<Grin>!
Okay....Touche'.......
I do need to tone it down with the rhetoric. My apologies.
Keith
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 12:55 PM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
ok, continue calling me a crackpot and I'll continue to call you a
warmongering imperialist
> <plainolameri...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Dec 5, 11:00 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I love it when Crackpots disagree!!
>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:53 PM, plainolamerican
> ...>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > the bottom line is that Americans can't afford an open border
> > policy ... nor can we afford to be interventionists around the globe
>
> > On Dec 5, 4:26 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "After living for 21 years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was
> > > deported to Mexico in September, separated from the two daughters and
> > > son she has raised as a single mother since her ex-husband left them
> > > seven years ago." ( USA Today)
> > > This (above) was the lead for your "Story"... It is a lie, it is
> > > bullshit, it is irresponsible.
>
> > > When a parent is deported the children have every right to accompany
> > > him or her or them home... To be truly accurate in what transpires the
> > > headline would have to read:
>
> > > "Mother abandons children when deported, chooses to leave them behind"
>
> > > Since the premise is a lie, pure bullshit and irresponsible; so is the
> > > rest of the story.
>
> > > On Dec 5, 2:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Families at Risk from Immigration Authorities"After living for 21
> > years in the U.S., [Liliana] Ramos, 39, was deported to Mexico in
> > September, separated from the two daughters and son she has raised as a
> > single mother since her ex-husband left them seven years ago." (USA
> > Today)Family values.The Source of RightsDean Russell
> > > > November 1984 • Volume: 34 • Issue: 11 •Dr. Russell, recently retired
> > from a full schedule of academic work, continues free-lance consulting,
> > lecturing and writing from his home in Westchester County, New York.
> > > > This is one of a series of articles examining current interventions of
> > the welfare state in the light of warnings from the French economist and
> > statesman, Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
> > > > The prevailing justification for governmental action in the United
> > States today is this: The desires of the majority, as determined by
> > universal and secret ballot, shall become the law of the land. And once the
> > vote is in, everyone must obey, including those who think the law is
> > immoral or economically destructive. Even if a person thinks the law
> > violates individual freedom and the basic human rights of every person, he
> > must still conform. Here are three examples of this situation currently in
> > force.
> > > > 1. Some hospital administrators think abortions are immoral. Even so,
> > abortions must still be accommodated in their hospitals. If the
> > administrator refuses, the penalty for frustrating the legal right of a
> > woman to have an abortion in a hospital open to the general public will be
> > the loss of essential funds and certification for the hospital. This will
> > result in the almost-certain de-raise of that particular hospital.
> > > > 2. One of the few economic principles accepted by economists of all
> > persuasions is that tariffs cause higher prices, with a resulting decrease
> > in goods and services. Even so, we economists (along with everyone else)
> > must conform to that costly measure in practice, or suffer additional
> > penalties as law-breakers.
> > > > 3. If the idea of human rights has any validity at all, surely the
> > most fundamental one is the right of every peaceful human being to his own
> > life. Yet the majority of American people have voted time and again to give
> > to our government (the mechanism we use to enforce the collective will) the
> > right to sacrifice that life on a battlefield of its own choosing.
> > > > Since the majority of people claim they have a right to use legal
> > violence to compel dissenters to conform to those laws (and thousands more
> > just like them), surely they should feel some obligation to justify their
> > position with a rationale more acceptable than, "There are more of us than
> > there are of you; we're bigger."
> > > > Further, when there's a prior law (constitutional or common or
> > statute) that interferes with the current desires of the majority, then
> > that law can be repealed in precisely the same manner the new law is
> > passed, i.e., by majority vote in the customary way it's done in our
> > particular form of democracy and representative government. While our
> > unique Constitution (along with tradition) can delay the popular will, it
> > can't stop it.
> > > > Ask anyoneteacher, preacher, editor, or public officialhow
> > weshoulddetermine what is (and what is not) a proper function of
> > government. The answer is always, "Why, by a democratic
> > votetheAmericanway." If there's any other generally accepted way to
> > determine collective actions, I'm unaware of it.
> > > > This doesn't mean, of course, that this philosophy of government
> > causes the minority (the individual) to accept the decision of the majority
> > as right or just. And certainly it doesn't cause us to accept it as final.
