http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/once-again-ron-paul-gets-the-lowest-gop-score-from-the-us-chamber-of-commerce-92225644.html
The Chamber of Commerce ranks Ron Paul lower than any other congressman. He does, afterall, support cutting back spending, printing, borrowing, and congressional pay. This doesn't sit well with the Corporate Keyensians at the COC.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Hutaree vs. FBI
http://www.toledoblade.com/article/20100428/NEWS02/4280343/-1/rssl
From the looks of recent information (being leaked out bit by bit) it seems the Government made just about everything up.
From the looks of recent information (being leaked out bit by bit) it seems the Government made just about everything up.
Two New Ron Paul Vids
Video 1 - Obama is a Corporatist, not a Socialist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sNukihJ36c&feature=player_embedded
Video 2 - Freezing Government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMwzX8hJp7o&feature=player_embedded
Video 2 - Freezing Government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMwzX8hJp7o&feature=player_embedded
Concerning Arizona
I, for one, like Arizona. In fact, I like it so much I plan to move there at some point in the near future. The weather is nice (hot and dry, just the way I like it), the economy is much better off than most of the country, and the people out west are friendly enough.
As for the three laws recently passed, I can only agree with two of them. The first, allowing for concealed weapons carry without a permit is a great idea. I'm not a fan of guns personally, and do not own one, but the right to defend oneself should not rely on the Government's permission.
The second, requiring all Presidential candidates to have a valid Birth Certificate is also a good move. I don't understand why Obamaites are so uspet about this... if their Savior-in-Chief has his proper papers, he should have nothing to fear from this.
The third, however, a draconian immigration law, is a bad idea. When Tom Tancredo says you've gone too far on border enforcement, you know you've crossed the line.
All of this in consideration, I still like Arizona. Even more so now than before. That they would defy the Federal Government in such a bold manner is pleasing. It's about time the States took their sovereignty back. The people (much like the Tea-Parties) need to follow in suit.
- J. Buell
As for the three laws recently passed, I can only agree with two of them. The first, allowing for concealed weapons carry without a permit is a great idea. I'm not a fan of guns personally, and do not own one, but the right to defend oneself should not rely on the Government's permission.
The second, requiring all Presidential candidates to have a valid Birth Certificate is also a good move. I don't understand why Obamaites are so uspet about this... if their Savior-in-Chief has his proper papers, he should have nothing to fear from this.
The third, however, a draconian immigration law, is a bad idea. When Tom Tancredo says you've gone too far on border enforcement, you know you've crossed the line.
All of this in consideration, I still like Arizona. Even more so now than before. That they would defy the Federal Government in such a bold manner is pleasing. It's about time the States took their sovereignty back. The people (much like the Tea-Parties) need to follow in suit.
- J. Buell
Russian Court Bans Neo-Nazi Group
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_neo_nazis_banned;_ylt=Au7yXtXypPrJkf8WOmQnVUWyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJuaW4wcnA4BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDI4L2V1X3J1c3NpYV9uZW9fbmF6aXNfYmFubmVkBHBvcwMyMwRzZWMDeW5fc3ViY2F0X2xpc3QEc2xrA3J1c3NpYW5jb3VydA--
As much as I despise Neo-Nazi's (I've had a run-in with them before) I must go back to that famous and true quote:
"Freedom of Speech does not exist to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Popular speech does not need to be protected."
As much as I despise Neo-Nazi's (I've had a run-in with them before) I must go back to that famous and true quote:
"Freedom of Speech does not exist to protect popular speech, but unpopular speech. Popular speech does not need to be protected."
Some Things Escape My Understanding
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100428/us_nm/us_usa_court_cross;_ylt=AqxZqj1AvZQEc_ecrIcwmBSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJvaGFob21qBGFzc2V0A25tLzIwMTAwNDI4L3VzX3VzYV9jb3VydF9jcm9zcwRwb3MDMTcEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNzdXByZW1lY291cnQ-
I don't care what religion you are, if you have any at all (I won't go into my own feelings on theological matters), but that this even came before the Supreme Court baffles me.
Who cares if someone put up a cross honoring Veterans. All the power to 'em.
I personally see a contradiction in putting up a symbol of the 'Prince of Peace' to "honor" those who lived their lives by the sword (or gun, more correctly). But it's none of my business.
If it's on tax-paid property, I'd understand. But this PC crap is just getting out of hand.
I don't care what religion you are, if you have any at all (I won't go into my own feelings on theological matters), but that this even came before the Supreme Court baffles me.
Who cares if someone put up a cross honoring Veterans. All the power to 'em.
I personally see a contradiction in putting up a symbol of the 'Prince of Peace' to "honor" those who lived their lives by the sword (or gun, more correctly). But it's none of my business.
If it's on tax-paid property, I'd understand. But this PC crap is just getting out of hand.
Thomas Woods Explains - Native Americans Were NOT Enviornmentalists
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods132.html
Great read. Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Great read. Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Renouncing American Citizenship: By Lew Rockwell
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/giving-up-us-citizenship143.html
Let's be clear about something. A person who decides to give up his US citizenship is not guilty of disloyalty to America; quite the opposite. He could very well be more loyal to American principles than the regime is willing to tolerate.
It also does not mean that he is giving up hope for liberty; he may have great hope for liberty, in a different way and in a different place.
In any case, the rise of emigration, expatriation, and citizenship renunciation is a trend that is not going away. It is rising and will get more significant. In some ways, it is completely expected. When regimes over-control, over-tax, over-regulate, they gnaw at the innate sense of the right to be free. When this gets worse and worse, people tend to look around for better environments.
We've all known people who talk about it openly. It is becoming cocktail conversation, the once-unthinkable now standard fare. It's not just an impression. State Department records show that 502 people gave up citizenship in just the last quarter of 2009. That is more than twice the total for 2008. That might not seem like a lot but what stands out here is the trend line, which is soaring. I also hear reports of year-long bureaucratic delays in approval, and, of course, plenty of people leave without permission.
The driving factors here are not cultural or social; they are economic. The US government is making it ever more difficult for Americans living abroad, taxing them wherever the bureaucrats can find them. The government makes it very difficult even to hold a bank account in the US unless the account holder can point to a US residency (thanks to the Patriot Act). And when the government finds a reporting error on income earned overseas, it can charge a 50% penalty.
Even when a person gives up US citizenship, and establishes citizenship with a freer country, the US government can still haunt him with continuing tax obligations and demands for military service. There is, at the least, a vast exit penalty. Any regime that would do things like this inspires people to want to stay at arm's length.
Far more frightening is the sense that financial calamity is around the corner. A look at the data seems to suggest that. Vast reserves are sitting in the banking system, waiting to be unleashed to create what could be total destruction of the dollar. The deficit is rising so fast that it is hard to chart.
The jobs situation is terrible, especially for young people (and adults often make decisions based on what is best for their kids' future). Personal income is falling and falling. Investment is not recovering after its cliff dive in 2009. The social welfare state is broke. Private debt is rising even though lending has not restarted.
The policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities are absolutely terrifying. The Fed is keeping rates at zero. The government is spending and spending beyond belief. Tax receipts are falling as never before, unleashing the greedy hand of the predator state to extract every last dime.
And look at what the US congress and president are doing about this terrible mess: they are working to socialize health care, start a war with Iran, impose tariffs on China, and otherwise tax, regulate, inflate, and control more more more. An economy that is heavily capitalized and driven by the entrepreneurial spirit can stand a surprising amount of abuse. But that reserve capital is being drained away into new bubbles, and the entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed at every turn.
Based on all these facts, the sense of impending doom is hard to avoid. And consider that most people are thinking only about today, this month, and this year. But among the rich and entrepreneurial we find a class of people who specialize in thinking outside the box, and for the very long term. It is among the ranks of these people that we are seeing the renunciation trend take hold. The smart money is giving up on the US political system.
What precisely is a person actually giving up when he walks into a US consulate and signs the renunciation oath? The right to vote? Yes, but just how much value are we supposed to place on the right to choose between dumb and dumber, and to have your vote cancelled out by the guy behind you in the line? No living person has ever swung a significant election. It is hardly a surprise that people put so little value on going through the motions of democracy.
There is much to give up in a cultural and social sense. It is not a decision to be made with a light heart. It is final and scary for that reason. What compels many people to do it now rather than wait is the sense that at some point, it might not be possible to renounce citizenship. As the controls grow ever tighter, so will the regulations on those who try to escape.
Every socialist and fascist regime in history has put up walls to prevent flight by people and capital. This is why people and capital are flying now, while they still can. In so doing, they are inspired by the writings of the American revolutionaries. The difference is that they have decided that living in the land of the free and the home of the brave means not being a slave of the US government.
The way to stop the brain and capital drain is readily at hand. Relinquish controls. Stop taxing people abroad. Adopt laissez-faire. Reinstitute freedom. Reject militarism and nationalism. Only that path will inspire optimism in the future of this country. Until that happens, we can expect this trend to continue, and to advise the young and successful families who ask us, to get out while the getting is good.
Let's be clear about something. A person who decides to give up his US citizenship is not guilty of disloyalty to America; quite the opposite. He could very well be more loyal to American principles than the regime is willing to tolerate.
It also does not mean that he is giving up hope for liberty; he may have great hope for liberty, in a different way and in a different place.
In any case, the rise of emigration, expatriation, and citizenship renunciation is a trend that is not going away. It is rising and will get more significant. In some ways, it is completely expected. When regimes over-control, over-tax, over-regulate, they gnaw at the innate sense of the right to be free. When this gets worse and worse, people tend to look around for better environments.
We've all known people who talk about it openly. It is becoming cocktail conversation, the once-unthinkable now standard fare. It's not just an impression. State Department records show that 502 people gave up citizenship in just the last quarter of 2009. That is more than twice the total for 2008. That might not seem like a lot but what stands out here is the trend line, which is soaring. I also hear reports of year-long bureaucratic delays in approval, and, of course, plenty of people leave without permission.
The driving factors here are not cultural or social; they are economic. The US government is making it ever more difficult for Americans living abroad, taxing them wherever the bureaucrats can find them. The government makes it very difficult even to hold a bank account in the US unless the account holder can point to a US residency (thanks to the Patriot Act). And when the government finds a reporting error on income earned overseas, it can charge a 50% penalty.
Even when a person gives up US citizenship, and establishes citizenship with a freer country, the US government can still haunt him with continuing tax obligations and demands for military service. There is, at the least, a vast exit penalty. Any regime that would do things like this inspires people to want to stay at arm's length.
Far more frightening is the sense that financial calamity is around the corner. A look at the data seems to suggest that. Vast reserves are sitting in the banking system, waiting to be unleashed to create what could be total destruction of the dollar. The deficit is rising so fast that it is hard to chart.
The jobs situation is terrible, especially for young people (and adults often make decisions based on what is best for their kids' future). Personal income is falling and falling. Investment is not recovering after its cliff dive in 2009. The social welfare state is broke. Private debt is rising even though lending has not restarted.
The policies of the fiscal and monetary authorities are absolutely terrifying. The Fed is keeping rates at zero. The government is spending and spending beyond belief. Tax receipts are falling as never before, unleashing the greedy hand of the predator state to extract every last dime.
And look at what the US congress and president are doing about this terrible mess: they are working to socialize health care, start a war with Iran, impose tariffs on China, and otherwise tax, regulate, inflate, and control more more more. An economy that is heavily capitalized and driven by the entrepreneurial spirit can stand a surprising amount of abuse. But that reserve capital is being drained away into new bubbles, and the entrepreneurial spirit is being crushed at every turn.
Based on all these facts, the sense of impending doom is hard to avoid. And consider that most people are thinking only about today, this month, and this year. But among the rich and entrepreneurial we find a class of people who specialize in thinking outside the box, and for the very long term. It is among the ranks of these people that we are seeing the renunciation trend take hold. The smart money is giving up on the US political system.
What precisely is a person actually giving up when he walks into a US consulate and signs the renunciation oath? The right to vote? Yes, but just how much value are we supposed to place on the right to choose between dumb and dumber, and to have your vote cancelled out by the guy behind you in the line? No living person has ever swung a significant election. It is hardly a surprise that people put so little value on going through the motions of democracy.
There is much to give up in a cultural and social sense. It is not a decision to be made with a light heart. It is final and scary for that reason. What compels many people to do it now rather than wait is the sense that at some point, it might not be possible to renounce citizenship. As the controls grow ever tighter, so will the regulations on those who try to escape.
Every socialist and fascist regime in history has put up walls to prevent flight by people and capital. This is why people and capital are flying now, while they still can. In so doing, they are inspired by the writings of the American revolutionaries. The difference is that they have decided that living in the land of the free and the home of the brave means not being a slave of the US government.
The way to stop the brain and capital drain is readily at hand. Relinquish controls. Stop taxing people abroad. Adopt laissez-faire. Reinstitute freedom. Reject militarism and nationalism. Only that path will inspire optimism in the future of this country. Until that happens, we can expect this trend to continue, and to advise the young and successful families who ask us, to get out while the getting is good.
The Ridiculous IP Laws
http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article7107244.ece
Now Constantin Films (a German movie company) is cracking down on those spoof videos featuring Hitler (from their film "Downfall"). They don't even realize that with these videos, they and their film have recieved more attention (and ultimately more money) than had previously been the case.
Yet, they decided to bite the hands that are feeding them.
This really shows how ridiculous IP laws are. Intellectual Property cannot exist in reality. When ideas are shared the value owned by the first person is not diminished when the same value is attained by the second person. Thoughts and Ideas are not scarce (scarcity being the very reason property exists in the first place) so they cannot be owned.
But don't tell that the Government and their rich pals who monopolize shapes, patterns, colors, words, and mental cognition. To copy is theft, according to them. But this is a silly and preposterous notion at best.
Now Constantin Films (a German movie company) is cracking down on those spoof videos featuring Hitler (from their film "Downfall"). They don't even realize that with these videos, they and their film have recieved more attention (and ultimately more money) than had previously been the case.
Yet, they decided to bite the hands that are feeding them.
This really shows how ridiculous IP laws are. Intellectual Property cannot exist in reality. When ideas are shared the value owned by the first person is not diminished when the same value is attained by the second person. Thoughts and Ideas are not scarce (scarcity being the very reason property exists in the first place) so they cannot be owned.
But don't tell that the Government and their rich pals who monopolize shapes, patterns, colors, words, and mental cognition. To copy is theft, according to them. But this is a silly and preposterous notion at best.
Murder: for kids!
http://www.semissourian.com/story/1629197.html
"Fun Day" for kids in High School (courtesy of the Missouri National Gaurd) involved a simulated game in which the young teens trained to shoot and kill "terrorist" Arabs.
This happens, and parents say nothing (because God foribid anyone says anything bad about the Holy, Sacrosanct Military). But if the library includes a book entitled "Sarah Has Two Mommy's" then suddenly all the morons collect to rant and rave against the Public School System (which shouldn't exist in the first place).
"Fun Day" for kids in High School (courtesy of the Missouri National Gaurd) involved a simulated game in which the young teens trained to shoot and kill "terrorist" Arabs.
This happens, and parents say nothing (because God foribid anyone says anything bad about the Holy, Sacrosanct Military). But if the library includes a book entitled "Sarah Has Two Mommy's" then suddenly all the morons collect to rant and rave against the Public School System (which shouldn't exist in the first place).
Bike Mistaken For Bomb
http://www.thisisfyf.com/2010/04/happy-fucking-earth-day-hundreds-of-bikes-trashed-for-obama-visit-.html
Well, actually, the cops just decided to steal the bikes and claim they were a threat. The occasion? Obama was visiting for "Earth Day".
Look out Mr. President! Someone is bycicling right for you!
Well, actually, the cops just decided to steal the bikes and claim they were a threat. The occasion? Obama was visiting for "Earth Day".
Look out Mr. President! Someone is bycicling right for you!
Inevitable Idiocy
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/23/weisman.volcano.iceland.earth/index.html?hpt=C1
Now someone is claiming the Icelandic volcano (one of several thousand volcanoes world-wide which have been erupting since the dawn of the planet... ie. before humans) is the responsibility of man-made "Global Warming". This, despite the fact that man has only had the capability of mass-pollution for 200 years, and that scientists now say the globe is cooling (those now exposed fakes aside), and that the planet is a self-sustaining system that has existed long before us and will exist long after.
