Mar 19, 2011 || World News

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Too bad, so sad, can we get Brazil to keep Zero - why is this not covered in detail in the US newspapers

http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/brazilian-mobs-scream-go-home-obama-protests-turn-violent/

--
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.

The Call

The Call

Once upon a time, an eagle’s egg was found by a farmer and mistaken for a chicken egg. The egg was placed with the other eggs in the incubator at the hen house.

Some weeks later that egg hatched. The baby eagle was raised as a chicken with the other chicks. Along with his chicken peers, he was taught to peck and scratch. He was made to scurry along the ground like the other chickens. He was sternly warned against flying, because chickens don’t really fly, they flutter and fall.

This eagle made a miserable chicken. He didn’t peck well. He hated scurrying because he was always feeling clumsy and falling. He was constantly hungry and irritable, because the chicken feed just couldn’t seem to satisfy him. The other chickens found him disruptive and odd.

After years of struggling to be a normal chicken, this poor eagle’s self esteem was pretty low. He hated himself. "Why am I so big, awkward and different?" he often wondered, "Why can’t I be happy like all the other chickens here?"

"Is this all there is to life?" he agonized, "Where’s the thrill? Where’s the flow?"

He began to do more and more disruptive things just to get a little hit of excitement. He was starved for action and adventure – he desperately craved in his heart that feeling of soaring – only he didn’t even know what that was – so he tried to compensate by making his own thrills around the chicken coop, causing drama and disturbances. Other chickens called him selfish, disordered and a troublemaker. The poor eagle took it all to heart, believed them and became depressed.

One day, high overhead the young eagle saw another eagle soaring in the sky. It took his breath away. For a moment he felt a surge of recognition. He felt something inside him stir. He felt more alive than he had ever felt before.

In his excitement he told his family of chickens what he saw and how he wanted to fly like that too. They scoffed at him. "Are you nuts?!" "You’re dreaming." "Get real. Chickens don’t fly." "You are being totally impractical." "You can’t even cluck and scratch - and now you think you can fly someday!?" the chickens chided. "When will you grow up and join the pecking order of this chicken coop. Why can’t you be more like your peers? What’s wrong with you?!" The young eagle was shamed and disheartened. He felt hopeless and alone as he fell to sleep at night.

Days later, to his delight, he spotted the soaring bird and this time it let out the cry of an eagle. The moment the young eagle raised by chickens heard this cry something unexpected happened. His body lurched uncontrollably – his entire being responded automatically to that eagle’s majestic cry with a powerful eagle cry of his own. He was astonished. "What just happened?!... Did that glorious sound come from me? Chickens don’t make that sound! Only eagles do... Wait... Only eagles do!"

The young eagle, finally aware of what he truly was, for the first time stretched out his wings and flew. Before he knew it he was soaring. He was no longer imprisoned by the chicken coop, because he was no longer imprisoned by the idea that he had to be a chicken. Nothing could contain him anymore.

A chicken coop can only coop up chickens; it cannot stop an eagle from soaring – especially once they hear their call.

Have you heard your call?

From the as yet unreleased book, The Wayseers
© 2011 by Garret LoPorto. All rights reserved.

Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Guilty On Two Counts

Guilty On Two Counts
http://www.coinworld.com/News/20110328/Bulletin720110328.aspx

BY MARY JANE SKALA COIN WORLD SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
18 March 2011

Bernard von NotHaus, creator of the Liberty Dollar, was found guilty on two counts this morning in his counterfeiting trial at the federal courthouse in Statesville, N.C.

He was found guilty of making counterfeit coins and an intent to defraud. Sentencing will be held in several months.

The jury reached its decision in less than 90 minutes.

In this week's four days of defense testimony, von NotHaus maintained that his "medallion" was not legal tender. He said each piece contained the NORFED name and telephone number, but the government pointed out that the silver pieces bore a very strong resemblance to legal U.S. tender coins.

Forfeiture hearings began after the verdict was read in regard to property belonging to von NotHaus and others that was seized by the U.S. government.

Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Fwd: I've received death threats….

We were attacked but we are fighting back -- please view all images

Dear Ally of The Project Veritas,

The support we've received from Americans, like you, since we released our undercover NPR video has been overwhelming --more than we could have ever imagined.

For that, I sincerely thank you on behalf of everyone at The Project Veritas.

As you're aware, many in the media -- from the expected to the unexpected -- are attacking me personally and my investigative methods in an effort to discredit our work...

...I have no doubt legal action will be taken against us. It's a modern day David vs. Goliath.

I can understand why some would be upset -- or jealous -- that we're leading a resurgence of reporting that gets results for the taxpayer and strikes fear into the hearts of those who seek to take advantage of you.

But, I never expected to receive death threats. Let me be clear, I'm not blaming this on the media. I guess I just didn't realize our reporting would anger some to the point of wanting to kill. This is beyond the pale.

That's why I'm asking for your help again today. I hope that you'll do the following -- right now -- to help us lead this resurgence and fight back against attacks...

1) Take our Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics. Like I said, the mainstream media is attacking us. It seems they think we invented investigative journalism. But, mainstream media shows like 60 Minutes used to use our tactics all the time. All we're doing is reviving this effective brand of journalism -- and we're being attacked for it. Your survey results will be sent to every mainstream media outlet to let them know taxpayers expect them to investigate and expose corruption as well.

2) Make a generous investment. My organization, The Project Veritas, needs financial help to harness the excitement our videos have produced and use it to create an army of investigators to shine a light on corruption wherever it hides. We also need help to fight back against attacks -- legally and personally.

I knew these videos would attract major attention because of my previous experiences exposing government corruption with the ACORN videos and others...

