CLASH OF FUNDAMENTALISM (2002) on page 167, where the author write that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited Bhutto in Lahore, Pakistan in 1976 and said "We can de-stablize your government and make a horrible example out of you" if Bhutto continued Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.Tariq Ali then notes that Bhutto continued his program and six months later was driven from office.
Today, Kissinger supports Senator McCain for president, and his fellow power elite agent Zbigniew Brzezinski supports Senator Obama. Senator Clinton, of course, is part of the whole Rhodes scholar globalist network. But how does the power elite keep the electorate from learning what Clinton, Obama or McCain (each of whom has at least 5 prominent CFR advisors) will actually do if elected? It's actually very simple keep news reporters and the public focused on his or her supporters saying something controversial (e.g., the comments of Geraldine Ferraro, Rev. Wright, and the talk-show host in Ohio). As long as reporters cover primarily this, voters will not learn what the candidates' specific positions are on the issues. For example, do we know anything besides the candidates' general policy proposals on the economy, Iraq, education, etc.? No. News reporters haven't pressed for in-depth details regarding any issue. Thus, the power elite's plan is working.
What will likely happen in the area of education, for example, if a Democrat is elected President are more decisions like that of February 28,2008 by Appeals Court Judge H. Walter Croskey in Los Angeles. He ruled that parents have no Constitutional right to homeschool their children, and that students must be taught only by credentialed teachers. Judge Croskey's ruling looks very much like the National Education Association's B-75 HomeSchooling resolution at its 2007 convention. Since homeschooled students typically have higher academic achievement test scores than public school students, this issue is really about separating students from their parents' values. Former NEA president Catherine Barrett admitted as much in the SATURDAY REVIEW OF EDUCATION (Feb. 10, 1973) when she said teaching "basic skills" would be reduced to only one-quarter of the school day, as "the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher.. We will be agents of change."
At the international level, CFR member Carol Bellamy, after being with Morgan-Stanley and managing director of Bear-Stearns (recently sold because of great financial trouble), became executive director of UNICEF where she declared: "The U.N. position is if formal education is not supplied by government, a child's right to schooling is violated. Home schools are not a substitute for formal education." (Bloomsburg, PA PRESS-ENTERPRISE, May 15,1998).
The power elite at the global level wants to eliminate homeschooling,and efforts toward that end have already begun in Germany and other nations.The power elite simply cannot allow parents (usually with traditional values of morality and patriotism) to impart their values to their children. Only the public schools can indoctrinate children with globalism and moral relativism, which are necessary to condition the masses to accept a World Socialist Government.
© 2008 Dennis Cuddy
Viva Liberty!
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis125.htm
March 24, 2008
BACK TO THE 1930s - "PAPIERE, BITTE"
By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
As I've indicated many times previously, the power elite wants a World Socialist Government, but how will they get the people of the U.S. to accept Socialism? Well, first there will have to be a crisis. For example, today oil and commodity (e.g., corn) prices are skyrocketing (the price of wheat has tripled in the past 10 months). And with increased demand from China,India, etc., global demand will eventually outrun supply. This crisis will lead to calls for "National Planning" similar to that under FDR in the1930s.
National Planning is a hallmark of Socialism. The British PoliticalEconomic Planning (PEP) organization was sponsored by Fabian Socialists, and in the May 3, 1934 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Rep. Louis McFadden quoted PEP member Israel Moses Sief as saying: "Let's go slowly for a while, until we can see how our plan works out in America."
Democratic presidential candidate Al Smith had supported FDR for the presidency in 1932. However, on January 25, 1936, Smith delivered a speech stating: "Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table side by side.. Study the record of the present Administration to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform.
"The current situation has arisen because the power elite has created a global economy via globalization. Prior to this, if there was an economic crisis in one country, many other nations would not be affected. As Pat Wood of the AUGUST REVIEW points out, though, for the first time in history all countries' economies (including stock markets) seem to be rising and falling together. Remember the global impact of the recent mortgage debacle here. It was because banking, investing, lending, etc., are now global. This is not accidental. It's part of the power elite's plan to create a global economic crisis (greatly devalued currencies, stocks, bonds, etc.).A global reduction of credit is leading to a global sale of assets at lower and lower prices, which in turn will affect the global derivatives market,etc.
Pat Wood characterizes what's going to happen as the equivalent of what happened to Enron but on a global scale, and the economies of all the nations of the world will plummet together.This will result in the world's population submitting to the power elite's "International Planning" (for International Socialism) whereby they will manage the world's (and each nation's) economy. The political structure they will form to do that will be a World Socialist Government. This will be what David Rockefeller in his MEMOIRS (2002) called "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world, if you will."
Population control is also an important part of the power elite's International Planning. In this regard, they consider people no better than animals upon whom to conduct experiments. For example, Eileen Welsome in THE PLUTONIUM FILES: AMERICA'S SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS IN THE COLD WAR (1999)revealed that 73 disabled children in a Massachusetts schools were spoon-fed oatmeal laced with radioactive isotopes, and 829 pregnant women at a Tennessee clinic were given "vitamin cocktails" containing radioactive iron.
These and other horrible experiments by the U.S. government on unknowing and unwilling Americans occurred over a 30-year period. Also during this time, Frederick Jaffe (vice-president of PlannedParenthood-World Population) wrote a memo to Bernard Berelson (president of the Population Council, founded in 1952 by John D. Rockefeller III) on March11, 1969 including "Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce Fertility, by Universality or Selectivity of Impact." Among the examples listed was "fertility control agents in water supply," and in early March 2008 newsreports indicated that estrogen (which effects fertility) among otherchemicals had been released into the water supplies of 41 million Americans.
In order to control populations, the power elite obviously has to be able to track them. This will be reminiscent of the 1930s in which the Nazis would request I.D. by saying, "Papiere, bitte" (Papers, please) of those under its control. Everyone also had an Arbeitsbuch containing her or his personal demographic, educational, occupational, etc. information. Today in Communist China, a similar document is the "Dangan." And by 2017 A.D., all British citizens will have a National I.D. card by. In the U.S., Arbeitsbuch-type information started to become available about 10 years ago via ALMIS (America's Labor Market Information System),which was developed by the U.S. Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration. The data tables in ALMIS contain information about employment, occupation projections, wages, layoffs, employers, educational programs, completers (of educational programs), population demographics(e.g., who is located where), and selected economic indicators.
Relevant to a national I.D. in the U.S., on January 11, 2008 Michael Chertoff (head of Homeland Security) in a press statement said regarding the"Real I.D. Act" passed by Congress: "There comes a point in time where all the discussion and analysis has to stop.. The time has come to bite the bullet.. Now if a particular state were to say, 'We opt out: we're not going to participate at all,' then the law is very clear: after May of this year,that state's driver's licenses will no longer be acceptable as a form offederal identification for getting on an airplane or getting into a federalbuilding.."The federal government plans to use these "machine-readable" statedriver's licenses, with "uniformity" among the states, as federally-approvedI.D. cards. This will be followed by future federal demands upon the public, and down the road if the people at some point refuse to bow to thesedemands, they could be forced into submission by varying means.
Foreigners in our police forces might be used (the Associated Press on May 16, 2007reported that "the Santa Fe police department is considering the possibilityof recruiting Mexican nationals to fill vacant police jobs"). Or the U.S.military could be used (such forces were used at Waco against the BranchDavidians). Or foreigners in our military could be used (THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR on December 26, 2006 published "U.S. Military May Recruit Foreigners to Serve" by Tom Regan). Or foreign troops could be used( USNORTHCOM reported that on February 14, U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart signed an agreement with Canadian Air Force Lt. Gen. Marc Dumais allowing US and Canadian troops to cross each other's borders during civil emergencies note that "civil" can mean an action by the American people and not just inresponse to an attack from abroad). Or people could be labeled "domestic terrorists" simply by appearing to intend to influence a politician's pro-abortion policy, for example, by saying they won't vote for her or him (Section 802 of the Patriot Act states that the "term 'domestic terrorism' means activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion"). Note that one doesn't have to "intend to influence," but only "appear" that way to be considered a "domestic terrorist." Or the President could simply label and imprison a person as an "enemy combatant" whereby they no longer have any Constitutional rights. Regarding this last possibility, it's worth remembering that Winston Churchill onNovember 21, 1943 warned: "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian governments whether Nazi or Communist. "Regarding all of the aforementioned possibilities, why do you thinkthe Federal government has signed contracts amounting to $385 million withHalliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root to build vast new detentioncamps across the U.S.? Both Democrats and Republicans repeatedly have saidthey don't plan to round up all the illegal aliens in the U.S., so for whom do you think these massive new detention camps are being build? It's notjust for a few foreign terrorists, so that only leaves "domestic terrorists" however the power elite's political puppets are ordered to define that term.That could mean YOU! And note that the first of these single bid contractsto a Halliburton (Vice-President Cheney's former company) subsidiary was signed in 1999 under the Clinton administration. The power elite controls both Democrat and Republican leaders.
The ability of the power elite to enforce its will, of course, reaches far beyond the borders of the U.S. As an example of this, the assassinated Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiker Ali Bhutto, when prime minister of Pakistan wrote IF I AM ASSASSINATED (1979). On page xxvii in the Introduction to this book, one reads regarding his pursuit of a nuclear weapons program that the outgoing American ambassador in Islamabad, Pakistansaid "if he (Bhutto) did not back down, he would no longer stay in power." This was confirmed by Tariq Ali (who personally knew Bhutto) in his THE CLASH OF FUNDAMENTALISM (2002) on page 167, where the author write that Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited Bhutto in Lahore, Pakistan in 1976 and said "We can de-stablize your government and make a horrible example out of you" if Bhutto continued Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.Tariq Ali then notes that Bhutto continued his program and six months later was driven from office.
Today, Kissinger supports Senator McCain for president, and his fellow power elite agent Zbigniew Brzezinski supports Senator Obama. Senator Clinton, of course, is part of the whole Rhodes scholar globalist network. But how does the power elite keep the electorate from learning what Clinton, Obama or McCain (each of whom has at least 5 prominent CFR advisors) will actually do if elected? It's actually very simple keep news reporters and the public focused on his or her supporters saying something controversial (e.g., the comments of Geraldine Ferraro, Rev. Wright, and the talk-show host in Ohio). As long as reporters cover primarily this, voters will not learn what the candidates' specific positions are on the issues. For example, do we know anything besides the candidates' general policy proposals on the economy, Iraq, education, etc.? No. News reporters haven't pressed for in-depth details regarding any issue. Thus, the power elite's plan is working.
What will likely happen in the area of education, for example, if a Democrat is elected President are more decisions like that of February 28,2008 by Appeals Court Judge H. Walter Croskey in Los Angeles. He ruled that parents have no Constitutional right to homeschool their children, and that students must be taught only by credentialed teachers. Judge Croskey's ruling looks very much like the National Education Association's B-75 HomeSchooling resolution at its 2007 convention. Since homeschooled students typically have higher academic achievement test scores than public school students, this issue is really about separating students from their parents' values. Former NEA president Catherine Barrett admitted as much in the SATURDAY REVIEW OF EDUCATION (Feb. 10, 1973) when she said teaching "basic skills" would be reduced to only one-quarter of the school day, as "the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher.. We will be agents of change."
At the international level, CFR member Carol Bellamy, after being with Morgan-Stanley and managing director of Bear-Stearns (recently sold because of great financial trouble), became executive director of UNICEF where she declared: "The U.N. position is if formal education is not supplied by government, a child's right to schooling is violated. Home schools are not a substitute for formal education." (Bloomsburg, PA PRESS-ENTERPRISE, May 15,1998).
The power elite at the global level wants to eliminate homeschooling,and efforts toward that end have already begun in Germany and other nations.The power elite simply cannot allow parents (usually with traditional values of morality and patriotism) to impart their values to their children. Only the public schools can indoctrinate children with globalism and moral relativism, which are necessary to condition the masses to accept a World Socialist Government.
© 2008 Dennis Cuddy
Viva Liberty!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Youth of Today
I was reading the email that i used as my previous post. It brought up some thought of somethings that i have thought about over the years, about the youth of today.
Back when i was in high school in Lancaster, SC, the teen thing to do was to cruise. The teens used to cruise a 4 block area of downtown Lancaster. This happened every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings. Then on Sunday afternoons we would go to the neighboring town Kershaw to cruise. This was a teenage right of passage. This happened every weekend. We would cruise, park and hang out, all load into one car, cruise around more. Now every once in a while an occasional fight would breakout, but that is normal ( i mean it is another thing that happens with teens, i mean it happens with adults. It is just like a pack of lions in the nature world, they fight to gain or maintain everyones status. Think about it, if two teen boys are fighting over a girl, why is that, to show the dominance of one over the other. Any way i digress).
Then i moved to Spartanburg, SC, and guess what? Same thing. Kids would cruise around the mall area in Spartanburg on Friday and Saturday night. Then they would cruise Chesnee on Sunday aftenoon and then Gaffney on Sunday evening.
Now as a teen this was great, you had a time set aside for your friends and you would meet new ones. But over the last 10 years or so, there has been a major push by the powers that be to shut down this practice. What the reason is? Who knows. Only the ALL KNOWING Government knows (if you want to call them that). Whatever the reason, all the things that teens like is being taken away from them.
Teens rights have been eroded just like adults, only teens rights all revolve fun things (according to them). Now today they can not skateboard, skate, cruise, or do anything else FUN to them. Now some citizens have been smart and started skate parks to give kids an out. But that only helps the kids that are into the skating scene. What about the kids who don't like to skate? What about the kids who like to cruise?
I will tell you, i see the writing on the wall. When you take everything from a person (or group of people) you will increase the criminal element of the person/people. If you need proof, just look at past civilizations and how they failed and new civilizations were started (our current America is one).
Watch the news everyday and more than not, you will see an increase of youth being arrested for crimes, and if you look closely you will notice that the crime increases coincide with the decrease of outlets that the teens have to channel their energy.
Now we as an adult population need to step up to the plate and demand the rights of our younger population back. Why are we letting these things be taken away from our youth by people in power who cruised just like the rest of us, when they were kids?
Its amazing how its ok when the adults do things when they were young, but deny the kids of today the same thing.
Stand Up For Your Kids! Lets make a difference for the future of this country.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Back when i was in high school in Lancaster, SC, the teen thing to do was to cruise. The teens used to cruise a 4 block area of downtown Lancaster. This happened every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday evenings. Then on Sunday afternoons we would go to the neighboring town Kershaw to cruise. This was a teenage right of passage. This happened every weekend. We would cruise, park and hang out, all load into one car, cruise around more. Now every once in a while an occasional fight would breakout, but that is normal ( i mean it is another thing that happens with teens, i mean it happens with adults. It is just like a pack of lions in the nature world, they fight to gain or maintain everyones status. Think about it, if two teen boys are fighting over a girl, why is that, to show the dominance of one over the other. Any way i digress).
Then i moved to Spartanburg, SC, and guess what? Same thing. Kids would cruise around the mall area in Spartanburg on Friday and Saturday night. Then they would cruise Chesnee on Sunday aftenoon and then Gaffney on Sunday evening.
Now as a teen this was great, you had a time set aside for your friends and you would meet new ones. But over the last 10 years or so, there has been a major push by the powers that be to shut down this practice. What the reason is? Who knows. Only the ALL KNOWING Government knows (if you want to call them that). Whatever the reason, all the things that teens like is being taken away from them.
Teens rights have been eroded just like adults, only teens rights all revolve fun things (according to them). Now today they can not skateboard, skate, cruise, or do anything else FUN to them. Now some citizens have been smart and started skate parks to give kids an out. But that only helps the kids that are into the skating scene. What about the kids who don't like to skate? What about the kids who like to cruise?
I will tell you, i see the writing on the wall. When you take everything from a person (or group of people) you will increase the criminal element of the person/people. If you need proof, just look at past civilizations and how they failed and new civilizations were started (our current America is one).
Watch the news everyday and more than not, you will see an increase of youth being arrested for crimes, and if you look closely you will notice that the crime increases coincide with the decrease of outlets that the teens have to channel their energy.
Now we as an adult population need to step up to the plate and demand the rights of our younger population back. Why are we letting these things be taken away from our youth by people in power who cruised just like the rest of us, when they were kids?
Its amazing how its ok when the adults do things when they were young, but deny the kids of today the same thing.
Stand Up For Your Kids! Lets make a difference for the future of this country.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Problem of the future
This is another post from a group I'm in.
http://james-glaser.com/2008/p20080320.html
March 20, 2008
A Problem In The Future
by James Glaser
jimmytwoshoes@hotmail.com
I was thinking of my dad the other day, and those thoughts kind of
stuck with me. When I was growing up, I remember whenever he and I did
something together, fishing, going to watch him play baseball with his
buddies, or even playing catch in the back yard, I had Dad all to myself. If
we went some place, and he wanted to talk to mom, he had to stop at a pay
phone, and if mom wanted to talk to him or me, well, she was out of luck.
We didn't have cell phones, and other than Little League, we didn't
have organized sports. Kids had to make up their own games and set their own
rules. After a while you recognized who the leaders were and who the
followers were. Many times it wasn't the biggest kid who set the tone for
the day - a lot of times a smart small kid could get things going his way.
We played in the streets or in the empty lot on our block.
We built forts and climbed trees, we walked down to the Mississippi,
or we rode our bikes down there to fish, and sometimes we just rode around
doing nothing but talking to each other.
Here I am in Tallahassee, a city much like the one I grew up in. Saint
Paul was also a State Capital, and both cities have lots of parks, and both
are clean. The big difference I see is that Tallahassee doesn't have any
children. Oh, I am sure there are kids here. It's just that they are not
visible.
Today in America kids don't play games in the street, and they don't
ride their bikes or walk to the park or the river to fish. Today everything
is organized. Parents tell me they have their kids in soccer, baseball, and
swimming, and marching bands are big down here, but every sport or event is
planned and run by adults.
Kids don't get to pick their teams, and they sure don't get to make up
their own rules. They don't even get to transport themselves, because then
they would be alone without parental supervision, and they might get hurt.
When I was a child, if I got hurt over at Mikey Kane's (my best
friend) house, his mom would patch me up, and if it were bad enough, she
would call my mom. Mikey and I were outside in the summer at least 12 hours
a day playing. The streets and parks were filled with kids doing the same.
Today, children grow up in the presence of adults. They are not
allowed to go off on their own and explore what it is to grow up. They don't
get to make their own decisions, and they sure don't get to do anything that
might be a little bit dangerous.
Well, we as a country are going to pay for that sometime in the
future. Someday America is going to run out of leaders, because we have
stopped our young people from thinking for themselves. Someday, no one will
be around to tell these now adults what to do, and they will be scared.
That is why today so many people are willing to let the government
walk all over their freedoms, because they are scared, and they don't know
how to think for themselves. As more and more of our "protected" children
become adults, it will be easier and easier for Washington to take control
of everything they do, and those young Americans won't even think there is
anything wrong, because they have always had some one taking care of them.
This guy definitely makes sense.
Viva Liberty!
http://james-
March 20, 2008
A Problem In The Future
by James Glaser
jimmytwoshoes@
I was thinking of my dad the other day, and those thoughts kind of
stuck with me. When I was growing up, I remember whenever he and I did
something together, fishing, going to watch him play baseball with his
buddies, or even playing catch in the back yard, I had Dad all to myself. If
we went some place, and he wanted to talk to mom, he had to stop at a pay
phone, and if mom wanted to talk to him or me, well, she was out of luck.
We didn't have cell phones, and other than Little League, we didn't
have organized sports. Kids had to make up their own games and set their own
rules. After a while you recognized who the leaders were and who the
followers were. Many times it wasn't the biggest kid who set the tone for
the day - a lot of times a smart small kid could get things going his way.
We played in the streets or in the empty lot on our block.
We built forts and climbed trees, we walked down to the Mississippi,
or we rode our bikes down there to fish, and sometimes we just rode around
doing nothing but talking to each other.
Here I am in Tallahassee, a city much like the one I grew up in. Saint
Paul was also a State Capital, and both cities have lots of parks, and both
are clean. The big difference I see is that Tallahassee doesn't have any
children. Oh, I am sure there are kids here. It's just that they are not
visible.
Today in America kids don't play games in the street, and they don't
ride their bikes or walk to the park or the river to fish. Today everything
is organized. Parents tell me they have their kids in soccer, baseball, and
swimming, and marching bands are big down here, but every sport or event is
planned and run by adults.
Kids don't get to pick their teams, and they sure don't get to make up
their own rules. They don't even get to transport themselves, because then
they would be alone without parental supervision, and they might get hurt.
When I was a child, if I got hurt over at Mikey Kane's (my best
friend) house, his mom would patch me up, and if it were bad enough, she
would call my mom. Mikey and I were outside in the summer at least 12 hours
a day playing. The streets and parks were filled with kids doing the same.
Today, children grow up in the presence of adults. They are not
allowed to go off on their own and explore what it is to grow up. They don't
get to make their own decisions, and they sure don't get to do anything that
might be a little bit dangerous.
Well, we as a country are going to pay for that sometime in the
future. Someday America is going to run out of leaders, because we have
stopped our young people from thinking for themselves. Someday, no one will
be around to tell these now adults what to do, and they will be scared.
That is why today so many people are willing to let the government
walk all over their freedoms, because they are scared, and they don't know
how to think for themselves. As more and more of our "protected" children
become adults, it will be easier and easier for Washington to take control
of everything they do, and those young Americans won't even think there is
anything wrong, because they have always had some one taking care of them.
This guy definitely makes sense.
Viva Liberty!
My latest entry in the paper
Here is my latest entry in the Spartanburg Herald Journal. This one is in the Stroller section. Enjoy, and more is to come.
NO DIFFERENCE': The Stroller reader expressing disgust over politicians who disregard the nation's founding principles got a rise out of Jamie A. Steele of Lyman. "The Constitution limits the government, not the people," he stresses. "It is unfortunate in Congress that you can look at liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, and find no difference. They are all involved in the stripping of our rights. It is time to side with a party, the Libertarian Party, that believes in you and your rights."
Viva Liberty!
NO DIFFERENCE': The Stroller reader expressing disgust over politicians who disregard the nation's founding principles got a rise out of Jamie A. Steele of Lyman. "The Constitution limits the government, not the people," he stresses. "It is unfortunate in Congress that you can look at liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, and find no difference. They are all involved in the stripping of our rights. It is time to side with a party, the Libertarian Party, that believes in you and your rights."
Viva Liberty!
Friday, March 21, 2008
Enough is Enough!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339589,00.html
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas.
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every
gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce
greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different
story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but
some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National
Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't
support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more,
10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a
dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen
Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh
... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is
it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than
the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for
Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their
cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic
congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of
the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon
each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown
said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy
Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be
short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term,
that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election,
the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly
will raise prices to penalize polluters.
FOX News' William La Jeunesse contributed to this report.
When is enough going to be enough. Everytime i turn around, our greedy politicians want more and more of our money. So add this to the devalued dollar that we have (that government refuses to make real changes on), and we will end up having $10 a week to live off of, after the government get done with it.
I don't know about you, but i think its time to turn the clock back to where they used to Tar and Feather the politicians that didn't represent the people fairly.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Michigan Congressman Wants 50-Cent Tax Hike on Every Gallon of Gas.
A Michigan congressman wants to put a 50-cent tax on every
gallon of gasoline to try to cut back on Americans' consumption.
Polls show that a majority of Americans support policies that would reduce
greenhouse gases. But when it comes to paying for it, it's a different
story.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., wants to help cut consumption with a gas tax but
some don't agree with the idea, according to a new poll by the National
Center for Public Policy Research.
The poll, scheduled to be released on Thursday, shows 48 percent don't
support paying even a penny more, 28 percent would pay up to 50 cents more,
10 percent would pay more than 50 cents and 8 percent would pay more than a
dollar.
"I don't want to pay more, I don't think anyone wants to," said Karen
Deacon, a motorist.
"I think that wouldn't make any sense," said Frankie Hoe, a motorist. "Ugh
... who's making the money from all this and where is that money going? Is
it going to go green? I don't see any green things anywhere."
The automobile is the nation's biggest polluter; Americans use more gas than
the next 20 countries combined.
Some environmentalists and economists say pain at the pump may be bad for
Americans, but good medicine for a sick planet.
But others say it wouldn't change much. Even if Americans abandoned their
cars, global emissions would fall by less than one percent.
"A tax on gas is a way to reduce dependence on import oil, reduce traffic
congrestion and reduce carbon emissions," said Lester Brown, president of
the Earth Policy Institute.
The Earth Policy Institute proposes raising the gas tax 30 cents per gallon
each year over a decade and offset with a reduction of income taxes, Brown
said.
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy
Research, said the proposal wouldn't help long term.
"I think when you are talking about raising gas prices, there may be
short-term reduction, put off vacations, but bottom line is over long term,
that isn't going to have much of an effect," Ridenour said.
While Dingell's idea will likely lie dormant until after the 2008 election,
the idea of carbon taxes is not. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John
McCain all support some type of system that either directly or indirectly
will raise prices to penalize polluters.
FOX News' William La Jeunesse contributed to this report.
When is enough going to be enough. Everytime i turn around, our greedy politicians want more and more of our money. So add this to the devalued dollar that we have (that government refuses to make real changes on), and we will end up having $10 a week to live off of, after the government get done with it.
I don't know about you, but i think its time to turn the clock back to where they used to Tar and Feather the politicians that didn't represent the people fairly.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
A win for the English Speaking US
A story came across a few years ago about a Restaurant Owner putting up a sign that said basically, if your going to order, order in English. Well as you can guess this wasn't Politically Correct for some, so there was some backlash. Well guess who got involved in it. If you said "The Gov'ment" then your right, sorry you don't win a prize for being right on this one.
Well today there is another story about this. The Commission on Human Relations in Philly actually wasted tax payer money to see if it was legal for the shop owner to put this sign up this sign in his store. I know, its another sign of Government intrusion into the fabric of America. However they came back in a 2 - 1 decision that the store owner , one Joe Vento - owner of Geno's Steaks (by the way if your ever in Philly, patronize this restaurant, we need to support people to have the guts to stand for what they believe) did not do anything illegal. However, government officials being as they are, "Commissioner Joseph J. Centeno said he thought the signs did discourage some customers".
Now heres where i'm going to rant. You know what, it is his right. Its his right to say and do as he sees fit. It is a private business, what right does government have to tell someone how to run their business. As long as he does not discriminate against others. In this instance he wasn't. The only thing that would happen here is, he Might lose customers that don't speak English. HE'S THE OWNER, if he doesn't mind losing customers because of this, ITS HIS DECISION.
Secondly, if you are coming to this country to live, learn the language. If i go to Germany to live, do i have the right to demand that they know my language, No - Hell NO! If i move there it is my decision to learn to speak the native language to communicate. We are the only country that allow a non-native speaking people come into our country (some illegally - oops its not PC to say that, oh well, sue me) and dictate to us which languages we need to speak. This doesn't even remotely make sense. If this is the case, we better start learning every langauge (past and present) spoken so that we can make it easier for every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or in this case Juan, Pierre, and Fritz) to communicate with us, when it was THEIR DECISION to come here. Last time i checked, we didn't send out personal invitations to come here.
Anyway, the people have won one for the record books.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Well today there is another story about this. The Commission on Human Relations in Philly actually wasted tax payer money to see if it was legal for the shop owner to put this sign up this sign in his store. I know, its another sign of Government intrusion into the fabric of America. However they came back in a 2 - 1 decision that the store owner , one Joe Vento - owner of Geno's Steaks (by the way if your ever in Philly, patronize this restaurant, we need to support people to have the guts to stand for what they believe) did not do anything illegal. However, government officials being as they are, "Commissioner Joseph J. Centeno said he thought the signs did discourage some customers".
Now heres where i'm going to rant. You know what, it is his right. Its his right to say and do as he sees fit. It is a private business, what right does government have to tell someone how to run their business. As long as he does not discriminate against others. In this instance he wasn't. The only thing that would happen here is, he Might lose customers that don't speak English. HE'S THE OWNER, if he doesn't mind losing customers because of this, ITS HIS DECISION.
Secondly, if you are coming to this country to live, learn the language. If i go to Germany to live, do i have the right to demand that they know my language, No - Hell NO! If i move there it is my decision to learn to speak the native language to communicate. We are the only country that allow a non-native speaking people come into our country (some illegally - oops its not PC to say that, oh well, sue me) and dictate to us which languages we need to speak. This doesn't even remotely make sense. If this is the case, we better start learning every langauge (past and present) spoken so that we can make it easier for every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or in this case Juan, Pierre, and Fritz) to communicate with us, when it was THEIR DECISION to come here. Last time i checked, we didn't send out personal invitations to come here.
Anyway, the people have won one for the record books.
VIVA LIBERTY!
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Ron Paul Statement After 10 Years of War with Iraq
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080319/20080319006045.html?.v=1
Wednesday March 19, 2:27 pm ET
Ron Paul Statement After 10 Years of War with Iraq
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq,
Congressman Ron Paul, member of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
issued the following statement:
"The occupation of Iraq began five years ago today, but few realize that the
march to war began ten years ago under Bill Clinton, when regime change
became official U.S. policy. In 1998, I took to the House floor in protest
of the Iraqi Liberation Act to warn that, 'I see this legislation as
essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President
tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation.' My
warnings were largely dismissed at the time, but five years later, we were
bombing Iraq.
"After five years of occupation, today is a good time for reflection. The
cost to America has been great: 4,000 soldiers are dead, 30,000 have been
severely wounded, and over 100,000 have applied for disability. In addition,
the war has put a tremendous strain on our economy. As we spiral toward
recession and experience an assault on our dollar, we spend $12 billion per
month financing our Iraqi operations. The war has cost us nearly $1 trillion
dollars, or over $3,300 per American man, woman, and child.
"In a recent presidential debate, I was asked whether the war was 'worth
it.'
I said, and still say, 'absolutely not.' In addition to the tremendous costs
to America, the war has been helpful to our enemies. The war has
strengthened Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Iran. And yet the other
presidential candidates want to keep troops there for at least five more
years. One even says we should keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years.
"As I have repeatedly said when discussing United States policy in Iraq,
when you find yourself going the wrong way down a one-way street, you need
to look for the nearest off-ramp. The only solution to the mess in Iraq is
to promptly bring our troops home. Our bad policy spans at least ten years
and two presidents and has had severe costs in lives and economic
consequences. Continuing down the same road will solve nothing and compound
our already substantial problems."
Contact: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115
© 2008 Yahoo! Inc.
Viva Liberty!
Wednesday March 19, 2:27 pm ET
Ron Paul Statement After 10 Years of War with Iraq
ARLINGTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--On the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq,
Congressman Ron Paul, member of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
issued the following statement:
"The occupation of Iraq began five years ago today, but few realize that the
march to war began ten years ago under Bill Clinton, when regime change
became official U.S. policy. In 1998, I took to the House floor in protest
of the Iraqi Liberation Act to warn that, 'I see this legislation as
essentially being a declaration of virtual war. It is giving the President
tremendous powers to pursue war efforts against a sovereign Nation.' My
warnings were largely dismissed at the time, but five years later, we were
bombing Iraq.
"After five years of occupation, today is a good time for reflection. The
cost to America has been great: 4,000 soldiers are dead, 30,000 have been
severely wounded, and over 100,000 have applied for disability. In addition,
the war has put a tremendous strain on our economy. As we spiral toward
recession and experience an assault on our dollar, we spend $12 billion per
month financing our Iraqi operations. The war has cost us nearly $1 trillion
dollars, or over $3,300 per American man, woman, and child.
"In a recent presidential debate, I was asked whether the war was 'worth
it.'
I said, and still say, 'absolutely not.' In addition to the tremendous costs
to America, the war has been helpful to our enemies. The war has
strengthened Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and Iran. And yet the other
presidential candidates want to keep troops there for at least five more
years. One even says we should keep American troops in Iraq for 100 years.
"As I have repeatedly said when discussing United States policy in Iraq,
when you find yourself going the wrong way down a one-way street, you need
to look for the nearest off-ramp. The only solution to the mess in Iraq is
to promptly bring our troops home. Our bad policy spans at least ten years
and two presidents and has had severe costs in lives and economic
consequences. Continuing down the same road will solve nothing and compound
our already substantial problems."
Contact: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115
© 2008 Yahoo! Inc.
Viva Liberty!
Eminent Domain!
http://tinyurl.com/ytomq9
03/18/2008
Citizens rally around Avon homeowner;school threatens to use eminent domain
CHANDA NEELY, Morning Journal Writer
AVON -- Citizens are rallying around Mary Jane Wolfe after the Avon school board passed a resolution to take possession of 25 to 27 acres of her property by eminent domain. The group Avon Citizens for Change is urging people who do not agree with the board's decision to attend tonight's school board meeting at6:30 p.m. in the media center at Heritage North Elementary School.
''We are outraged at the school board's decision to seize one of our longtime residents property through eminent domain,'' the group said in a statement posted on its Web site. ''We are asking citizens of Avon to attend the March 18 board meeting and show your support for Mary JaneWolfe.
''The property is located at 2740 and 2758 Center Road. The district is interested in taking possession of 25 to 27 acres behind Wolfe's home in order to build a new middle school.'
'The land the board is looking to acquire does not include the owner's home,'' Superintendent Jim Reitenbach said. ''We have never wanted to put her out of her house. The land we want is behind her home. We're not trying to kick her out in the street.
''The school board at a meeting Feb. 19 voted to pursue taking over the property through eminent domain. Residents asked the board to delay the vote for 120 days, but that request was voted down.
The district has offered Wolfe $750,000 for the land, but she refuses. Wolfe would be left with her home and 1.5 acres. ''She has been offered $750,000 dollars and she can stay in herhouse and vacate the property behind her,'' Reitenbach said. ''We're offering $30,000 per acre. That's the appraised value of the property. You have 25 acres that's $750,000. ''The school board has been trying to purchase the land from Wolfesince 1995. The board sent Wolfe an occasional letter until 2005 when they began to send letters more frequently. Reitenbach said Wolfe was sent another letter after the Feb. 19 vote, but she declined the offer to sell. For the district, it is more cost effective to build a new school instead of renovate. Wolfe's property has the existing sewer lines that are needed to serve the school. The district is also in negotiations with the owners of the property at 2636 and 2666 Center Road. If the district acquires the property it will have to put a bond issue on the ballot for voters to decide if they will fund construction of a new middle school.The attorney representing Wolfe did not return calls seeking comment.
© 2007 The Morning Journal
Another example of the government taking from its citizens. And yet they make it sound like they are being so generous by allowing her to keep her house and 1 1/2 acres of her land. It is crazy that you work your butt off to legally acquire the things you want in life, only to have the mighty hand of the government take it from you.
Viva Liberty!
03/18/2008
Citizens rally around Avon homeowner;school threatens to use eminent domain
CHANDA NEELY, Morning Journal Writer
AVON -- Citizens are rallying around Mary Jane Wolfe after the Avon school board passed a resolution to take possession of 25 to 27 acres of her property by eminent domain. The group Avon Citizens for Change is urging people who do not agree with the board's decision to attend tonight's school board meeting at6:30 p.m. in the media center at Heritage North Elementary School.
''We are outraged at the school board's decision to seize one of our longtime residents property through eminent domain,'' the group said in a statement posted on its Web site. ''We are asking citizens of Avon to attend the March 18 board meeting and show your support for Mary JaneWolfe.
''The property is located at 2740 and 2758 Center Road. The district is interested in taking possession of 25 to 27 acres behind Wolfe's home in order to build a new middle school.'
'The land the board is looking to acquire does not include the owner's home,'' Superintendent Jim Reitenbach said. ''We have never wanted to put her out of her house. The land we want is behind her home. We're not trying to kick her out in the street.
''The school board at a meeting Feb. 19 voted to pursue taking over the property through eminent domain. Residents asked the board to delay the vote for 120 days, but that request was voted down.
The district has offered Wolfe $750,000 for the land, but she refuses. Wolfe would be left with her home and 1.5 acres. ''She has been offered $750,000 dollars and she can stay in herhouse and vacate the property behind her,'' Reitenbach said. ''We're offering $30,000 per acre. That's the appraised value of the property. You have 25 acres that's $750,000. ''The school board has been trying to purchase the land from Wolfesince 1995. The board sent Wolfe an occasional letter until 2005 when they began to send letters more frequently. Reitenbach said Wolfe was sent another letter after the Feb. 19 vote, but she declined the offer to sell. For the district, it is more cost effective to build a new school instead of renovate. Wolfe's property has the existing sewer lines that are needed to serve the school. The district is also in negotiations with the owners of the property at 2636 and 2666 Center Road. If the district acquires the property it will have to put a bond issue on the ballot for voters to decide if they will fund construction of a new middle school.The attorney representing Wolfe did not return calls seeking comment.
© 2007 The Morning Journal
Another example of the government taking from its citizens. And yet they make it sound like they are being so generous by allowing her to keep her house and 1 1/2 acres of her land. It is crazy that you work your butt off to legally acquire the things you want in life, only to have the mighty hand of the government take it from you.
Viva Liberty!
Do Personal Rights Mean ANYTHING To Government?
I read this story today.
"Commissioners in Martin County have unanimously passed an ordinance allowing county employees to go onto private property without permission to kill Africanized bees and treat areas where mosquitoes are breeding.
The county's mosquito control administrator Gene Lemire said the county already responds to bee and mosquito complaints with the permission of property owners.
But he said they have had an increasing number of incidents in which property owners either cannot be found or are unwilling to clean up the infestation themselves.
Killer bees, which Lemire said have been moving into Martin County, are more aggressive than regular European honey bees and will chase people farther to sting them when a hive is disturbed. "
On face value it looks good. Think about it, the local government is so concerned of the people and the potential problem with bees, that they are going to come in and kill them to keep the people safe. However if you stop and listen, you'll hear the whisking sound of your rights flying away.
You should be able to have privacy at your own home, on your own property. However due to a bee problem, this county has basically over ruled any personal rights that you have and that the one true law in this country allows (otherwise known as the CONSTITUTION). This might have taken place in Florida, but you can bet once the "elected ones" in your area hear about this, it will be coming to your area. And i can also bet that each time a politician decides to do this, it will be expanded to include more of your rights.
Also i guess the government now has given itself infinite permission to enter your domain, regardless of how you feel. Wait until they take away our means of protecting ourselves (Guns), and see how it gets.
Stand Up America!
Viva Liberty!
"Commissioners in Martin County have unanimously passed an ordinance allowing county employees to go onto private property without permission to kill Africanized bees and treat areas where mosquitoes are breeding.
The county's mosquito control administrator Gene Lemire said the county already responds to bee and mosquito complaints with the permission of property owners.
But he said they have had an increasing number of incidents in which property owners either cannot be found or are unwilling to clean up the infestation themselves.
Killer bees, which Lemire said have been moving into Martin County, are more aggressive than regular European honey bees and will chase people farther to sting them when a hive is disturbed. "
On face value it looks good. Think about it, the local government is so concerned of the people and the potential problem with bees, that they are going to come in and kill them to keep the people safe. However if you stop and listen, you'll hear the whisking sound of your rights flying away.
You should be able to have privacy at your own home, on your own property. However due to a bee problem, this county has basically over ruled any personal rights that you have and that the one true law in this country allows (otherwise known as the CONSTITUTION). This might have taken place in Florida, but you can bet once the "elected ones" in your area hear about this, it will be coming to your area. And i can also bet that each time a politician decides to do this, it will be expanded to include more of your rights.
Also i guess the government now has given itself infinite permission to enter your domain, regardless of how you feel. Wait until they take away our means of protecting ourselves (Guns), and see how it gets.
Stand Up America!
Viva Liberty!
The Steel Penny by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul440.html
Before the Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee onDomestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Hearing on HR 5512
March 11, 2008
The Steel Penny by Ron Paul
Mr. Chairman,I oppose HR 5512 because it is unconstitutional to delegate the determination of the metal content of our coinage to the Secretary of theTreasury.
Under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is given the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. It is a shame that Congress has already unconstitutionally delegated its coinage authority to the Treasury Department, but that is no reason to further delegate our power and essentially abdicate Congressional oversight as the passing of HR5512 would do.
Oversight by members of Congress, who have an incentive to listen to their constituents, ensures openness and transparency. This bill would eliminate that process and delegate it to unelected bureaucrats.
TheSecretary of the Treasury would be given sole discretion to alter the metal content of coins, or even to create non-metal coins. Given the history of Congressional delegation and subsequent lax oversight on issues as important as the conflict in Iraq, it would be naïve to believe that Congress would exercise any more oversight over an issue as unimportant to most members as the composition of coins.
While I sympathize with the aim of Section 4 of this bill to save taxpayer dollars by minting steel pennies, it is disappointing that our currency has been so greatly devalued as to make this step necessary.
At the time of the penny's introduction, it actually had some purchasing power. Based on the price of gold, what one penny would have purchased in 1909 requires 47 cents today. It is no wonder then that few people nowadays would stoop to pick up any coin smaller than a quarter. Congress' unconstitutional delegation of monetary policy to the Federal Reserve and its reluctance to exercise oversight in that arena have led to a massive devaluation of the dollar. If we fail to end this devaluation, we will undoubtedly hold future hearings as the metal value of our coins continues to outstrip the face value.
HR 5512 is a sad commentary on how far we have fallen, not just since the days of the Founders, but only in the last 75 to 100 years. We could not maintain the gold standard nor the silver standard. We could not maintain the copper standard, and now we cannot even maintain the zinc standard. Paper money inevitably breeds inflation and destroys the value of the currency. That is the reason that this proposal is before us today.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Viva Liberty!
Before the Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee onDomestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology
Hearing on HR 5512
March 11, 2008
The Steel Penny by Ron Paul
Mr. Chairman,I oppose HR 5512 because it is unconstitutional to delegate the determination of the metal content of our coinage to the Secretary of theTreasury.
Under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, the Congress is given the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof. It is a shame that Congress has already unconstitutionally delegated its coinage authority to the Treasury Department, but that is no reason to further delegate our power and essentially abdicate Congressional oversight as the passing of HR5512 would do.
Oversight by members of Congress, who have an incentive to listen to their constituents, ensures openness and transparency. This bill would eliminate that process and delegate it to unelected bureaucrats.
TheSecretary of the Treasury would be given sole discretion to alter the metal content of coins, or even to create non-metal coins. Given the history of Congressional delegation and subsequent lax oversight on issues as important as the conflict in Iraq, it would be naïve to believe that Congress would exercise any more oversight over an issue as unimportant to most members as the composition of coins.
