Mar 28, 2011 || World News

Monday, March 28, 2011

Re: At Least 3 White House Advisors Linked To Soros Plot to Push 'Progressive' Bill of Rights

What do YOU think?

On Mar 28, 2:06 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Whole WH is a bunch of commie traitors.
>
> <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/> At Least 3
> White House Advisors Linked To Soros Plot to Push 'Progressive' Bill of
> Rights<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/at-least-3-white-house-...>
> *doctorbulldog <http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/author/doctorbulldog/>* |
> 28 March, 2011 at 11:43 am | Categories:
> politics<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/?cat=398>| URL:http://wp.me/p1NPg-6Zm
>
> *Anyone surprised about that?*
>
> *I'm surprised that only three of them have been outed. You just know there
> are hundreds more. They're like cockroaches; for every one of them that you
> see, there's at least a hundred more hiding in the walls:*
>
> *George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution*
> *See which White House officials involved in rewriting nation's founding
> document*
>
> *By Aaron Klein* -
> *WorldNetDaily*<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=280277>
>
> At least three White House advisers and officials, including President
> Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by
> billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.
>
> WND first reported last
> week<http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685>that
> Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded
> doctrine, entitled "responsibility to protect," which was used by Obama to
> justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the
> National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power
> reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.
>
> Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros'
> funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create
> a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide
> for by the year 2020.
>
> Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group
> pushing the same "progressive" constitution.
>
> WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale
> Law School entitled, "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the
> nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.
>
> That event was sponsored by Soros' Open Society Institute as well as by the
> Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as
> co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team. Podesta's Center is said
> to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.
>
> The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American
> Constitution Society, or ACS, which has been described as a group meant to
> counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront
> of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982.
>
> The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more
> "progressive" constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros'
> Open Society since 2002.
>
> Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors.
>
> Sunstein has spoken at numerous ACS events. For example, he was a speaker at
> a November 3, 2003 symposium by the American Constitution Society of the
> University of Chicago School of Law, where Sunstein was a professor.
>
> But it was the 2005 Yale event led in part by Sunstein that has been
> described as jumpstarting the movement for a "progressive" constitution.
>
> Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote at the
> New York Times Magazine in a 2009 piece about so-called liberal justice: "If
> this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single
> moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and
> other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called
> 'The Constitution in 2020.'"
>
> *New 'Bill of Rights'*
>
> The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal
> lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.
>
> Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog
> entry<http://constitutionin2020.blogspot.com/2005/03/post-by-cass-sunstein....>in
> which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist,
> on
> democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to
> reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."
>
> Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights
> that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to
> offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.
>
> According to Sunstein's new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also
> intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return
> while the government is granted power to act against "unfair competition"
> and monopolies in business.
>
> All this and more is contained in Sunstein's 2004 book, "The Second Bill of
> Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever."
>
> Read more of this
> post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/at-least-3-white-house-...>
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/at-least-3-white-house-...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gocomments/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godelicious/doctorbulldog.wordpress.co...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gofacebook/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gotwitter/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/gostumble/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/...>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/godigg/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/26868/>
> <http://feeds.wordpress.com/1.0/goreddit/doctorbulldog.wordpress.com/2...>
>
> [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Express
> yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

--
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.

At Least 3 White House Advisors Linked To Soros Plot to Push 'Progressive' Bill of Rights

Whole WH is a bunch of commie traitors.

At Least 3 White House Advisors Linked To Soros Plot to Push 'Progressive' Bill of Rights

doctorbulldog | 28 March, 2011 at 11:43 am | Categories: politics | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-6Zm

Anyone surprised about that?

I'm surprised that only three of them have been outed. You just know there are hundreds more. They're like cockroaches; for every one of them that you see, there's at least a hundred more hiding in the walls:

George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution
See which White House officials involved in rewriting nation's founding document

By Aaron Klein - WorldNetDaily

At least three White House advisers and officials, including President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, have ties to an effort funded by billionaire George Soros to push for a new, "progressive" U.S. Constitution.

WND first reported last week that Sunstein's wife, Samantha Power, has been a champion of a Soros-funded doctrine, entitled "responsibility to protect," which was used by Obama to justify engaging in an international military alliance to bomb Libya. As the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, Power reportedly influenced Obama in his decision.

Now it has emerged that Sunstein has maintained extensive ties to Soros' funding, particularly with regard to a movement that openly seeks to create a "progressive" consensus as to what the U.S. Constitution should provide for by the year 2020.