But you can't argue with logic and reason against dogma and religious fervor.
UPDATE: I will admit that "Climate Change" (not "Man-Made Global Warming") is a fact of life. It's been going on for mellinia. Of course the human race has had an impact, just like every species has an impact, especially in the last 200+ years of industrialization. This isn't to say that we are wholly responsible for changes in the weather, as this is a system beyond our control, but it is delicate enough to be tweaked by our activities. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases released into the atmosphere at high levels can have bad effects on the Ozone and cause the planet to warm (or cool... warmth being good for life creation) faster than usual. Pollution, more on a local level, can also be a problem for health and eco-systems which we rely on... whether this be air-pollution, water-pollution, or land-pollution.
Ultimately, we must rely on the free market and entrepenuers to invent and introduce technologies which will help lessen our bad effects on the environment, which ultimately effects our health. And we must also rely on private property to be a check on pollution, and free trade to develop methods of recycling, clean disposal of waste, and improvement of our health and environment in which we live.
This isn't to buy into the false "Al Gore" Hollywood vision of apocolyptic horror. The Earth isn't going anywhere (barring galactic occurences beyond our control, like a meteor or solar rays) and we should not be egotistical enough to think we can have a devestating effect on it, nor can we "save" the planet or attempt to control the balance of nature. Species go extinct every day... we need to worry about preserving humanity, not polar bears. We also shouldn't fall into the psuedo-religious concept of "green environmentalism" which practically worships plants/animals and the Earth Goddess Gaia, advocating the death of people.
We're going to have a carbon footprint (carbon being good for life on the planet, and the creation of oxygen of course) no matter what we do. We can't get rid of our impact, nor should we seek to destroy our health or happiness to limit it to any great degree.
Let's just respect ourselves, each other. Keep researching, never trust the first set of data you see, always allow for debate. Accept that the environment fluxuates, weather is always going to happen (good and bad), and we can't control everything (nor did we cause it). But, we should try to keep our living-space clean and healthy. We should rely on freedom and markets to give us innovative ideas to help us live happily and not contribute to already dangerous planetary warming/cooling periods, as well as provide us a way to survive it. Don't let the Government, or their paid "scientists" scare you into giving away your money or freedoms... they care nothing for the environment, only getting wealthier and more powerful.
SUMMARY: Love the environment, just don't be one of those crazy "environmentalists".
Now someone is claiming the Icelandic volcano (one of several thousand volcanoes world-wide which have been erupting since the dawn of the planet... ie. before humans) is the responsibility of man-made "Global Warming". This, despite the fact that man has only had the capability of mass-pollution for 200 years, and that scientists now say the globe is cooling (those now exposed fakes aside), and that the planet is a self-sustaining system that has existed long before us and will exist long after.
But you can't argue with logic and reason against dogma and religious fervor.
UPDATE: I will admit that "Climate Change" (not "Man-Made Global Warming") is a fact of life. It's been going on for mellinia. Of course the human race has had an impact, just like every species has an impact, especially in the last 200+ years of industrialization. This isn't to say that we are wholly responsible for changes in the weather, as this is a system beyond our control, but it is delicate enough to be tweaked by our activities. Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and other gases released into the atmosphere at high levels can have bad effects on the Ozone and cause the planet to warm (or cool... warmth being good for life creation) faster than usual. Pollution, more on a local level, can also be a problem for health and eco-systems which we rely on... whether this be air-pollution, water-pollution, or land-pollution.
Ultimately, we must rely on the free market and entrepenuers to invent and introduce technologies which will help lessen our bad effects on the environment, which ultimately effects our health. And we must also rely on private property to be a check on pollution, and free trade to develop methods of recycling, clean disposal of waste, and improvement of our health and environment in which we live.
This isn't to buy into the false "Al Gore" Hollywood vision of apocolyptic horror. The Earth isn't going anywhere (barring galactic occurences beyond our control, like a meteor or solar rays) and we should not be egotistical enough to think we can have a devestating effect on it, nor can we "save" the planet or attempt to control the balance of nature. Species go extinct every day... we need to worry about preserving humanity, not polar bears. We also shouldn't fall into the psuedo-religious concept of "green environmentalism" which practically worships plants/animals and the Earth Goddess Gaia, advocating the death of people.
We're going to have a carbon footprint (carbon being good for life on the planet, and the creation of oxygen of course) no matter what we do. We can't get rid of our impact, nor should we seek to destroy our health or happiness to limit it to any great degree.
Let's just respect ourselves, each other. Keep researching, never trust the first set of data you see, always allow for debate. Accept that the environment fluxuates, weather is always going to happen (good and bad), and we can't control everything (nor did we cause it). But, we should try to keep our living-space clean and healthy. We should rely on freedom and markets to give us innovative ideas to help us live happily and not contribute to already dangerous planetary warming/cooling periods, as well as provide us a way to survive it. Don't let the Government, or their paid "scientists" scare you into giving away your money or freedoms... they care nothing for the environment, only getting wealthier and more powerful.
SUMMARY: Love the environment, just don't be one of those crazy "environmentalists".
War in Space
http://www.news.com.au/technology/is-the-x-37b-the-start-of-war-in-space/story-e6frfro0-1225856980987
It's actually coming. And make no mistake, there'll be no lightsabers, Jedi, or Rebellion... only the Empire, our Sith overlords, and another bazillion or so dollars spent to keep us safe from terrorists...... in space.
It's actually coming. And make no mistake, there'll be no lightsabers, Jedi, or Rebellion... only the Empire, our Sith overlords, and another bazillion or so dollars spent to keep us safe from terrorists...... in space.
Video: Congressman Paul Decries War Propoganda on House Floor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdwHN2De33Q&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Video: Ron Paul vs. Chris Matthews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAl9V9I5dOk&feature=player_embedded
As usual, Matthews has trouble keeping his mouth shut for more than 5 seconds in order to allow his guests time to respond... but it's still an interesting exchange.
As usual, Matthews has trouble keeping his mouth shut for more than 5 seconds in order to allow his guests time to respond... but it's still an interesting exchange.
I Smell An Impeachment
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/The-Six-Secrets-You-Need-to-Know-From-the-Blagojevich-Filing-91848634.html
Obama had much more to do with the "Blago" scandal than at first was apparent. I must admit that I enjoy seeing wealthy politicians being torn down off their high pedestal, especially when that wealthy politician is the President of the United States.
Obama had much more to do with the "Blago" scandal than at first was apparent. I must admit that I enjoy seeing wealthy politicians being torn down off their high pedestal, especially when that wealthy politician is the President of the United States.
Congratulations to Judge Napolitano!
http://freedomwatchonfox.com/2010/04/20/its-official-freedom-watch-coming-to-tv/101519/
His great web-show "Freedom Watch" is moving to television on the Fox Business Channel.
Unfortunately I do not have this channel... so I will continue to view on YouTube.
His great web-show "Freedom Watch" is moving to television on the Fox Business Channel.
Unfortunately I do not have this channel... so I will continue to view on YouTube.
Video: George Carlin on "Earth Day" Nonsense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Apologies
I haven't been able to post on 'Radical Thought' as of late, due to the death of my Uncle and subsequent viewings and funeral. I will return to my regular updates later today.
Thank you for your continued reading and support for the site.
- J. Buell
Thank you for your continued reading and support for the site.
- J. Buell
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Happy National Pot Smoking Day!!!
It's April 20th, which means it's national pot smoking day. :)
Now, I'm not encouraging illegal behavoir, but I will say to have fun celebrating in a manner best suiting the occasion.
Oh, and Legalize Marijuana!
Now, I'm not encouraging illegal behavoir, but I will say to have fun celebrating in a manner best suiting the occasion.
Oh, and Legalize Marijuana!
Government Creation, Goldman Sachs, Is In Hot Water
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100420/pl_mcclatchy/3482625
This was all a predictible result of Federal Reserve and SEC policies. But the Feds don't want to hear that they're at fault. "We need more idiotic regulations!", they cry. And the average American moron thinks they're doing it to protect the little guy.
The Government doesn't protect the little guy. Never has, never will.
This was all a predictible result of Federal Reserve and SEC policies. But the Feds don't want to hear that they're at fault. "We need more idiotic regulations!", they cry. And the average American moron thinks they're doing it to protect the little guy.
The Government doesn't protect the little guy. Never has, never will.
Bank Tax Picks Up Support In Congress
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_on_bi_ge/us_bank_tax
Taxing banks, who are already short on funds, in the middle of a recession. Yeah, I don't see any bad repricussions coming from that.
Taxing banks, who are already short on funds, in the middle of a recession. Yeah, I don't see any bad repricussions coming from that.
House Democrats Kill Bill That Would Have Given Full Voting-Rights To D.C.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100420/pl_mcclatchy/3482619
Yet another campaign promise broken by the now arrogant Dems. Come November, they'll wish they put that bill through. Unless, of course, they're afraid those votes would count against them.
Yet another campaign promise broken by the now arrogant Dems. Come November, they'll wish they put that bill through. Unless, of course, they're afraid those votes would count against them.
Sign Of The Apocolypse!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100420/ap_on_bi_ge/us_supreme_court_pit_bull_videos
The Supreme Court upholds free speech and overturns ban on specific videos!
The Supreme Court upholds free speech and overturns ban on specific videos!
Gates Calls For New Exports Regulatory Agency
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36092.html
Why not? We already have a regulatory agency for every other category of human action.
Why not? We already have a regulatory agency for every other category of human action.
Video: Are The Tea-Partiers Racists?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1CLPhz0DHM&feature=player_embedded
African-American Tea-Partiers are Interviewed. You decide for yourself.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
African-American Tea-Partiers are Interviewed. You decide for yourself.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
School Lunches A National Security Threat
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCHOOL_LUNCHES_THREAT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
You know what, I think this might actually be something I agree with. Not the solution, but the premise nonetheless.
I swear the pizza served in Jr. High was alive.
You know what, I think this might actually be something I agree with. Not the solution, but the premise nonetheless.
I swear the pizza served in Jr. High was alive.
FDA To Regulate Salt In Food
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041905049.html
Why, the next thing you know, they'll be regulating the salt we put in our food! Oh wait... that's the story?
Um... next thing you know, they'll be regulating the air we breathe!
Oh, they do that too?
Well, I guess it's for my safety. Right?
Why, the next thing you know, they'll be regulating the salt we put in our food! Oh wait... that's the story?
Um... next thing you know, they'll be regulating the air we breathe!
Oh, they do that too?
Well, I guess it's for my safety. Right?
Cops Confiscate Photos From Student Journalists
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/243790
The photos were of police using force to put down a "riot" on campus a while back. They claim it was to identify any person who might be a threat to the community, but I presume differently. The only danger to the community are the cops who use excessive, unnecessary violence against innocent people to get off.
Power corrupts...
The photos were of police using force to put down a "riot" on campus a while back. They claim it was to identify any person who might be a threat to the community, but I presume differently. The only danger to the community are the cops who use excessive, unnecessary violence against innocent people to get off.
Power corrupts...
Monday, April 19, 2010
Great Article on Ron Paul and the Libertarian Movement
http://www.lewrockwell.com/raimondo/raimondo76.html
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Slick Willy: Tea-Parties = Timothy McVeigh
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35916.html
Oh yeah, that's a fair comparison.
It amazes me how afraid of domestic violence these Government types are, considering all the violence they are currently committing on a massive level overseas (and here at home with programs like the War on Drugs).
You hate violence? Then you should hate the State.
Oh yeah, that's a fair comparison.
It amazes me how afraid of domestic violence these Government types are, considering all the violence they are currently committing on a massive level overseas (and here at home with programs like the War on Drugs).
You hate violence? Then you should hate the State.
Iraq Veterans Letter of Apology to Iraqi People
http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o/5966/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2724
Please read, and sign. We have to support our troops afterall... especially those who have recognized their crimes and seen the error of their ways. Thank goodness for people like this, who won't simply bow down and obey orders that go against what is ethically right. I'm glad that at least a few of these soldiers are willing, and brave enough, to follow their concience.
Please read, and sign. We have to support our troops afterall... especially those who have recognized their crimes and seen the error of their ways. Thank goodness for people like this, who won't simply bow down and obey orders that go against what is ethically right. I'm glad that at least a few of these soldiers are willing, and brave enough, to follow their concience.
Video: Copying is not Theft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
More Idiocy From NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon1.html?ref=opinion
They say the FCC should regulate the Internet. And why not? They're going out of business because poor and middle-class Americans can find better, more reliable, information on the web for cheaper prices (most of the time completely free).
The NY Times pretends to be a "watchdog" on behalf of the people, but they are truly a mouthpiece for the State and the rest of the Power Elite.
Down with Times! Read more Internet News, and keep the Government out of our computers!
They say the FCC should regulate the Internet. And why not? They're going out of business because poor and middle-class Americans can find better, more reliable, information on the web for cheaper prices (most of the time completely free).
The NY Times pretends to be a "watchdog" on behalf of the people, but they are truly a mouthpiece for the State and the rest of the Power Elite.
Down with Times! Read more Internet News, and keep the Government out of our computers!
Tea-Party Split: Paul vs. Palin
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35988.html
I am a proud member of the Paul side. :)
I am a proud member of the Paul side. :)
Time Magazine's Joe Klein calls Tea-Partiers and Figureheads "Seditious"
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/04/18/time-s-klein-beck-palin-potentially-committing-sedition-against-u-s-gover
Remember back in the good old days when the Liberals were committing sedition by opposing Dubya's War on Terror... well, looks like the kettle is just as black as the pot.
Who would have thought?
Remember back in the good old days when the Liberals were committing sedition by opposing Dubya's War on Terror... well, looks like the kettle is just as black as the pot.
Who would have thought?
Obama Thinks We Need More Regulation To Avoid Another Financial Crisis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100417/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_financial_reform
Nevermind that it was the excess of regulations and Government intervention which led to the collapse (and will do so again very soon). It was all the free market's fault!
We don't have a free market, and haven't had one in over a century... but it's at fault nonetheless.
Nevermind that it was the excess of regulations and Government intervention which led to the collapse (and will do so again very soon). It was all the free market's fault!
We don't have a free market, and haven't had one in over a century... but it's at fault nonetheless.
Clinton: World Sees Us As Divided
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_ot/us_clinton_bush
Good. The world needs to see that not all Americans think like Bush or Obama. Not all Americans support endless, undeclared wars of aggression and occupation. Not all Americans want the Government to continue it's fascistic policies.
There are plenty, in fact a majority, among us who support liberty, and stand in solidarity against the violence enacted by the Feds.
Good. The world needs to see that not all Americans think like Bush or Obama. Not all Americans support endless, undeclared wars of aggression and occupation. Not all Americans want the Government to continue it's fascistic policies.
There are plenty, in fact a majority, among us who support liberty, and stand in solidarity against the violence enacted by the Feds.
Gasp! Majority of Americans Don't Trust the Government
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36007.html
I see this as a reason to be optimistic. The Government and it's pals need to be afraid... very afraid.
I see this as a reason to be optimistic. The Government and it's pals need to be afraid... very afraid.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Ron Paul's Tea-Party Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEOv_rT8LQ&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Obama Laughs At Tea-Partiers
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.yahoo.com%2Fs%2Fap%2F20100415%2Fap_on_re_us%2Fus_obama_tax_protests_2&h=0c59b31d100047c8b12fca530ec588b9
You know what will really be funny? When he gets kicked out of office in 2-years.
(or sooner... crosses fingers)
You know what will really be funny? When he gets kicked out of office in 2-years.
(or sooner... crosses fingers)
Photo: Former IRS Commissioner Condemns Income Tax
http://www.hearliberty.com/usnews2.html
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
More From the War On Smoking
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5086308
Government Bureaucrats are working to get Baseball stars to stop chewing tobacco. This, after Michigan (my wonderful home-state) passes a State-wide smoking ban in any public place.
We're getting closer and closer to yet another addition to the Prohibition list.
I can't wait until we have drive-by's over cigarrette sells gone bad!
Government Bureaucrats are working to get Baseball stars to stop chewing tobacco. This, after Michigan (my wonderful home-state) passes a State-wide smoking ban in any public place.
We're getting closer and closer to yet another addition to the Prohibition list.
I can't wait until we have drive-by's over cigarrette sells gone bad!
The Fascist Southern Poverty Law Center Puts Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano on Their Dreaded "List"
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/the-patriots?page=0,4
Why?
Well because they don't like the Federal Reserve being able to print out counterfeit money and destroy our economy.
The racist bastards.
Why?
Well because they don't like the Federal Reserve being able to print out counterfeit money and destroy our economy.
The racist bastards.
Gays Get More Positive Rights
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100416/ts_nm/us_obama_gays
By "Postive" Rights, I mean rights at the expense of somebody elses ACTUAL rights (ie. Negative Rights).
Obama wants to force (key word "force") hospitals to allow Gay couples visitation rights.
Now, I believe that all human beings deserve their natural right to life, liberty, and property. That includes the ability to visit a family member or friend when they are sick... but if they are in a hospital, that hospital (more specifically the people/person who owns the hospital) has the exclusive right over their property, to decide who can or cannot enter.
I believe gay couples should be left alone. They want to get married... fine. But they can't force someone to marry them. The same applies here. If one gay partner wants to visit another... fine. But they can't force the Hospital to let them in.
But, we live in the United States of America. REAL Rights are ignored for manufactured, make-believe rights given to special groups (Gay Rights, Black Rights, Women's Rights) rather than to humanity as a whole.
Now that's inequality.
By "Postive" Rights, I mean rights at the expense of somebody elses ACTUAL rights (ie. Negative Rights).
Obama wants to force (key word "force") hospitals to allow Gay couples visitation rights.
Now, I believe that all human beings deserve their natural right to life, liberty, and property. That includes the ability to visit a family member or friend when they are sick... but if they are in a hospital, that hospital (more specifically the people/person who owns the hospital) has the exclusive right over their property, to decide who can or cannot enter.
I believe gay couples should be left alone. They want to get married... fine. But they can't force someone to marry them. The same applies here. If one gay partner wants to visit another... fine. But they can't force the Hospital to let them in.
But, we live in the United States of America. REAL Rights are ignored for manufactured, make-believe rights given to special groups (Gay Rights, Black Rights, Women's Rights) rather than to humanity as a whole.
Now that's inequality.
Obama Wants Us To Go To Mars
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_sc/us_obama_space
Seriously? We're in the middle of a recession (oh, I'm sorry, the Government did say it was over when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer) and he wants us to spend billions, scratch that, trillions of dollars we don't have to put a man on a giant rock far away from our own?
Does Obama really care about securing his legacy more than the plight of the people? Is he really that narcisistic?
Oh right... he is the President. My bad.
Seriously? We're in the middle of a recession (oh, I'm sorry, the Government did say it was over when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer) and he wants us to spend billions, scratch that, trillions of dollars we don't have to put a man on a giant rock far away from our own?
Does Obama really care about securing his legacy more than the plight of the people? Is he really that narcisistic?
Oh right... he is the President. My bad.
Tea Party Protests Yesterday Attack Big-Government
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100416/ap_on_go_ot/us_tea_party_rally
I don't agree with everything in the Tea-Party. They claim to be independant of any party, but the Republicans have certainly tried to control the movement (and it appears that they do, whether they can truly do so or not).
However, I applaud the direct citizen action being taken here. Never has a protest movement been this large and succesful. The media has tried to marginalize and ignore this movement, but they are now being forced to watch, listen, and report. Something is happening in this country where the people no longer trust their Government, they are actually serious about "throwing the bums out" and "taking back Washington".
I've been to one of these protests myself, and I assure you the attendees are not racists, idiots, or uninformed red-necks. They are regular middle-class Americans who are rightfully fed up with being made promises that aren't kept, having their money taken by the IRS only to be spent on wasteful programs and wars, and they're sick of being told what to do with their lives by politicians and bureaucrats.
They are largely educated, informed, and issue-driven. Though there are always exceptions in every movement.
I don't see this as exclusively Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Left or Right. This is mainly an Independant, Libertarian, and Populist uprising... and it is a peaceful revolution. Come November, lots of Reps and Dems are going to be very surprised.
Come 2012... I think we're all going to be pleasantly caught off gaurd. No media pundits, Government intellectuals, or political elite predicted this. I may not agree with everything the individuals involved support (closing the borders, protectionism, the war on drugs, militarism in the middle-east, and religious moralism) but by-and-large... this is all about freedom, liberty, and power to the people.
I don't agree with everything in the Tea-Party. They claim to be independant of any party, but the Republicans have certainly tried to control the movement (and it appears that they do, whether they can truly do so or not).
However, I applaud the direct citizen action being taken here. Never has a protest movement been this large and succesful. The media has tried to marginalize and ignore this movement, but they are now being forced to watch, listen, and report. Something is happening in this country where the people no longer trust their Government, they are actually serious about "throwing the bums out" and "taking back Washington".
I've been to one of these protests myself, and I assure you the attendees are not racists, idiots, or uninformed red-necks. They are regular middle-class Americans who are rightfully fed up with being made promises that aren't kept, having their money taken by the IRS only to be spent on wasteful programs and wars, and they're sick of being told what to do with their lives by politicians and bureaucrats.
They are largely educated, informed, and issue-driven. Though there are always exceptions in every movement.
I don't see this as exclusively Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal, Left or Right. This is mainly an Independant, Libertarian, and Populist uprising... and it is a peaceful revolution. Come November, lots of Reps and Dems are going to be very surprised.
Come 2012... I think we're all going to be pleasantly caught off gaurd. No media pundits, Government intellectuals, or political elite predicted this. I may not agree with everything the individuals involved support (closing the borders, protectionism, the war on drugs, militarism in the middle-east, and religious moralism) but by-and-large... this is all about freedom, liberty, and power to the people.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Happy Tax Slavery Day!
In 1913, a very bad year for the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson was elected as President. What followed was a national ban on Alchohol (that worked out real well), the creation of the IRS and the Federal Income Tax, as well as the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.
The last two have more in common than people would like to think. For more on that, Google Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism".
Thankfully, prohibition died out (at least with Alchohol). However, we were stuck with the Federal Reserve and the IRS. One, the former, is a private organization run by rich bankers which serves the purpose of printing out fake money to prop up the faulty system of fractional-reserve banking and to lend money to the Government in order for politicians to afford it's programs, wars, and expenditures without having to raise taxes (and thus lead to civil unrest).
The second, the latter, was an organization whose sole purpose was to pay for this massive fraud called the Federal Reserve. The Federal Income tax does not pay for one single thing you recieve from the Government. Not one thing. It doesn't even pay for defense.
Every penny is spent to cover the interest set by the Federal Reserve bankers so the Government can keep the scheme alive.
For almost 100 years we have endured tax-slavery, to serve the interests of Rich Banking Oligarchs (the true rulers of this country, and the world). Our very labor is owned by Washington. This is nothing short of theft and extortion. There is no law, anywhere written in any Constitution or Law-book, that compells an American Citizen to pay a personal income tax. If there were, it would be an unjust law worthy of breaking.
I will spend this April 15th in protest and defiance of the IRS, the Federal Government and the horrid memory of Woodrow Wilson.
Repeal the 16th Ammendment! End the Fed!
- Justin Buell
The last two have more in common than people would like to think. For more on that, Google Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism".
Thankfully, prohibition died out (at least with Alchohol). However, we were stuck with the Federal Reserve and the IRS. One, the former, is a private organization run by rich bankers which serves the purpose of printing out fake money to prop up the faulty system of fractional-reserve banking and to lend money to the Government in order for politicians to afford it's programs, wars, and expenditures without having to raise taxes (and thus lead to civil unrest).
The second, the latter, was an organization whose sole purpose was to pay for this massive fraud called the Federal Reserve. The Federal Income tax does not pay for one single thing you recieve from the Government. Not one thing. It doesn't even pay for defense.
Every penny is spent to cover the interest set by the Federal Reserve bankers so the Government can keep the scheme alive.
For almost 100 years we have endured tax-slavery, to serve the interests of Rich Banking Oligarchs (the true rulers of this country, and the world). Our very labor is owned by Washington. This is nothing short of theft and extortion. There is no law, anywhere written in any Constitution or Law-book, that compells an American Citizen to pay a personal income tax. If there were, it would be an unjust law worthy of breaking.
I will spend this April 15th in protest and defiance of the IRS, the Federal Government and the horrid memory of Woodrow Wilson.
Repeal the 16th Ammendment! End the Fed!
- Justin Buell
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Holder Still Wants to Capture Bin Laden
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_holder_terror_trials
Which one was Bin Laden again? Was he the one with the WMD's or the one who was trying to persue nuclear energy?
Oh... he's the one who perpetrated 9/11? Oh yeah, I remember now.
Sorry, I just get the names of all the people trying to kill us confused sometimes. Silly me.
Which one was Bin Laden again? Was he the one with the WMD's or the one who was trying to persue nuclear energy?
Oh... he's the one who perpetrated 9/11? Oh yeah, I remember now.
Sorry, I just get the names of all the people trying to kill us confused sometimes. Silly me.
Warmonger McCain says: "Pull the Trigger on Iran"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_go_co/us_us_iran;_ylt=AjB3AUIzcHsF9t.IqJHMWFCyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJiM21qOWp1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDE0L3VzX3VzX2lyYW4EY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM5BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA21jY2FpbnRpbWV0bw--
I can't tell you how glad I am that this man lost the Presidency... and how angry I am that another war-hungry maniac won it.
I can't tell you how glad I am that this man lost the Presidency... and how angry I am that another war-hungry maniac won it.
Obama Call For Tighter Control of Derivatives
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama;_ylt=AlZcjvFiFk58..U8yW6DZdyyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTI5N3MwN3FyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDE0L3VzX29iYW1hBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNvYmFtYWNhbGxzZm8-
People just have to ask..... what are derivatives again?
All joking aside, Obama seems to follow the philosophy that the more regulation, the safer the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the more Government controls over the economy, the less safe it will be from falling into a recession/depression.
But don't tell the average American that... they still think the free-market we don't have in this country caused it all.
People just have to ask..... what are derivatives again?
All joking aside, Obama seems to follow the philosophy that the more regulation, the safer the economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the more Government controls over the economy, the less safe it will be from falling into a recession/depression.
But don't tell the average American that... they still think the free-market we don't have in this country caused it all.
Ron Paul in Statistical Dead-Heat with Obama for 2012 Election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
Oh the time's they are a-changing. :)
Oh the time's they are a-changing. :)
Breaking News: Obama Actually Does Something Right!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-space/
Yes, it appears the President is actually CUTTING spending to the Space Program. Sure, it would be great if he cut back spending on those endless and pointless wars, but this is at least a step in the right direction.
UPDATE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304604204575182743721614372.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
I may have spoke to soon...
Yes, it appears the President is actually CUTTING spending to the Space Program. Sure, it would be great if he cut back spending on those endless and pointless wars, but this is at least a step in the right direction.
UPDATE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304604204575182743721614372.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_news
I may have spoke to soon...
Video: Police Beat Defenseless College Student For No Reason
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at1q3lIpK3c&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Yet Another Reason to Get Rid of Liscensing
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_fake_pilot
41 year-old Thomas Salme of Sweden has been a good pilot for 13 years. He hasn't had a single incedent where anyone, including himself, was put in danger. However, due to his failure to register with the State for his papers, he has now been fined by a Dutch court.
"Kann ich sehen sie ihre Papieren bitte?"
(German for "Can I see your papers please?")
41 year-old Thomas Salme of Sweden has been a good pilot for 13 years. He hasn't had a single incedent where anyone, including himself, was put in danger. However, due to his failure to register with the State for his papers, he has now been fined by a Dutch court.
"Kann ich sehen sie ihre Papieren bitte?"
(German for "Can I see your papers please?")
All the Major Powers Agree
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100413/pl_mcclatchy/3475739
We need to impose more sanctions on Iran.
Hooray for starving people to death for political gain!
We need to impose more sanctions on Iran.
Hooray for starving people to death for political gain!
Laughing Out Loud
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100413/pl_afp/uschinaforexobamayuanpoliticsiran
At the United States for their rampant hypocrisy.
Only our politicians would have the audacity to accuse China of manipulating it's currency, the Yuan, (which it does, of course) while the Federal Reserve System in this country (which operates over the dollar's value, as the reserve currency of the world) is the largest counterfeiting scheme in human history.
All fiat currencies, and all systems of fractional-reserve banking are massive financial frauds.
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black.
At the United States for their rampant hypocrisy.
Only our politicians would have the audacity to accuse China of manipulating it's currency, the Yuan, (which it does, of course) while the Federal Reserve System in this country (which operates over the dollar's value, as the reserve currency of the world) is the largest counterfeiting scheme in human history.
All fiat currencies, and all systems of fractional-reserve banking are massive financial frauds.
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black.
I Hate To Say It...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35733.html
...but Mitch McConnell is right. While most politicians and establishment "economists" blame the recession on lack of regulation, the truth of the matter is that too much regulation caused it. Regulation by the Federal Reserve over interest rates and the flow of money to be precise.
But, as usual, the Government claims we have a free market (which we don't) just so it can blame Capitalism when it's own failures produce drastic consequences for the economy. Of course the solution presented is more of the same.
We need to wake up and smell the Corporatism. We don't live in a lasseiz faire country, and we haven't for a long time. You want to solve our financial problem? Well there's a simple cure:
End the Fed.
...but Mitch McConnell is right. While most politicians and establishment "economists" blame the recession on lack of regulation, the truth of the matter is that too much regulation caused it. Regulation by the Federal Reserve over interest rates and the flow of money to be precise.
But, as usual, the Government claims we have a free market (which we don't) just so it can blame Capitalism when it's own failures produce drastic consequences for the economy. Of course the solution presented is more of the same.
We need to wake up and smell the Corporatism. We don't live in a lasseiz faire country, and we haven't for a long time. You want to solve our financial problem? Well there's a simple cure:
End the Fed.
Obama: "Risk of Nuclear Attack is Up"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_conference;_ylt=AuPcLswdwN2SEMfO95S1QemyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtN2txMHU1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDEzL3VzX251Y2xlYXJfY29uZmVyZW5jZQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFyaXNrc29m
And no, I don't think he's talking about the risk of the United States or Isreal launching a pre-imptive strike on Iran (as they've threatened to do). The President is attempting to ratchet up the fear in America and it's hubris to justify whatever foriegn war he has hidden in his back pocket.
Do they give a nobel prize for war?
And no, I don't think he's talking about the risk of the United States or Isreal launching a pre-imptive strike on Iran (as they've threatened to do). The President is attempting to ratchet up the fear in America and it's hubris to justify whatever foriegn war he has hidden in his back pocket.
Do they give a nobel prize for war?
Monday, April 12, 2010
The Confederate States of America Rememberance Day
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100411/ap_on_go_ot/us_confederate_history_flap
Plenty of complaints have been directed at the Governor of Mississippi for having the audacity to declare a "Confederate History Month".
But, anything positive said about the Confederacy is obviously racist isn't it?
Perhaps anyone who thinks so should read Thomas DiLorenzo's fantastic books "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked".
The War to Prevent Southern Independance was not about slavery, it was about tarrifs, economics, and state's rights. The same rights the colonies claimed to have when they rebelled against the British crown.
Plenty of complaints have been directed at the Governor of Mississippi for having the audacity to declare a "Confederate History Month".
But, anything positive said about the Confederacy is obviously racist isn't it?
Perhaps anyone who thinks so should read Thomas DiLorenzo's fantastic books "The Real Lincoln" and "Lincoln Unmasked".
The War to Prevent Southern Independance was not about slavery, it was about tarrifs, economics, and state's rights. The same rights the colonies claimed to have when they rebelled against the British crown.
Obama and Allies Fight To Keep Monopoly On Nuclear Weapons
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100412/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_conference;_ylt=AsMsnV.2Z44H8Ij5trjZGqKyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtams1dWpiBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDEyL3VzX251Y2xlYXJfY29uZmVyZW5jZQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWF3b3JsZGxl
Oh yes, God forbid a "terrorist" nation gets ahold of one of those weapons-of-mass-destruction. Afterall, they might use them on innocent civilians. A civilized nation like the United States would never do anything like that (see; Hiroshima and Nagisaki).
We civilized (ie. Rich and White) countries have no interest to ever utilize our enormous stockpiles of ICBM's, nor will our allies, even though we threaten Iran with nuclear strike almost every day.