While I sympathize with the aim of Section 4 of this bill to save taxpayer dollars by minting steel pennies, it is disappointing that our currency has been so greatly devalued as to make this step necessary.
At the time of the penny's introduction, it actually had some purchasing power. Based on the price of gold, what one penny would have purchased in 1909 requires 47 cents today. It is no wonder then that few people nowadays would stoop to pick up any coin smaller than a quarter. Congress' unconstitutional delegation of monetary policy to the Federal Reserve and its reluctance to exercise oversight in that arena have led to a massive devaluation of the dollar. If we fail to end this devaluation, we will undoubtedly hold future hearings as the metal value of our coins continues to outstrip the face value.
HR 5512 is a sad commentary on how far we have fallen, not just since the days of the Founders, but only in the last 75 to 100 years. We could not maintain the gold standard nor the silver standard. We could not maintain the copper standard, and now we cannot even maintain the zinc standard. Paper money inevitably breeds inflation and destroys the value of the currency. That is the reason that this proposal is before us today.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Viva Liberty!
Monday, March 17, 2008
They've Ironed the Wrinkle Out of the Jury
This guy has a lot of good things to say. I started to really think about a point he makes. That is: If Congress in 1918 felt the necessity to make a Constitutional Amendment to Prohibit Alcohol, then why does the Congress of today believe they can just wave their grubby hand and Prohibit other things? Hmmm, you have to admit, no matter which side of the Drug Legalization aisle your on, it does raise a good question. Not to mention a Judge instructing the jury to be a bunch of sheep and do what he says, no matter the Constitution (his employee handbook) says. Anyway it is a good read, a little long, but nonetheless good. Enjoy
Viva Liberty!!!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem20.html
March 17, 2008
They've Ironed the Wrinkle Out of the Jury
by Thomas R. Eddlem, tom@dangeroustalk.com
I'm the wrinkle, and I was ejected from a deliberating federal
jury on March 13. The case was United States v. Robert Luisi, and I was
thrown out because I refused to take a second oath of jury service that
would have required that I suspend my common sense, and even suspend my
belief in an objective reality. This second oath would literally have bound
me to find the defendant guilty if the judge had instructed me that "the law
says all Italians are guilty." (Luisi is of Italian heritage.)
All jurors in federal courts, according to the jury handbook I
was given, take "an oath to decide the case 'upon the law and the
evidence.'"
The handbook then describes: "The law is what he judge declares the law to
be." I found out later that - even if the judges don't take the Constitution
literally - they take this last part literally.
The actual oath I took as a juror was to decide the case
"according to the facts and the law as the judge presents." It was
essentially the same as the juror handbook, just a little closer to the
actual verbiage used in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee,
presided and immediately after our oaths launched into a 45-minute
description of the U.S. Constitution. He made a point of saying: "You are
all constitutional officers." But he didn't just describe the jury mentions
in the U.S. Constitution, he summed the whole document up - and ably so.
More than one juror (not me!) groaned on the way back to the jury room for a
break that the speech had been too long.
Then we heard all the evidence, four weeks of it. Everybody had
a nickname: Bobby the Cook, "Skinny" Joe Merlino, even "Harry the
Hunchback." (I'm not kidding.) The defendant, Bobby Luisi, was a Boston capo
in the Mafia who had sold a total of three kilos of cocaine to an FBI agent
in 1999. Luisi was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine with an
intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with an
intent to distribute. The transactions took place within Boston city limits,
and the prosecution made no attempts to produce any evidence that anything
had ever crossed a state line.
The case itself was really academic, related more to career
control than to crime control, as Luisi had already confessed to a murder
and racketeering charge. He wasn't going from the courtroom back to his home
in Medford, Mass. He was going back to the pokey each night. For the
ambitious Boston-based U.S. attorney, Michael "Maximum Mike" Sullivan, it
was an opportunity to have his underlings run up the score for his résumé.
The fact that Luisi was getting another trial meant that Luisi
got a field trip outside of his prison cell several times per week. This was
Luisi's second trial on this cocaine charge. The first trial held in 2002
was overturned on appeal when a higher court ruled that jurors could
consider that he had been entrapped. (FBI informant and mob associate Ron
Previte had gotten the boss, Philadelphia's "Skinny" Joe Merlino, to call
Luisi to push the deal through.) All Luisi could do was smirk throughout the
month-long trial, almost certainly thinking about how many field trips he
got to have to the courtroom because a district attorney wanted another
scalp on the mantle.
Fast forward to the day of deliberation. The court just happened
to have a visiting judge in from South Korea all day - who Judge Young
described as "an expert in case management." The judge gave us instructions
on the law related to entrapment before we were to begin deliberations. He
told us explicitly: "You don't have to check your common sense at the door"
of the jury room and said that we could make "rational inferences" and draw
"logical conclusions."
I went into the jury room and told them what I thought,
explaining the concept of delegated powers and the limits of the language in
the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, and then all hell broke loose.
The other jurors were good people but weren't familiar with the details of
the Constitution and under the sway of the philosophy of: "The law is what
he judge declares the law to be." Eventually, the foreman convinced me to
write a question to the judge. I told him I'd write one, but also said that
he'd give us a "because I said so" reply. Here's what I came up with: "If
2/3 of the Congress decided in 1918 that they needed to amend the
constitution in order to ban mere possession of a substance (in that case,
prohibition of alcohol), where is the constitutional authorization today for
the federal prohibition of mere possession of cocaine today?"
The judge didn't take to the question well. He said that I got
the history wrong. (I didn't.) He said that the juror "had exceeded his
authority" in questioning the constitutionality of a law, and reasserted
that federal cocaine possession bans were constitutional. He did not cite
any constitutional provision in his reply to the question. In effect, he
said it's constitutional "because I said so."
I didn't bring in my copy of the Constitution into the court
because of the judge's instructions not to "go into lawbooks." Of course, I
didn't need to bring a copy for myself, because I've long had it virtually
memorized. Too bad the Constitution wasn't in a picture frame on the wall.
We'd have had a jury moment then!
Then, the jury deliberated for a while to see if they might all
agree with me anyway, but it was soon clear that most jurors favored a
guilty verdict.
Later in the day, after it became clear I could possibly
deadlock the jury, another juror wrote two questions to the judge which are
to this effect: If a juror refuses to consider the facts of the case and
rejects the validity of the court and the venue for this trial because of a
belief in the unconstitutionality of drug laws, can he be considered a valid
juror? Can a jury with such a juror be considered a properly constituted
jury?
I did not object to the other juror asking the question, though
I told him I disagreed with his characterization of my views. I don't
question the validity of the court, or of any case being made. All I'm
saying is that there's only one verdict to be rendered under the
circumstances.
Soon we were back in the courtroom - again - and for the first
and only time in the case the judge was livid. He said that in 30 years of
service on the court he had never heard of such a case or question on the
jury. He said he'd confer with his peers (other judges) on the options, but
did say that the jury was properly constituted and the juror, The Wrinkle,
was a properly constituted juror. All the junior legal researchers were in
court at a special table over where they hold the sidebar conferences so
they could witness the spectacle close-up.
Judge Young said something along the likes of "When you set
aside the law and the Constitution for your own preferences, you undercut
our whole system of government." Ummm . yeah, I thought. You would be, if
you set aside the Constitution. But what if you uphold the clear and
unequivocal language of the Constitution?
The judge continued his rant declaring that by reading the U.S.
Constitution "You are exercising judgment that is beyond your competency."
Though as an educator I know the U.S. Constitution was written to the 11th
grade vocabulary level, I strongly believe he didn't intend it as a personal
insult.
Judge Young's position was that jurors are fully capable of
interpreting heavy Mafia code language and deciphering the subtle inflection
of drug dealers' voices over a wire-tapped phone, but that jurors are
"beyond their competency" in reading straightforward English prose written
to the 11th grade vocabulary level.
It's also possible he believes that the 18th-century farmers who
wrote the text put some secret Gnostic code into the text of the
Constitution that we plebes wouldn't understand. That's not exactly the kind
of thing farmers are known to do, though, and there's no historical evidence
of it.
He also said that by judging the law - as he related it to me,
which included the Constitution - that "You are taking authority that was
not given to you." Remember, my oath was to judge the "facts and the law."
My view is that the law, as presented by the judge, included the U.S.
Constitution. I made the "logical conclusion" that the Constitution is the
"highest law in the land," which every schoolboy knows. It would be
illogical to conclude a judge's other instructions supersede the clear and
unequivocal language of the U.S. Constitution.
The day ended in court with the judge's answer of the juror's
questions, and his pledge to consult other jurists about this "new wrinkle,"
as he put it. I wonder what the Korean guy was thinking by this point. (My
guess: "America really has become a third-world country.")
The next day we traipsed into the courtroom at about 9:30 to
hear the judge's report. He reiterated (much more briefly) his charge from
yesterday afternoon, and then sent us back into the jury room with the
instruction that if we were to have the same problem that we should send him
a note saying we have the same problem. It didn't take a second for me and
the other jurors to say in unison "Send the note!"
So we once again marched into the courtroom, junior legal clerks
now in the area of the courtroom reserved for visitors, and the judge said
he'd interview us individually and ask us two questions: "Will you be able
to fulfill your oath as a juror to apply the laws as I instruct you?"
("Yes," I could answer, because he has explained the U.S. Constitution) and
"Could you start your deliberations fresh?" (Assuming a juror were removed).
After the foreman went in to talk with the judge - less than two
minutes - it was my turn.
I gave an affirmative to his first question, which was exactly
the question he said it would be, and then added: "But I think I can
clarify. I'm the one who asked the first question, and I'm the one about
whom the juror asked the second question, though I disagree with all of the
characterizations in the question."
I explained how I came to where I am: "I talked about the
Constitution because you had introduced it into the case, your honor. Right
after we took our oaths to judge the case according to the 'facts and the
law' as described by you, you launched into a detailed description of the
Constitution. You described the First Article and how it established
Congress, the second article and the presidency and the third article and
the judiciary. You even made a point of calling us Constitutional officers,
and I took that discussion seriously. Every schoolboy knows that the
Constitution is the highest law in the land."
What followed was a fifteen-minute sparring match where he
attempted to get me to say that I "interpret" - a favorite word of judges -
the Constitution the way I want. But nobody in the room was fooled. It was
clear to everybody that the sole reason I was in the room was because I had
refused to become a constitutional "interpreter."
"Your honor, I need an interpreter for a document written in
Greek or Latin, because they are foreign languages. But the Constitution is
written in English, my native tongue, and as an educator I know that it is
written to the 11th grade vocabulary level. We don't need to interpret
simple declarative English sentences of the Constitution. We can simply read
them." I told him that the words in the Constitution have a specific meaning
that are independent of how I may or may not want them to mean. "Words have
specific meaning," I said several times.