...But, I didn't know these videos would ignite a national debate that would cause everyone in the mainstream media to give an opinion about our methods.

The most ridiculous criticism I've heard is that our videos "are edited." It's funny because almost every interview and news clip you see in the news is edited -- but, most news organizations don't release all of the raw footage so viewers can draw their own conlcusions, we did.

However, this national debate creates the perfect opportunity to vastly expand our efforts.

Up 'til now, my friends and I have financed all of our work on our own -- running up major credit card debt. We made a lot of sacrifices -- personally and financially -- because we fight for what we believe in.

We didn't know that nearly ever network, cable show, website, blog, and newspaper would cover the NPR videos before we made them. We only knew that someone needed to investigate corruption in government. So, The Project Veritas took up the cause.

But, now we've hit a wall. This has gotten a lot bigger than we ever imagined. The multi-billion dollar major media Goliath is embarrassed by their failure to make a meaningful impact like we have -- that's why they're attacking us.

I hope I can count on you help me fight back against Goliath and continue our groundbreaking work by making a contribution today and taking the Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics.

You see, I took a leap of faith when I first started the NPR investigation.

However, I didn't take this leap of faith alone. My two friends (the "Muslims) in the NPR video and many other committed people -- producers, lawyers, web developers -- all acted in good faith and took a financial risk to help expose NPR.

But, we can't afford to go on like this. We are forced to make another decision today...

Do we stop now and just let taxpayer abuse continue, or do we keep up and grow our efforts to expose government corruption?

If you think we must keep going to shine a light on corruption, then I need more than your moral support, --I need your financial support.

Your donation will help The Project Veritas fight back against attacks on our reputations and be prepared to defend ourselves in the legal battles that are certain to come.

Additional donations will help us identify and teach our methods to thousands of young investigative journalists so corruption is exposed not just one sting at a time, but with multiple stings happening all the time all over the country.

We'll also be able to buy many more cameras for The Project Veritas (we only have 5 now) and hire a staff to edit and produce the videos -- just one high quality camera can cost thousands of dollars.

You can trust me that your donation will be used to expose corruption wherever it hides -- and publicize our findings. And your Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics will let the mainstream media know taxpayers expect them to investigate and expose government corruption, as well.

We know what we're doing. We've had amazing success where the "pros" in the mainstream media have failed for years.

Again, we don't receive a salary for the work we do. But,we can't continue without financial help from people like you.

Whether it's $25 or $1,000, your donation is needed.

But, we also want to know how you feel about our methods...

...so, when you go to donate, please also take the Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics.

It cost us about $50,000 when all is said and done to produce the NPR video.

If you help us raise over $50,000, it will go toward our next video -- after we pay off our credits cards, of course.

If you help us pass $100,000 -- we can do two new videos...

...And if by some chance, we raise $1,000,000 -- we could expose 20 disturbing cases of government abuse and corruption. But, all I'm worried about is $50,000 right now.

But, while $1,000,000 sounds nice, I must raise $50,000 quickly to keep moving forward.

Give what you can and take the Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics. America needs The Project Veritas to grow quickly. But, we can't continue, much less grow, unless we receive financial support soon.

We're ready and waiting to expose more government corruption. But -- it all comes down to money.

Please help us do these things today. We're counting on you.

Thanks for any help you can give,

James O'Keefe
Founder, The Project Veritas

P.S. I'm emailing you because I need your help. My friends and I took a leap of faith and racked up serious credit card debt to expose NPR. The response has been greater than we could have imagined. From attacks to praise, we're getting a lot of attention, which has created the perfect opportunity to grow an army of investigative journalists. If we had thousands of journalists doing what we've done, the dishonest in government would be forced to think twice before abusing your tax dollars. I need your help to grow this army and fight back against he personal and legal battles we're facing and will face.

We figured it probably costs us about $50,000 to make the NPR video. We can't afford to do this for our next investigation, if there is one. Your donation, along with the help of other taxpaying Americans, will allow us to continue and expand.

If you can give $25 or $50, -- that's wonderful. If you can give $100 or $500 or more -- great. But, our goal today is to raise $50,000 to pay off our debt and start on our next investigation. Please contribute now and take the Survey on Media Responsibility and Ethics. If we receive enough financial support, we're going to build army of investigative journalists to uncover government corruption wherever it can be found. And we're going to keep the videos coming. $50,000 can make one, $100,000 will pay for two -- and -- if by some miracle, we raise $1,000,000 we can expose 20 dishonest and corrupt government agencies. Sounds like an investment work making, right? If so, please give now. Thanks.

"Of all the data that we put out on ACORN, you couldn't be convinced to shut off the funding until you saw the reality of the video. Then we looked into Planned Parenthood, and of all the data that was brought out here to the floor of the house, still the American people didn't understand the real culture of Planned Parenthood until they saw the video. Of all of the data we've seen we still had not absorbed the real culture of NPR until we saw the video of that dinner, those two hours that day."

-Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Forward this email

Please spread the word about Project Veritas and and share this email with your personal list of friends and familiy.

Contact Us

To make a donation by mail, please send your check to:

PROJECT VERITAS
P.O. BOX 96838
WASHINGTON, DC 20090-6838

Phone:
202-596-2781

Special Message from James - View All Images to See

The Project Veritas is a 501(c)(3) (pending), founded by James O'Keefe. The mission of The Project Veritas is to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society. Because Project Veritas' 501(c)(3) status is pending, contributions are not yet tax deductible or are not tax deductible at this time.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

The Project Veritas
2100 M St NW
Suite 170-241
Washington, D.C., 20037-1233
US

Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.

Try Email Marketing with VerticalResponse!

--
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.

The War Machine on the East River

The War Machine on the East River
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/03/war-machine-on-east-river.html

“There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time,” insisted the late Rep. Henry Hyde in 2002, as the regime of Bush the Lesser prepared to invade and occupy Iraq. “Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to modern society. Why declare war if you don’t have to? We are saying to the president, `Use your judgment.'” Having Congress declare war, Hyde concluded, would be “inappropriate, anachronistic – it isn’t done anymore."

Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Obama Announces Yet Another War

Obama Announces Yet Another War
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Article/085977-2011-03-18-obama-announces-yet-another-war.htm?From=News

"Live on TV President Obama just announced we are going to war with yet another nation, Libya. Oh he didn't call it a war. And he used our puppet UN as a pretext for why we have to go to war. And amazingly there is not a word yet about this on the AP, Reuters, Antiwar.com, Washington Post, or the NY Times."

Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

A Common Man For President

This is not an endorsement for Tom Miller. It is instead an endorsement for the concept. It is time we stop electing the candidate who spends the most money.

A Common Man For President
by Sharon Rondeau
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/18/introducing-tom-miller-candidate-for-president-in-2012/

Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Right Wing Email Misinformation

yawn

you said nothing

you never do

what's most amusing is that you are stupid enough to think you actually made a point

your whole class of whores is about to die one way or another

you'vbe sucked all the blood out of your victims, vermin

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:35 AM, the daily search <thedailysearch@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, duh, Bruce. Lies are much more entertaining than the truth. And perhaps, like the purveyors of these emails, you'd rather be ignorant but entertained. We already know that, buddy.

Yes, I could entertain you and everyone reading by telling you to "EAT SHIT AND DIE" in a foam-flecked response. But I want people like you, with a low tolerance for dry, reasoned political discussion, to be bored out of existence.

--
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.

Re: Right Wing Email Misinformation

Kinda like the "Favorite Bill Maher" clip that you have posted......
yes the rich make most of the money... they also invest most of the
money, pay the most taxes and employ the most people... yet these
"minor" items seem to escape both you and Maher. How many people have
applied for jobs with broke companies and or broke individuals ?? Only
Government can hire when its broke and all that does is put MORE
burden on everybody.

On Mar 19, 6:35 am, the daily search <thedailysea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, duh, Bruce. Lies are much more entertaining than the truth. And
> perhaps, like the purveyors of these emails, you'd rather be ignorant but
> entertained. We already know that, buddy.
>
> Yes, I could entertain you and everyone reading by telling you to "EAT SHIT
> AND *DIE*" in a foam-flecked response. But I *want* people like you, with a
> low tolerance for dry, reasoned political discussion, to be bored out of
> existence.

--
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.

On U.N. Intervention in Libya and World Government

On U.N. Intervention in Libya and World Government
by Michael S. Rozeff

The U.N. intervention in Libya is a major political event. The U.N. is intervening inside a country that has not aggressed against another country. Whether or not this is the first time that this has happened, it is surely an important and clear-cut instance of this happening.

The U.N. is intervening to take down the Gaddafi administration and replace it by another, of undetermined nature. This means that the U.N. places its power over that of the Libyan state. The U.N. makes itself the Supreme Governor in the sense that it decides on a critical feature of a State, namely, who has "consent," or who is entitled to rule that State when protests against the existing rule emerge.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the U.N. launch a drone attack to kill Gaddafi.

Before going further in analyzing this, let's recognize openly that the entire development is within the existing framework of States. The term "State" hides the fact that every State is an armed gang. The U.N. gives too much credence and respect to States. Let's recognize that this framework is morally flawed. The weight of history and the apparent reality of this system should not, at a fundamental level, cause us to evaluate States positively and accept them. They are negative for human beings.

That said, I will analyze this intervention within this flawed framework. It doesn't mean I approve of it. I don't. That doesn't mean that I approve of Gaddafi. I don't. The situation is a tragic one. None of the choices are palatable. Nevertheless, I believe that the worse thing for the world at large is to strengthen the U.N. and to have it move further in the direction of world government. That's the thrust of this article.

The Charter of the U.N. starts off with "We the Peoples of the United Nations." This is a fiction. It is an even greater fiction than the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, which starts off with "We the People."

The Charter goes on to say that "our respective Governments...have agreed to the present Charter..." This means that we the peoples didn't have a direct say when the commitments were made. We certainly have had no say since that time. If this is "consent," it's totally meaningless. The fact is that just as the U.S. government imposes its will on me and you, no matter what we want or say or think, the U.N. is just another government imposing its will upon us or others, as it sees fit and as it can. A government created by national governments is still a government.

I regard the U.N. as just as illegitimate a government as the U.S. government. Consent is a pretense and a fiction. I pay taxes at the point of a gun. I obey many laws at the point of a gun. Washington is a gang, and so is the U.N.

All the high-sounding language that spells out objectives of these governments is beside the point. The objectives may or may not be good ones. They may or may not be attainable by governments. Those are separate issues. High objectives do not justify using force and violence to attain them when the latter simply undermine achieving those objectives. I certainly do not approve of such force and violence when it undermines freedom of the person, which it does.

I don't approve of Gaddafi's actions, and I don't approve of the U.N.'s actions. However, if the U.N.'s actions stand as a precedent, then the world is moving to world government. If the U.N. has the power to decide what each country's political structure is, as in Libya, then who is going to decide what the structure of the U.N. is when it becomes oppressive? It will be some coalition of States, who wield the power behind the U.N., or eventually it might be some independent U.N. force. When there is one government of the world, and when one State attempts to break away, will the U.N. allow it? Of course not. If it did, the world government would break down. Governments usually try to prevent secession.

We have already seen what happened in the U.S. when the Constitution was put in and when a national government with powers was created. The dynamic went to centralization. A coalition of States under Lincoln imposed rule on the remaining States. The same kind of dynamic will occur with the United Nations, or already has, or is occurring now. Governments always seek more power and control.

World government is not imminent. I am not ringing that alarm bell. But if we look ahead, we can see it being shaped. The form may be unclear, but we can still make it out. It is not a good political development. It means more centralized power being exercised over people.

The Charter of the U.N. in Article 2 calls for the "sovereign equality of all its Members." Its Members are States (not We the People). Libya is a member. The U.N. intervention is violating its own Charter. The U.S. government violated its own Constitution repeatedly. The U.N. is violating its Charter by disregarding Libyan sovereignty, and by taking it upon itself to determine the nature of that sovereignty. This is par for the course for governments with charters and constitutions. These documents exist to be violated. By what means do we the peoples control the U.N.? We cannot. We'd best take it apart while we're taking apart the governments of our respective States.

Article 2 refers repeatedly to international disputes, i.e., disputes that are between or among States, not within States. It ends up saying explicitly that "Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." The U.N. is violating this provision of its Charter when it intervenes in Libya. Can this organization be trusted?

The Charter perhaps leaves itself a loophole, where it says that "this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." However, that Chapter refers again and again to "international peace and security." By no stretch of the imagination or by any legal maneuvering or mumbo-jumbo does this mean the internal affairs of Libya. International peace means between two nations or among several nations. Libya's civil war is within Libya. It is not breaking the international peace. The term "international security" is not threatened either, to the extent that this term can be comprehended. If some countries think that they must have Libyan oil in order to maintain their security, they should have managed this risk in other ways before this time. They shouldn't be using the U.N. and U.N. force to bail them out of their own bad risk management of the past. Even if they impose such force, they might end up making matters worse for themselves. I do not underestimate the ineptitude of any government or any coalition of governments.

My position will not go down well with those who want to see the anti-Gaddafi forces win. What can I say? I wish that the world were different. I wish that this dilemma didn't exist. I wish that we as individuals were allowed by our governments to form militias that could go overseas on a voluntary basis to help secure freedom for others. I wish that everyone knew how to apply the methods of non-violent resistance to secure freedom. I wish that resort to arms was rejected or could be rejected by secessionary movements and movements to topple dictators, so that raw power didn't determine these matters. I wish many things.

My focus here is less on the civil war in Libya than on world government and what U.N. intervention means for world government. I view world government as a very great danger. How would you like it if, 100 years from now, the U.N. were dominated by a coalition of 3 or 4 nations, and if it instituted government that you hated? What could you do about it? Look how difficult it is within the U.S. to do anything about the U.S. government. Many people are reduced to waiting for the whole enterprise to collapse, with the vague hope that somehow something better will arise from the rubble.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff343.html

Re: JP DAVIS CASE RESULT, MUST READ IT

YES

WE HAVE TO GET UP........................

THESE RASCALS ARE NOT OUR LEADERS..................

LET'S WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE PKISTAN................................

