17 December 2011
The oligarchy and its institutions vs. the people, summed up: Gee, Officer Krupke
GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE
ACTION
Dear kindly Sergeant Krupke,
You gotta understand,
It's just our bringin' up-ke
That gets us out of hand.
Our mothers all are junkies,
Our fathers all are drunks.
Golly Moses, natcherly we're punks!
ACTION AND JETS
Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset;
We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get.
We ain't no delinquents,
We're misunderstood.
Deep down inside us there is good!
ACTION
There is good!
ALL
There is good, there is good,
There is untapped good!
Like inside, the worst of us is good!
SNOWBOY: (Spoken) That's a touchin' good story.
ACTION: (Spoken) Lemme tell it to the world!
SNOWBOY: Just tell it to the judge.
ACTION
Dear kindly Judge, your Honor,
My parents treat me rough.
With all their marijuana,
They won't give me a puff.
They didn't wanna have me,
But somehow I was had.
Leapin' lizards! That's why I'm so bad!
DIESEL: (As Judge) Right!
Officer Krupke, you're really a square;
This boy don't need a judge, he needs an analyst's care!
It's just his neurosis that oughta be curbed.
He's psychologic'ly disturbed!
ACTION
I'm disturbed!
JETS
We're disturbed, we're disturbed,
We're the most disturbed,
Like we're psychologic'ly disturbed.
DIESEL: (Spoken, as Judge) In the opinion on this court, this child is depraved on account he ain't had a normal home.
ACTION: (Spoken) Hey, I'm depraved on account I'm deprived.
DIESEL: So take him to a headshrinker.
ACTION (Sings)
My father is a bastard,
My ma's an S.O.B.
My grandpa's always plastered,
My grandma pushes tea.
My sister wears a mustache,
My brother wears a dress.
Goodness gracious, that's why I'm a mess!
A-RAB: (As Psychiatrist) Yes!
Officer Krupke, you're really a slob.
This boy don't need a doctor, just a good honest job.
Society's played him a terrible trick,
And sociologic'ly he's sick!
ACTION
I am sick!
ALL
We are sick, we are sick,
We are sick, sick, sick,
Like we're sociologically sick!
A-RAB: In my opinion, this child don't need to have his head shrunk at all. Juvenile delinquency is purely a social disease!
ACTION: Hey, I got a social disease!
A-RAB: So take him to a social worker!
ACTION
Dear kindly social worker,
They say go earn a buck.
Like be a soda jerker,
Which means like be a schumck.
It's not I'm anti-social,
I'm only anti-work.
Gloryosky! That's why I'm a jerk!
BABY JOHN: (As Female Social Worker)
Eek!
Officer Krupke, you've done it again.
This boy don't need a job, he needs a year in the pen.
It ain't just a question of misunderstood;
Deep down inside him, he's no good!
ACTION
I'm no good!
ALL
We're no good, we're no good!
We're no earthly good,
Like the best of us is no damn good!
DIESEL (As Judge)
The trouble is he's crazy.
A-RAB (As Psychiatrist)
The trouble is he drinks.
BABY JOHN (As Female Social Worker)
The trouble is he's lazy.
DIESEL
The trouble is he stinks.
A-RAB
The trouble is he's growing.
BABY JOHN
The trouble is he's grown.
ALL
Krupke, we got troubles of our own!
Gee, Officer Krupke,
We're down on our knees,
'Cause no one wants a fellow with a social disease.
Gee, Officer Krupke,
What are we to do?
Gee, Officer Krupke,
Krup you!
16 December 2011
The real death of Liberty in America
"The National Defense Authorization Act"
--As usual with Congress, the name of a bill is either innocuous, confusing, or completely obfuscating what it actually is going to do once signed by the Executive.
In this case, American citizens, we are to assume at this point only Muslim extremists, can be arrested and held indefinitely without charge or trial. This is suspension of Habeas Corpus. It is the abrogation of the Bill of Rights. This bill is the sine qua non of a Police State.
Liberty dies with the passage of this bill.
At the time of this writing, Liberty is still warm, rigor mortis hasn't set yet, so most people don't notice.
The individuals that take note of the death of Liberty have had their hands on the pulse of Liberty for some time, and watching the (legislative) heart monitor, knew that it's demise was close, and inevitable. The monitor flatlined on the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights.
Most Americans won't notice until Liberty is so long dead that it has begun to rot, and the smell hits them.
Why is liberty dead?
I think it was put down (i.e. quietly euthanized/executed) in the legislature because the oligarchical powers that be know their economic endgame is afoot. With the loss of economic sustainability of the Corporatist state, the oligarchy (insert the oligarchy of your choice here, whether it be the two party system that does all it can to stifle alternate political parties, or the Banking/Corporate powers behind the mainstream two political parties, it doesn't matter. The oligarchy is there, it controls, and We the People are irrelevant other than as a source of productive wealth to confiscate. Some of the wealth is kept by the oligarchy, some is redistributed. The redistributed portion of the confiscated wealth of the People serves the two parties and their natural constituents. The purpose of the Neoconservative right is served by using taxes or borrowed money to assuage the aggressive nationalist portion of the People, while the Progressive wing is served by distributing their share of loot to Unions, those sympathetic to Marxist philosophy, and the impoverished and/or nonproductive portion of the People.)
If the people become restless, as they must when they cannot support themselves or their families, they threaten the status quo for the oligarchy.
The People must be made to come to heel, and the portions of the NDAA that concern Constitutional conservatives are designed to do that. If not now, then when it may be needed.
If the People cannot be distracted with bread, circuses, or shovel-ready jobs paid for by someone else's confiscated wealth, they must be kept docile by fear. Fear of foreign menace, fear of planetary disaster, or fear of the SWAT team breaking down their door at 4 am all serve the purpose. We have arrived at the Fear stage.
What happened to the greatest and freest country in world history? We fell into the trap that destroyed other Nation-States.
Self determination leads to nationalism. (Those of us who believe in Southern nationalism think of this as a good thing, and one of the reasons that I support the League of the South is that their economic vision is the classical liberal vision [i.e. true free market laissez faire capitalism]). Any people bent on self determination must be wary and cautious of the economics and worldview of their nationalism.