We discussed my first question to the judge from the jury room
(about the 18th Amendment) - "I don't understand the point of this." he
said. I explained. "If Congress felt they didn't have the power to ban a
drug - alcohol - in 1918 without amending the Constitution, how is it that
the Congress has the power to do exactly the same thing now without a
constitutional amendment?"
He explained that the power of Congress to ban substances within
a state was "authorized by the commerce clause of the Constitution." So then
we discussed the grammar of the clause, or I did anyway . to no conclusion.
He seemed to assume that the word "among" was a synonym of the word "inside"
or "within," a definition not found in any definition ever printed in any
English dictionary ever printed and not found in the language of the
Founders. The judge was more interested in past court precedents than the
actual language of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution wasn't on
his tongue; what mattered was past court precedents. They were, as far as I
could tell, infallible. I wonder if he would try to defend Plessy v.
Ferguson.
Then he played the Reagan Republican card: "Would you say that
Congress has sometimes gone too far, as happened in the Lopez case?" he
asked, explaining the case to me (I remembered the case, but had forgotten
the name of the case until reminded.) I told him that I thought that my role
was to decide the facts against the law as he described in this case.
He asked me if the judge cannot instruct the jury on the law,
and I replied: "No, your honor, the judge must instruct the jury on the
statutes and the precedents. They are very complex." The judge had earlier
used the term "teacher" of the law to describe his role. He was going far
beyond the teacher role now, but I think that would be a fair assessment of
the proper role of a judge. "And the Constitution?" he asked next. "You've
already presented it to us," I replied.
So then I was sent out of the room and the lawyers crafted a
question for me to answer. The question - a second oath, really - that I was
asked to affirm was, near as I can remember, this: "Would you be able to set
aside your own reading of the Constitution, the judge's past instructions
and judge the facts based solely upon the judge's explanation of the law?" I
said that I didn't "understand what was meant by 'reading.' The words of the
Constitution mean what they mean." I really think I was being asked that if
I were to read the word "red," and the judge instructed me to hear the word
"blue," I must act as if the word were blue.
As to the second part, I regarded it as a question that demanded
I set aside my common sense. What if the judge had issued a direction on the
law that all Italians are guilty? Had I taken this second oath, I would have
felt bound to have my role limited to simply determining if the defendant
were Italian. I would have been bound to vote guilty if the judge had said
"the law says that if the sun rose today, then the defendant is guilty." It
struck me as going too far. It went too far probing into the minds of
jurors, too far outside of the law of common sense, and probably too far
legally for a judge to demand such fealty as a condition of jury service.
I told them that I didn't know if I could answer "yes" to the
question. It was, in effect, a "no."
They kicked me out of the room to finalize my dismissal, called
me back and politely dismissed me.
I never wanted to get on any jury anyway, and only responded to
the summons because it threatened prison and fines for non-compliance. Now I
know what to say to the next judge who tries to put me on a jury: "I'm not a
qualified juror because I have memorized the U.S. Constitution, read English
and believe in an objective reality."
That's guaranteed to get me off!
Note: The quotes in this report are based upon my best memory of
the events that occurred, as I wrote them down the evenings after the court
sessions. There are bound to be a few slight - very slight! - differences in
language between the quotes above and the official court transcript. If
there is a discrepancy, I am sure the official transcript is the more
accurate of the two accounts. I haven't seen the official transcript, but I
am certain that there would be no substantial difference between my
recollection and the official transcript.
Thomas R. Eddlem edited the just-published book,
Liberty in Eclipse, by William Norman Grigg. Mr. Eddlem is Legislative
Action Director for RightSourceOnline.com, and is a contributor to
LewRockwell.com and AntiWar.com.
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Viva Liberty!!!
http://www.lewrockw
March 17, 2008
They've Ironed the Wrinkle Out of the Jury
by Thomas R. Eddlem, tom@dangeroustalk.
I'm the wrinkle, and I was ejected from a deliberating federal
jury on March 13. The case was United States v. Robert Luisi, and I was
thrown out because I refused to take a second oath of jury service that
would have required that I suspend my common sense, and even suspend my
belief in an objective reality. This second oath would literally have bound
me to find the defendant guilty if the judge had instructed me that "the law
says all Italians are guilty." (Luisi is of Italian heritage.)
All jurors in federal courts, according to the jury handbook I
was given, take "an oath to decide the case 'upon the law and the
evidence.'"
The handbook then describes: "The law is what he judge declares the law to
be." I found out later that - even if the judges don't take the Constitution
literally - they take this last part literally.
The actual oath I took as a juror was to decide the case
"according to the facts and the law as the judge presents." It was
essentially the same as the juror handbook, just a little closer to the
actual verbiage used in Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee,
presided and immediately after our oaths launched into a 45-minute
description of the U.S. Constitution. He made a point of saying: "You are
all constitutional officers." But he didn't just describe the jury mentions
in the U.S. Constitution, he summed the whole document up - and ably so.
More than one juror (not me!) groaned on the way back to the jury room for a
break that the speech had been too long.
Then we heard all the evidence, four weeks of it. Everybody had
a nickname: Bobby the Cook, "Skinny" Joe Merlino, even "Harry the
Hunchback." (I'm not kidding.) The defendant, Bobby Luisi, was a Boston capo
in the Mafia who had sold a total of three kilos of cocaine to an FBI agent
in 1999. Luisi was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine with an
intent to distribute and one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with an
intent to distribute. The transactions took place within Boston city limits,
and the prosecution made no attempts to produce any evidence that anything
had ever crossed a state line.
The case itself was really academic, related more to career
control than to crime control, as Luisi had already confessed to a murder
and racketeering charge. He wasn't going from the courtroom back to his home
in Medford, Mass. He was going back to the pokey each night. For the
ambitious Boston-based U.S. attorney, Michael "Maximum Mike" Sullivan, it
was an opportunity to have his underlings run up the score for his résumé.
The fact that Luisi was getting another trial meant that Luisi
got a field trip outside of his prison cell several times per week. This was
Luisi's second trial on this cocaine charge. The first trial held in 2002
was overturned on appeal when a higher court ruled that jurors could
consider that he had been entrapped. (FBI informant and mob associate Ron
Previte had gotten the boss, Philadelphia'
Luisi to push the deal through.) All Luisi could do was smirk throughout the
month-long trial, almost certainly thinking about how many field trips he
got to have to the courtroom because a district attorney wanted another
scalp on the mantle.
Fast forward to the day of deliberation. The court just happened
to have a visiting judge in from South Korea all day - who Judge Young
described as "an expert in case management." The judge gave us instructions
on the law related to entrapment before we were to begin deliberations. He
told us explicitly: "You don't have to check your common sense at the door"
of the jury room and said that we could make "rational inferences" and draw
"logical conclusions.
I went into the jury room and told them what I thought,
explaining the concept of delegated powers and the limits of the language in
the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, and then all hell broke loose.
The other jurors were good people but weren't familiar with the details of
the Constitution and under the sway of the philosophy of: "The law is what
he judge declares the law to be." Eventually, the foreman convinced me to
write a question to the judge. I told him I'd write one, but also said that
he'd give us a "because I said so" reply. Here's what I came up with: "If
2/3 of the Congress decided in 1918 that they needed to amend the
constitution in order to ban mere possession of a substance (in that case,
prohibition of alcohol), where is the constitutional authorization today for
the federal prohibition of mere possession of cocaine today?"
The judge didn't take to the question well. He said that I got
the history wrong. (I didn't.) He said that the juror "had exceeded his
authority" in questioning the constitutionality of a law, and reasserted
that federal cocaine possession bans were constitutional. He did not cite
any constitutional provision in his reply to the question. In effect, he
said it's constitutional "because I said so."
I didn't bring in my copy of the Constitution into the court
because of the judge's instructions not to "go into lawbooks." Of course, I
didn't need to bring a copy for myself, because I've long had it virtually
memorized. Too bad the Constitution wasn't in a picture frame on the wall.
We'd have had a jury moment then!
Then, the jury deliberated for a while to see if they might all
agree with me anyway, but it was soon clear that most jurors favored a
guilty verdict.
Later in the day, after it became clear I could possibly
deadlock the jury, another juror wrote two questions to the judge which are
to this effect: If a juror refuses to consider the facts of the case and
rejects the validity of the court and the venue for this trial because of a
belief in the unconstitutionality of drug laws, can he be considered a valid
juror? Can a jury with such a juror be considered a properly constituted
jury?
I did not object to the other juror asking the question, though
I told him I disagreed with his characterization of my views. I don't
question the validity of the court, or of any case being made. All I'm
saying is that there's only one verdict to be rendered under the
circumstances.
Soon we were back in the courtroom - again - and for the first
and only time in the case the judge was livid. He said that in 30 years of
service on the court he had never heard of such a case or question on the
jury. He said he'd confer with his peers (other judges) on the options, but
did say that the jury was properly constituted and the juror, The Wrinkle,
was a properly constituted juror. All the junior legal researchers were in
court at a special table over where they hold the sidebar conferences so
they could witness the spectacle close-up.
Judge Young said something along the likes of "When you set
aside the law and the Constitution for your own preferences, you undercut
our whole system of government." Ummm . yeah, I thought. You would be, if
you set aside the Constitution. But what if you uphold the clear and
unequivocal language of the Constitution?
The judge continued his rant declaring that by reading the U.S.
Constitution "You are exercising judgment that is beyond your competency."
Though as an educator I know the U.S. Constitution was written to the 11th
grade vocabulary level, I strongly believe he didn't intend it as a personal
insult.
Judge Young's position was that jurors are fully capable of
interpreting heavy Mafia code language and deciphering the subtle inflection
of drug dealers' voices over a wire-tapped phone, but that jurors are
"beyond their competency" in reading straightforward English prose written
to the 11th grade vocabulary level.
It's also possible he believes that the 18th-century farmers who
wrote the text put some secret Gnostic code into the text of the
Constitution that we plebes wouldn't understand. That's not exactly the kind
of thing farmers are known to do, though, and there's no historical evidence
of it.
He also said that by judging the law - as he related it to me,
which included the Constitution - that "You are taking authority that was
not given to you." Remember, my oath was to judge the "facts and the law."
My view is that the law, as presented by the judge, included the U.S.
Constitution. I made the "logical conclusion" that the Constitution is the
"highest law in the land," which every schoolboy knows. It would be
illogical to conclude a judge's other instructions supersede the clear and
unequivocal language of the U.S. Constitution.
The day ended in court with the judge's answer of the juror's
questions, and his pledge to consult other jurists about this "new wrinkle,"
as he put it. I wonder what the Korean guy was thinking by this point. (My
guess: "America really has become a third-world country.")
The next day we traipsed into the courtroom at about 9:30 to
hear the judge's report. He reiterated (much more briefly) his charge from
yesterday afternoon, and then sent us back into the jury room with the
instruction that if we were to have the same problem that we should send him
a note saying we have the same problem. It didn't take a second for me and
the other jurors to say in unison "Send the note!"