On 3/19/11, Nazish Shaikh <nazish9221@gmail.com> wrote:
> اچھا ہوا جو بیچاری شماءلہ نے پہلے ہی خودکشی کر لی، ورنہ شوہر کے قاتل کو
> باعزت بری ہوتے دیکھنا شاید ذیادہ تکلیف دہ ہوتا.
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM, Khalil Shaikh <kshaikh2009@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> aoa. hum log kehan ja rahein hein kis nahaj pe ja rahein hein kuch
>> patta nahin. hum tou america ki ghulami mein itna doob chukey hein k
>> kisi cheez ka ehsas bhi baqi nahin raha,jab ehsas mar jaey,zameer mar
>> jaey tou kuch sujhai hi nahin deta,akka pak aqal pe parda dal detay
>> hein,kuch nazar nahin aata sab kuch acha hi acha nazar aata he aur woh
>> hi hamrey mojoudah hukumaraon k saath hua he isliey tou prime minister
>> sahib ne aaj is faisiley ki taeed farmayee he,kyoun na karein aakhir
>> unhon ne itna bara karnama saranjam deya he jo mulk ki tareekh mein
>> sunhari alfaz se likha jaey ga aur hamari aaney wali naslein bhi
>> hamesha fakhar kareingi in k is karnamey pe. bas allah pak se dua he k
>> woh hamein sahi raah dikhaey aur is nek raah pe hamesha chalney ki
>> toufeeq atta farmaey.aameen.("main khoon baich kr roti khareed laya
>> hoon" "ameer-e-shahr bata, ye halal hein k nahin.").
>>
>> On 3/18/11, Shujaat Ullah <shujaat_ullah@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > yes its true now we are ordinary muslim not practicing.
>> >
>> >
>> > SHUJAAT ULLAH
>> > MANAGER ADMINISTRATIOIN/HR
>> > AL-ABBAS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD
>> > KOLOKOHAR DISTT.JAMSHORO
>> > Tel: 0301-8248183-6
>> > Cell #:0333-2366404 - 0345-3034828
>> > Email: shujaat_ullah@hotmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: talha_129@hotmail.com
>> > To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
>> > Subject: RE: **JP** DAVIS CASE RESULT, MUST READ IT
>> > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:02:45 +0500
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > hamare khoon ka rang laaal nahi raha ab
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>> > Talha Alvi
>> > Senior Officer (Stores)
>> > Lucky Cement Limited (LCL),
>> > (Power Generation), Pezu.
>> > Cell: 0333-2635042, 0300-2992337, 0315-9855405
>> > Ph #: 0969-580121
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:20:06 +0500
>> > Subject: Re: **JP** DAVIS CASE RESULT, MUST READ IT
>> > From: shaistajalil@gmail.com
>> > To: joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
>> > CC: junaid.harat@gmail.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ظلم پھر ظلم ہے، بڑھتا ہے تو مٹ جاتا ہے
>> > خون پھر خون ہے، ٹپکے گا تو جم جائے گا
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > ѕнαιѕтα
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > 2011/3/18 junaid ansari <junaid.harat@gmail.com>
>> >
>> >
>> > THANKS FOR THIS MAIL................
>> >
>> > REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY SOLUTION OF OUR PROBLEMS..................
>> >
>> > REGARDS............
>> >
>> > JUNAID ANSARI
>> >
>> > 0092 322 5125065
>> >
>> > On 3/17/11, Fahad Dogar <fahaddogar4u@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> *sub politicians baygerat or zaleel hai or zaleel ho k mary gay
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> INSHALLAH....*
>> >>
>> >> 2011/3/17 Nazish Shaikh <nazish9221@gmail.com>
>> >>
>> >>> all the politicians should be hanged, they sold the national
>> >>> integrity,
>> >>>
>> >>> akhir inqilab kab aye ga, look at inflation, law and order situation,
>> >>> corruption all the worst signals are at highest level, now there is
>> need
>> >>> of
>> >>> revolution in our country.
>> >>>
>> >>> 2011/3/17 Isfandyar Azmat <isfi22@gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >>>> Very emotional but very very true. Our leaders forced us to think and
>> >>>> feel
>> >>>> like that. Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2011/3/18 JoinPakistan <joinpakistan@gmail.com>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> یہ ہمارے بےغیرت وزیراعظم تھے، جنہوں نے چند دن قبل یہ بیان دیا تھا کے
>> >>>>> ہم
>> >>>>> بھی محب وطن ہیں آپ ہم سے زیادہ محب وطن بننے کی کوشش نہ کریں۔ اب
>> >>>>> کہاں
>> >>>>> گی
>> >>>>> آپ
>> >>>>> کی محب الوطنی؟
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ہمارے تمام وزراء سب بے غیرت ہیں، اپنی ماں بہنوں کا سودا کرنے والے
>> ہیں۔
>> >>>>> ڈالروں کی خاطر یہ اپنی جان تک دے دیں گے۔
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> پاکستانی بیٹی جس کو جھوٹے کیس میں 86 سال کی سزا ہوءی وہاں پر تو
>> >>>>> ہمارے
>> >>>>> وزراء اور وزیراعظم صاحب تو خاموش تھے، کیوں؟
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> کہاں ہیں ہمارے چیف جسٹس صاحب، کہاں ہیں ہماری سیکورٹی ایجنسیاں، اگر
>> >>>>> یہ
>> >>>>> سب
>> >>>>> ہمارا تحفظ نہیں کر سکتے تو پھر ہم ان کو ٹیکس کیوں دیں؟ ہمارے لیڈروں
>> >>>>> کی
>> >>>>> عیاشیوں کے لے کیوں دیں ہم ٹیکس؟ کیوں نا ان پیسوں سے اسلحہ لیے کر خود
>> >>>>> ہی
>> >>>>> اپنے
>> >>>>> دشمنوں کا مقابلہ کریں؟
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> کیا پاکستان سے انصاف ختم ہو گیا ہے؟
>> >>>>> کیا کبھی خون بہا کے معاہدے ایک چھوٹی سی پرچی پر بھی بنتے ہیں؟ ایک
>> >>>>> پاکستانی کی تصدیق کے لیے جایں توآپ کو اسٹامپ پیپر پر فرسٹ کلاس
>> >>>>> مجیسٹریٹ
>> >>>>> سے
>> >>>>> اٹیسٹ کروانا ہوتا ہے اور پاکستانی کا خون بہا ایک چھوٹی سی سادی سی
>> پرچی
>> >>>>> پر جج
>> >>>>> صاحب قبول کرلیتا ہے اور قاتل کو چھوڑ دیتا ہے، کیوں کہ پاکستان میں
>> >>>>> انصاف
>> >>>>> نام
>> >>>>> کی کوءی چیز ہے ہی نہی ہے۔
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> میری اللہ سے ایک ہی دعا ہے کبھی کسی وزیر، وزیراعظم، صدر، کسی جج یا
>> کسی
>> >>>>> فوجی کی اولاد کو بھی اسی طرح کسی امریکی کے ہاتھوں سے قتل کرواءے تاکہ
>> >>>>> ان
>> >>>>> کو
>> >>>>> بھی درد تومحسوس ہو۔ آمین
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> *Kind Regards,*
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Isfandyar Azmat
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> 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
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> 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
>

--
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

Government Motors Guilty of Fraud on Chevy Volt

Only an idiot would buy one.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/03/government-moto-5.html

Pics and toons 3/18/11 (7)

Pics and toons 3/18/11 (6)

Pics and toons 3/18/11 (5)

The Irish: the illegal immigrants of yesteryear

The Irish: the illegal immigrants of yesteryear
By Mario H. Lopez 3:02 PM 03/17/2011
ADVERTISEMENT

Today tens of millions of Americans will don a green tie, four-leaf clover earrings, or perhaps drink a green-colored beer while wearing a "Kiss me, I'm Irish" shirt even if they aren't Irish.

St. Patrick's Day is not an Irish holiday. It is an American holiday. However, it was not always so acceptable to celebrate Irish heritage in America. Many Americans of Irish decent know from family stories how their immigrant forefathers were routinely demonized as dirty, job-stealing, poor, uneducated, low-skilled, uninvited invaders who were going to ruin America.