Sometimes, the size and power of the Nation state reaches a tipping point that triggers an agressive form of nationalism. This typically has lead to imperialism. Imperialism leads to economic overreach by war, which leads to the death of the nation state. Certainly liberty dies along the way, because such an evolution is necessarily coercive to the population, and the coercion logically must increase as the economic situation deteriorates. This has been true in many other countries, and other empires. It is not a historical inevitability, but follows logically when certain conditions are met. It happened to Rome, Persia, Alexander, Great Britain, and the AustroGerman peoples, to name a few examples.
It has happened to the United States of America. I do not mean the 18th and early 19th Century "these United States of America" of the republic. I mean the involuntary Nation of the United States of America born in 1865. That Nation turned more and more to the aggressive form Nationalism, leading to Empire, overreach, and soon, collapse.
Here are some relevant quotes from Ludwig von Mises:
Modern imperialism is distinguished from the expansionist tendencies of the absolute principalities by the fact that its moving spirits are not the members of the ruling dynasty, nor even of the nobility... but the mass of the people, who look upon it as the most appropriate means for the preservation of national independence.
-- Man, Economy, and the State (Nation, Staat und Wirtschaft), 1919.
It would be a mistake to ascribe the ascendancy of modern nationalism to human wickedness. The nationalists are not innately aggressive men; they become aggressive through their conception of nationalism. They are confronted with conditions which were unknown to the champions of the old principle of self-determination. And their etatist prejudices prevent them from finding a solution for the problems they have to face other than that provided by aggressive nationalism.
-- Omnipotent government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, 1944
Interventionism generates economic nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity. If men and commodities are prevented from crossing the borderlines, why should not the armies try to pave the way for them?
--Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 1949.
Our choices at this point:
1. I believe in the system and will vote.
2. I will be completely passive (i.e. "There's nothing I can do about it")
3. I don't believe in the system and will go to ground, maybe even go Galt.
4. I can be proactive to resist by signs and placards.
5. I can be proactive by joining an organization I think might make a difference.
6. I can be proactive by actively resisting the State. Cyberattacks, passive resistance, active physical resistance, whether it is a brick through a window when you know no one is around, or planning for guerilla warfare.
There may be other choices that you can think of that don't quite fit this list.
What will you choose?
Comments please.
--As usual with Congress, the name of a bill is either innocuous, confusing, or completely obfuscating what it actually is going to do once signed by the Executive.
In this case, American citizens, we are to assume at this point only Muslim extremists, can be arrested and held indefinitely without charge or trial. This is suspension of Habeas Corpus. It is the abrogation of the Bill of Rights. This bill is the sine qua non of a Police State.
Liberty dies with the passage of this bill.
At the time of this writing, Liberty is still warm, rigor mortis hasn't set yet, so most people don't notice.
The individuals that take note of the death of Liberty have had their hands on the pulse of Liberty for some time, and watching the (legislative) heart monitor, knew that it's demise was close, and inevitable. The monitor flatlined on the 220th anniversary of the passage of the Bill of Rights.
Most Americans won't notice until Liberty is so long dead that it has begun to rot, and the smell hits them.
Why is liberty dead?
I think it was put down (i.e. quietly euthanized/executed) in the legislature because the oligarchical powers that be know their economic endgame is afoot. With the loss of economic sustainability of the Corporatist state, the oligarchy (insert the oligarchy of your choice here, whether it be the two party system that does all it can to stifle alternate political parties, or the Banking/Corporate powers behind the mainstream two political parties, it doesn't matter. The oligarchy is there, it controls, and We the People are irrelevant other than as a source of productive wealth to confiscate. Some of the wealth is kept by the oligarchy, some is redistributed. The redistributed portion of the confiscated wealth of the People serves the two parties and their natural constituents. The purpose of the Neoconservative right is served by using taxes or borrowed money to assuage the aggressive nationalist portion of the People, while the Progressive wing is served by distributing their share of loot to Unions, those sympathetic to Marxist philosophy, and the impoverished and/or nonproductive portion of the People.)
If the people become restless, as they must when they cannot support themselves or their families, they threaten the status quo for the oligarchy.
The People must be made to come to heel, and the portions of the NDAA that concern Constitutional conservatives are designed to do that. If not now, then when it may be needed.
If the People cannot be distracted with bread, circuses, or shovel-ready jobs paid for by someone else's confiscated wealth, they must be kept docile by fear. Fear of foreign menace, fear of planetary disaster, or fear of the SWAT team breaking down their door at 4 am all serve the purpose. We have arrived at the Fear stage.
What happened to the greatest and freest country in world history? We fell into the trap that destroyed other Nation-States.
Self determination leads to nationalism. (Those of us who believe in Southern nationalism think of this as a good thing, and one of the reasons that I support the League of the South is that their economic vision is the classical liberal vision [i.e. true free market laissez faire capitalism]). Any people bent on self determination must be wary and cautious of the economics and worldview of their nationalism.
Sometimes, the size and power of the Nation state reaches a tipping point that triggers an agressive form of nationalism. This typically has lead to imperialism. Imperialism leads to economic overreach by war, which leads to the death of the nation state. Certainly liberty dies along the way, because such an evolution is necessarily coercive to the population, and the coercion logically must increase as the economic situation deteriorates. This has been true in many other countries, and other empires. It is not a historical inevitability, but follows logically when certain conditions are met. It happened to Rome, Persia, Alexander, Great Britain, and the AustroGerman peoples, to name a few examples.
It has happened to the United States of America. I do not mean the 18th and early 19th Century "these United States of America" of the republic. I mean the involuntary Nation of the United States of America born in 1865. That Nation turned more and more to the aggressive form Nationalism, leading to Empire, overreach, and soon, collapse.
Here are some relevant quotes from Ludwig von Mises:
Modern imperialism is distinguished from the expansionist tendencies of the absolute principalities by the fact that its moving spirits are not the members of the ruling dynasty, nor even of the nobility... but the mass of the people, who look upon it as the most appropriate means for the preservation of national independence.