So we once again marched into the courtroom, junior legal clerks
now in the area of the courtroom reserved for visitors, and the judge said
he'd interview us individually and ask us two questions: "Will you be able
to fulfill your oath as a juror to apply the laws as I instruct you?"
("Yes," I could answer, because he has explained the U.S. Constitution) and
"Could you start your deliberations fresh?" (Assuming a juror were removed).
After the foreman went in to talk with the judge - less than two
minutes - it was my turn.
I gave an affirmative to his first question, which was exactly
the question he said it would be, and then added: "But I think I can
clarify. I'm the one who asked the first question, and I'm the one about
whom the juror asked the second question, though I disagree with all of the
characterizations in the question."
I explained how I came to where I am: "I talked about the
Constitution because you had introduced it into the case, your honor. Right
after we took our oaths to judge the case according to the 'facts and the
law' as described by you, you launched into a detailed description of the
Constitution. You described the First Article and how it established
Congress, the second article and the presidency and the third article and
the judiciary. You even made a point of calling us Constitutional officers,
and I took that discussion seriously. Every schoolboy knows that the
Constitution is the highest law in the land."
What followed was a fifteen-minute sparring match where he
attempted to get me to say that I "interpret" - a favorite word of judges -
the Constitution the way I want. But nobody in the room was fooled. It was
clear to everybody that the sole reason I was in the room was because I had
refused to become a constitutional "interpreter.
"Your honor, I need an interpreter for a document written in
Greek or Latin, because they are foreign languages. But the Constitution is
written in English, my native tongue, and as an educator I know that it is
written to the 11th grade vocabulary level. We don't need to interpret
simple declarative English sentences of the Constitution. We can simply read
them." I told him that the words in the Constitution have a specific meaning
that are independent of how I may or may not want them to mean. "Words have
specific meaning," I said several times.
We discussed my first question to the judge from the jury room
(about the 18th Amendment) - "I don't understand the point of this." he
said. I explained. "If Congress felt they didn't have the power to ban a
drug - alcohol - in 1918 without amending the Constitution, how is it that
the Congress has the power to do exactly the same thing now without a
constitutional amendment?"
He explained that the power of Congress to ban substances within
a state was "authorized by the commerce clause of the Constitution.
we discussed the grammar of the clause, or I did anyway . to no conclusion.
He seemed to assume that the word "among" was a synonym of the word "inside"
or "within," a definition not found in any definition ever printed in any
English dictionary ever printed and not found in the language of the
Founders. The judge was more interested in past court precedents than the
actual language of the Constitution. The text of the Constitution wasn't on
his tongue; what mattered was past court precedents. They were, as far as I
could tell, infallible. I wonder if he would try to defend Plessy v.
Ferguson.
Then he played the Reagan Republican card: "Would you say that
Congress has sometimes gone too far, as happened in the Lopez case?" he
asked, explaining the case to me (I remembered the case, but had forgotten
the name of the case until reminded.) I told him that I thought that my role
was to decide the facts against the law as he described in this case.
He asked me if the judge cannot instruct the jury on the law,
and I replied: "No, your honor, the judge must instruct the jury on the
statutes and the precedents. They are very complex." The judge had earlier
used the term "teacher" of the law to describe his role. He was going far
beyond the teacher role now, but I think that would be a fair assessment of
the proper role of a judge. "And the Constitution?
already presented it to us," I replied.
So then I was sent out of the room and the lawyers crafted a
question for me to answer. The question - a second oath, really - that I was
asked to affirm was, near as I can remember, this: "Would you be able to set
aside your own reading of the Constitution, the judge's past instructions
and judge the facts based solely upon the judge's explanation of the law?" I
said that I didn't "understand what was meant by 'reading.' The words of the
Constitution mean what they mean." I really think I was being asked that if
I were to read the word "red," and the judge instructed me to hear the word
"blue," I must act as if the word were blue.
As to the second part, I regarded it as a question that demanded
I set aside my common sense. What if the judge had issued a direction on the
law that all Italians are guilty? Had I taken this second oath, I would have
felt bound to have my role limited to simply determining if the defendant
were Italian. I would have been bound to vote guilty if the judge had said
"the law says that if the sun rose today, then the defendant is guilty." It
struck me as going too far. It went too far probing into the minds of
jurors, too far outside of the law of common sense, and probably too far
legally for a judge to demand such fealty as a condition of jury service.
I told them that I didn't know if I could answer "yes" to the
question. It was, in effect, a "no."
They kicked me out of the room to finalize my dismissal, called
me back and politely dismissed me.
I never wanted to get on any jury anyway, and only responded to
the summons because it threatened prison and fines for non-compliance. Now I
know what to say to the next judge who tries to put me on a jury: "I'm not a
qualified juror because I have memorized the U.S. Constitution, read English
and believe in an objective reality."
That's guaranteed to get me off!
Note: The quotes in this report are based upon my best memory of
the events that occurred, as I wrote them down the evenings after the court
sessions. There are bound to be a few slight - very slight! - differences in
language between the quotes above and the official court transcript. If
there is a discrepancy, I am sure the official transcript is the more
accurate of the two accounts. I haven't seen the official transcript, but I
am certain that there would be no substantial difference between my
recollection and the official transcript.
Thomas R. Eddlem edited the just-published book,
Liberty in Eclipse, by William Norman Grigg. Mr. Eddlem is Legislative
Action Director for RightSourceOnline.
LewRockwell.
© 2008 LewRockwell.
Where your money goes.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm
Current Military
$965 billion:
. Military Personnel $129 billion
. Operation & Maint. $241 billion
. Procurement $143 billion
. Research & Dev. $79 billion
. Construction $15 billion
. Family Housing $3 billion
. DoD misc. $4 billion
. Retired Pay $70 billion
. DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
. NASA (50%) $9 billion
. International Security $9 billion
. Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
. State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
. other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
. "Global War on Terror" $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the
last item to supplement the Budget's grossly underestimated $38 billion in
"allowances" to be spent in 2009 for the "War on Terror," which includes the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]
Past Military,
$484 billion:
. Veterans' Benefits $94 billion
. Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390
billion
Human Resources
$789 billion:
. Health/Human Services
. Soc. Sec. Administration
. Education Dept.
. Food/Nutrition programs
. Housing & Urban Dev.
. Labor Dept.
. other human resources.
General Government
$304 billion:
. Interest on debt (20%)
. Treasury . Government personnel . Justice Dept.
. State Dept.
. Homeland Security (15%)
. International Affairs
. NASA (50%)
. Judicial
. Legislative
. other general govt.
Physical Resources
$117 billion:
. Agriculture
. Interior
. Transportation
. Homeland Security (15%)
. HUD
. Commerce
. Energy (non-military)
. Environmental Protection
. Nat. Science Fdtn.
. Army Corps Engineers
. Fed. Comm. Commission
. other physical resources
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED
Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the
military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional
$162 billion to supplement the Budget's misleading and vast underestimate of
only $38 billion for the "war on terror." "Past military" represents
veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*
The Government Deception
The pie chart below is the government view of the budget.
This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it
includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past
military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a
more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really
spent, see the large chart (top).
Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the
"Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not
include trust funds - such as Social Security - that are raised and spent
separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008,
goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of
combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making
the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion
smaller.
*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military;
other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had
been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have
been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
Are We Safe Yet?
Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
(billions of dollars)
source: For 2001 to 2008 from Center for Arms Control and
Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.org; for 2009, the Budget includes $70
billion in "allowances" for GWOT; WRL estimates an additional $130 billion
will be authorized for spending in 2009 and subsequent years, making the
total authorized $200 billion. This graph shows Budget Authority, while the
pie on the front is Outlays.
U.S. Military Spending vs. The World
U.S. military spending - Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons
(in $billions) - is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries
combined.
These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some
say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the
highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States
accounts for 47 percent of the world's total military spending, however the
U.S.'s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the
top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The
U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.
Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,
our graph uses a more
comparable figure of $515 from actual 2006 U.S. military spending
----------------------------------------------------------
Hang Up on War
Refuse to pay the federal excise tax on local phone service (the
tax on long distance phone service was eliminated in 2006). This tax has
been used symbolically as a war tax since the Spanish-American War
a.. Leaflet with this flyer between now and Tax Day, Tuesday, April
15, 2008. There are peace groups around the country - get out and be visible
against the war!
b.. Write the President and Congress and demand that war money be
used for services instead. Write letters to the editor of your local paper.
Send them all copies of this flyer.
c.. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Send all of
them copies of this flyer.
d.. Protest with your money! Sign up at wartaxboycott.org. Refuse to
pay all or part of your income tax. Whatever you choose to refuse-$1, $10,
the 7% that pays for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or more - send a letter
to elected officials and tell them why. Though illegal, thousands of people
openly participate in this form of protest. You can take control of your
paycheck and avoid contributing to the military. Contact us for information
or referral to a counselor near you. Contribute resisted tax money to
organizations working to help people, provide needed services, or care for
victims of war.
e.. For more about refusing to pay for war, contact the National War
Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, PO Box 150553, Brooklyn, NY 11215,
(800) 269-7464; www.nwtrcc.org. Support the Peace Tax Fund bill to allow
100% of your taxes to fund nonmilitary programs: (888) 732-2382
Why Do the Percentages Vary from Group to Group?
The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20%
of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War
Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?
Different groups have different purposes in how they present the
budget figures. WRL's goal has been to show the percentage of money that
goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying - or not
paying - their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are
military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years.
There are at least five different factors to consider when
analyzing the U.S. budget:
a.. discretionary spending vs. total spending
b.. budget authority vs. outlays
c.. function vs. agency/department
d.. federal funds vs. unified budget
e.. time period
Discretionary Spending. The Center for Defense Information (CDI)
has used "discretionary" spending - budget items that Congress is allowed to
tinker with - which excludes so-called "mandatory" spending items (such as
interest on the national debt and retirement pay). WRL does not make such
distinctions and lumps them together.
Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough
money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they
borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done
heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years
as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national
debt.
How much of the debt is considered "military" varies from
group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently,
FCNL reports that 43% of the FY2007 budget is military (29% current military
and 14% past military). WRL's figures are 54% of the FY2009 budget (36%
current - which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars - and 18% past).
Outlays vs. Budget Authority. WRL uses "outlays" rather than
"budget authority," which is often preferred by the government, news media,
and groups such as CDI. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular
fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over
a period of several future years. Consequently, CDI reported $421 billion in
FY2005 budget authority for the military and $2,200 billion "over the next
five years." While WRL reports outlays of $803 billion, plus an anticipated
$162 billion in supplemental spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan
wars, plus $484 billion in past military spending - totaling $1,449
billion - just for FY2009.