Only we should be trusted with this power. If a third-world "brown" nation ever got ahold of one of those weapons, we might actually have some competition.
The horror.
Oh yes, God forbid a "terrorist" nation gets ahold of one of those weapons-of-mass-destruction. Afterall, they might use them on innocent civilians. A civilized nation like the United States would never do anything like that (see; Hiroshima and Nagisaki).
We civilized (ie. Rich and White) countries have no interest to ever utilize our enormous stockpiles of ICBM's, nor will our allies, even though we threaten Iran with nuclear strike almost every day.
Only we should be trusted with this power. If a third-world "brown" nation ever got ahold of one of those weapons, we might actually have some competition.
The horror.
Politics Is Not The Answer: by James Ostrowski
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski97.1.html
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”
~ Sun Tzu
There are three basic approaches to changing public policy: politics (elections and lobbying), direct citizen action and violence. We can quickly rule out violence as morally repugnant, inefficient and unpredictable.
Political action has rarely in human history caused government to shrink in size and power. The natural tendency of government is to grow and expand its powers. The events of 2008–2010 illustrate that. Over time, it will tend to tax and spend more, hire more people and assume more power over our lives, liberty and property. Government policies change continually but if you look closely, it is almost always in the direction of bigger government. If you favor bigger government, you really don’t have to do anything. Just sit back and enjoy the show. By the natural laws of politics, governments will tend to grow. If you check back in five years, it is highly likely that the government will be bigger and more powerful. Government in America has grown enormously since about 1917, the start of American involvement in World War I. No coincidence there; war grows the state.
By its nature, the state is the means by which some people can impose the costs of achieving their goals onto unwilling others. As Frédéric Bastiat put it, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” The desire to impose costs on others is virtually limitless. Thus, governments tend to grow over time.
There are five main reasons for this which are, unfortunately, structural features of political life:
1. rational apathy – the incentive some people have to increase the size of the state outweighs the incentive the rest of us have to fight them;
2. government control over political ideas – the state uses its control over schools and other idea-disseminating institutions to propagate support for further government growth;
3. government creates its own demand – because the state’s various interventions into the market economy always fail (e.g., health care), ironically, they increase the demand of the uninformed majority for even further interventions to fix the problems caused by the prior interventions;
4. the productivity of the mixed economy – given the inherent tendency of the state to grow, only extreme dissatisfaction among the populace will rouse them to act; however, even a partially free market produces enough wealth to mollify the people;
5. government has a monopoly on the use of legal force – government grows because it can. Given the universal human desire to accomplish goals with the least possible exertion, politicians have an irresistible urge to use the state’s powers to continually expand the amount of wealth they control. Anyone who objects can always appeal to the politicians’ judges and can expect to be told, “Get lost!”
Since it is in the structural DNA of government to grow, it is nearly impossible to persuade its officials to reverse that tendency or to persuade the voters to elect candidates who intend to shrink government. The last time a mass political movement was able to achieve power and shrink government was Thomas Jefferson’s velvet revolution of 1800!
Ron Paul’s campaign for president in 2007–8 showed how difficult it is to elect a candidate who favors smaller government. In spite of over 100,000 campaign workers and $30,000,000 and an articulate candidate with 20 years in Congress and a sterling personal life and record of accomplishment, he received less than ten percent in every Republican primary election. The system is thoroughly stacked against anyone who would attempt to reform it from within.
The main function of national elections in this country is to give the people the illusion that they are in charge and can change policy whenever necessary. However, the basic policies never seem to change. Elections allow people to blow off steam and thus serve as a safety valve for the regime that allows them to rule us for another four years.
With respect to the upcoming congressional elections this year, a Patriot candidate would need as much as two million dollars to run a competitive race for the House. Very few have that kind of money or can raise it. More likely, the Republican challengers this year will be party loyalists funded and controlled by the plutocrats and GOP establishment.
I know these are harsh realities to accept. They contradict what we have been taught in school and told to believe in endless TV ads urging us to vote and participate in the political process. However, to win this fight, you will have to be as clear-eyed as our adversaries are about the realities of power politics. That’s how the political class got all that power in the first place: by seeing things clearly and not being fooled by myths and clichés.
“He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.”
~ Sun Tzu
There are three basic approaches to changing public policy: politics (elections and lobbying), direct citizen action and violence. We can quickly rule out violence as morally repugnant, inefficient and unpredictable.
Political action has rarely in human history caused government to shrink in size and power. The natural tendency of government is to grow and expand its powers. The events of 2008–2010 illustrate that. Over time, it will tend to tax and spend more, hire more people and assume more power over our lives, liberty and property. Government policies change continually but if you look closely, it is almost always in the direction of bigger government. If you favor bigger government, you really don’t have to do anything. Just sit back and enjoy the show. By the natural laws of politics, governments will tend to grow. If you check back in five years, it is highly likely that the government will be bigger and more powerful. Government in America has grown enormously since about 1917, the start of American involvement in World War I. No coincidence there; war grows the state.
By its nature, the state is the means by which some people can impose the costs of achieving their goals onto unwilling others. As Frédéric Bastiat put it, “Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.” The desire to impose costs on others is virtually limitless. Thus, governments tend to grow over time.
There are five main reasons for this which are, unfortunately, structural features of political life:
1. rational apathy – the incentive some people have to increase the size of the state outweighs the incentive the rest of us have to fight them;
2. government control over political ideas – the state uses its control over schools and other idea-disseminating institutions to propagate support for further government growth;
3. government creates its own demand – because the state’s various interventions into the market economy always fail (e.g., health care), ironically, they increase the demand of the uninformed majority for even further interventions to fix the problems caused by the prior interventions;
4. the productivity of the mixed economy – given the inherent tendency of the state to grow, only extreme dissatisfaction among the populace will rouse them to act; however, even a partially free market produces enough wealth to mollify the people;
5. government has a monopoly on the use of legal force – government grows because it can. Given the universal human desire to accomplish goals with the least possible exertion, politicians have an irresistible urge to use the state’s powers to continually expand the amount of wealth they control. Anyone who objects can always appeal to the politicians’ judges and can expect to be told, “Get lost!”
Since it is in the structural DNA of government to grow, it is nearly impossible to persuade its officials to reverse that tendency or to persuade the voters to elect candidates who intend to shrink government. The last time a mass political movement was able to achieve power and shrink government was Thomas Jefferson’s velvet revolution of 1800!
Ron Paul’s campaign for president in 2007–8 showed how difficult it is to elect a candidate who favors smaller government. In spite of over 100,000 campaign workers and $30,000,000 and an articulate candidate with 20 years in Congress and a sterling personal life and record of accomplishment, he received less than ten percent in every Republican primary election. The system is thoroughly stacked against anyone who would attempt to reform it from within.
The main function of national elections in this country is to give the people the illusion that they are in charge and can change policy whenever necessary. However, the basic policies never seem to change. Elections allow people to blow off steam and thus serve as a safety valve for the regime that allows them to rule us for another four years.
With respect to the upcoming congressional elections this year, a Patriot candidate would need as much as two million dollars to run a competitive race for the House. Very few have that kind of money or can raise it. More likely, the Republican challengers this year will be party loyalists funded and controlled by the plutocrats and GOP establishment.
I know these are harsh realities to accept. They contradict what we have been taught in school and told to believe in endless TV ads urging us to vote and participate in the political process. However, to win this fight, you will have to be as clear-eyed as our adversaries are about the realities of power politics. That’s how the political class got all that power in the first place: by seeing things clearly and not being fooled by myths and clichés.
Mitt Romney Wins (by one point) the SRLC Straw Poll
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002208-503544.html
Despite the closeness of the vote, the media (as usual) downplays Ron Paul's strong showing (beating both Palin and Newt Gingrich) and instead makes it all about the man who spent millions of dollars buying all of those votes, then only winning by one.
Ron Paul 2012!
Despite the closeness of the vote, the media (as usual) downplays Ron Paul's strong showing (beating both Palin and Newt Gingrich) and instead makes it all about the man who spent millions of dollars buying all of those votes, then only winning by one.
Ron Paul 2012!
Video: Ron Paul's speech at the SRLC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klIZ0Bks6pc&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy and paste to URL.
Click on link or copy and paste to URL.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Right to You
“It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.” - Frederic Bastiat
With the passage of Obama’s long awaited, and forever disputed, Health-Care bill, we now have entered into a public discourse which has been delayed far past it’s time. While many complain about specific passages and detailed minutia within the bill itself, such as the Federal Government’s mandate to purchase health insurance, very few debate it’s purpose. That is, to provide health-care to every American citizen.
This is not an old idea, nor is it an old program. Medicare and Medicaid were met with the same hostility by then-Conservatives who were opposed to the further socialization of medical care (a process began by none other than the chief-National Socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt). Of course, now-Conservatives tend to see Medicare and Medicaid as a given. While some may admit them to be bankrupt institutions and in need for “reform”, hardly a single right-wing voice can be heard raising up against either of these program’s very existence.
Indeed, both parties and both “wings” have accepted the tired doctrine of a “right to health-care”. The majority of Americans even support this concept. Not only a right to health-care, but a right to education, a right to postage, a right to clean water, a right to housing, a right to food, a right to clothing, a right to roads and transportation, and myriad other products and services which are no doubt necessary to society. But, does necessity imply a right?
Let’s step back for a moment and define what exactly a “right” is. Put very simply, a “right” is an exclusive privilege to have complete discretion over a certain thing. Now this logically would apply to our basic rights: The right to our lives, liberty, and property. We have an exclusive privilege to have complete discretion over our lives, our choices, and the fruit of our labor.
Necessity, on the other hand, is something entirely different. We may need our life, our body, our freedom to choose for ourselves, and the property we achieve in a peaceful manner… but we may also be in need of other things. We are in need of food, we are in need of drink, we are in need of shelter, we are in need of dress, and we are in need of numerous other objects and abilities. Some are necessities of life, other are mere necessities of desire for a better livelihood.
The way we attain property in this world can be done one of two ways. The first way is the way of peace. That is, the way of original appropriation. To find unclaimed property and to claim it as your own, to mix your labor with that land, or object, and to make it yours. Or to then trade what is yours with others, in exchange for what is theirs. Even to give what is yours to someone else out of charity and good-will, or vice-versa. These are legitimate and non-violent methods of gaining what is needed to survive and lead a happy life.
The second way is the way of violence. That is, the way of theft. To take what others have earned peacefully, by the labor of their hands, through honest trade or charity. To initiate aggression against a person and their property to gain what is desired or needed is plunder, robbery, and illegitimate. Every victim of theft has the right to defend himself/herself against the violence initiated.
Now that we have a basic understanding of this we can better answer the question at hand: Does necessity imply a right?
No it does not.
To present a scenario, imagine a man who’s liver is in failure. He has spent his whole life drinking alcohol and ignored the consequences until it was too late. He is a good person, a father of three children who have not yet graduated high school. Two are successful, one is constantly getting herself into trouble. She is in need of a father more than ever. He has a loving wife who has put up with his addiction for over twenty years. The man has a great sense of humor, always bringing joy and laughter to those around him. He is loved by so many friends and family members.
Then there is another man, who’s liver is perfectly healthy. He too, a good man. He has no children or wife, as he is a local priest of a Catholic Church. He has spent his whole life giving of himself to the community. He is around the same age as the man with the dying liver, and has plans to travel the world before his time is up.
Now, let me ask you. Does the first man have a need of the second man’s liver? It should be an obvious ‘yes’. But, does he have a right to it?
Does he have the ‘exclusive’ privilege to have ‘full discretion’ over the second man’s organ?
The answer, no matter where you fall emotionally in your loyalties, must be a resounding ‘no’. He does not have that right. Only the healthy man has a right to his liver. If he decides to give of himself to save the first man’s life, then that is his decision, and his decision alone, to make.
Let me make the story more complicated.
Imagine now the first man has a failing kidney, after losing his first kidney to the same disease. Imagine also that the second man, in the same scenario, has two perfectly healthy kidneys.
Again, the first man has a need, a necessity, to receive a healthy kidney. But does he have a right?
No, he does not.
Even though the second man will likely live through the surgery, and certainly be fine with one kidney… it is his decision alone to make over his organs. Perhaps one day he will find himself in a situation similar to the first man. Perhaps he will, in the future, need both kidneys to survive. Maybe he is afraid to have the surgery, or maybe it is against his religion to be cut by a surgeon’s knife at all.
It is still his right, his exclusive privilege to have full discretion. Not the first man, no matter how dire his situation.
How does this apply to health-care? Allow me to connect the dots.
If we are to hold our bodies as our property, and we hold all the fruits of our labor to be our property, than both are equally rights. No right is more important than another. Though defense may be unequal, the right itself is without measurement of value. It is completely equal in all aspects. For example, my right to be free is no less a right than my right to speak my mind. Nor is my right to keep my paycheck any more a right than is my right to make a contract. All rights are rights, and all rights allow for defense against aggression.
So, this being the case, imagine now the first man is in need of money to pay for the surgery. The second man has plenty to spare. Does the first man need the money? Of course. Does he have a right to it? Of course not.
He has a right to his money, and only his money. To claim right over the second man’s money is to negate the second man’s rights. Is the first man’s rights more important than the second man’s? Does not the second man have a right to defend what is rightfully his?
To revisit the issue of “Obamacare”, and all forms of socialized health-care (or socialized anything), it’s easy to understand the illegitimacy of what the Government is doing. To take from some, to give to others. This is called a redistribution of wealth. While many so-called Conservatives oppose the new bill for this reason, they fail to take the argument to it’s logical conclusion.
All Government is socialism. All Government is a redistribution of wealth. All Government is legalized theft.
The act of taxation, at the threat of force, is the process of robbery and extortion. It is aggression against the property of others. The property which they have, by nature, the exclusive right to own, to decide over. The excuse of need is given. That someone needs this money more than them is the reason for theft. The ends justifying the means on a grand scale.
Someone needs health-care. It will be provided by the Government stealing from others though taxation. Someone needs education. The same will occur. Someone needs postage, roads, transportation, food, shelter, clothes, drink, electricity, internet, cable, etc. The Government will deliver whatever good, whatever service is needed by the populace. Or if you need judicial arbitration, or defense, or enforcement of the law. The Government has monopolized this area of our lives as well, and it must take from some in order to pay for these services to others. They do this through theft. They steal by taxation, they indebt you to foreign governments, they devalue your currency until you can no longer purchase anything you have worked to enjoy.
You no longer have a right to your property. You only have the luxury to keep what the Government allows you to. Rights themselves, as they should be according to nature, are no longer protected by the law. The law only exists to serve the special interests and politically well-connected. The very definition of “rights” has been misconstrued to where the very exercise of “rights” comes at the cost of infringing on the natural rights of others.
The truth of the matter is that you don’t have a right to health-care. Why, because to have a right to health-care means you have a right to someone else’s property, to someone else’s services, to someone else’s products. But, you don’t have a right to someone else… you only have the right to you. To have a right to someone else, that is slavery. To have the exclusive privilege over anothers life, or actions, or the fruits of their labor. Such is enslavement, such is the negation of liberty. This is not freedom. It is antithetical to freedom.
So, as we enter into an America where you are forced to purchase health-insurance, remember… this was not the first tyrannical move by the Government in this country. It has been happening for quite some time already. In order to change the tide towards socialism, towards fascism, we must not only rebuff the recent infringements on our liberties, but those from the past that still remain to haunt us as well. Not only should we reject “Obamacare”, but Medicare and Medicaid also. We should speak out against “public” education, against government roads and transportation, against the failed monopoly that is the U.S. Postal Service, against ALL Government. Against the President, the Congress, the Bureaucracy, the Government Courts, and every program under the sun.
Not only do we need to do this… it is our right to do so.
- Justin Buell
With the passage of Obama’s long awaited, and forever disputed, Health-Care bill, we now have entered into a public discourse which has been delayed far past it’s time. While many complain about specific passages and detailed minutia within the bill itself, such as the Federal Government’s mandate to purchase health insurance, very few debate it’s purpose. That is, to provide health-care to every American citizen.
This is not an old idea, nor is it an old program. Medicare and Medicaid were met with the same hostility by then-Conservatives who were opposed to the further socialization of medical care (a process began by none other than the chief-National Socialist, Franklin D. Roosevelt). Of course, now-Conservatives tend to see Medicare and Medicaid as a given. While some may admit them to be bankrupt institutions and in need for “reform”, hardly a single right-wing voice can be heard raising up against either of these program’s very existence.
Indeed, both parties and both “wings” have accepted the tired doctrine of a “right to health-care”. The majority of Americans even support this concept. Not only a right to health-care, but a right to education, a right to postage, a right to clean water, a right to housing, a right to food, a right to clothing, a right to roads and transportation, and myriad other products and services which are no doubt necessary to society. But, does necessity imply a right?
Let’s step back for a moment and define what exactly a “right” is. Put very simply, a “right” is an exclusive privilege to have complete discretion over a certain thing. Now this logically would apply to our basic rights: The right to our lives, liberty, and property. We have an exclusive privilege to have complete discretion over our lives, our choices, and the fruit of our labor.
Necessity, on the other hand, is something entirely different. We may need our life, our body, our freedom to choose for ourselves, and the property we achieve in a peaceful manner… but we may also be in need of other things. We are in need of food, we are in need of drink, we are in need of shelter, we are in need of dress, and we are in need of numerous other objects and abilities. Some are necessities of life, other are mere necessities of desire for a better livelihood.
The way we attain property in this world can be done one of two ways. The first way is the way of peace. That is, the way of original appropriation. To find unclaimed property and to claim it as your own, to mix your labor with that land, or object, and to make it yours. Or to then trade what is yours with others, in exchange for what is theirs. Even to give what is yours to someone else out of charity and good-will, or vice-versa. These are legitimate and non-violent methods of gaining what is needed to survive and lead a happy life.
The second way is the way of violence. That is, the way of theft. To take what others have earned peacefully, by the labor of their hands, through honest trade or charity. To initiate aggression against a person and their property to gain what is desired or needed is plunder, robbery, and illegitimate. Every victim of theft has the right to defend himself/herself against the violence initiated.
Now that we have a basic understanding of this we can better answer the question at hand: Does necessity imply a right?
No it does not.
To present a scenario, imagine a man who’s liver is in failure. He has spent his whole life drinking alcohol and ignored the consequences until it was too late. He is a good person, a father of three children who have not yet graduated high school. Two are successful, one is constantly getting herself into trouble. She is in need of a father more than ever. He has a loving wife who has put up with his addiction for over twenty years. The man has a great sense of humor, always bringing joy and laughter to those around him. He is loved by so many friends and family members.
Then there is another man, who’s liver is perfectly healthy. He too, a good man. He has no children or wife, as he is a local priest of a Catholic Church. He has spent his whole life giving of himself to the community. He is around the same age as the man with the dying liver, and has plans to travel the world before his time is up.
Now, let me ask you. Does the first man have a need of the second man’s liver? It should be an obvious ‘yes’. But, does he have a right to it?
Does he have the ‘exclusive’ privilege to have ‘full discretion’ over the second man’s organ?
The answer, no matter where you fall emotionally in your loyalties, must be a resounding ‘no’. He does not have that right. Only the healthy man has a right to his liver. If he decides to give of himself to save the first man’s life, then that is his decision, and his decision alone, to make.
Let me make the story more complicated.
Imagine now the first man has a failing kidney, after losing his first kidney to the same disease. Imagine also that the second man, in the same scenario, has two perfectly healthy kidneys.
Again, the first man has a need, a necessity, to receive a healthy kidney. But does he have a right?
No, he does not.
Even though the second man will likely live through the surgery, and certainly be fine with one kidney… it is his decision alone to make over his organs. Perhaps one day he will find himself in a situation similar to the first man. Perhaps he will, in the future, need both kidneys to survive. Maybe he is afraid to have the surgery, or maybe it is against his religion to be cut by a surgeon’s knife at all.
It is still his right, his exclusive privilege to have full discretion. Not the first man, no matter how dire his situation.
How does this apply to health-care? Allow me to connect the dots.
If we are to hold our bodies as our property, and we hold all the fruits of our labor to be our property, than both are equally rights. No right is more important than another. Though defense may be unequal, the right itself is without measurement of value. It is completely equal in all aspects. For example, my right to be free is no less a right than my right to speak my mind. Nor is my right to keep my paycheck any more a right than is my right to make a contract. All rights are rights, and all rights allow for defense against aggression.
So, this being the case, imagine now the first man is in need of money to pay for the surgery. The second man has plenty to spare. Does the first man need the money? Of course. Does he have a right to it? Of course not.
He has a right to his money, and only his money. To claim right over the second man’s money is to negate the second man’s rights. Is the first man’s rights more important than the second man’s? Does not the second man have a right to defend what is rightfully his?
To revisit the issue of “Obamacare”, and all forms of socialized health-care (or socialized anything), it’s easy to understand the illegitimacy of what the Government is doing. To take from some, to give to others. This is called a redistribution of wealth. While many so-called Conservatives oppose the new bill for this reason, they fail to take the argument to it’s logical conclusion.
All Government is socialism. All Government is a redistribution of wealth. All Government is legalized theft.
The act of taxation, at the threat of force, is the process of robbery and extortion. It is aggression against the property of others. The property which they have, by nature, the exclusive right to own, to decide over. The excuse of need is given. That someone needs this money more than them is the reason for theft. The ends justifying the means on a grand scale.
Someone needs health-care. It will be provided by the Government stealing from others though taxation. Someone needs education. The same will occur. Someone needs postage, roads, transportation, food, shelter, clothes, drink, electricity, internet, cable, etc. The Government will deliver whatever good, whatever service is needed by the populace. Or if you need judicial arbitration, or defense, or enforcement of the law. The Government has monopolized this area of our lives as well, and it must take from some in order to pay for these services to others. They do this through theft. They steal by taxation, they indebt you to foreign governments, they devalue your currency until you can no longer purchase anything you have worked to enjoy.
You no longer have a right to your property. You only have the luxury to keep what the Government allows you to. Rights themselves, as they should be according to nature, are no longer protected by the law. The law only exists to serve the special interests and politically well-connected. The very definition of “rights” has been misconstrued to where the very exercise of “rights” comes at the cost of infringing on the natural rights of others.
The truth of the matter is that you don’t have a right to health-care. Why, because to have a right to health-care means you have a right to someone else’s property, to someone else’s services, to someone else’s products. But, you don’t have a right to someone else… you only have the right to you. To have a right to someone else, that is slavery. To have the exclusive privilege over anothers life, or actions, or the fruits of their labor. Such is enslavement, such is the negation of liberty. This is not freedom. It is antithetical to freedom.
So, as we enter into an America where you are forced to purchase health-insurance, remember… this was not the first tyrannical move by the Government in this country. It has been happening for quite some time already. In order to change the tide towards socialism, towards fascism, we must not only rebuff the recent infringements on our liberties, but those from the past that still remain to haunt us as well. Not only should we reject “Obamacare”, but Medicare and Medicaid also. We should speak out against “public” education, against government roads and transportation, against the failed monopoly that is the U.S. Postal Service, against ALL Government. Against the President, the Congress, the Bureaucracy, the Government Courts, and every program under the sun.
Not only do we need to do this… it is our right to do so.
- Justin Buell
Picking The Next Supreme Court Justice
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100410/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_possible_nominees
Now, I'm sure Obama will pick a Statist... that's a given.
But, despite this inevitable outcome, I'd like to nominate a great individual and long-time Judge who would bring sensibility to the Supreme Court and defend the Constitution.
I nominate Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
Now, I'm sure Obama will pick a Statist... that's a given.
But, despite this inevitable outcome, I'd like to nominate a great individual and long-time Judge who would bring sensibility to the Supreme Court and defend the Constitution.
I nominate Judge Andrew P. Napolitano.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Napolitano
Obama Promises Tax Breaks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100410/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_taxes;_ylt=AgOa.Pon70s2wuS3yUMIGk.yFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJmNzdpdjJuBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDEwL3VzX29iYW1hX3RheGVzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNvYmFtYWFkdmVydGk-
Isn't that so benevolent of him? Allowing people to keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money... I think someone should give him a medal. Of course, we might have to raise a few taxes to pay for that medal.
Isn't that so benevolent of him? Allowing people to keep a little bit more of their own hard-earned money... I think someone should give him a medal. Of course, we might have to raise a few taxes to pay for that medal.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Video: Obama Admits Government Is A "Monopoly On Violence"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOZI1jSJW2Y&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Portland School Bans Hugging
http://oregonwomensreport.com/2010/03/portland-schhol-hug-ban-makes-national-news/
Public Schools are the ultimate form of collectivism, next to prisons of course. The goal is to stamp out every form of individualism, independant or critical thinking, and anything percieved as "radical", "extreme", or rebellious against the group.
Obey the State, Trust Authority without Question, Do what you're told.
This is the creed of slaves.
Public Schools are the ultimate form of collectivism, next to prisons of course. The goal is to stamp out every form of individualism, independant or critical thinking, and anything percieved as "radical", "extreme", or rebellious against the group.
Obey the State, Trust Authority without Question, Do what you're told.
This is the creed of slaves.
From An Anonymous Source
“So I just got out of a meeting where my congressman was speaking. Afterwards in a one on one I asked if I was missing something about the healthcare bill. Was there any reason to keep your health insurance after the pre-exist is initialized? He said why wouldn’t you keep your health insurance? I said because it is cheaper to pay the fine. Well there is a problem there (stumble with his words). I said what keeps the whole country from canceling their policies? Why would anyone buy it before it is needed? He stumbled and says there are some problems and stumbled with his words.
The stunned look and wide eyed expression he gave me sent shock waves through my body. It became apparent to me that no one in congress thought about the ramifications of allowing sick people to buy insurance to cover the illnesses they already have. The whole healthy part of the country will cancel their insurance on the same day 4 or 5 years from now. Leaving only sick people on the rolls. The rest of the country will simply pay their fines and as soon as they get sick, trot into the insurance office on the way to the doctor. There will be no reason to have it. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Assurant, etc. will all become insolvent on the same day.
AND OUR CONGRESS was not smart enough to figure this out."
The stunned look and wide eyed expression he gave me sent shock waves through my body. It became apparent to me that no one in congress thought about the ramifications of allowing sick people to buy insurance to cover the illnesses they already have. The whole healthy part of the country will cancel their insurance on the same day 4 or 5 years from now. Leaving only sick people on the rolls. The rest of the country will simply pay their fines and as soon as they get sick, trot into the insurance office on the way to the doctor. There will be no reason to have it. Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Assurant, etc. will all become insolvent on the same day.
AND OUR CONGRESS was not smart enough to figure this out."
Video: Congressman Ron Paul on the Afghan War
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMMRK7NF_qg&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
San Fransisco Man Threatens Pelosi
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100407/pl_mcclatchy/3471846
Now, I don't believe in violence when it comes to political activism, but in all fairness, Pelosi (along with the rest of the gang in Congress) has already threatened this man (and all Americans) with prison time if he refuses to purchase Government-sanctioned Health Insurance.
So threatening back, if you think about it, is only a natural defensive action.
Now, I don't believe in violence when it comes to political activism, but in all fairness, Pelosi (along with the rest of the gang in Congress) has already threatened this man (and all Americans) with prison time if he refuses to purchase Government-sanctioned Health Insurance.
So threatening back, if you think about it, is only a natural defensive action.
And the Hypocrite of the Day Award Goes To.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100407/pl_afp/usnuclearsummit
...The United States of America! (applause)
Who better to stamp down on "illicit" nuclear trade than the ONE Government which has the MOST nuclear weapons, and the ONLY one to ever use them on unarmed civilians (see: Hiroshima and Nagisaki)?
Why, before you know it, we'll be enlisting the Mafia* to help cut back on crime in the inner cities!
*Well, actually, we already do something simialar to that by having a Government to begin with.
...The United States of America! (applause)
Who better to stamp down on "illicit" nuclear trade than the ONE Government which has the MOST nuclear weapons, and the ONLY one to ever use them on unarmed civilians (see: Hiroshima and Nagisaki)?
Why, before you know it, we'll be enlisting the Mafia* to help cut back on crime in the inner cities!
*Well, actually, we already do something simialar to that by having a Government to begin with.
Quatar Envoy is Smart-Ass to Authorities
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_us/us_plane_disturbance;_ylt=Aku5IMBmqEoExIw1DWd.PnSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtaHFib2x0BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA4L3VzX3BsYW5lX2Rpc3R1cmJhbmNlBGNwb3MDMwRwb3MDMTEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2ZmaWNpYWxzamV0
We live in such an over-sensitive, easily-scared society. A foriegn diplomat makes a joke about setting off a shoe bomb (after being caught smoking in the bathroom) and everyone is ready to piss their pants.
The American people all need to grow a pair.
We live in such an over-sensitive, easily-scared society. A foriegn diplomat makes a joke about setting off a shoe bomb (after being caught smoking in the bathroom) and everyone is ready to piss their pants.
The American people all need to grow a pair.
Obama and Medvedev Sign Nuclear-Arms Treaty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100408/ap_on_re_us/us_us_russia;_ylt=AlqcLf_wXbiulHoS5l.vQEOyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJkOGFnYWZ2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA4L3VzX3VzX3J1c3NpYQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFtZWR2ZWRl
While the treaty will cut all Nuclear nation's stockpiles by one-third, that still leaves two major powers (The U.S. and Russia) with the firepower to destroy the whole earth five times over.
Meanwhile, the thought of a militarily weak country in the middle-east (ie. Iran) even having the technology to produce one in the distant future scares the sh*t out of us.
Makes you feel real safe doesn't it?
UPDATE: Thank goodness! Apparently this treaty only applies to "long-range" missiles. And here I thought the United States would be defenseless against all those army-less, navy-less, air-force-less, nuclear weapons deprived third world nations we love to invade.
While the treaty will cut all Nuclear nation's stockpiles by one-third, that still leaves two major powers (The U.S. and Russia) with the firepower to destroy the whole earth five times over.
Meanwhile, the thought of a militarily weak country in the middle-east (ie. Iran) even having the technology to produce one in the distant future scares the sh*t out of us.
Makes you feel real safe doesn't it?
UPDATE: Thank goodness! Apparently this treaty only applies to "long-range" missiles. And here I thought the United States would be defenseless against all those army-less, navy-less, air-force-less, nuclear weapons deprived third world nations we love to invade.
Iraq War Veteran Speaks Out
http://www.truthout.org/iraq-war-vet-we-were-told-just-shoot-people-and-officers-would-take-care-us58378
Here's an excerpt:
"Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than 'winning hearts and minds.' 'There was also another motive,' Ewing said. 'If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn’t attack. We used the kids as human shields.'"
Here's an excerpt:
"Scott Ewing, who served in Iraq from 2005-2006, admitted on one panel that units intentionally gave candy to Iraqi children for reasons other than 'winning hearts and minds.' 'There was also another motive,' Ewing said. 'If the kids were around our vehicles, the bad guys wouldn’t attack. We used the kids as human shields.'"
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Anarchy in the Streets: By Butler Shaffer
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer213.html
Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
~ Henry Adams
How often do discussions on the prospects of a stateless society produce the response that, without government, there would be "anarchy in the streets"? To many people, the streets are symbolic of society, and with good reason: they are the most visible networks through which we interact with one another. They are much like the major arteries (we even use that word to describe streets), veins, and capillaries that transport blood throughout our bodies. Each can be thought of as the carrier of both food and waste to and from individual cells.
The thought that city streets – upon which we depend for daily functioning – could ever become disorderly, leads most people to accept a governmental policing function of such avenues without much question. We imagine that without speed limits, traffic lights at busy intersections, and all of the varied warnings plastered on tens of thousands of signs that encumber streets in our cities, driving would become a turbulent and destructive undertaking.
For a number of years now, a number of cities in Europe have been experimenting with the removal of all traffic signs – including traffic lights, stop signs, speed limit directives – and with surprising results. Various towns in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, New Zealand – even the UK! – have joined in the experiment. Contrary to the expectations of those who might expect multi-car pileups throughout the cities, traffic accidents have been dramatically reduced (in one town, dropping from about eight per year to fewer than two). Part of the reason for the increased safety relates to the fact that, without the worry of offending traffic sign mandates, or watching for police speed-traps, or checking the rear-view mirror for police motorcycles, drivers have more time to pay attention to other cars and pedestrians.
The architect of this experiment, the late Hans Monderman, attributed its success to the fact that "it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want." "Unsafe is safe" was the title of a conference held on this practice. Monderman added that this effort "shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk." Equally significant, drivers now focus more of their attention on other motorists – taking visual cues from one another, informally negotiating for space, turning into an intersection, etc. – instead of mechanistically responding to signs and electronic machines. Monderman stated: "When you don’t know exactly who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users. You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care." He added: "The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We’re losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior." In words so applicable to the rest of our politically-structured lives, he declared: "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility dwindles." Monderman expressed the matter more succinctly in saying: "When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots."
Formal rules divide us from one another; the more rules that are imposed upon our conduct, the greater the distances among us. Of course, this is the logic upon which the state always acts: to insinuate itself into our relationships with others, substituting its coercively-enforced edicts for our interpersonal bargaining. We become conditioned to look upon strangers as threats, and to regard political intervention as our only means of looking after our own interests.
One sees this mindset of social impotence expressed throughout our lives. I am fond of asking my students why they do not negotiate with retailers for groceries, clothing, and other consumer items. They look at me as though I had suggested they attend movies in the nude. "You can’t do that," they instinctively respond. I then offer examples of persons I have known who make a habit of such bargaining, managing to save themselves hundreds or more dollars each year. Incredulity still prevails. On one occasion, a student raised his hand to inform the class that he had been an assistant manager of a major retail store in Los Angeles, adding "we did this all the time."
How easily we give up on our own social skills, and at what costs. These experiments with traffic-sign abandonment remind us how much we rely upon informal methods of negotiating with other drivers, and the socially-harmonious benefits of our doing so. My own freeway driving experiences provide an example: if another driver signals to move into my lane, or I signal to move into his, more than a simple lane-change takes place. From that point on, there is nothing this other motorist can do – short of intentionally crashing into my car – that will cause me to feel anger toward him. He’s "my guy," and I will feel a sense of neighborliness to him that will generate feelings of protectiveness toward him. "Neighborliness" is a good word to use here: how many of us could honk our horn or make angry hand-gestures at another driver we recognized to be someone that we know?
This is one of the unintended consequences of taking the state out of the business of directing our traffic: we regain our sense of society with others; strangers lose their abstractness, and become more like neighbors to us. If you doubt the pragmatic and social benefits of these experiments, try recalling those occasions in which a traffic light goes out at a major intersection. Motorists immediately – and without any external direction – begin a "round-robin" system of taking turns proceeding through the intersection. One of my seminar students related her experience in this connection. She was parked at the curb, waiting to pick up her mother. She noted that traffic was flowing quite smoothly, and without any significant delays. Then a police officer showed up to direct the traffic, with gridlock quickly ensuing.
A number of years ago, someone wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles newspaper, reporting on a major Beverly Hills intersection where some six lanes of traffic converge. There were no traffic lights governing the situation, with motorists relying on the informal methods of negotiating with one another. The writer – who lives in the area – commented upon the resulting orderliness, going so far as to check police records to confirm just how free of accidents this intersection was.
How counter-intuitive so much of this is to those who have become conditioned to think that the state is the creator of order in our lives. In much the same way that people are discovering how widespread gun ownership reduces violent crime in society, putting power back into the hands of individuals is the most effective way of fostering both the responsible and harmonious relationships we have so childishly expected to arise from our dependence upon, and obedience to, external authorities.
What if the idea of living without coercively imposed rules was to spread from the streets into all phases of our lives? What if we abandoned our habits of looking to others to civilize us and bring us to order, and understood that obedience to others makes us irresponsible? As government people-pushers continue their efforts to micro-manage the details of our lives – what foods and drugs we may ingest; how we are to raise and educate our children; the kinds of cars we may drive and light bulbs we may use; the health-care we are to receive; our optimal weight levels; how we are to provide for our retirement; ad nauseam – might we summon the courage to end our neurotic fixations on "security?"
Might the quality of our lives be greatly enhanced by the transformation in thinking implicit in these traffic experiments? Might they offer flashes of insight into how the individual liberty to assess our own risks and freely act upon the choices we make provide the necessary basis for a life that is both materially and spiritually meaningful? As our institutionalized subservience and dependency continues to destroy us, can we learn that what we and our neighbors have in common is our need to negotiate with and to support one another as autonomous and changing people in a changing and uncertain world?
(Those interested in reading more about this experiment, can google "european cities remove traffic signs," and find links to many articles on the subject.)
Chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit.
~ Henry Adams
How often do discussions on the prospects of a stateless society produce the response that, without government, there would be "anarchy in the streets"? To many people, the streets are symbolic of society, and with good reason: they are the most visible networks through which we interact with one another. They are much like the major arteries (we even use that word to describe streets), veins, and capillaries that transport blood throughout our bodies. Each can be thought of as the carrier of both food and waste to and from individual cells.
The thought that city streets – upon which we depend for daily functioning – could ever become disorderly, leads most people to accept a governmental policing function of such avenues without much question. We imagine that without speed limits, traffic lights at busy intersections, and all of the varied warnings plastered on tens of thousands of signs that encumber streets in our cities, driving would become a turbulent and destructive undertaking.
For a number of years now, a number of cities in Europe have been experimenting with the removal of all traffic signs – including traffic lights, stop signs, speed limit directives – and with surprising results. Various towns in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, New Zealand – even the UK! – have joined in the experiment. Contrary to the expectations of those who might expect multi-car pileups throughout the cities, traffic accidents have been dramatically reduced (in one town, dropping from about eight per year to fewer than two). Part of the reason for the increased safety relates to the fact that, without the worry of offending traffic sign mandates, or watching for police speed-traps, or checking the rear-view mirror for police motorcycles, drivers have more time to pay attention to other cars and pedestrians.
The architect of this experiment, the late Hans Monderman, attributed its success to the fact that "it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want." "Unsafe is safe" was the title of a conference held on this practice. Monderman added that this effort "shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk." Equally significant, drivers now focus more of their attention on other motorists – taking visual cues from one another, informally negotiating for space, turning into an intersection, etc. – instead of mechanistically responding to signs and electronic machines. Monderman stated: "When you don’t know exactly who has right of way, you tend to seek eye contact with other road users. You automatically reduce your speed, you have contact with other people and you take greater care." He added: "The many rules strip us of the most important thing: the ability to be considerate. We’re losing our capacity for socially responsible behavior." In words so applicable to the rest of our politically-structured lives, he declared: "The greater the number of prescriptions, the more people’s sense of personal responsibility dwindles." Monderman expressed the matter more succinctly in saying: "When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots."
Formal rules divide us from one another; the more rules that are imposed upon our conduct, the greater the distances among us. Of course, this is the logic upon which the state always acts: to insinuate itself into our relationships with others, substituting its coercively-enforced edicts for our interpersonal bargaining. We become conditioned to look upon strangers as threats, and to regard political intervention as our only means of looking after our own interests.
One sees this mindset of social impotence expressed throughout our lives. I am fond of asking my students why they do not negotiate with retailers for groceries, clothing, and other consumer items. They look at me as though I had suggested they attend movies in the nude. "You can’t do that," they instinctively respond. I then offer examples of persons I have known who make a habit of such bargaining, managing to save themselves hundreds or more dollars each year. Incredulity still prevails. On one occasion, a student raised his hand to inform the class that he had been an assistant manager of a major retail store in Los Angeles, adding "we did this all the time."
How easily we give up on our own social skills, and at what costs. These experiments with traffic-sign abandonment remind us how much we rely upon informal methods of negotiating with other drivers, and the socially-harmonious benefits of our doing so. My own freeway driving experiences provide an example: if another driver signals to move into my lane, or I signal to move into his, more than a simple lane-change takes place. From that point on, there is nothing this other motorist can do – short of intentionally crashing into my car – that will cause me to feel anger toward him. He’s "my guy," and I will feel a sense of neighborliness to him that will generate feelings of protectiveness toward him. "Neighborliness" is a good word to use here: how many of us could honk our horn or make angry hand-gestures at another driver we recognized to be someone that we know?
This is one of the unintended consequences of taking the state out of the business of directing our traffic: we regain our sense of society with others; strangers lose their abstractness, and become more like neighbors to us. If you doubt the pragmatic and social benefits of these experiments, try recalling those occasions in which a traffic light goes out at a major intersection. Motorists immediately – and without any external direction – begin a "round-robin" system of taking turns proceeding through the intersection. One of my seminar students related her experience in this connection. She was parked at the curb, waiting to pick up her mother. She noted that traffic was flowing quite smoothly, and without any significant delays. Then a police officer showed up to direct the traffic, with gridlock quickly ensuing.
A number of years ago, someone wrote an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles newspaper, reporting on a major Beverly Hills intersection where some six lanes of traffic converge. There were no traffic lights governing the situation, with motorists relying on the informal methods of negotiating with one another. The writer – who lives in the area – commented upon the resulting orderliness, going so far as to check police records to confirm just how free of accidents this intersection was.
How counter-intuitive so much of this is to those who have become conditioned to think that the state is the creator of order in our lives. In much the same way that people are discovering how widespread gun ownership reduces violent crime in society, putting power back into the hands of individuals is the most effective way of fostering both the responsible and harmonious relationships we have so childishly expected to arise from our dependence upon, and obedience to, external authorities.
What if the idea of living without coercively imposed rules was to spread from the streets into all phases of our lives? What if we abandoned our habits of looking to others to civilize us and bring us to order, and understood that obedience to others makes us irresponsible? As government people-pushers continue their efforts to micro-manage the details of our lives – what foods and drugs we may ingest; how we are to raise and educate our children; the kinds of cars we may drive and light bulbs we may use; the health-care we are to receive; our optimal weight levels; how we are to provide for our retirement; ad nauseam – might we summon the courage to end our neurotic fixations on "security?"
Might the quality of our lives be greatly enhanced by the transformation in thinking implicit in these traffic experiments? Might they offer flashes of insight into how the individual liberty to assess our own risks and freely act upon the choices we make provide the necessary basis for a life that is both materially and spiritually meaningful? As our institutionalized subservience and dependency continues to destroy us, can we learn that what we and our neighbors have in common is our need to negotiate with and to support one another as autonomous and changing people in a changing and uncertain world?
(Those interested in reading more about this experiment, can google "european cities remove traffic signs," and find links to many articles on the subject.)
Ron Paul Voted Most Effective Congressman
http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2010/04/march_madness_on_the_potomac_r.html
No, he's not the most effective in waging wars, imposing taxes, spending money, curtailing civil liberties, or building up the State.
Ron is, instead, the most effective in advocating personal liberty, free markets, non-interventionism, sound money, and constitutional government.
The rEVOLution lives on...
No, he's not the most effective in waging wars, imposing taxes, spending money, curtailing civil liberties, or building up the State.
Ron is, instead, the most effective in advocating personal liberty, free markets, non-interventionism, sound money, and constitutional government.
The rEVOLution lives on...
O'Connor Says Justices May Skip "State of the Union"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100406/ap_on_re_us/us_sandra_day_o_connor
This is the sort of news that cheers me up. The less legitimacy given to that inane annual speech (which always makes me miss my favorite shows), the better.
This is the sort of news that cheers me up. The less legitimacy given to that inane annual speech (which always makes me miss my favorite shows), the better.
More on That Video
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_ot/us_us_iraq_video
It appears the U.S. Military has lost it's copy of it.
I think it's a safe bet they left it next to the missing WMD.
It appears the U.S. Military has lost it's copy of it.
I think it's a safe bet they left it next to the missing WMD.
Greenspan Shifts More Blame From Himself
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35491.html
The former Fed Chariman still doesn't want to take any responsibility for the current economic crisis. The truth is that the entire existence of the Privately-owned Federal Reserve (and the system it upholds) is at fault, but Greenspan (along with every other head-of-the-Fed, including current chairman Ben Bernanke) is culpable for carrying out the counterfeiting scheme.
The former Fed Chariman still doesn't want to take any responsibility for the current economic crisis. The truth is that the entire existence of the Privately-owned Federal Reserve (and the system it upholds) is at fault, but Greenspan (along with every other head-of-the-Fed, including current chairman Ben Bernanke) is culpable for carrying out the counterfeiting scheme.
Obama Brings Out the Orwellian Double-Speak
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism_rhetoric;_ylt=AjI9JjRKs6ENRR479K69qxiyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJtZXJhZ212BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA3L3VzX3RlcnJvcmlzbV9yaGV0b3JpYwRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbm90YWxsdGVycm9y
Obama now wants to remove terms like "Islamic Radicalism" from the National Security dictionary. The principle, which is good, is that not all Muslims are "radicals" or terrorists.
This superficial change may spare feelings, but what it does not do is end the pointless and costly "War on Terror".
I don't think an Afghan man who loses his life to U.S. Occupying Troops is going to care whether they call him a terrorist or an "Islamic Radical".
Obama now wants to remove terms like "Islamic Radicalism" from the National Security dictionary. The principle, which is good, is that not all Muslims are "radicals" or terrorists.
This superficial change may spare feelings, but what it does not do is end the pointless and costly "War on Terror".
I don't think an Afghan man who loses his life to U.S. Occupying Troops is going to care whether they call him a terrorist or an "Islamic Radical".
Video: Department of the Interior vs. What's Left of the Native Americans - by John Stossel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHxRSakuGMg&feature=player_embedded
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Click on link or copy-and-paste to URL.
Thomas Woods on the Abolitionist History of Nullification
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods131.html
That's right, not everyone who supported the 10th ammendment and secession in the 19th century were slave-holders.
That's right, not everyone who supported the 10th ammendment and secession in the 19th century were slave-holders.
Democrats Join the "Tea Party" Movement
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/02/democrats.tea.party/
I guess they must be racists too...
I guess they must be racists too...
Obama Reserves "Right" to Nuke Iran
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/04/05/obama-policy-retains-right-to-nuke-iran/
Interesting, the President of Iran says it wants Isreal "wiped off the map" (a statement that was vastly taken out of context with what he actually meant) and he needs to be taken out... The President of the United States says he has the "right" to use weapons of mass destruction against a peaceful third world nation, killing millions of innocents, and he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Interesting, the President of Iran says it wants Isreal "wiped off the map" (a statement that was vastly taken out of context with what he actually meant) and he needs to be taken out... The President of the United States says he has the "right" to use weapons of mass destruction against a peaceful third world nation, killing millions of innocents, and he wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Monday, April 5, 2010
6 Historical Myths We Love to Believe
http://www.cracked.com/article_18487_6-ridiculous-history-myths-you-probably-think-are-true_p1.htm
Click on the link (or copy and paste as your URL) to see the whole story
Click on the link (or copy and paste as your URL) to see the whole story
Afghan Leader Threatens to Join Taliban
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
Yep. It appears the people, and even the U.S. propped-up Government, of Afghanistan don't like our Military's continued occupation of their country. Who would have thought a sovereign nation wouldn't want a foriegn Empire running it's affairs?
Yep. It appears the people, and even the U.S. propped-up Government, of Afghanistan don't like our Military's continued occupation of their country. Who would have thought a sovereign nation wouldn't want a foriegn Empire running it's affairs?
The Continued Crucifixion of Toyota
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_bi_ge/us_toyota_recall;_ylt=ApujEag4Tr7Wfg5AgMm0y7uyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJodHN2c3E3BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA1L3VzX3RveW90YV9yZWNhbGwEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3RveW90YWhpdHdpdA--
While statistics show Ford, GM, and Chrysler to have JUST AS MANY problems with their braking systems (last year) as Toyota, this apparently doesn't matter to the Federal Government, which is all too ready to demonize a foriegn (shivers) competitor.
How dare Toyota compete with the "Big Three"! So what if Americans prefer to purchase Japanese cars because they're better! It's unpatriotic to buy anything from those filthy gooks!
The above is obviously sarcasm, but sadly reflects the grim protectionist view many Americans have on the economy.
If American Companies STEAL from the citizenry to stay in business (even though they are more inefficient, unproductive, and unpopular with the average consumer), it's A-OK. But if a Japanese company merely offers a product in trade, competing with the inefficient thieves, they are an enemy to the United States! Makes perfect sense.
While statistics show Ford, GM, and Chrysler to have JUST AS MANY problems with their braking systems (last year) as Toyota, this apparently doesn't matter to the Federal Government, which is all too ready to demonize a foriegn (shivers) competitor.
How dare Toyota compete with the "Big Three"! So what if Americans prefer to purchase Japanese cars because they're better! It's unpatriotic to buy anything from those filthy gooks!
The above is obviously sarcasm, but sadly reflects the grim protectionist view many Americans have on the economy.
If American Companies STEAL from the citizenry to stay in business (even though they are more inefficient, unproductive, and unpopular with the average consumer), it's A-OK. But if a Japanese company merely offers a product in trade, competing with the inefficient thieves, they are an enemy to the United States! Makes perfect sense.
The Economy is Recovering!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy
Obama be praised!
Of course, this is just another bubble, which will inevitably end in a bust... nah, why spoil everyone's fun? I'll just keep my mouth shut and keep buying more Gold and Silver.
Everyone else can just keep thinking Keynesianism actually works.
Obama be praised!
Of course, this is just another bubble, which will inevitably end in a bust... nah, why spoil everyone's fun? I'll just keep my mouth shut and keep buying more Gold and Silver.
Everyone else can just keep thinking Keynesianism actually works.
Karl Rove plugs for 2010 Census
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_go_ot/us_census_rove
If that's not a reason to be opposed to this, yet another invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.
If that's not a reason to be opposed to this, yet another invasion of privacy, I don't know what is.
Quote of the Day
"When you advocate any government action, you must first believe that violence is the best answer to the question at hand." - Allen Thornton
Leaked Video: U.S. Troops Murdering 8 Civilians
http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D5rXPrfnU3G0%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded
Spreading Freedom and Democracy sure is hard work...
UPDATE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_go_ot/us_iraq_shooting;_ylt=AjBLMDGGzEVWky7AKC6h19CyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJoY25xdXI1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA1L3VzX2lyYXFfc2hvb3RpbmcEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Fwc291cmNlY29uZg--
Video is confirmed by reliable sources.
Also, two children were killed in the attack.
Spreading Freedom and Democracy sure is hard work...
UPDATE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100405/ap_on_go_ot/us_iraq_shooting;_ylt=AjBLMDGGzEVWky7AKC6h19CyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJoY25xdXI1BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA1L3VzX2lyYXFfc2hvb3RpbmcEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Fwc291cmNlY29uZg--
Video is confirmed by reliable sources.
Also, two children were killed in the attack.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Domestic Terrorism A Growing Threat
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100404/ap_on_go_co/us_terrorism_threat
This can only mean one thing... Those in power are getting frightened of the mass protest movement growing in this country.
The only way they can stifle dissent is to induce more fear in the hearts and minds of American citizens, thus making themselves the saviors-to-the-rescue.
Bush tried to control the Anti-War movement with his Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and illegal wiretaps... now Obama will follow in suit, using the same tactics as his predecessor to stifle the now Anti-Tax'n'Spend movement.
This can only mean one thing... Those in power are getting frightened of the mass protest movement growing in this country.
The only way they can stifle dissent is to induce more fear in the hearts and minds of American citizens, thus making themselves the saviors-to-the-rescue.
Bush tried to control the Anti-War movement with his Patriot Act, suspension of Habeus Corpus, and illegal wiretaps... now Obama will follow in suit, using the same tactics as his predecessor to stifle the now Anti-Tax'n'Spend movement.
Stevens to Resign
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100404/ts_alt_afp/usjusticepolitics
While I'm always pleased to see a member of the Political Class step down, that Obama now has the ability to choose said member's replacement does not give me much comfort.
While I'm always pleased to see a member of the Political Class step down, that Obama now has the ability to choose said member's replacement does not give me much comfort.
Arctic Ice-Cap is Expanding
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/arctic_cap_is_growing_dNSZjigQWTUE0TViMeLdXL
Someone should tell Al Gore... ManBearPig really doesn't exist.
Someone should tell Al Gore... ManBearPig really doesn't exist.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
General McChrystal: "We've shot an amazing number of innocent Afghans"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/02/mcchrystal-weve-shot-an-a_n_523749.html
I think this post speaks for itself...
I think this post speaks for itself...
Debate With A Soldier
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/54990.html#more-54990
From a unnamed source in LA, regarding a debate he had with a U.S. Soldier:
To be brief, the debate was about the morality of having U.S. troops continue to be garrisoned in Iraq and Afghanistan. I took to the mic and pointed out that we should not have been there in the first place, and that the ONLY sane, legal, and moral thing to do was get out. A young soldier in the audience stood up to protest my position using the standard boilerplate sloganeering we’ve come to expect from the Cheney-O’Reilly-Hannity-Limbaugh-Beck crowd. At the end his tirade which included Neocon gems like “I fight for your freedom” and “we’re there so we won’t have to fight them here,” I offered the young warrior the chance to give me the name of the group who was trying to take my “freedom” away from me. He stumbled for a moment, then (almost shouting) stated “those people hate you and would as soon cut your throat as look at you.” I told him my question was “who was trying to take my freedom from me,” NOT “who was trying to cut my throat.” He then said “are you going to let them get away with 9-11″? I replied, “who is THEM, young man?” I told him, “if you are suggesting the Iraqis had anything to do with 9-11 then you are woefully misinformed.” After going back and forth trading salvos (actually, it was just about me debunking one boilerplate statement after another ), he really got my ire by grabbing the collar of his shirt and stated “It’s people like you who disgrace MY uniform.”
At this point, I never had so much clarity descend upon me. It was like some power reached into my brain and told me what to say. Without even thinking, I said, ”Let me tell you something, SON! I know ALL about the service, even if I was never in it myself. My entire family on both sides has served in a military at one time or another. Both sides of my family fought for the Confederacy, my grandfather fought in France in WWI, My father was a decorated Marine, and my Uncle is a Bataan Death March survivor. So, I’m no stranger to the military. However, I can tell you this, you are ALL WET about WHOSE uniform that is and WHAT IT MEANS! My father, who was a peaceful and gentle man, came home from WWII with the Navy Cross and a revulsion of war – as did my uncle. They both became staunch advocates of non-interventionism and a belief that to defend your own shores is the highest calling. Anything else is simply premeditated warmongering. I learned many things from my father, but the most important thing he ever told me about being a soldier was this…,and I’m going to pass it along to you.
That uniform you wear is MINE! I ALLOW you to wear in on MY BEHALF. It belongs to ME and represents MY WISHES. If you DISHONOR IT, you dishonor ME! And if I SAY you DISHONOR it, then there is no question YOU HAVE. Every deed you do while in MY uniform reflects on ME, either GOOD or BAD. And, if you deny anything I just said, then you are NOT an ‘American Soldier!’
I did not enjoy putting this kid in his place, but I have seen this swaggering demand that “our” troops have for our unconditional and fawning deification of the military. I respect the military and those who serve to a point. After that, however, they must earn any additional respect. And, so far, “our boys” have lost mine.
From a unnamed source in LA, regarding a debate he had with a U.S. Soldier:
To be brief, the debate was about the morality of having U.S. troops continue to be garrisoned in Iraq and Afghanistan. I took to the mic and pointed out that we should not have been there in the first place, and that the ONLY sane, legal, and moral thing to do was get out. A young soldier in the audience stood up to protest my position using the standard boilerplate sloganeering we’ve come to expect from the Cheney-O’Reilly-Hannity-Limbaugh-Beck crowd. At the end his tirade which included Neocon gems like “I fight for your freedom” and “we’re there so we won’t have to fight them here,” I offered the young warrior the chance to give me the name of the group who was trying to take my “freedom” away from me. He stumbled for a moment, then (almost shouting) stated “those people hate you and would as soon cut your throat as look at you.” I told him my question was “who was trying to take my freedom from me,” NOT “who was trying to cut my throat.” He then said “are you going to let them get away with 9-11″? I replied, “who is THEM, young man?” I told him, “if you are suggesting the Iraqis had anything to do with 9-11 then you are woefully misinformed.” After going back and forth trading salvos (actually, it was just about me debunking one boilerplate statement after another ), he really got my ire by grabbing the collar of his shirt and stated “It’s people like you who disgrace MY uniform.”
At this point, I never had so much clarity descend upon me. It was like some power reached into my brain and told me what to say. Without even thinking, I said, ”Let me tell you something, SON! I know ALL about the service, even if I was never in it myself. My entire family on both sides has served in a military at one time or another. Both sides of my family fought for the Confederacy, my grandfather fought in France in WWI, My father was a decorated Marine, and my Uncle is a Bataan Death March survivor. So, I’m no stranger to the military. However, I can tell you this, you are ALL WET about WHOSE uniform that is and WHAT IT MEANS! My father, who was a peaceful and gentle man, came home from WWII with the Navy Cross and a revulsion of war – as did my uncle. They both became staunch advocates of non-interventionism and a belief that to defend your own shores is the highest calling. Anything else is simply premeditated warmongering. I learned many things from my father, but the most important thing he ever told me about being a soldier was this…,and I’m going to pass it along to you.
That uniform you wear is MINE! I ALLOW you to wear in on MY BEHALF. It belongs to ME and represents MY WISHES. If you DISHONOR IT, you dishonor ME! And if I SAY you DISHONOR it, then there is no question YOU HAVE. Every deed you do while in MY uniform reflects on ME, either GOOD or BAD. And, if you deny anything I just said, then you are NOT an ‘American Soldier!’
I did not enjoy putting this kid in his place, but I have seen this swaggering demand that “our” troops have for our unconditional and fawning deification of the military. I respect the military and those who serve to a point. After that, however, they must earn any additional respect. And, so far, “our boys” have lost mine.
Obama Seeks to Ban SUV's
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7086362.ece
Along with any other mode of transportation that commits a sin against the Green Religion. (not to mention gives aid to those "evil" Arabs)
Meanwhile, Obama himself rides around in an armoured SUV, a helicopter, and a 747.
I say, if he really desires a better environment, he should set an example and start "going green".
Along with any other mode of transportation that commits a sin against the Green Religion. (not to mention gives aid to those "evil" Arabs)
Meanwhile, Obama himself rides around in an armoured SUV, a helicopter, and a 747.
I say, if he really desires a better environment, he should set an example and start "going green".
Child Seized for Being Raised to Not Trust the Government
http://www.infowars.com/cops-cps-seize-child-from-parents-for-mistrusting-government/
Which only makes sense of course. How can the politicians be expected to run a country if the citizens insist on critical thinking?
Which only makes sense of course. How can the politicians be expected to run a country if the citizens insist on critical thinking?
They Were Just Following Orders
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance199.html
Seeing as it's "Good Friday" and Easter Weekend (originally a Pagan holiday celebrating the spring solstice), I thought I'd post a neat little article on the political and moral lessons from Jesus' crucifixion. No matter your religious (or irreligious) persuasion, it's a good read.
There They Crucified Him by Laurence M. Vance:
"And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left."
~ Luke 23:33
They didn’t just crucify him; they scourged him, stripped him, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, mocked him, smote him with their hands, spit on him, cast lots for his garments, smote him on the head, feigned worship to him, and nailed him to a cross.
Crucifixion was an ancient, brutal, gruesome, painful, humiliating, and public method of execution. The "him" referenced above who was crucified is, of course, Jesus Christ. He was crucified even though he was declared to be without fault, not worthy of death, and a just person.
Who in the world would do such a thing? Who would nail the Son of God to a cross and crucify him?
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (John 19:23)
Of all the horrible things that soldiers have done throughout history, this is certainly the most reprehensible.
Oh, but they were just following orders.
Apologists for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most people who are indifferent to these wars, and even many of those who oppose them all generally agree on one thing: We should never condemn the soldiers; they are just following orders.
I have often been chastised, even by those who condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce the abuses of the U.S. government, and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, because I have criticized the institution of the military and the soldiers who mete out death and destruction on its behalf:
Soldiers, I am told:
Are trained to kill people and break things
Are required to follow the orders of their officers
Must never question the orders they are given
Must follow orders to maintain discipline and effectiveness
I agree completely.
The problem here is two fold: These things are true and the people who recite them the most don’t actually believe them.
It is because these things are true of soldiers that no American should enlist in the military and fight for what Will Grigg calls "the world’s most powerful terrorist syndicate, the United States Government." When someone joins the military of a country like the United States with such an interventionist foreign policy and an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he will be expected to not only uphold and maintain the policy and the empire, but carry it out and expand it by military force. When someone works for the policeman, fireman, bully, busybody, and social worker of the world – the U.S. military – he will be expected to participate in acts of military intervention.
But, some will reply in retreat, there are some things that soldiers shouldn’t do when ordered to do them by their superiors – like commit war crimes.
My point exactly.
But if that is so then soldiers would not be doing what they are trained to do, would not be following the orders of their superiors, would not be never questioning the orders they are given, and would not be maintaining discipline and effectiveness.
You can’t have it both ways.
And what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway but crimes against not only the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, but also the thousands of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in vain and for a lie.
In spite of the blame game that is played when it comes to soldiers being culpable for their actions, they are responsible and will have to answer to a higher power than their commanding officers. That higher power may be their religion, philosophy, moral code, or conscience, but unless they have made a god out of the military, it will be something.
Christ forgave those who crucified him; millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans killed by the U.S. military are not only not so forgiving, they never even had the chance.
Seeing as it's "Good Friday" and Easter Weekend (originally a Pagan holiday celebrating the spring solstice), I thought I'd post a neat little article on the political and moral lessons from Jesus' crucifixion. No matter your religious (or irreligious) persuasion, it's a good read.
There They Crucified Him by Laurence M. Vance:
"And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left."
~ Luke 23:33
They didn’t just crucify him; they scourged him, stripped him, put a purple robe on him, put a crown of thorns on his head, mocked him, smote him with their hands, spit on him, cast lots for his garments, smote him on the head, feigned worship to him, and nailed him to a cross.
Crucifixion was an ancient, brutal, gruesome, painful, humiliating, and public method of execution. The "him" referenced above who was crucified is, of course, Jesus Christ. He was crucified even though he was declared to be without fault, not worthy of death, and a just person.
Who in the world would do such a thing? Who would nail the Son of God to a cross and crucify him?
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. (John 19:23)
Of all the horrible things that soldiers have done throughout history, this is certainly the most reprehensible.
Oh, but they were just following orders.
Apologists for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most people who are indifferent to these wars, and even many of those who oppose them all generally agree on one thing: We should never condemn the soldiers; they are just following orders.
I have often been chastised, even by those who condemn the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, denounce the abuses of the U.S. government, and oppose an interventionist U.S. foreign policy, because I have criticized the institution of the military and the soldiers who mete out death and destruction on its behalf:
Soldiers, I am told:
Are trained to kill people and break things
Are required to follow the orders of their officers
Must never question the orders they are given
Must follow orders to maintain discipline and effectiveness
I agree completely.
The problem here is two fold: These things are true and the people who recite them the most don’t actually believe them.
It is because these things are true of soldiers that no American should enlist in the military and fight for what Will Grigg calls "the world’s most powerful terrorist syndicate, the United States Government." When someone joins the military of a country like the United States with such an interventionist foreign policy and an empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, he will be expected to not only uphold and maintain the policy and the empire, but carry it out and expand it by military force. When someone works for the policeman, fireman, bully, busybody, and social worker of the world – the U.S. military – he will be expected to participate in acts of military intervention.
But, some will reply in retreat, there are some things that soldiers shouldn’t do when ordered to do them by their superiors – like commit war crimes.
My point exactly.
But if that is so then soldiers would not be doing what they are trained to do, would not be following the orders of their superiors, would not be never questioning the orders they are given, and would not be maintaining discipline and effectiveness.
You can’t have it both ways.
And what are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan anyway but crimes against not only the Iraqi and Afghan peoples, but also the thousands of U.S. soldiers who gave their lives in vain and for a lie.
In spite of the blame game that is played when it comes to soldiers being culpable for their actions, they are responsible and will have to answer to a higher power than their commanding officers. That higher power may be their religion, philosophy, moral code, or conscience, but unless they have made a god out of the military, it will be something.
Christ forgave those who crucified him; millions of Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans killed by the U.S. military are not only not so forgiving, they never even had the chance.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Jobs Up, Unemployment 9.7%
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35325.html
Of course, real unemployment is still around 20%... but the Government won't count those who have stopped looking for work.
While Obama and his Wall-Street pals are living it up with all the cash they stole from the American people to line their pockets, the rest of us are still in a recession.
They did say this would be a "jobless recovery".
Of course, real unemployment is still around 20%... but the Government won't count those who have stopped looking for work.
While Obama and his Wall-Street pals are living it up with all the cash they stole from the American people to line their pockets, the rest of us are still in a recession.
They did say this would be a "jobless recovery".
Major Powers Agree on Iran Sanctions
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_us_iran_sanctions
I don't know about you, but I feel safer already.
A nation that has yet to attack or directly threaten anyone, a country that has yet to produce a single WMD (but might, possibly, devolop the resources to do so, if they desired, in the future) or use one (unlike the United States... see: Hiroshima and Nagisaki).
Knowing that the people of this sovereign democracy will be starved in an act of economic warfare by my government... it makes me feel so much more secure from another 9/11 happening.
Now, whatever happened to that Osama Bin Laden character?
I don't know about you, but I feel safer already.
A nation that has yet to attack or directly threaten anyone, a country that has yet to produce a single WMD (but might, possibly, devolop the resources to do so, if they desired, in the future) or use one (unlike the United States... see: Hiroshima and Nagisaki).
Knowing that the people of this sovereign democracy will be starved in an act of economic warfare by my government... it makes me feel so much more secure from another 9/11 happening.
Now, whatever happened to that Osama Bin Laden character?
FBI: "Peaceful Activism Could Lead to Violence"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_governors_extremists;_ylt=AjgWoQPqSkO4kDYptt8bGJGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJvOWVnaTA5BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDAyL3VzX2dvdmVybm9yc19leHRyZW1pc3RzBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNmYml3YXJuc2xldHQ-
I guess they mean as opposed to the violent activism by the Government in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as our own country with the oppressive Drug War).
I guess they mean as opposed to the violent activism by the Government in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as our own country with the oppressive Drug War).
More Airline "Security"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_aviation_security;_ylt=AqkYCq0._UacmxMHsPpOZ2GyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJsdjRpY282BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDAyL3VzX2F2aWF0aW9uX3NlY3VyaXR5BGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDNARzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawN1c3RvYmVnaW5pbnQ-
While all of this seems misguided (why wouldn't terrorists just target us via another source... like subways for example... instead of going through the enhanced trouble given by the TSA at Airports?), and will also result in more hassle for average, peaceful Americans (and non-Americans) to travel in order to visit family and friends in distant places... these additional screenings will not protect against more terrorist attacks.
It amazes me that anyone still trusts the Government to keep us safe. The TSA is not driven to serve the customer. If it were left to the Airlines themselves to protect their property, you would see a near perfect balance between safety and efficiency.
Not to mention the very cause for terrorism is our own Military-Industrial Complex and it's behaviors overseas.
But as long as people are scared and looking to the State as their caretaker, those seeking more power and money will gladly take advantage of the docile masses.
While all of this seems misguided (why wouldn't terrorists just target us via another source... like subways for example... instead of going through the enhanced trouble given by the TSA at Airports?), and will also result in more hassle for average, peaceful Americans (and non-Americans) to travel in order to visit family and friends in distant places... these additional screenings will not protect against more terrorist attacks.
It amazes me that anyone still trusts the Government to keep us safe. The TSA is not driven to serve the customer. If it were left to the Airlines themselves to protect their property, you would see a near perfect balance between safety and efficiency.
Not to mention the very cause for terrorism is our own Military-Industrial Complex and it's behaviors overseas.
But as long as people are scared and looking to the State as their caretaker, those seeking more power and money will gladly take advantage of the docile masses.
Change You Shouldn't Believe In
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100402/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_interview;_ylt=Ahza33pvSy31cZFLY1H7MTSyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJqNDl0ODY2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDAyL3VzX29iYW1hX2ludGVydmlldwRjcG9zAzMEcG9zAzcEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFwZXJzaXN0
Obama is just as much, if not more, the warmonger that Bush was.
Obama is just as much, if not more, the warmonger that Bush was.
Vote For Ron!
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1972075_1972078_1972290,00.html
Mr. Paul is currently #74 on TIME'S 100 Most Influential People... he deserves to be higher, so VOTE! :)
Mr. Paul is currently #74 on TIME'S 100 Most Influential People... he deserves to be higher, so VOTE! :)
Snowe and Rockefeller Endorse More Government Control of Cyberspace
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303960604575157703702712526.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h
Of course this is all in the name of security. Private cybernetworks couldn't possibly develop security enough to defend their own information. It only makes sense that they would need the State to defend it for them. Afterall, while a "cyberwar" or "cyberattack" has yet to happen... the Government has done such a wonderful job defending against real-world threats, like 9/11 and the "Underwear Bomber".
This is about one thing and one thing only: For the Government - Power. For the Privately Owned Networks - Money.
Of course this is all in the name of security. Private cybernetworks couldn't possibly develop security enough to defend their own information. It only makes sense that they would need the State to defend it for them. Afterall, while a "cyberwar" or "cyberattack" has yet to happen... the Government has done such a wonderful job defending against real-world threats, like 9/11 and the "Underwear Bomber".
This is about one thing and one thing only: For the Government - Power. For the Privately Owned Networks - Money.
Paul Krugman (Nobel Prize Winner for Economics) Says Death Panels Will Save Money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aogCaGv9i78&feature=player_embedded
Wow.
Wow.
India Becomes A Fascist Nation
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/All-citizens-to-gets-national-ID-cards-by-201011/519712/
India, once a socialist worker "paradise", had, in recent years, embraced free market capitalism. The result was increased prosperity, more jobs, a growing middle-class, a technological revolution, and more social and economic freedoms. The direction in which the nation was heading would have seen an end to the massive rural poverty that has plauged India since their peaceful secession from British rule.
However, the people of India are now accepting a leap into Fascism by issuing national ID cards (which many politicians advocate for this country). It's amazing how the Government will take situations (like opening a bank account) that worked perfectly well in the past, and deem it absolutely necessary for them to get involved. The result will be an invasion of personal privacy on a grand scale.
Let's hope we don't follow India's example in this area of affairs.
India, once a socialist worker "paradise", had, in recent years, embraced free market capitalism. The result was increased prosperity, more jobs, a growing middle-class, a technological revolution, and more social and economic freedoms. The direction in which the nation was heading would have seen an end to the massive rural poverty that has plauged India since their peaceful secession from British rule.
However, the people of India are now accepting a leap into Fascism by issuing national ID cards (which many politicians advocate for this country). It's amazing how the Government will take situations (like opening a bank account) that worked perfectly well in the past, and deem it absolutely necessary for them to get involved. The result will be an invasion of personal privacy on a grand scale.
Let's hope we don't follow India's example in this area of affairs.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Government Protects Us From That Awful Carbon-Dioxide Again
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_bi_ge/us_fuel_efficiency;_ylt=AjGQjzH67GcDqMfCu0Pn31qyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJqM3VrYjQxBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDAxL3VzX2Z1ZWxfZWZmaWNpZW5jeQRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDbmV3bWlsZWFnZXJ1
New mileage rules will raise the prices of cars for consumers, and presumably lower them for gasoline, all while curbing green-house gasses from being released into the atmosphere bringing on Environmentalist Armaggedon.
But, as usual, politicians and bureaucrats fail to understand why screwing with market prices is a bad thing. Not to mention the non-pollutant: Carbon-Dioxide. You know, that gas we all breathe out of our lungs, and subsequently breathes life in plants (flora and fauna). Yep, that one. It's the one they say is killing us all. The one that's causing all the Government-paid scientists to manufacture evidence supporting "global-warming"... even though the planet is now cooling.
All hail the High Priest Al Gore for saving us all... and inventing the Internet! Gaia be praised!
New mileage rules will raise the prices of cars for consumers, and presumably lower them for gasoline, all while curbing green-house gasses from being released into the atmosphere bringing on Environmentalist Armaggedon.
But, as usual, politicians and bureaucrats fail to understand why screwing with market prices is a bad thing. Not to mention the non-pollutant: Carbon-Dioxide. You know, that gas we all breathe out of our lungs, and subsequently breathes life in plants (flora and fauna). Yep, that one. It's the one they say is killing us all. The one that's causing all the Government-paid scientists to manufacture evidence supporting "global-warming"... even though the planet is now cooling.
All hail the High Priest Al Gore for saving us all... and inventing the Internet! Gaia be praised!
Attack on Revisionist History
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100401/pl_mcclatchy/3466905
While the attack is aimed mainly at "right-wing" revisionism, the arrogant and ignorant approach taken against anyone who questions the Government's take on past events (remember, the winners always write history) fails to understand basic economics.
It's true, Alexander Hamilton was indeed a firm believer in Strong Central Government. He was also insane, wanted to abolish the states, lied about his (and other Federalist's) intentions at the Constitutional Convention in the Federalist Papers, desired an "American Empire" complete with a standing army, and an executive who would serve for a life-term.
It's also true that Joseph McCarthy was exactly as crazed in his witch-hunt for the "evil communists" as history records.
However, where the Conservative Historians are correct is in their take on both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, along with Jamestown.
FDR may have not caused the Great Depression, but he did prolongue it unnecessarily with his Keynesian programs. TR may have not been a socialist, but he was by all means a radical progressivist. And Jamestown was, by all accounts, operated under Marxist principles.
The attempt by Statist Liberal (and Statist Conservative) Historians to monopolize the study, and prevent any further review by "anti-establishment types", is anti-science and anti-freedom.
While the attack is aimed mainly at "right-wing" revisionism, the arrogant and ignorant approach taken against anyone who questions the Government's take on past events (remember, the winners always write history) fails to understand basic economics.
It's true, Alexander Hamilton was indeed a firm believer in Strong Central Government. He was also insane, wanted to abolish the states, lied about his (and other Federalist's) intentions at the Constitutional Convention in the Federalist Papers, desired an "American Empire" complete with a standing army, and an executive who would serve for a life-term.
It's also true that Joseph McCarthy was exactly as crazed in his witch-hunt for the "evil communists" as history records.
However, where the Conservative Historians are correct is in their take on both Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, along with Jamestown.
FDR may have not caused the Great Depression, but he did prolongue it unnecessarily with his Keynesian programs. TR may have not been a socialist, but he was by all means a radical progressivist. And Jamestown was, by all accounts, operated under Marxist principles.
The attempt by Statist Liberal (and Statist Conservative) Historians to monopolize the study, and prevent any further review by "anti-establishment types", is anti-science and anti-freedom.
Obama: "Be Patient!"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_re_us/us_obama
The President urges people to wait-and-see in regards to the new Health-Care Bill.
I think he has a point... in the meantime, let's all stock up on Gold and Guns, just in case this Government Program is as "succesfull" as the other ones.
The President urges people to wait-and-see in regards to the new Health-Care Bill.
I think he has a point... in the meantime, let's all stock up on Gold and Guns, just in case this Government Program is as "succesfull" as the other ones.
The Sunken Island of Guam
http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93533?fp=1
At least... that's what Congressman Hank Johnson supposedly predicted would happen if the influx of Marine families kept up at the same pace.
I'm pretty sure he was purposely over-exaggerating, but this is funny nontheless.
At least... that's what Congressman Hank Johnson supposedly predicted would happen if the influx of Marine families kept up at the same pace.
I'm pretty sure he was purposely over-exaggerating, but this is funny nontheless.
Sarah Palin Advocates War Against Iran
http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/peace-not-possible-if-iran-escapes-real-sanctions/375861323434
I never have understood the appeal of Mrs. Palin.
Here she states that Iran (according to the oh-so-trustworthy CIA) now has the capability of producing nuclear weapons to use against Isreal. Never mind that Isreal itself has an arsenal of IMBDs (given as a generous gift by you, the taxpayer), unlike Iran has NOT signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or that there is no legitimate evidence to assume Iran has the capability, will ever have the capability, or will ever have the desire to nuke the "Holy Land".
According to the ex-Governor of Alaska, all of this is reason enough to not only impose more crippling sanctions (which would starve the people, including women and children, and stifle any possible dissent against the Theocratic Government), but also justification to invade, overthrow, and rebuild the entire country.
Oh yes, because it worked so well the last time...
I never have understood the appeal of Mrs. Palin.
Here she states that Iran (according to the oh-so-trustworthy CIA) now has the capability of producing nuclear weapons to use against Isreal. Never mind that Isreal itself has an arsenal of IMBDs (given as a generous gift by you, the taxpayer), unlike Iran has NOT signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, or that there is no legitimate evidence to assume Iran has the capability, will ever have the capability, or will ever have the desire to nuke the "Holy Land".
According to the ex-Governor of Alaska, all of this is reason enough to not only impose more crippling sanctions (which would starve the people, including women and children, and stifle any possible dissent against the Theocratic Government), but also justification to invade, overthrow, and rebuild the entire country.
Oh yes, because it worked so well the last time...
United Nations vs. Religious "Defamation"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326
Our current manifestation of global governance has passed a resolution, at the behest of Pakistan (on the behalf of Islamic States), which would make "religious defamation" a human rights violation.
This will no doubt be used by the Muslim nations to justify restrictions on speech which is critical of Islam. Though this resolution also covers Anti-Semitism and Christianophobia. I suppose the very act of being an Athiest could now be criminalized, as denying the existence of an invisible man in the sky could certianly be construed as defamatory.
At some point, in an attempt to protect every group under the sun from being offended by another group, we will have to decide which groups should be given special "rights" over other groups.
Better hope (or pray) that you come out on the former end.
Our current manifestation of global governance has passed a resolution, at the behest of Pakistan (on the behalf of Islamic States), which would make "religious defamation" a human rights violation.
This will no doubt be used by the Muslim nations to justify restrictions on speech which is critical of Islam. Though this resolution also covers Anti-Semitism and Christianophobia. I suppose the very act of being an Athiest could now be criminalized, as denying the existence of an invisible man in the sky could certianly be construed as defamatory.
At some point, in an attempt to protect every group under the sun from being offended by another group, we will have to decide which groups should be given special "rights" over other groups.
Better hope (or pray) that you come out on the former end.
Police Taser 10-year old boy
http://www.theindychannel.com/news/23017669/detail.html
I can only imagine the great threat this child posed to the armed, adult officers that would warrant them using dangerous electro-shock in order to "protect" themselves.
I can only imagine the great threat this child posed to the armed, adult officers that would warrant them using dangerous electro-shock in order to "protect" themselves.
Conflict vs. Cooperation: by Walter E. Williams
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/10/ConflictOrCooperation.htm
Conflict or Cooperation
Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference -- strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When's the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.
It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.
Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. Conflict arises because schools are government owned. That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced. Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends.
Conflict in education is just one minor example of how government allocation can raise the potential for conflict. Others would include government-backed allocation of jobs and education slots by race and sex, plus the current large conflict over government allocation of health services. Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation. These people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously. In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries. A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.
As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Conflict or Cooperation
Different Americans have different and often intense preferences for all kinds of goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for beer and distaste for wine while others have the opposite preference -- strong preferences for wine and distaste for beer. Some of us hate three-piece suits and love blue jeans while others love three-piece suits and hate blue jeans. When's the last time you heard of beer drinkers in conflict with wine drinkers, or three-piece suit lovers in conflict with lovers of blue jeans? It seldom if ever happens because beer and blue jean lovers get what they want. Wine and three-piece suit lovers get what they want and they all can live in peace with one another.
It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. That is if wine lovers won, beer lovers lose. As such, political decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.
Take the issue of prayers in school as an example. I think that everyone, except a maniacal tyrant, would agree that a parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, a parent has a right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. Conflict arises because schools are government owned. That means it is a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent, in order to get what he wants, would have to muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. If education were only government financed, as opposed to being government financed and produced, say through education vouchers, the conflict would be reduced. Both parents could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice and instead of being enemies, they could be friends.
Conflict in education is just one minor example of how government allocation can raise the potential for conflict. Others would include government-backed allocation of jobs and education slots by race and sex, plus the current large conflict over government allocation of health services. Interestingly enough, the very people in our society who protest the loudest against human conflict and violence are the very ones calling for increased government resource allocation. These people fail to recognize or even wonder why our nation, with people of every race, ethnic group and religious group, has managed to live together relatively harmoniously. In their countries of origin, the same ethnic, racial and religious groups have been trying to slaughter one another for centuries. A good part of the answer is that in the United States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew, a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race, ethnicity, religion and region.
As our nation forsakes our founders' wisdom of constitutional limitations placed on Washington, we raise the potential for conflict.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