Historian Kevin Kenny sums it up:

The Irish immigrants were mostly unskilled, worked for low wages . . . Native-born workers worried that their own wages would decline . . . Many Americans also feared that the Irish would never advance socially but would instead become the first permanent working class in the United States, threatening the central principle of 19th-century American life: upward social mobility through hard work.

Sound familiar?

The Advertiser newspaper in Boston wrote of the Irish as "import[ing] their vile propensities and habits from across the water" and referred to children of immigrants ("anchor babies," if you will) as "wretched offspring."

The Chicago Post editorialized:

"The Irish fill our prisons, our poor houses . . . Scratch a convict or a pauper, and the chances are that you tickle the skin of an Irish Catholic. Putting them on a boat and sending them home would end crime in this country."

At my Catholic undergraduate alma mater, classmates told me about their Irish grandfathers admonishing them never to vote Republican, because Democrats were the ones who helped Irish immigrants get jobs, find homes, start businesses pursue the American Dream. Republicans disliked their very presence.

It took 150 years for Republicans to win the Catholic vote, in large part because the verbal attacks on immigrants cited religion. To this day, certain historical hubs of Irish immigration like those in the Northeast remain challenging territory for Republican candidates.

Fellow conservatives justifiably talk about America as the greatest country on earth, and yet some take offense when people beyond our borders believe that claim strongly enough to take great risks to become a part of America.

The hardships endured to pursue freedom and opportunity cannot be overstated. Another historian describes the typical journey:

Those Irish who were able to scrape up fare for other voyages traveled to the New World in cramped, filthy, disease-infested ships; in many cases conditions were as bad about ship as they were in the ravaged country they left behind. The vessels that carried these desperate travelers to British North America (Canada), New York, and Boston were labeled famine ships by some observers. Others referred to them, chillingly, as coffin ships.

Survivors of the trek were lucky to arrive in a country that essentially had what some derisively call "open borders." With minimal processing, immigrants were on their way.

But what if that were not the case? What if the system was as bureaucratic then as it is now? What if the masses of desperate travelers had docked in Boston harbor, and were forced to stare at the Promised Land a stone's throw away, only to find that the legal immigration process was a hopeless mess of red tape?

If informed of a 6- to 20-year wait for entry through legal means, as it is today with no employer or family sponsor, what would those weary would-be immigrants have done?

Of course we cannot know for certain. Still, I ask myself what I would do in that position. Would I merely shrug my shoulders, assert that the law cannot be broken under any circumstances, and accept that I must get right back on a death ship back to the Potato Famine? Or, would I decide that freedom and opportunity were within my grasp, and that survival is more important for myself and/or my family than waiting for a government bureaucrat to move paperwork?

How many would jump off that ship, and swim directly, desperately, toward the Land of the Free, willingly and happily becoming illegals?

Many of today's demonized immigrants walk across 300 miles of desert, not because they want to disparage America or be part of an "invasion," but because they essentially conclude that survival is more important for themselves and their families than waiting for a government bureaucrat to move paperwork.

Does all of this mean that the illegal part of immigration should be ignored, that the rule of law should be recklessly tossed aside? Hardly.

It might be wise for my fellow conservatives to remember that perhaps it is not so strange to find common ground with people who conclude that freedom and opportunity are values worthy of sacrifice and risk. Especially when big government stands in the way of that hope, as it always does.

Specific prescriptions can follow. But identifying with the desire for freedom and a consistent recognition that big government is not a positive solution should be two essential premises of any policy. That is where the conversation should begin.

For today, just pass the green beer and kiss me, because I'm Irish too.

Mario H. Lopez is the President of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, an advocacy organization dedicated to promoting free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/17/the-irish-the-illegal-immigrants-of-yesteryear/

Obama on presidential war-making powers

Friday, Mar 18, 2011 06:19 ET
Obama on presidential war-making powers
By Glenn Greenwald

The U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing military force in Libya does not, on its face, compel U.S. involvement, but news reports (and common sense) suggest that American participation is likely. That has led to debates over whether the President is constitutionally empowered to order military action in Libya without Congressional approval, whether it be in the form of a declaration of war or at least some statutory authorization to use military force (my views on the substance of this new war are here).

I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country -- especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense -- but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when -- during the campaign -- he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Obama's answer seems dispositive to me on the Libya question: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." And he went on to say that the President could constitutionally deploy the military only "in instances of self-defense." Nobody is arguing -- nor can one rationally argue -- that the situation in Libya constitutes either an act of "self-defense" or the "stopping of an actual or imminent threat to the nation." How, then, can Obama's campaign position possibly be reconciled with his ordering military action in Libya without Congressional approval (something, it should be said, he has not yet done)?

And here's what then-Sen. Hillary Clinton said in response to the same question from Savage; it's at least as clear as Obama's answer:

The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action -- including any kind of strategic bombing -- against Iran without congressional authorization. That is why I have supported legislation [GG: also supported by Obama] to bar President Bush from doing so and that is also why I think it is irresponsible to suggest, as some have recently, that anything Congress already has enacted provides that authority.

Leading Democrats constantly argued the same thing during the Bush years: that Presidents lack the power to order military actions in non-emergency, non-self-defense situations without Congressional approval; indeed, they insisted that even the attack on Iraq, which (unlike Libya) was justified as necessary for self-defense, required Congressional approval [and, needless to say, the always-principled Republicans routinely argue that Presidents do possess unilateral war-making power whenever there is a GOP President, but argue the exact opposite when there is a Democratic President]. There has to be some purpose to Article I, Section 8's assignment of the power "To declare War" to Congress; what is it? As Yale Law Professors Bruce Ackerman and Oona Hathaway put it:

No existing statute or treaty allows this action. Gaddafi isn't linked to Al Qaeda, so an attack against him isn't supported by the resolution authorizing force against terrorists involved in 9/11. If Obama goes it alone, he must return to Bush-era assertions that the president, as commander-in-chief, can unilaterally launch the nation into war. . . .

We are at a crossroads. President Obama can deal a death blow to our constitutional commitment to checks and balances in war-making. Or he can establish a precedent in constructive congressional engagement which will serve as a model for the foreign policy challenges of the twenty-first century.

The arguments made to justify such unilateral presidential action are uniquely unpersuasive. Former Bush OLC official and Harvard Law Professor Jack Goldsmith, along with others, points to Clinton's air bombing campaign of Kosovo without Congressional approval, but the mere fact that X happened in the past does not mean X is justifiable; that would be like pointing to FDR's internment of Japanese-Americans to argue that Presidents are constitutionally empowered to imprison American citizens on U.S. soil without due process. I've also heard the claim that actions undertaken as part of NATO or the U.N. are somehow exempt from the constitutional requirement, but the fact that a war is fought with allies does not make it any less of a war (Congress declared war during World War II; it also voted to authorize the first Gulf War and the attack on Afghanistan even though they were done, respectively, through the U.N. and NATO). And then there's the notion that the War Powers Act entitles a President to order military force for a limited time without Congress, but that constitutionally dubious statute has never been tested and thus does not remotely resolve the constitutional question.

The one point I want to underscore is that the constitutional requirement for Congressional approval is not some legalistic or technical barrier; it's vital. The Founders emphasized that war is the most serious matter upon which a nation can embark, that it is the citizenry that bears the risks and costs, and it is thus imperative that they first consent through their representatives in Congress. John Jay explained in Federalist 4 that Presidents will start wars that are unnecessary and unjust -- i.e., for their own self-serving benefit -- but the people are much less likely to do so (emphasis added):

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.

After George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama, New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple wrote that starting new military conflicts is "a Presidential initiation rite," that "most American leaders since World War II have felt a need to demonstrate their willingness to shed blood," and that Bush's order to attack tiny, defenseless Panama "has shown him as a man capable of bold action." Just as the Founders predicted, allowing Presidents to order military attacks without the approval of the citizenry (through their Congress) has engendered a whole slew of unnecessary wars that serve the political and ruling classes but not the people of the country.

The dangers from unilateral, presidential-decreed wars are highlighted in the Libya situation. There has been very little public discussion (and even less explanation from the President) about the reasons we should do this, what the costs would be on any level, what the end goal would be, how mission creep would be avoided, whether the "Pottery Barn" rule will apply, or virtually anything else. Public opinion is at best divided on the question if not opposed. Even if you're someone who favors this intervention, what's the rationale for not requiring a debate and vote in Congress over whether the President should be able to commit the nation to a new military conflict? Candidate Obama, candidate Clinton, and the Bush-era Democrats all recognized the constitutional impropriety of unilateral actions like this one; why shouldn't they be held to that?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/18/libya/index.html

Defining Coercion Down

Defining Coercion Down
by James Bovard, Posted March 18, 2011
This article originally appeared in the December 2010 edition of Freedom Daily.

Coercion is the essence of government in the same way that profit is the essence of private businesses. The state can impose new prohibitions and restrictions, create new penalties, or impose taxes in order to finance benefits. It is misleading to conceive of politicians as offering both carrots and sticks: Government must first use a stick to commandeer the money to pay for the carrot.

Every increase in the size of government means an increase in coercion either an increase in the amount of a person's paycheck that government seizes or an increase in the number of types of behavior for which a government can jail, imprison, or fine a citizen. Every increase in government spending means an increase in political power and a new pretext to seize private paychecks.

In order to understand the contemporary concept of the state, it is important to recognize the radical changes in the concept of coercion that have occurred over the past century in federal courts. The common use of the word "slavery" in the disputes of the Revolutionary period captured colonists' hatred of the arbitrary coercive power vested in British government officials and Parliament members. Even if that power was not used by every British colonial official on a daily basis, the mere fact that power existed in the statute books fatally compromised the colonists' freedom. In the mid 1800s, Southerners' habit of referring to slavery as "the peculiar institution" indicated their squeamishness about admitting the degree of coercive power that that institution required.

In modern times, we have a new "peculiar institution": government coercion. Many political thinkers' fixation on government benevolence obscures the reality of the growing subjugation of American citizens to government employees. Federal agencies have been able to seize far more power over citizens in part because judges and others have redefined many forms of government coercion out of existence.

Defining coercion

The word "coercion" is not used in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Bill of Rights is a compact to restrict the amount of force that the government may use against the citizenry. As one Pennsylvania writer observed in 1776, a constitution "describes the portions of power with which the people invest the legislative and executive bodies, and the portions which they retain for themselves."

A 1937 Senate report aptly declared that "the Constitution ... is the people's charter of the powers granted those who govern them." The Bill of Rights recognized the rights of American citizens it did not bestow those rights on a conquered populace. Americans of the Revolutionary era would permit a national government to come into existence only if the leaders of that government would solemnly pledge to limit their power in perpetuity. The Bill of Rights has never provided perfect protection, but it is an invaluable standard by which to judge the legitimacy of any law or government policy.

The word "coercion" was used in 378 Supreme Court decisions between 1960 and 1998. Many, if not most, of those cases involved convicted criminals who claimed that their confessions had not been fully voluntary or prayer in school and other issues involving religion. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas observed in 1957 that "it was obvious that coercion might be the product of subtlety as well as of violence." In a 1991 case, the Court observed,

Our cases have made clear that a finding of coercion need not depend upon actual violence by a government agent; a credible threat is sufficient.... Coercion can be mental as well as physical, and ... the blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.

Some of the Court's decisions on police procedures have restrained the boundless power of government agents. But, while the Supreme Court and other federal courts were creating intricate rules for questioning of criminal suspects, the Court stuck its head in the ground regarding government agencies' abuse of peaceful citizens.

In the early 1900s, the Supreme Court often vigorously protected citizens' property and contracts against the power grabs of legislatures and government agencies. But after President Franklin Roosevelt's threat to pack the Court in 1937, the Supreme Court wrote one blank check after another to federal agencies in the late 1930s and early 1940s checks upon which the agencies are still drawing.

Siding with special interests

In the 1938 case U.S. v. Carolene Products Co., the Court upheld a 1923 federal law enacted to benefit dairy producers by banning the interstate shipment of evaporated milk mixed with coconut oil. Geoffrey Miller, the associate dean of the University of Chicago Law School, observed,

The statute upheld in the case was an utterly unprincipled example of special interest legislation. The purported 'public interest' justifications ... were patently bogus.... The consequences of the decision were to expropriate the property of a lawful and beneficial industry; to deprive working and poor people of a healthful, nutritious, and low-cost food; and to impair the health of the nation's children.

Canned milk mixed with coconut oil (so-called filled milk) was much cheaper than canned whole milk because coconut oil was much cheaper than butterfat. Filled milk was also healthier than fresh whole milk, because filled milk was sterilized at high temperatures while the fresh whole milk of that period often transmitted typhoid fever and tuberculosis. But the dairy industry hated the product because butterfat was the primary source of dairy farmers' profit. (The lobbying campaign against filled milk included racist depictions of Asians who did not consume as much whole milk as Americans.)

The Court swallowed Congress's assertion that filled milk encouraged consumer fraud, although the main evidence offered was that recent immigrants who could not read English might buy the product by mistake. Congress also claimed that filled milk "threatened the public health," but the only "threat" occurred because filled milk lacked the vitamin A that butterfat contained. There was no evidence that drinking filled milk deterred people from consuming vitamin A from other sources. By this same standard, Congress could have banned the vast majority of items sold in American groceries. Besides, for many consumers, it was not a choice of filled milk or whole milk, but of filled milk or no milk at all.

Justice Harlan Stone wrote, "Regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions is not to be pronounced unconstitutional unless ... it is of such a character as to preclude the assumption that it rests upon some rational basis within the knowledge and experience of the legislators." And how much evidence was necessary to presume a "rational basis" for legislation? "Any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed" would suffice, Stone announced. Thus, as long as government only destroyed people's freedom to contract, or their freedom to work, or their freedom to use their own land, or their freedom to buy and sell, such coercion was almost always unworthy of judges' notice.

Carolene Products enshrined the notion that the edicts of politicians have far more credibility than the voluntary decisions of private persons that politicians are more trustworthy when seizing power over citizens' property than citizens are when using their own property.

"Beautification" and the general welfare

In 1954, in Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court blessed confiscation in the name of beautification. The Court heard a challenge to a federal urban renewal program operating in the District of Columbia. The previous year, a federal district court had struck down the program, observing, "There is no more subtle means of transforming the basic concepts of our government, or shifting from the preeminence of individual rights, to the preeminence of government wishes, than is afforded by redefinition of 'general welfare,' as that term is used to define the Government's power of seizures." But the Supreme Court overturned the lower-court decision and gave government officials almost unlimited power to confiscate and redistribute land.

Justice William Douglas, writing for the Court, declared, "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled." Douglas concluded, "Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear." Catholic University professor of politics Dennis Coyle characterized this decision: "The implicit message of the Court was that in land use regulation, the king can do no wrong."

The resulting waves of urban destruction did long-term damage to the health of American cities; a 1998 Washington Post report cited the massive slum destruction campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s and the resulting dislocations as a major cause of the skyrocketing homicide rates in subsequent decades.

Douglas also stated in that decision, "When the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive." Almost 30 years later, in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Court awarded sweeping discretion to federal agencies to interpret federal laws as they chose and thus, in many cases, to decree the limits of their own power. Lawyer Michael Greve, the director of the Center for Individual Rights, observed that the Supreme Court now relies on an "insanity test if an agency's interpretation of a federal statute is not clinically insane, then it stands." The combination of the Court's acceptance of legislatures' definition of the public interest and its deference toward government agencies' interpretations of laws creates an overwhelming bias against citizens who are seeking relief from government oppression.

Since the 1930s, Supreme Court decisions routinely rested on a blanket assumption that whatever any legislature does is "to promote the general welfare." In a 1955 case upholding an Oklahoma law that severely restricted the practice of opticians, Justice Douglas declared, "It is enough that there is an evil at hand for correction, and that it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it." Merely alleging that private evil exists becomes sufficient to sanctify practically any political seizure of power. (The Court does not show such naivete towards politicians' motives in First Amendment cases involving freedom of the press or speech.)

The State is specific officials, specific penalties, and specific jails and prisons. The coercive power is the reality and the political rhetoric is the illusion. No number of speeches by politicians can counterweigh the vast expansion of the federal statute book. There is no rhetorical or metaphysical trick by which government can transcend its coercive nature.

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy [2006] as well as The Bush Betrayal [2004], Lost Rights [1994] and Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil (Palgrave-Macmillan, September 2003) and serves as a policy advisor for The Future of Freedom Foundation.

http://jimbovard.com/blog/2011/03/18/defining-coercion-down/