Function vs. Agency/Department. Not all military spending is
done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is
responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military
spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the
department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what
constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 70% of
Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in
military spending, while other groups do not.
Federal Funds vs. Unified Budget. WRL uses "federal funds"
rather than the "unified budget" figures that the government prefers.
Federal funds exclude trust fund money (e.g., social security), which is
raised separately (e.g., the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and
is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds
with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears
smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s
as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular.
What period are we talking about? Finally, there is some
variation in figures because different fiscal years are used. WRL's figures
(above) are for FY2009 (Oct. 1, 2008 to Sep. 30, 2009) as are the most
recent U.S. government figures. FCNL sometimes does their analysis for the
most recent completed year or FY2007 (Oct. 1, 2006 to Sep. 30, 2007).
Viva Liberty!
Current Military
$965 billion:
. Military Personnel $129 billion
. Operation & Maint. $241 billion
. Procurement $143 billion
. Research & Dev. $79 billion
. Construction $15 billion
. Family Housing $3 billion
. DoD misc. $4 billion
. Retired Pay $70 billion
. DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
. NASA (50%) $9 billion
. International Security $9 billion
. Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
. State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
. other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
. "Global War on Terror" $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the
last item to supplement the Budget's grossly underestimated $38 billion in
"allowances" to be spent in 2009 for the "War on Terror," which includes the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]
Past Military,
$484 billion:
. Veterans' Benefits $94 billion
. Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390
billion
Human Resources
$789 billion:
. Health/Human Services
. Soc. Sec. Administration
. Education Dept.
. Food/Nutrition programs
. Housing & Urban Dev.
. Labor Dept.
. other human resources.
General Government
$304 billion:
. Interest on debt (20%)
. Treasury . Government personnel . Justice Dept.
. State Dept.
. Homeland Security (15%)
. International Affairs
. NASA (50%)
. Judicial
. Legislative
. other general govt.
Physical Resources
$117 billion:
. Agriculture
. Interior
. Transportation
. Homeland Security (15%)
. HUD
. Commerce
. Energy (non-military)
. Environmental Protection
. Nat. Science Fdtn.
. Army Corps Engineers
. Fed. Comm. Commission
. other physical resources
Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion
HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED
Current military" includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the
military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional
$162 billion to supplement the Budget's misleading and vast underestimate of
only $38 billion for the "war on terror." "Past military" represents
veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*
The Government Deception
The pie chart below is the government view of the budget.
This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it
includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past
military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending. For a
more accurate representation of how your Federal income tax dollar is really
spent, see the large chart (top).
Source: Congressional Budget Office for FY2008
These figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the
"Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not
include trust funds - such as Social Security - that are raised and spent
separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008,
goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of
combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making
the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion
smaller.
*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military;
other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had
been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have
been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page.
Are We Safe Yet?
Cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
(billions of dollars)
source: For 2001 to 2008 from Center for Arms Control and
Non-Proliferation, armscontrolcenter.
billion in "allowances" for GWOT; WRL estimates an additional $130 billion
will be authorized for spending in 2009 and subsequent years, making the
total authorized $200 billion. This graph shows Budget Authority, while the
pie on the front is Outlays.
U.S. Military Spending vs. The World
U.S. military spending - Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons
(in $billions) - is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries
combined.
These numbers show military expenditures for each country. Some
say that U.S. military spending will naturally be higher because it has the
highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of any country. The United States
accounts for 47 percent of the world's total military spending, however the
U.S.'s share of the world's GDP is about 21 percent. Also note that of the
top 15 countries shown, at least 12 are considered allies of the U.S. The
U.S. outspends Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to one.
Source: Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation,
our graph uses a more
comparable figure of $515 from actual 2006 U.S. military spending
------------
Hang Up on War
Refuse to pay the federal excise tax on local phone service (the
tax on long distance phone service was eliminated in 2006). This tax has
been used symbolically as a war tax since the Spanish-American War
a.. Leaflet with this flyer between now and Tax Day, Tuesday, April
15, 2008. There are peace groups around the country - get out and be visible
against the war!
b.. Write the President and Congress and demand that war money be
used for services instead. Write letters to the editor of your local paper.
Send them all copies of this flyer.
c.. Write letters to the editor of your local paper. Send all of
them copies of this flyer.
d.. Protest with your money! Sign up at wartaxboycott.
pay all or part of your income tax. Whatever you choose to refuse-$1, $10,
the 7% that pays for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or more - send a letter
to elected officials and tell them why. Though illegal, thousands of people
openly participate in this form of protest. You can take control of your
paycheck and avoid contributing to the military. Contact us for information
or referral to a counselor near you. Contribute resisted tax money to
organizations working to help people, provide needed services, or care for
victims of war.
e.. For more about refusing to pay for war, contact the National War
Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, PO Box 150553, Brooklyn, NY 11215,
(800) 269-7464; www.nwtrcc.org. Support the Peace Tax Fund bill to allow
100% of your taxes to fund nonmilitary programs: (888) 732-2382
Why Do the Percentages Vary from Group to Group?
The U.S. Government says that military spending amounts to 20%
of the budget, the Center for Defense Information (CDI) reports 51%, the
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) reports 43%, and the War
Resisters League claims 54%. Why the variation?
Different groups have different purposes in how they present the
budget figures. WRL's goal has been to show the percentage of money that
goes to the military (current and past) so that people paying - or not
paying - their federal taxes would know what portion of their payments are
military-oriented. Also, some of the numbers are for different fiscal years.
There are at least five different factors to consider when
analyzing the U.S. budget:
a.. discretionary spending vs. total spending
b.. budget authority vs. outlays
c.. function vs. agency/department
d.. federal funds vs. unified budget
e.. time period
Discretionary Spending. The Center for Defense Information (CDI)
has used "discretionary" spending - budget items that Congress is allowed to
tinker with - which excludes so-called "mandatory" spending items (such as
interest on the national debt and retirement pay). WRL does not make such
distinctions and lumps them together.
Past Military Spending. If the government does not have enough
money to finance a war (or spending for its hefty military budgets), they
borrow through loans, savings bonds, and so forth. This borrowing (done
heavily during World War II and the Vietnam War) comes back in later years
as "hidden" military spending through interest payments on the national
debt.
How much of the debt is considered "military" varies from
group. As mentioned above, WRL uses 80% whereas FCNL uses 48%. Consequently,
FCNL reports that 43% of the FY2007 budget is military (29% current military
and 14% past military). WRL's figures are 54% of the FY2009 budget (36%
current - which includes 7% for Iraq & Afghanistan wars - and 18% past).
Outlays vs. Budget Authority. WRL uses "outlays" rather than
"budget authority," which is often preferred by the government, news media,
and groups such as CDI. Outlays refer to spending done in a particular
fiscal year, whereas budget authority refers to new spending authorized over
a period of several future years. Consequently, CDI reported $421 billion in
FY2005 budget authority for the military and $2,200 billion "over the next
five years." While WRL reports outlays of $803 billion, plus an anticipated
$162 billion in supplemental spending requests for Iraq and Afghanistan
wars, plus $484 billion in past military spending - totaling $1,449
billion - just for FY2009.
Function vs. Agency/Department. Not all military spending is
done by the Department of Defense. For example, the Department of Energy is
responsible for nuclear weapons. Consequently, calculations of military
spending should consider the function of the budget item regardless of the
department or agency in charge of it. However, not everyone agrees what
constitutes a military function. For example, WRL includes the 70% of
Homeland Security (which includes the Coast Guard), and half of NASA in
military spending, while other groups do not.
Federal Funds vs. Unified Budget. WRL uses "federal funds"
rather than the "unified budget" figures that the government prefers.
Federal funds exclude trust fund money (e.g., social security), which is
raised separately (e.g., the FICA and Medicare deductions in paychecks) and
is specifically ear-marked for particular programs. By combining trust funds
with federal funds, the percentage of spending on the military appears
smaller, a deceptive practice first used by the government in the late 1960s
as the Vietnam War became more and more unpopular.
What period are we talking about? Finally, there is some
variation in figures because different fiscal years are used. WRL's figures
(above) are for FY2009 (Oct. 1, 2008 to Sep. 30, 2009) as are the most
recent U.S. government figures. FCNL sometimes does their analysis for the
most recent completed year or FY2007 (Oct. 1, 2006 to Sep. 30, 2007).
Viva Liberty!
Friday, March 14, 2008
Complete Liberty
COMPLETE LIBERTY
The Demise of the State and the Rise of Voluntary America
wes@completeliberty.com
Isn't it about time to realize the American Dream?
You own yourself, and you make decisions for yourself. As Aristotle pointed
out over 2300 years ago, humans are creatures of reason, rational animals.
Thus, we are capable of running our lives as we see fit, and acknowledging
others' ability to do likewise. Everything else outlined in this book
follows from these basic facts.
The State exists because it's encouraged us to surrender full ownership of
ourselves and submit to the edicts of governmental officials. We are told
that such prevention of personal choice and denial of property rights are
for our own good, or "general welfare." The State mocks our self-respect and
our respect for others by taxing us, regulating us, and foisting its many
operations on us.
Instead of the State and the all-too-common problems it creates, let's
foster a society of complete liberty. Let's allow the tremendous ingenuity
of a truly free marketplace of goods, services, and ideas provide for all of
us - while fully respecting our lives and property. In turn, let's look
forward to dramatically higher living standards and a much brighter future.
A voluntary America is about reclaiming ourselves, our fundamental dignity
as unique persons, and living life to the fullest, in accordance with the
principle of individual rights. Why should we have ever settled for less?
Read online: http://completeliberty.com/contents.php
Viva Liberty!
The Demise of the State and the Rise of Voluntary America
wes@completeliberty
Isn't it about time to realize the American Dream?
You own yourself, and you make decisions for yourself. As Aristotle pointed
out over 2300 years ago, humans are creatures of reason, rational animals.
Thus, we are capable of running our lives as we see fit, and acknowledging
others' ability to do likewise. Everything else outlined in this book
follows from these basic facts.
The State exists because it's encouraged us to surrender full ownership of
ourselves and submit to the edicts of governmental officials. We are told
that such prevention of personal choice and denial of property rights are
for our own good, or "general welfare." The State mocks our self-respect and
our respect for others by taxing us, regulating us, and foisting its many
operations on us.
Instead of the State and the all-too-common problems it creates, let's
foster a society of complete liberty. Let's allow the tremendous ingenuity
of a truly free marketplace of goods, services, and ideas provide for all of
us - while fully respecting our lives and property. In turn, let's look
forward to dramatically higher living standards and a much brighter future.
A voluntary America is about reclaiming ourselves, our fundamental dignity
as unique persons, and living life to the fullest, in accordance with the
principle of individual rights. Why should we have ever settled for less?
Read online: http://completelibe
Viva Liberty!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)