-- Man, Economy, and the State (Nation, Staat und Wirtschaft), 1919.
It would be a mistake to ascribe the ascendancy of modern nationalism to human wickedness. The nationalists are not innately aggressive men; they become aggressive through their conception of nationalism. They are confronted with conditions which were unknown to the champions of the old principle of self-determination. And their etatist prejudices prevent them from finding a solution for the problems they have to face other than that provided by aggressive nationalism.
-- Omnipotent government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, 1944
Interventionism generates economic nationalism, and economic nationalism generates bellicosity. If men and commodities are prevented from crossing the borderlines, why should not the armies try to pave the way for them?
--Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 1949.
Our choices at this point:
1. I believe in the system and will vote.
2. I will be completely passive (i.e. "There's nothing I can do about it")
3. I don't believe in the system and will go to ground, maybe even go Galt.
4. I can be proactive to resist by signs and placards.
5. I can be proactive by joining an organization I think might make a difference.
6. I can be proactive by actively resisting the State. Cyberattacks, passive resistance, active physical resistance, whether it is a brick through a window when you know no one is around, or planning for guerilla warfare.
There may be other choices that you can think of that don't quite fit this list.
What will you choose?
Comments please.
15 December 2011
Keynesian vs. Austrian Economics
via economicpolicyjournal.com
Some sites where you can learn about the Austrian School of Economics:
mises.org
tomwoods.com
lewrockwell.com
economicpolicyjournal.com
www.ronpaul2012.com
Some sites where you can learn about the Austrian School of Economics:
mises.org
tomwoods.com
lewrockwell.com
economicpolicyjournal.com
www.ronpaul2012.com
14 December 2011
220th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights: December 15, 1791
Verbatim post, via Tenth Amendment Center Blog
With the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights only hours away (December 15th), a majority of the American people still do not understand the true intent of the Amendments. They believe the Amendments are the source of their individual rights and the federal government was granted the general power to secure those rights. In reality, the Amendments did not create any individual rights or grant the federal government any general power.
When the “Bill of Rights” was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it contained 12 proposed amendments and was prefaced with a preamble that spelled out the intent of the Amendments. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted (2 were rejected 10 were agreed to), would not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any general power; they would place additional restraints and/or qualifications on federal power concerning the rights enumerated therein.
The best way to explain the intent of the Amendments was to re-write them through the preamble. This re-write helps explain the original intent of the Amendments, without resorting to the preamble, and makes them easier to understand. Some words have been changed to reflect modern usage and the sentence structure has been slightly altered in a few of the Amendments. The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [http://www.billofrights.org/], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.
Article I……… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article II……… Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. (EN 1)
Article III……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment grants the federal government a very narrow lawmaking power to qualify the restraint.)
Article IV……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article V……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.
Article VI……… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article VII……… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the people’s right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article VIII……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
Article IX……… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article X……… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (No change on this Amendment is needed)
Even through the Constitution established a government of limited enumerated powers and under this system of government every power not granted was denied, the States decided that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were needed to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” Thus, the insertion of phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the intent of the Amendments.
After establishing the original intent of the Amendments, three things are certain. First, the purpose of the Amendments was to place additional restraints and/or qualifications on the powers of the federal government. Second, the Amendments did not grant the people of the individual States any so-called constitutional rights. Third, the Amendments did not grant the federal government the general power to secure the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.”
In the author’s opinion, government and the American public school system are intentionally suppressing the preamble and the original intent of the Amendments because government wants it that way. If government wanted students properly educated on the “Bill of Rights,” it would insist that the civics curriculum incorporate this information into classes and textbooks.
By advancing the myth that the “Bill of Rights” grants the American people individual rights, the federal government has been able to assume the role of “protector” of those rights. This has allowed it to transform restraints on power into grants of power. The federal government now claims it has the power to impose “reasonable restraints” on any right enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” This is an absurdity because the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is allowed to assume this power, then the Constitution is meaningless as a written document because government can simply modify or remove every restraint on its power.
Now that you know how to properly read the Amendments in a manner that is consistent with original intent, as expressed in the preamble, don’t be a victim of the government’s public school system on December 15th when we celebrate the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights Restraints.
Endnote 1-The word “because” can used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. The first part of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause because a well-regulated militia is dependent upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms not visa versa. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.
Bob Greenslade has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.
 |
| It's a bit faded and moldy. So faded, in fact, that no one in DC can read it anymore. Perhaps it's time to re-write it with new no-fading ink, and a firmer hand than the original. |
With the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Amendments commonly known as the Bill of Rights only hours away (December 15th), a majority of the American people still do not understand the true intent of the Amendments. They believe the Amendments are the source of their individual rights and the federal government was granted the general power to secure those rights. In reality, the Amendments did not create any individual rights or grant the federal government any general power.
When the “Bill of Rights” was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it contained 12 proposed amendments and was prefaced with a preamble that spelled out the intent of the Amendments. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted (2 were rejected 10 were agreed to), would not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the federal government any general power; they would place additional restraints and/or qualifications on federal power concerning the rights enumerated therein.
The best way to explain the intent of the Amendments was to re-write them through the preamble. This re-write helps explain the original intent of the Amendments, without resorting to the preamble, and makes them easier to understand. Some words have been changed to reflect modern usage and the sentence structure has been slightly altered in a few of the Amendments. The author suggests the reader, after reviewing the preamble [http://www.billofrights.org/], compare the wording of each Amendment to the original.
Article I……… Congress is expressly denied the power to enact any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article II……… Because a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the people’s right to keep and bear Arms. (EN 1)
Article III……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to quarter any Soldier in any house, in time of peace, without the consent of the Owner, or in time of war, except in a manner to be prescribed by law. (This Amendment grants the federal government a very narrow lawmaking power to qualify the restraint.)
Article IV……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to infringe the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the federal government is expressly denied the power to issue Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article V……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall the federal government subject any person to a prosecution for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall the federal government compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor shall the federal government deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall the federal government take private property for public use, without just compensation.
Article VI……… In all criminal prosecutions, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law; nor shall the federal government deny the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; or the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; or the right to have compulsory process for obtaining Witnesses in his favor, or the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article VII……… In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the federal government is expressly denied the power to negate the people’s right to a trial by jury, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any federal Court, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article VIII……… The federal government is expressly denied the power to impose excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments.
Article IX……… The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to grant the federal government the power to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article X……… The powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (No change on this Amendment is needed)
Even through the Constitution established a government of limited enumerated powers and under this system of government every power not granted was denied, the States decided that “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were needed to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” Thus, the insertion of phrases like “the federal government is expressly denied the power” is consistent with the intent of the Amendments.
After establishing the original intent of the Amendments, three things are certain. First, the purpose of the Amendments was to place additional restraints and/or qualifications on the powers of the federal government. Second, the Amendments did not grant the people of the individual States any so-called constitutional rights. Third, the Amendments did not grant the federal government the general power to secure the rights enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.”
In the author’s opinion, government and the American public school system are intentionally suppressing the preamble and the original intent of the Amendments because government wants it that way. If government wanted students properly educated on the “Bill of Rights,” it would insist that the civics curriculum incorporate this information into classes and textbooks.
By advancing the myth that the “Bill of Rights” grants the American people individual rights, the federal government has been able to assume the role of “protector” of those rights. This has allowed it to transform restraints on power into grants of power. The federal government now claims it has the power to impose “reasonable restraints” on any right enumerated in the “Bill of Rights.” This is an absurdity because the Amendments were specifically written and adopted to restrain the powers of the federal government. If the federal government is allowed to assume this power, then the Constitution is meaningless as a written document because government can simply modify or remove every restraint on its power.
Now that you know how to properly read the Amendments in a manner that is consistent with original intent, as expressed in the preamble, don’t be a victim of the government’s public school system on December 15th when we celebrate the 220th anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights Restraints.
Endnote 1-The word “because” can used at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a dependent clause. The first part of the Second Amendment is a dependent clause because a well-regulated militia is dependent upon the people’s right to keep and bear arms not visa versa. Therefore, it is, and would have been acceptable to use the word “because” at the beginning of the Amendment This change maintains the intent and sentence structure of the Amendment but makes it read in a manner that is more in tune with modern sentence structure.
Bob Greenslade has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.
13 December 2011
The funnier side of supply and demand: Norway, Butter, and Stephen Colbert
An acute butter shortage in Norway, one of the world's richest countries, has left people worrying how to bake their Christmas goodies with store shelves emptied and prices through the roof.
The shortfall, expected to last into January, amounts to between 500 and 1,000 tonnes, said Tine, Norway's main dairy company, while online sellers have offered 500-gramme packs for up to 350 euros ($465).
The shortfall has been blamed on a rainy summer that cut into feed production and therefore dairy output, but also the ballooning popularity of a low-carbohydrate, fat-rich diet that has sent demand for butter soaring.
"Compared to 2010, demand has grown by as much as 30 percent," Tine spokesman Lars Galtung told AFP.
Last Friday, customs officers stopped a Russian at the Norwegian-Swedish border and seized 90 kilos of butter stashed in his car.
Link
This was hysterical:
The shortfall, expected to last into January, amounts to between 500 and 1,000 tonnes, said Tine, Norway's main dairy company, while online sellers have offered 500-gramme packs for up to 350 euros ($465).
The shortfall has been blamed on a rainy summer that cut into feed production and therefore dairy output, but also the ballooning popularity of a low-carbohydrate, fat-rich diet that has sent demand for butter soaring.
"Compared to 2010, demand has grown by as much as 30 percent," Tine spokesman Lars Galtung told AFP.
Last Friday, customs officers stopped a Russian at the Norwegian-Swedish border and seized 90 kilos of butter stashed in his car.
Link
This was hysterical:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Norway's Butter Shortage | ||||
| ||||
12 December 2011
Non-Arabic speaking troops massing on Jordanian-Syrian border, foreign invasion of Syria afoot?
I smell plotting of the Western powers against the Iranian/Syrian axis. The latest "humanitarian" mission to save the people through regime change may be about to begin.
The USS George W Bush carrier group has been off the coast of Syria since middle to end of November. At least two major explosions at the Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan, of unknown origin. The British embassy attacked in Tehran, and the ambassadors are withdrawn. The Iranian Navy practicing today to close the Straits of Hormuz.
It's August 1914 again, folks.
It's 2 minutes to economic midnight in America and Europe.
War, anyone? Time to use up ordinance so that someone can be employed to make more, and clean up the rubble...
Sheeple, tonight War will be on TV right after Dancing with the Stars! Tell your unemployed 20 year old to pack up his troubles in the old kit-bag, smile, and head off to the induction center. He's employed now!
Here is video via economicpolicyjournal.com, from corbettreport.com
The USS George W Bush carrier group has been off the coast of Syria since middle to end of November. At least two major explosions at the Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan, of unknown origin. The British embassy attacked in Tehran, and the ambassadors are withdrawn. The Iranian Navy practicing today to close the Straits of Hormuz.
It's August 1914 again, folks.
It's 2 minutes to economic midnight in America and Europe.
War, anyone? Time to use up ordinance so that someone can be employed to make more, and clean up the rubble...
Sheeple, tonight War will be on TV right after Dancing with the Stars! Tell your unemployed 20 year old to pack up his troubles in the old kit-bag, smile, and head off to the induction center. He's employed now!
Here is video via economicpolicyjournal.com, from corbettreport.com
11 December 2011
Be warned: Imperium praeparet bellum
Imperium praeparet bellum via google translate:
The government is preparing for war. Against the people of the United States. I hope I am wrong, but the evidence continues to accumulate.
"We will use food as a weapon"
Summary of information points made in these two videos:
-Federal agents demand customer list from Mormon Food Storage facility in Tennessee, and were upset to find out the place was "cash and carry"
-Local TN officials going door to door asking residents about their preparations for disasters, including food stores.