> > In fact, this process of majority-rule automatically encourages the losers
> > to regroup and strive again to become a majorityand then, in turn, to
> > impose their desires on the former victors. While each group always claims
> > "right is on our side," neither is in a sound position to make that claimat
> > least, not as long as each group is striving to impose its will on the
> > other group by force of law that's based on nothing more acceptable than
> > sheer numbers.
> > > > This battle is never-ending. It's fought on the local level, the state
> > level, the national level, and the international level. And it will
> > continue to be fought on all levels everywhere until this vital issue of
> > individual rights and group rights is based on a more acceptable and
> > fundamental principle than the law of large numbers.Individual Rights
> > > > In truth, if it's to be effective, the issue must be settled between
> > persons in the smallest possible unitjust two human beings deciding
> > together what rights each has as an individual, what rights the two of them
> > have collectively, and the source of those individual and collective
> > rights. Until that hoped-for. accomplishment is in place, how-ever, we must
> > continue to remain constantly alert for those persons (even the
> > well-intentioned ones) who are trying to use the law to force you and me to
> > conform totheirviewpoints. And please remember that those persons are to be
> > found in Washington rather than in Moscow. While the Russians are truly a
> > threat to our freedom, it's a threat of another kind.
> > > > In our heated discussions of this issue of "rights," all of us
> > actually do pay lip-service to the idea of rights for the individual, i.e.,
> > we constantly recite the word. But almost never do we use the concept of
> > individual rights to determine the validity of collective rights.
> > > > You'd think that would be the logical starting point. But when more
> > than two people are involved, it seems we just call for a show of
> > handswinner takes all. The losers then immediately prepare to continue the
> > battle in one way or another untiltheyfinally become the majority.
> > > > And why not; for once you move away from the idea of individual rights
> > to collective rights, what criterion is left except the law of large
> > numbers? The only principle I can find there is that, mathematically, 51
> > per cent is larger than 49 per cent. There's not even one individual right
> > to be found in that concept.
> > > > But since this law of large numbers (democracy in action) is the only
> > rationale we've ever been taught for determining proper governmental
> > actions in any area, it's not surprising we accept it without undue
> > protest. We simply don't know any other way to do it. And in the areas of
> > our most heated disagreements, e.g., taxing and spending and other matters
> > affecting our incomes, most of us appear to vote automaticallyagainstpaying
> > higher taxes and voteforgetting more subsidies of some kind.
> > > > As Frederic Bastiat said inThe Law:"When plunder is organized by law .
> > . . all the plundered classes try somehow to enterby peaceful or
> > revolutionary meansinto the making of laws."
> > > > If the American people (you and I and our neighbors) can legally get
> > money merely by voting for it, most of us will do so. Even if some of us
> > are hesitant to vote subsidies directly to ourselves, we feel real good
> > when we do the same thing indirectly by voting for more government housing,
> > education, and medical care for needy people. Whether we say so or not, we
> > know full well we'd have to do it with our own money if the government
> > didn't do it.
> > > > This process will continue with increasingly destructive consequences
> > until one of two solutions occurs. First (and most likely), a would-be
> > dictator will seize power by declaring an emergency and refusing to submit
> > his right to rule to the uncertain outcome of another election that
> > involves an opposition party. You need only glance casually around you to
> > discover scores of nations where that's happened. Or second, we'll finally
> > devise and accept a better rationale for collective (governmental) action
> > that's based on a principle more fundamental and permanent than a mere show
> > of hands.Life, Liberty, Property
> > > > I'm convinced that Frederic Bastiat devised that "better rationale"
> > for group action in his writings in 1850. In his short book devoted to this
> > issue,The Law,he offers a clear and simple method for determining the
> > justification of any collective (governmental) action. He starts with the
> > individual human being and never deviates from that universal base.
> > > > First he identifies the rights possessed by each and every person. He
> > follows this with a logical explanation of where those individual rights
> > come from. Finally, he demonstrates how the individual can logically and
> > legitimately and morally retain and use his individual rights in harmony
> > with his fellow humans in a viable social arrangement (government) designed
> > to
>
>
> read more »
>
> Newt.2012..jpg
> 7KViewDownload
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment