Dear MJ: You sir, are a total BUM! What I have written describing my New Constitution and how such would be apt to events in the news would fill several "War and Peace"-size novels. Not a single WORD of what I have written supports socialism nor communism! I am in favor of having a super-efficient, minimum-size government that has close to zero interaction with individual citizens. 'My' government will no longer keep records on the law-abiding citizens, because taxes will be value-added, only. And I have nixed having the government maintain records of criminal investigations of anyone found to be innocent. Those on-file records tend to prejudice law enforcement to "convict" the person they failed to convict the last time. My corrections of corrupt law enforcement practices, alone, should be justification enough to ratify my New Constitution! Presently, the USA is a police state—with the strings being pulled by corrupt public figures. And the courts have done whatever the political leaders dictate. I've put them in their place, big time! You, MJ, are little more than a party-crasher. I do not appreciate in
the least having you post your elementary version of "A" constitution
of some kind. Post your God-damned junk constitution under your name,
not mine. I am not playing games, here. If you would like to get
back into anyone's good graces, explain your political philosophy in
two paragraphs or less. Unless I see the words: "I pro-capitalist
and anti-socialist"… included, then I will know for sure that you are
just some HACKER who is back-dooring your socialist-communist ideals.
Anyone who says anything at all negative about my ideals can only be
the latter. — J. A. A. —
>
On Feb 23, 9:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> In case anyone missed it ... anyone who ASKS to
> see this 'Constitution' ... is labelled as a socialist-communist.
> My guess is that this Constitution upholds,
> endorses and hails ... socialism. THAT is the
> true reason Armistead does not want to post it OR let anyone 'see it'.
> Pity.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the
> consequences of evading reality" -- Alyssa Rosenbaum
>
> At 09:33 PM 2/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dear Jonathan: Get this and get this good: Your "pushy" attitude on
> >MY post about MY New Constitution pegs you as a likely socialist-
> >communist. You are not wanted here, nor anywhere else in the USA! —
> >John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> >On Feb 23, 2:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >wrote:
> > > How does John expect to implement his New Constitution if no one is ever
> > > allowed to read it? He sounds like a wanna-be dictator in the making.
>
> > > On 2/23/2011 11:45 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
>
> > > > That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > > scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > > else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > > > entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > > or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > > our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > > speak from personal experience that few if any other person could
> > > > have
> > > > had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > > out of office any public official or employee, including the
> > > > President
> > > > himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of
> > > > a
> > > > single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
>
> > > > Substitute "Obamacare" and thats what the DEMS slammed down your
> > > > throats.
>
> > > > On Feb 22, 11:07 am, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >> Dear Keith: Thanks for your rational-toned reply. My New
> > > >> Constitution will indeed be copyrighted. But only those parts of it
> > > >> not copied and adapted from the original, public-domain document.
> > > >> This isn't being done for making money from the sale of copies, but to
> > > >> be sure no crazies print 'modified copies' that would, maliciously,
> > > >> make me look bad�as part of a socialist/communist plot to side-track
> > > >> my efforts.
>
> > > >> I'm not sure you nor others realize that my document has, for fourteen
> > > >> years, withstood the test of correcting the daily crises highlighted
> > > >> in the news, and the regular injustices coming from our courts. What
> > > >> is included is at least ten times broader in scope than the original
> > > >> constitution. Realize that I have had the advantage (over the
> > > >> Founding Fathers) of seeing what has and what hasn't worked with our
> > > >> Constitution.
>
> > > >> That 40% of my New Constitution which has been made public has
> > > >> scarcely been commented on. I am NOT wishing to have your nor anyone
> > > >> else's feedback on what I have written! Most would love to see the
> > > >> entire document so that they can make grandiose criticisms about this
> > > >> or that. From my personal life, I have had head-to-head run-ins with
> > > >> our corrupt state, local, and federal governments that allow me to
> > > >> speak from personal experience that few if any other person could have
> > > >> had. That is why my New Constitution will immediately fire or kick
> > > >> out of office any public official or employee, including the President
> > > >> himself, who does not respond appropriately for a logical request of a
> > > >> single law-abiding citizen for the redress of a grievance. To wit:
>
> > > >> "1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
> > > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
> > > >> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
> > > >> be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
> > > >> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
> > > >> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; *** and the
> > > >> right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its
> > > >> branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so
> > > >> petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely,
> > > >> comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who
> > > >> have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of
> > > >> the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications. Failure
> > > >> to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall,
> > > >> on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment,
> > > >> especially those in management or public office�including judges and
> > > >> justices�who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent
> > > >> Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly
> > > >> addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No
> > > >> judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required
> > > >> duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity
> > > >> or fairness in court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed.
> > > >> Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable
> > > >> truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or
> > > >> deliberate omission of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or
> > > >> satire�is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news
> > > >> medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is
> > > >> prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly
> > > >> occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or
> > > >> ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as
> > > >> being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are in
> > > >> any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments
> > > >> occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would
> > > >> come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
> > > >> innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
> > > >> its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
> > > >> job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
> > > >> license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
> > > >> promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
> > > >> analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
> > > >> pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside
> > > >> of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
> > > >> candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
> > > >> provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
> > > >> the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
> > > >> of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
> > > >> truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
> > > >> medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
> > > >> others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
> > > >> be allowed to reply�without editing�in
> > that medium. Each medium shall
> > > >> respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
> > > >> medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
> > > >> not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
> > > >> government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
> > > >> being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
> > > >> thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
> > > >> truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
> > > >> commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
> > > >> candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
> > > >> campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
> > > >> felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
> > > >> interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
> > > >> public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
> > > >> display active public records without the free consent of the apt
> > > >> parties."
>
> > > >> Keith, the above should highlight the extreme attention to detail I've
> > > >> put into my document. No person, by a casual comment, shall have the
> > > >> "right" to denigrate my efforts. The following proviso is at the
> > > >> closing of my New Constitution:
>
> > > >> "Notes: (1.) *Italicized text represents portions of the New
> > > >> Constitution which shall be omitted unless separately and specifically
> > > >> approved by 60% of the voters. Voting to approve the New Constitution
> > > >> shall not be a vote on italicized portions. (2.) Any person, group or
> > > >> business which polls the People on their support or non support of
> > > >> this New Constitution or its parts prior to the national referendum,
> > > >> shall, retroactively, be guilty of a felony(s). (3.) The news media
> > > >> standards required, herein, as relates to coverage concerning this
> > > >> document, shall, following ratification of the New Constitution by the
> > > >> People, be retroactively applied to any news medium or person therein�
> > > >> including the full punishments relating thereto�for non compliance
> > > >> with the standards. Likewise, any judge or justice acting counter to
> > > >> this New Constitution regarding news coverage issues or any part of
> > > >> the ratification process shall be held fully accountable. The macro-
> > > >> will of the Citizens shall be Supreme!"
>
> > > >> � John A. Armistead �
>
> ...
>
> read 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.
More evidence that criminal Kadhafi is offering for free Libya to Israel as pre-planned before 'fleeing officially' the country, like Iraq was 'offered' to Israel in 1990Is Qaddafi Working With Mossad?By Christopher Bollyn,www.bollyn.com  February 24, 2011  The evidence indicates that Muammar Qaddafi, who controls the largest oil reserves in Africa, is secretly working with the Rothschild family and the Mossad."Fighter aircraft were bombing civilians on the streets of Tripoli, this is unprecedented violence." - Ali al-Essawi, Libyan Ambassador to India, 22 February 2011
Gaddafi's youngest son Khamis was reportedly bringing mercenaries from African countries to fight against anti-regime protestors. Identity cards from Guinea, Niger, Chad, Mauritania and Sudan were found on individuals wearing Libyan uniforms and killed in the eastern city of Benghazi and other locations.
- Using Mercenaries to Quell Libya Revolution 
A video image of one of Qaddafi's mercenaries who was killed...
...while other suspected African mercenaries stand in a room in a court in Benghazi as they are held by anti-Qaddafi protesters, February 24, 2011.
Is Muammar Qaddafi, the brutal and mercurial Libyan dictator, working with Israel's Mossad? The evidence suggests that he is. We need to remember that the Mossad works hand-in-hand with the Rothschild family, which controls global mining and oil production operations. Libya has the largest proven reserves of oil in Africa and exports about 1.5 million barrels per day and has important refineries that supply essential petroleum products to Europe.
Let's look at the evidence that Qaddafi is working with the Rothschild family and their intelligence agency, the Mossad.
First, Libya invested a reported $500 million into Allen Stanford's money laundering operation that was exposed two years ago this month to be a scam in which some $8 billion disappeared. Stanford's operation, based in Antigua and Houston, was one in which senior Mossadniks were both investors and recipients of investments from Allen Stanford. The Israeli venture capital funds which received millions of dollars from Stanford are all closely linked to the Mossad. Yair Shamir, the son of the infamous terrorist leader Yitzchak Shamir, was one of the investors in Stanford's "bank" in Antigua.
Yair Shamir (inset), the son of the notorious Zionist terrorist Yitzchak Shamir, is chairman and managing partner of the Catalyst Fund, a Mossad venture capital fund that received tens of millions of dollars from the Allen Stanford money-laundering operation. Shamir was also an investor in the Stanford bank.
Qaddafi invested the $500 million in Stanford's operation three weeks before the fund collapsed owing investors some $8 billion. The Stanford bank was reportedly a Mossad money-laundering operation funded with illegal drug profits. Libya, however, has never made a claim for the lost $500 million. Why would Qaddafi invest half a billion dollars in a Mossad-linked scam and not ask for the money back?
Secondly, there is the Rothschild connection to Qaddafi, through his son Saif. As the Daily Mail reported on February 24:
The friendship of oddball financier Nat Rothschild, 39, scion of one of Europe's most distinguished Jewish families, with Colonel Gaddafi's epicene son, Saif, is remarkable. Colonel Gaddafi confiscated all Jewish property in Libya when he came to power. All debts to Jews were cancelled and emigration legally prohibited. But in 2004 – the year Tony Blair befriended the Libyan madman – Gaddafi said he would discuss compensating Jews stripped of their possessions. It's said Saif – who hoped to succeed his father – was behind these moves. A sop to Nat Rothschild? 
Nat Rothschild works closely with the Qaddafi family.Then there is the fact that Tony Blair serves as an adviser to Muammar Qaddafi. But who is Blair serving? It is well known that Blair is a Zionist-controlled politician who has sacrificed hundreds of British lives in the criminal fraud known as the "War on Terror". The Daily Mail reported in July 2010 that Blair had secret talks with Qaddafi in Tripoli:
Tony Blair was flown to Libya for secret talks with Colonel Gaddafi just days after denying he was an adviser to the dictator. Mr Blair was 'entertained as a brother', a senior Libyan government source has revealed. He told the Daily Mail that the former prime minister had offered Gaddafi, with whom he is on first-name terms, 'a great deal of invaluable advice'. 
Mr Blair is said to be on first-name terms with the Libyan dictator and was treated like a 'brother' on his visit, according to the Daily Mail (U.K.)...
...although Britain officially blamed Qaddafi for the terror bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie.Tony Blair is just one of the many Zionist-controlled politicians who have embraced the madman of Tripoli. Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, for example, who is very close to Qaddafi, was given the "Distinguished Statesman Award" by the Anti-Defamation League of the B'nai B'rith in September 2003. If Qaddafi were really the terrorist behind Pan Am 103, would Berlusconi and all these other Zionist-controlled western leaders be allowed to embrace him as a friend? Lastly, there is the claim made by Victor Ostrovsky in his books about the Mossad that Israeli agents based in Tripoli had sent messages that appeared to have been sent by Qaddafi's government. These counterfeit messages were picked up by American intelligence and were used to build their case against Libya. If Mossad was running such operations in Libya in the 1980s it is most likely that their penetration of Qaddafi's government only deepened in the 25 years since. The evidence strongly indicates that is the case.
SARAH IN TRIPOLI
The revolt and bloodshed in Libya will certainly lead to the end of the 42-year-old regime of Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi and his thugs. There is very little television footage coming from Libya, but the BBC Newhour program (of February 20) had an excellent telephone interview with a young Libyan woman named Sarah, in Tripoli. This is a very powerful and moving interview that helps one understand what is really happening in Libya. The interview with "Sarah in Tripoli" begins shortly after minute 26 and 30 seconds into the program. One can use the time button and begin listening at 26:30.
The interview can be heard on the BBC World Service website here:  Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi has been dictator of oil-rich Libya since 1969
Gaddafi and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy are quite close. Libya has many investments in Italy, the Guardian reported, "These include a stake of about 2% in Fiat, 7.5% of Juventus football club, a 2% stake in – and joint venture with – Italian aerospace and defence group Finmeccanica and 7.5% in UniCredit, the bank."
Britain's Tony Blair, who is controlled by Zionist money, was quite willing to embrace the madman of Libya - the same Arab tyrant who is said to have been behind the terror bombing over Lockerbie. How much sense does this make?
Qaddafi with Nicholas Sarkozy of France
Gaddafi and President Obama shaking hands
Hillary Clinton with Mutassim Gaddafi, one of his sons.
|
|
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JoinPakistan" group. You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members. To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com & on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197
Life without Our Wise Overlords
Friday, February 25, 2011
by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
The first 24 hours after a book becomes available to the public are anxious ones for an author. Will people love the book, hate the book, or be indifferent? And so you wait.
I was in that very position earlier this month. And then I read what Jeffrey Tucker wrote about my new book, Rollback :
- Woods works with relentless precision, like an intellectual surgeon, to convince the reader that the government is not what it says (the source of security, prosperity, peace, justice, health) but is rather the opposite and thereby we can and should do without it precisely in the name of promoting security, prosperity, peace justice, and health. He strives to completely lift the veil that covers the state, and he does so not through rhetorical bombast or libertarian theorizing but through careful, fact-filled argumentation on the issues that most people think about. … I can easily see this book as this generation's Common Sense: a book that enlightens and emboldens people to see the practical urgency of liberty in our times and in our world.
That was a relief. The book proceeds as if peeling layers from an onion. The first layer involves facts and interpretations that are in effect disputed by no one. (You can read the first chapter online.) Here is the fiscal crisis Americans are facing. It will force us to make wrenching changes. The situation, though, is an opportune moment to go back and reexamine the myths by which we were sold the ongoing expansion of government in the first place. I announce at this point that I intend to describe the crisis as an opportunity to be seized, not a calamity to be deplored. What the book is saying, in short, is this: given the collapse that is staring us in the face, we can't afford to think about government like sixth graders anymore, even if we should want to. And what we were taught in sixth grade about our allegedly selfless and indispensable political class was a pack of lies anyway. It is not the case that without the political class (1) we'd have no art or science, (2) our limbs would be blown off by exploding consumer products, and (3) we'd all be working in a mine for a dollar a day. The book then proceeds to one of its least controversial claims: the policies of Barack Obama have been a disaster. I probably don't need to elaborate on this here. Government has a habit of blaming the private sector for its own failings while taking credit for advances we in fact owe to the private sector. The financial crisis is the classic case of the former (though I discuss others), and that is the onion's next layer. Why, it was lack of oversight by our wise public servants that caused the problem! And wherever would we be without government stimulus to see us through economic downturns? This chapter is not merely a rehash of Meltdown, my New York Times bestseller from 2009, which gave an Austrian overview of the financial collapse. Rollback adds additional lines of inquiry, including a substantial section on financial deregulation and its connection or lack thereof to what happened. As long as we're on the financial crisis, the next layer is the Federal Reserve System. What is it? What does it do? Has it been successful? Hasn't there been more stability, as well as fewer and shallower recessions, since the creation of the Fed? Doesn't the Fed protect us against "deflation"? And so on through most of the common arguments in support of the Fed. Then come the functions we think of as being essential to our very notion of government. Thus I have a chapter on the military, which covers (1) the neglected and unknown economic effects of the military state on the civilian economy; (2) the truth behind the weapons-acquisition process; (3) the missing trillions at the unaudited and misnamed Department of Defense; and (4) the real cost of the military establishment. By the final chapter I am offering rather unconventional approaches to dealing with the situation a couple policy proposals, yes, but primarily things like agorism, jury nullification, the Free State Project, and other suggestions along those lines. The book is, unfortunately, being pitched all wrong as if it were primarily a book on cutting the budget. Well, sure, the budget would be low to nonexistent if people adopted the views I defend here. But my aim is far more ambitious than that. I am inviting the reader, step by step, to rethink the view of government and society he has imbibed since childhood. A tall order, to be sure. But I'm throwing everything I've got at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7UAusqESx0&feature=player_embedded
A sampling of the topics discussed in my book includes, - Could we survive without the welfare state?
- Was the Industrial Revolution a disaster for workers and an evidence of the wickedness of the free market?
- The market vs. global poverty
- How the market, in spite (not because) of government, leads to higher living standards for everyone
- How the market leads to improved working conditions and does away with child labor
- Federal education programs: a critique
- Doesn't Sweden prove a large welfare state is compatible with lasting prosperity?
- If government shrinks, won't big business fill the void and oppress the public via predatory pricing?
- Why it's impossible to design a wealth-redistribution program that does not cause net harm
- The truth about "affordable housing" programs
- Iceland and the financial crisis: a case study of free markets run amok?
- California energy "deregulation" proof that free markets don't work?
- Is the Savings & Loan (S&L) crisis evidence of the failure of free markets?
- The real record of Sarbanes-Oxley
- The Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) and workplace safety
- The Food and Drug Administration
- Don't we need to make an exception for government science funding?
- A primer on the War on Drugs
- Obamacare: the problems and the solution
- Why "stimulus" programs make things worse
- How prudential regulation contributed to the financial crisis
- Are some firms "too big to fail"?
- Did the "repeal" of Glass-Steagall contribute to the financial crisis?
- The real story of "deregulation" and the financial crisis
- Is Paul Krugman right to absolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of blame?
- The Pentagon's impact on the US economy
- Has the Federal Reserve really made the US economy more stable, as so many proponents claim?
- What caused the bank panics of the 19th century? Are they evidence of the need for a central bank?
- The separation of money and state
- Do we need the Fed to protect us from deflation?
- Regulation as an anticompetitive device
Now here is a modest side effect I hope the book might have: pushing conventional conservatives toward a Misesian/Rothbardian outlook. My publisher caters to just such a constituency, and I hope those people who buy it in the expectation that it will supply them with arguments against Obama will find it gives them a lot more food for thought than that.
I don't think this is a pipe dream. My 2010 book Nullification (see my interview with Jeff Tucker and my interview with a zombie) reached quite a few people outside my usual libertarian constituency. In Idaho, to give just one example, the governor read the book, as did many state legislators. And following a hearing on nullification at the state house, a hearing attended by hundreds of people, a nullification bill passed 49-20. (See this ABC News report on the book for a quick summary.) Elsewhere, nearly 50 tea party and related groups cosponsored a letter to the leadership of a certain state legislature urging them to meet with me to discuss nullification as an option. (That meeting is being scheduled right now.)
This all occurred without any major media exposure for that book, and without any of the would-be handlers from DC, who claim to speak for these groups, saying a single word kind or otherwise about the idea. That means some grassroots people are thinking in completely unconventional and unapproved ways, in defiance of the official range of allowable opinion. That has to count for something.
I am all too aware of the problems with the tea parties. Some of their political heroes are quite appalling, and their foreign-policy views differ little from the bipartisan consensus. There is no point in pretending otherwise. But those were once my own views, some 20 years ago. And I abandoned them in favor of Rothbardian antistatism. Having managed to reach these groups in one area, therefore, I'd like to take a crack at reaching them on everything else.
I have seen sparks of hope here and there. The New York Times reported for purposes of ridicule that some tea partiers were reading authors like Frédéric Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economic thinker. I'd say that's a pretty good start. When I've been on their radio programs and the Federal Reserve has come up, they have been universally critical, and more than open to the total abolition of the Fed. This is no small thing.
These people are told to read Dick Morris, the former Clinton confidante turned GOP cheerleader, whose books are the usual pap you might expect, and who seeks to channel tea-party energy into predictable and conventional outlets. They could use something with a bit more zing, to say the least. So I wanted to write a book that would be of interest not only to libertarians, but that could also pull conventional conservatives along the same philosophical path I myself traveled.
A book like this is unlikely to get much, if any, big media behind it, so if you enjoy it, I'd sure appreciate your help in spreading the word. I have written five books in five years, and after this one I intend to take a break.
I wanted to throw everything I had into one final project, and then take a breather while doing other things (like teaching US history at the online Mises Academy and starting a regular videoblog).
I had a chance to speak about this book at the 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). I closed with this:
- The propaganda with which we are flooded regarding how indispensable the political class is why, they are selflessly devoted to "public service"! -- is unworthy of a fifth-grader. We would not die instantly in the absence of the Joe Bidens and Mitch McConnells. We would flourish. And here's the proof.
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., (visit his website) is a senior fellow at the Mises Institute. He will be teaching American Origins: From the Colonies to the Constitution and The New Deal: History, Economics, and Law beginning next month via the Mises Academy online. He is the author, most recently, of Rollback: Repealing Big Government Before the Coming Fiscal Collapse. His other books include the New York Times bestsellers Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse and The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, as well as Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask, and The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. http://mises.org/daily/5059/Life-without-Our-Wise-Overlords
|