-Military getting units to fill our questionnaires about use of lethal force against American citizens (as yet unconfirmed)
-Gun confiscation drills by military units in Iowa 2 years ago
-FEMA camps have been activated, and contracts to outfit the camps by Halliburton and KBR have started
-GPS coordinates of people's homes and who lives there provided to law enforcement from the Census bureau
-Operation Fast and Furious/Gunrunner/Gunwalker is a "false flag" money laundering operation where guns are sold to Mexican drug gangs, and drugs are imported to the US, with a goal of undermining the 2nd Amendment
-We face a situation faced by the Revolutionary Generation:
-denial of trial by Jury
-Americans spirited away from jurisdiction to places like Gitmo, Bright Light, or other black sites
(As per the recent 93-7 vote for the NDAA, including the provisions of the indefinite detention of American citizens declared enemy combatants by the government, and the ability of that government to remove its accused citizen to a place away from the country.)
------------------------------
This bring us to the concept of true treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
--Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution
“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Preamble to the US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It follows logically, that if a body of men, even those that constitute the Federal government of the United States, levys war against the People of the United States, while at the same time giving aid and comfort to the Enemies of the United States (at the expense of the taxpayer and purchasing power of the currency of the United States), that that body of men is a Treasonous body of men, and should be dealt with accordingly.
UPDATE:
Oathkeepers has pulled the story of the federal agents visiting a Mormon cannery in TN. Apologies to anyone alarmed by unverified information/rumor. I will endeavor not to pass on such information in the future.
The government is preparing for war. Against the people of the United States. I hope I am wrong, but the evidence continues to accumulate.
"We will use food as a weapon"
Summary of information points made in these two videos:
-Federal agents demand customer list from Mormon Food Storage facility in Tennessee, and were upset to find out the place was "cash and carry"
-Local TN officials going door to door asking residents about their preparations for disasters, including food stores.
-Military getting units to fill our questionnaires about use of lethal force against American citizens (as yet unconfirmed)
-Gun confiscation drills by military units in Iowa 2 years ago
-FEMA camps have been activated, and contracts to outfit the camps by Halliburton and KBR have started
-GPS coordinates of people's homes and who lives there provided to law enforcement from the Census bureau
-Operation Fast and Furious/Gunrunner/Gunwalker is a "false flag" money laundering operation where guns are sold to Mexican drug gangs, and drugs are imported to the US, with a goal of undermining the 2nd Amendment
-We face a situation faced by the Revolutionary Generation:
-denial of trial by Jury
-Americans spirited away from jurisdiction to places like Gitmo, Bright Light, or other black sites
(As per the recent 93-7 vote for the NDAA, including the provisions of the indefinite detention of American citizens declared enemy combatants by the government, and the ability of that government to remove its accused citizen to a place away from the country.)
------------------------------
This bring us to the concept of true treason:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
--Article 3, Section 3, US Constitution
“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.
Preamble to the US Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It follows logically, that if a body of men, even those that constitute the Federal government of the United States, levys war against the People of the United States, while at the same time giving aid and comfort to the Enemies of the United States (at the expense of the taxpayer and purchasing power of the currency of the United States), that that body of men is a Treasonous body of men, and should be dealt with accordingly.
UPDATE:
Oathkeepers has pulled the story of the federal agents visiting a Mormon cannery in TN. Apologies to anyone alarmed by unverified information/rumor. I will endeavor not to pass on such information in the future.
Quote of the Day 12/11/2011
I am not a trained economist, but it is not obvious to me that the United States of America is crying out for more wind turbines, and, if it is, I’m sure many of those colleges’ tenured Race and Social Justice Studies professors could be redeployed to serve as such.
--Mark Steyn
Good article of Steyn bashing statism; follow the link.
--Mark Steyn
Good article of Steyn bashing statism; follow the link.
10 December 2011
09 December 2011
Bob Fanning and Chuck Baldwin for Montana Gubernatorial race--Free market, 10th Amendment + Nullification, 2nd Amendment
Capitalism
America became the strongest nation in the world in short order because of its economic model of Capitalism. Allow people to use their ingenuity, skills, knowledge, and creativity to produce products, services, and wealth. When we get back to this formula, Montana will acquire more money than we have ever seen.
2nd Amendment
The individual’s and the State’s right to defend life and property is one of the most fundamental rights of mankind. This will be held as inviolable by Fanning-Baldwin.
US Constitution
Our union is governed by the U.S. Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It must be faithfully protected and supported by every officer–especially governors.
The Economy Problem
How did we get into the real estate meltdown? How did we get into the financial and economic recession–and some say, depression?
The Economy Answer
So, what is the answer to our economic and financial catastrophe? How is Bob going to lead Montana to it?
The Economy Solution: Bob Fanning
Bob Fanning is the only candidate with the knowledge, experience, and ability to put Montana on a path of economic and financial success. There is NO competition and only one choice – Bob Fanning for Governor.
Medical Marijuana
Montana has the right to govern itself involving the use of medical marijuana. The people have spoken more than once about this and have provided for its medical use. I will faithfully execute and defend all State laws, including the medical marijuana laws.
Self-Government
Individuals and families should be left with, as much as possible, the sovereignty they inherently possess for the general welfare of Montana. To protect life, liberty, and property is the purpose of government and Montana’s constitution.
Tenth Amendment Plan
Montana has the natural and constitutional right to govern itself. I will do more than say I believe in Montana’s right to govern itself. I will stand for Montana’s rights. Our future requires this kind of governor with the economic and political turmoil pervasive amongst us.
America became the strongest nation in the world in short order because of its economic model of Capitalism. Allow people to use their ingenuity, skills, knowledge, and creativity to produce products, services, and wealth. When we get back to this formula, Montana will acquire more money than we have ever seen.
2nd Amendment
The individual’s and the State’s right to defend life and property is one of the most fundamental rights of mankind. This will be held as inviolable by Fanning-Baldwin.
US Constitution
Our union is governed by the U.S. Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. It must be faithfully protected and supported by every officer–especially governors.
The Economy Problem
How did we get into the real estate meltdown? How did we get into the financial and economic recession–and some say, depression?
The Economy Answer
So, what is the answer to our economic and financial catastrophe? How is Bob going to lead Montana to it?
The Economy Solution: Bob Fanning
Bob Fanning is the only candidate with the knowledge, experience, and ability to put Montana on a path of economic and financial success. There is NO competition and only one choice – Bob Fanning for Governor.
Medical Marijuana
Montana has the right to govern itself involving the use of medical marijuana. The people have spoken more than once about this and have provided for its medical use. I will faithfully execute and defend all State laws, including the medical marijuana laws.
Self-Government
Individuals and families should be left with, as much as possible, the sovereignty they inherently possess for the general welfare of Montana. To protect life, liberty, and property is the purpose of government and Montana’s constitution.
Tenth Amendment Plan
Montana has the natural and constitutional right to govern itself. I will do more than say I believe in Montana’s right to govern itself. I will stand for Montana’s rights. Our future requires this kind of governor with the economic and political turmoil pervasive amongst us.
08 December 2011
Constitutional Sheriff in Indiana stares down the feds; the feds blink
Heroic interposition of County Sheriff in Elkhart IN between upstanding citizen running a dairy farm and the FDA officials who are intent to stop him from selling his milk, claiming illnesses were traced back to his dairy. There is no objective evidence to support the FDA claim, according to the source of this story. The feds just pulled their subpoena on the farm owner, Mr. Hochstetler:
"...While it's not clear exactly what kind of maneuvering led to the federal pullback, one factor working for Hochstetler may have been the efforts of his county sheriff, Brad Rogers of Elkhart County. He wrote two letters to the Justice Department warning it not to conduct inspections of Hochstetler's farm without a warrant from a local judge. In the process, he got into a debate over the limits of federal power and the U.S. Constitution with the Justice Department's Goldstein.
Earlier this month, Rogers emailed Goldstein that there had been "a number of inspections and attempted inspections on (Hochstetler's) farm..." He warned that "any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors' removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I."
That prompted Goldstein to cite the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause," which he said "has been interpreted since the earliest days of this nation to mean that federal law trumps state law whenever the two conflict."
Goldstein argued further that the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act allowed federal agents "to enter Mr. Hochstetler's property...without a warrant at all--pursuant to a long line of federal cases..." Moreover, he warned the sheriff that federal agents could arrest him-- "that the 'refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by section 374' is in itself a federal criminal offense, which under certain circumstances is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to three years..."
The Goldstein letter prompted Rogers to reply, in a letter just being sent today, "When you assert that federal law trumps state law, it is a distortion of the intent, content and extent of the supreme law of the land--the U.S. Constitution-seen through a myopic and misunderstood view of Article VI, section 2 (The Supremacy Clause)."
He also asserted that "the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could be deemed unconstitutional if and when challenged vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment juxtaposed with The Commerce Clause."
He added that "our form of government was based on the principle that all officials exist to secure 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'...Your 'cosmetic' regulations will never 'trump' those principles. The citizen in question is a good man and has committed no crime. He is an upstanding member of this community. He does not have to allow you access to his property for the FDA to conduct random inspections."
Heroic stand. Sheriff Rogers deserves our praise and support.
Sheriff Mack is right, Constitutional Sheriffs and the Tenth Amendment are the path back to the republic.
Original article here
via Oathkeepers facebook page
"...While it's not clear exactly what kind of maneuvering led to the federal pullback, one factor working for Hochstetler may have been the efforts of his county sheriff, Brad Rogers of Elkhart County. He wrote two letters to the Justice Department warning it not to conduct inspections of Hochstetler's farm without a warrant from a local judge. In the process, he got into a debate over the limits of federal power and the U.S. Constitution with the Justice Department's Goldstein.
Earlier this month, Rogers emailed Goldstein that there had been "a number of inspections and attempted inspections on (Hochstetler's) farm..." He warned that "any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors' removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I."
That prompted Goldstein to cite the U.S. Constitution's "Supremacy Clause," which he said "has been interpreted since the earliest days of this nation to mean that federal law trumps state law whenever the two conflict."
Goldstein argued further that the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act allowed federal agents "to enter Mr. Hochstetler's property...without a warrant at all--pursuant to a long line of federal cases..." Moreover, he warned the sheriff that federal agents could arrest him-- "that the 'refusal to permit entry or inspection as authorized by section 374' is in itself a federal criminal offense, which under certain circumstances is a felony punishable by imprisonment for up to three years..."
The Goldstein letter prompted Rogers to reply, in a letter just being sent today, "When you assert that federal law trumps state law, it is a distortion of the intent, content and extent of the supreme law of the land--the U.S. Constitution-seen through a myopic and misunderstood view of Article VI, section 2 (The Supremacy Clause)."
He also asserted that "the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could be deemed unconstitutional if and when challenged vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment juxtaposed with The Commerce Clause."
He added that "our form of government was based on the principle that all officials exist to secure 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.'...Your 'cosmetic' regulations will never 'trump' those principles. The citizen in question is a good man and has committed no crime. He is an upstanding member of this community. He does not have to allow you access to his property for the FDA to conduct random inspections."
 |
| Sheriff Brad Rogers, Elkhart IN |
Heroic stand. Sheriff Rogers deserves our praise and support.
Sheriff Mack is right, Constitutional Sheriffs and the Tenth Amendment are the path back to the republic.
Original article here
via Oathkeepers facebook page
07 December 2011
Why Constitutional conservatives, Jews and Christians, should support Ron Paul
In Ron Paul's own words.
Zionists, Evangelicals, Jews and Christians alike, anyone who believes in limited Federal government and original intent of the US Constitution, this is for you:
----------------------------------------
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul confirmed his support for Israel, but cautioned that while the United States should be a “friend” of the Jewish state, America should not be the “master” of Israel.
Paul also says the United States should not dictate Israel’s borders or try to “buy her allegiance” with massive amounts of foreign aid. He argued that foreign aid has actually hurt – not helped – the Jewish state.
The interview was conducted by Newsmax contributor Doug Wead, a presidential historian and New York Times best-selling author.
Paul has recently come under fire from some Jewish groups in America. The Republican Jewish Coalition banned Paul from a debate on Jewish issues in Washington this week because of his “misguided and extreme views,” according to the group’s executive director, Matt Brooks.
Newsmax chatted with Paul to get his side of the issue as the Texas Republican is surging in some presidential polls.
A new Washington Post-ABC News survey in Iowa shows him threatening Mitt Romney as the second-leading candidate behind Newt Gingrich. Paul is now tied with Romney in the early caucus state with 18 percent of the vote, behind Gingrich’s 33 percent.
Rep. Paul’s interview with Newsmax follows:
Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?
Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
This is not just about Israel, by the way, this is about how we should conduct ourselves with other countries around the world.
Newsmax: But Israel is not like other countries. We have a large Jewish population in America. What do you say to those who criticize your policy toward Israel?
Ron Paul: I think that some not only misunderstand the American Constitution and the role we should have in the world, they also misunderstand Zionism. Part of the original idea of Zionism, as I understand it, was that there should be Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Today, America doesn’t want anyone to be self-reliant. We want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world and we are going broke in the process.
Newsmax: Some object to your policy of cutting foreign aid to Israel.
Ron Paul: I have objected to all foreign aid. I define foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. We just can’t keep doing this. We don’t have the money anymore.
Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.
Newsmax: What do you say to evangelical Christians who want that aid to continue?
Ron Paul: I say to them that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend.
In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.
Newsmax: What then, if anything, should we do for Israel?
Ron Paul: We should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.
But we should stop interfering with them. We should not announce bargaining positions even before she begins her negotiations. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.
via Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre
Zionists, Evangelicals, Jews and Christians alike, anyone who believes in limited Federal government and original intent of the US Constitution, this is for you:
----------------------------------------
In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul confirmed his support for Israel, but cautioned that while the United States should be a “friend” of the Jewish state, America should not be the “master” of Israel.
Paul also says the United States should not dictate Israel’s borders or try to “buy her allegiance” with massive amounts of foreign aid. He argued that foreign aid has actually hurt – not helped – the Jewish state.
The interview was conducted by Newsmax contributor Doug Wead, a presidential historian and New York Times best-selling author.
Paul has recently come under fire from some Jewish groups in America. The Republican Jewish Coalition banned Paul from a debate on Jewish issues in Washington this week because of his “misguided and extreme views,” according to the group’s executive director, Matt Brooks.
Newsmax chatted with Paul to get his side of the issue as the Texas Republican is surging in some presidential polls.
A new Washington Post-ABC News survey in Iowa shows him threatening Mitt Romney as the second-leading candidate behind Newt Gingrich. Paul is now tied with Romney in the early caucus state with 18 percent of the vote, behind Gingrich’s 33 percent.
Rep. Paul’s interview with Newsmax follows:
Newsmax: What should our relationship be with Israel?
Ron Paul: We should be their friend and their trading partner. They are a democracy and we share many values with them. But we should not be their master. We should not dictate where their borders will be nor should we have veto power over their foreign policy.
This is not just about Israel, by the way, this is about how we should conduct ourselves with other countries around the world.
Newsmax: But Israel is not like other countries. We have a large Jewish population in America. What do you say to those who criticize your policy toward Israel?
Ron Paul: I think that some not only misunderstand the American Constitution and the role we should have in the world, they also misunderstand Zionism. Part of the original idea of Zionism, as I understand it, was that there should be Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance. Today, America doesn’t want anyone to be self-reliant. We want to rule the world and be the saviors of the world and we are going broke in the process.
Newsmax: Some object to your policy of cutting foreign aid to Israel.
Ron Paul: I have objected to all foreign aid. I define foreign aid as taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. We just can’t keep doing this. We don’t have the money anymore.
Stop and consider America’s policy: We give $3 billion a year to Israel in loans; and we give $12 billion or more in assistance to Israel’s self-declared enemies. Some of these are countries that say they will drive Israel into the sea.
Newsmax: What do you say to evangelical Christians who want that aid to continue?
Ron Paul: I say to them that our aid in the region is out of balance and it is wrong. Foreign aid does not help Israel. It is a net disadvantage. I say to them that “the borrower is servant to the lender” and America should never be the master of Israel and its fate. We should be her friend.
In October, 1981, most of the world and most of the Congress voiced outrage over Israel’s attack on Iraq and their nuclear development. I was one of the few who defended her right to make her own decisions on foreign policy and to act in her own self-interest.
Newsmax: What then, if anything, should we do for Israel?
Ron Paul: We should share intelligence for mutually agreed-upon goals. We should honor our pledge to refuse any arms sales that would undermine Israel’s qualitative military edge in the region.
But we should stop interfering with them. We should not announce bargaining positions even before she begins her negotiations. We should not dictate what she can and cannot do. We should stop trying to buy her allegiance. And Israel should stop sacrificing their sovereignty as an independent state to us or anybody else, no matter how well-intentioned.
via Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre
Ludwig von Mises on Government Jobs
Government jobs offer no opportunity for the display of personal talents and gifts. Regimentation spells the doom of initiative. The young man has no illusions about his future. He knows what is in store for him. He will get a job with one of the innumerable bureaus, he will be but a cog in a huge machine the working of which is more or less mechanical. The routine of a bureaucratic technique will cripple his mind and tie his hands. He will enjoy security. But this security will be rather of the kind that the convict enjoys within the prison walls. He will never be free to make decisions and to shape his own fate. He will forever be a man taken care of by other people. He will never be a real man relying on his own strength. He shudders at the sight of the huge office buildings in which he will bury himself. --Ludwig von Mises
06 December 2011
Homeland security theatre cartoon
http://homelandsecuritytheater.com/ Lots of good cartoons by former TSA agent who worked at LAX. He works in the comic book industry and had to take the TSA work to make ends meet...
Link for recent story on 3 elderly women in the NY area complaining of strip searches by the Blue Shirts.
Ron Paul should be the next President of the United States
You want peace and prosperity for this country?
There is only one candidate that will keep us out of unnecessary unconstitutional wars, and shrink the sovereign debt and size of the federal behemoth in the District of Confiscation.
Watch, please. Give to his campaign if you can afford to.
There is only one candidate that will keep us out of unnecessary unconstitutional wars, and shrink the sovereign debt and size of the federal behemoth in the District of Confiscation.
Watch, please. Give to his campaign if you can afford to.
05 December 2011
The Fed and the US government are bleeding you dry (of your wealth) BY DESIGN
About a month before I wrote my commentary, my old friend Richard Rahn had, without my noticing, written on the same issue in a commentary article published in the Washington Times, but he had gone beyond the simple point I made. Rahn notes that besides suffering the loss of wealth occasioned by the negative real yield on such investments, the investor has to pay tax on the nominal yield—truly a case of the government’s adding insult to injury. He notes that given the currently prevailing rates of interest, rate of inflation, and tax rates, a small investor who earns a nominal yield of 1% and pays a 20% marginal tax rate, while the rate of inflation is 3.5 %, actually ends up paying a real tax rate of 370%. For example, an investor buys a $100,000 CD, earns $1,000 in annual interest, pays a tax of $200, and incurs a loss of $3,500 in purchasing power on the invested principal. Total (nominal) income is $1,000; total real tax (nominal tax plus inflation tax) is $3,700.
This expropriation of private wealth is not accidental.
It is the joint product of the Fed’s near-zero interest-rate policies, the Fed’s money supply increases that underlie the current rate of inflation, and the tax rates established by Congress and administered by the IRS, including the taxation of nominal interest earnings even when they amount to real losses of capital, rather than genuine earnings. The government clearly aims to expropriate private wealth on a massive scale. The only plausible alternative interpretation of these policies requires us to believe that the government officials who set these policies are complete idiots about basic economics.
"...complete idiots about basic economics..."
Yes. I do believe you've hit the nail on the head there.
Angry yet?
Read the rest here
This expropriation of private wealth is not accidental.
It is the joint product of the Fed’s near-zero interest-rate policies, the Fed’s money supply increases that underlie the current rate of inflation, and the tax rates established by Congress and administered by the IRS, including the taxation of nominal interest earnings even when they amount to real losses of capital, rather than genuine earnings. The government clearly aims to expropriate private wealth on a massive scale. The only plausible alternative interpretation of these policies requires us to believe that the government officials who set these policies are complete idiots about basic economics.
"...complete idiots about basic economics..."
Yes. I do believe you've hit the nail on the head there.
Angry yet?
Read the rest here
04 December 2011
Third American Revolution, reasons to fight: The burgeoning Police State
The Great Eye of Mordor-on-the-Potomac is upon you:
------------------------------------------
IF WE look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society [Society = you and me, the taxpayers--HM] and the State...
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.
--Alfred Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, 1935
-----------------------------
From yesterday's foxnews.com:
Cherie Anderson runs a travel company in southern California, and she’s convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she’s all right with that.
“I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind,” she says. “I figure I'm probably boring them to death."
[This is the attitude that is the death of Liberty, this is the great Lack of Eternal Vigilence that dooms the United States of America to police state "homeland" instead of the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave. This is the abrogation of the primary responsibility by the American citizen.--HM]
It's likely Anderson is not alone in her concerns that the government may be monitoring what Americans say, write, and read. And now there may be even more to worry about: a newly revealed security research project called PRODIGAL -- the Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning -- which has been built to scan IMs, texts and emails . . . and can read approximately a quarter billion of them a day.
“Every time someone logs on or off, sends an email or text, touches a file or plugs in a USB key, these records are collected within the organization,” David Bader, a professor at the Georgia Tech School of Computational Science and Engineering and a principal investigator on the project, told FoxNews.com.
PRODIGAL scans those records for behavior -- emails to unusual recipients, certain words cropping up, files transferred from unexpected servers -- that changes over time as an employee "goes rogue." The system was developed at Georgia Tech in conjunction with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Army's secretive research arm that works on everything from flying cars to robotic exoskeletons.
Initially, PRODIGAL will scan only the communications of military volunteers and people who work in federal agencies. But the very existence of such a project is sure to unnerve citizens like Anderson. Is the government reading my emails? Are they already monitoring me?
"Some people say it's one step further toward a police state," said Anthony Howard, a book author and security expert who has consulted for the Department of Homeland Security.
Read more in Fox News
 |
IF WE look beneath the surface of our public affairs, we can discern one fundamental fact, namely: a great redistribution of power between society [Society = you and me, the taxpayers--HM] and the State...
It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power. There is never, nor can there be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.
--Alfred Jay Nock, Our Enemy, the State, 1935
-----------------------------
From yesterday's foxnews.com:
Cherie Anderson runs a travel company in southern California, and she’s convinced the federal government is reading her emails. But she’s all right with that.
“I assume it's part of the Patriot Act and I really don't mind,” she says. “I figure I'm probably boring them to death."
[This is the attitude that is the death of Liberty, this is the great Lack of Eternal Vigilence that dooms the United States of America to police state "homeland" instead of the Land of the Free and the home of the Brave. This is the abrogation of the primary responsibility by the American citizen.--HM]
It's likely Anderson is not alone in her concerns that the government may be monitoring what Americans say, write, and read. And now there may be even more to worry about: a newly revealed security research project called PRODIGAL -- the Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning -- which has been built to scan IMs, texts and emails . . . and can read approximately a quarter billion of them a day.
“Every time someone logs on or off, sends an email or text, touches a file or plugs in a USB key, these records are collected within the organization,” David Bader, a professor at the Georgia Tech School of Computational Science and Engineering and a principal investigator on the project, told FoxNews.com.
PRODIGAL scans those records for behavior -- emails to unusual recipients, certain words cropping up, files transferred from unexpected servers -- that changes over time as an employee "goes rogue." The system was developed at Georgia Tech in conjunction with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Army's secretive research arm that works on everything from flying cars to robotic exoskeletons.
Initially, PRODIGAL will scan only the communications of military volunteers and people who work in federal agencies. But the very existence of such a project is sure to unnerve citizens like Anderson. Is the government reading my emails? Are they already monitoring me?
"Some people say it's one step further toward a police state," said Anthony Howard, a book author and security expert who has consulted for the Department of Homeland Security.
Read more in Fox News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)