Also, Attorney General Eric Holder sat on the board of a Soros-funded group pushing the same "progressive" constitution.

WND has learned that in April 2005, Sunstein opened up a conference at Yale Law School entitled, "The Constitution in 2020," which sought to change the nature and interpretation of the Constitution by that year.

That event was sponsored by Soros' Open Society Institute as well as by the Center for American Progress, which is led by John Podesta, who served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team. Podesta's Center is said to be highly influential in helping to craft White House policy.

The Yale event on the Constitution was also sponsored by the American Constitution Society, or ACS, which has been described as a group meant to counter the work of the Federalist Society, which has been at the forefront of the push for a more conservative judiciary since its launch in 1982.

The ACS is the main organization behind the movement to ensure a more "progressive" constitution, having received more that $2,201,500 from Soros' Open Society since 2002.

Attorney General Holder served on the ACS board of directors.

Sunstein has spoken at numerous ACS events. For example, he was a speaker at a November 3, 2003 symposium by the American Constitution Society of the University of Chicago School of Law, where Sunstein was a professor.

But it was the 2005 Yale event led in part by Sunstein that has been described as jumpstarting the movement for a "progressive" constitution.

Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University, wrote at the New York Times Magazine in a 2009 piece about so-called liberal justice: "If this new understanding of legal liberalism can be traced back to a single moment, it was in April 2005, when the American Constitution Society and other progressive groups sponsored a conference at Yale Law School called 'The Constitution in 2020.'"

New 'Bill of Rights'

The Constitution 2020 movement has plotted a strategy for how liberal lawyers and judges might bring such a constitutional regime into being.

Just before his appearance at the Yale conference, Sunstein wrote a blog entry in which he explained he "will be urging that it is important to resist, on democratic grounds, the idea that the document should be interpreted to reflect the view of the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party."

Sunstein has also been pushing for a new socialist-style U.S. bill of rights that, among other things, would constitutionally require the government to offer each citizen a "useful" job in the farms or industries of the nation.

According to Sunstein's new bill of rights, the U.S. government can also intercede to ensure every farmer can sell his product for a good return while the government is granted power to act against "unfair competition" and monopolies in business.

All this and more is contained in Sunstein's 2004 book, "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever."

Re: My Challenge to Mark Levin

Levin's Damage Control
Posted by Thomas Woods on March 28, 2011 11:33 AM

A friend writes: "Levin is in full 'damage-control' mode on Facebook! He's deleting every post about you as fast as he can!" That includes quotations about war powers from such left-wing subversives as George Washington. (Yes, his followers, who were not allowed to see my challenge to Levin, think I must be on the Left.)

UPDATE: Another friend writes, "Just finished an attempt at offering Levin a debate against you regarding war powers. I am now blocked from the page. What a bunch of pathetic 3 year olds. Tom Woods=WINNING!"

xxx

March28th
RedState.com: You Need to Read Only One Side, Citizen

RedState.com links to Mark Levin's hilarious evasion, says nothing about my challenge to him or my response to his total failure to answer me, and claims Levin is the winner when it comes to presidential war powers. Levin was beaten so badly in this exchange that he refuses to debate me or even to allow friendly criticism of his position on his Facebook page. But for RedState.com, this is victory!

Is the whole mainstream Right really this Orwellian? I knew it was bad, but this is pretty bad.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/redstate-com-you-need-to-read-only-one-side-citizen/

Altruism, the Remix: Still False?
by Wilton D. Alston

"The measure of the state's success is that the word 'anarchy' frightens people, while the word 'state' does not." -- Joseph Sobran

A while back, this author wrote an essay on his disbelief in altruism that turned out to be one of his favorites. As well, it generated a fair amount of fan mail, both complimentary and condescending. (Who among us doesn't enjoy the occasional, "You're an idiot" reader response?) More recently, a thoughtful reader posed another question about the concept of altruism and this author's analysis of it. The respondent said:

I enjoyed reading your essay on why altruism does not exist. By and large I agree with it and think most compassionate and kind acts are related to [self-interest]. And I don't think altruism is a necessary aspect of society either. However, I think I have an example of true altruism.

He went on:

My little brother is going to die. I have [the] choice of letting him die and inheriting his possessions, or I can sacrifice myself to save him. Let's assume if I let him die no one will know that I could have saved him so no one will judge me about it. As an atheist, I do not believe in an afterlife and have no desire to die because I cease to exist at that point. [This] also means I don't care about what people think of me once I'm dead. The only time it would be in my [self-interest] to die is if it ended unbearable suffering I was experiencing, which would not be true in this scenario. The only selfish aspect of sacrificing myself would be avoiding remorse I would experience if I let him die. Everything else being equal, I would rather live with that remorse than die. So we have countless major reasons why it would be in my [self-interest] to save myself, and only one smaller reason why it would be in my [self-interest] to save my brother. And yet I would sacrifice myself to save him. In this case the trade would not be in my favor. I attribute the reason why I would save him to altruism.

My respondent presents an interesting query, and one that would possibly attest to the existence of altruism except for several issues. Before continuing, let us, as was done in that previous essay, define altruism in two ways; both descriptive of the general consensus of what altruism would be if it existed.

Altruism: Selfless concern for the welfare of others; the commission of a selfless act in relation to another.

Or:

Altruism: The act of willingly, purposefully, exchanging one item of value (say, your own life) for another item of ostensibly less or, at best, equal value (say, the life of someone else).

First, my respondent makes what is probably a rather common mistake: he conflates self-interest, which denotes the driving force for all actions and selfishness, which connotes a disregard for others. While similar, they are different. Self-interest is, in this case, a praxeological construct, an inescapable condition of being human and having no choice but to use the ways and means at one's disposal. Acting man – borrowing from Mises – acts, period. His actions logically and categorically reflect his assessment of the ways and means at his disposal to reach the conclusion – the future desired state that he must, given that his action was purposeful, be trying to reach. In other words, if you – and I mean you – act on purpose, the very fact of your action means that the outcome you sought (from that action, at that time) has a higher value to you than any other outcome, i.e., self-interest in full effect. The possibility that said action might also benefit others is irrelevant to the point being made in this analysis.

Secondly, my respondent makes the mistake of what might be termed creating a duplicate armchair valuation. He says, "Everything else being equal, I would rather live with that remorse than die." He also says, "…I would sacrifice myself to save him." Well, it can't be both. That is the point of the action axiom. The analysis of altruism offered in that first essay – and still held firm in this one – is not "about" what might happen. In other words, what this analysis of altruism offers, what it attempts to provide, is a way to view what actually happened, what that action must mean, according to praxeology, relative to the actor's motives. It does not concern an evaluation of what others might think about the action. The important factor is that purposeful actions necessarily reflect internal valuations of the available ways and means. Returning to that previous essay one last time, we have:

Basic Austrian Value Theory (AVT) posits that the perceived value received by the participants in an exchange cannot be determined a priori. That is, no one outside a transaction can determine what those involved in a transaction will want to spend or receive in exchange. Only the actor can make those decisions, generally at the time of action. Of course AVT is applying these insights to "goods" and the exchange of value – generally money – for them. In this essay, I extend this premise to include choices where no literal "good," i.e., object, is actually exchanged, but where value is obviously still derived. This is, in fact, the heart of my argument that altruism does not exist.

Conclusion

As far as I can tell, we are left exactly where we were after that first essay. No altruism to be found. If you made a "sacrifice" it was, by direct virtue of your action, "worth it to you" (at the time of the action) or you would not have taken that action. It is really just that simple. (By the way, this does nothing the render the action more, or less noble, whichever the case may be in the eyes of an observer.) As a fellow anarchist buddy of mine puts it, "altruism is praxeologically impossible." Agreed, still.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/alston/alston67.1.html

Would the US Military Stand Down and ‘Empower a Revolution’ If Faced With Riots and Civil Unrest?

Would the US Military Stand Down and 'Empower a Revolution' If Faced With Riots and Civil Unrest?
by Mac Slavo

In recent comments during a trip to Israel, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates discussed the escalating situation in Syria saying:

I've just come from Egypt, where the Egyptian army stood on the sidelines and allowed people to demonstrate and in fact empowered a revolution. The Syrians might take a lesson from that.

…

I would say that what the Syrian government is confronting is in fact the same challenge that faces so many governments across the region, and that is the unmet political and economic grievances of their people.

On the heels of the Libyan invasion, it's becoming clear that events transpiring in the middle east for the last three months may not be as they seem in the mainstream. Rising food prices and a hungry populace have been suggested as one of the key triggers for what was followed by several incidents of self immolation and then wide-spread civil unrest. The state sponsored media has provided ample reason for the protests and riots breaking out in a dozen countries, focusing on the peoples' yearning for democracy and change as the primary motivator.

It's been parroted for weeks that mid-east leaders in countries like Egypt, Yemen, Libya and now Syria, are dictators and a threat to their people, as well as the United States. On February 4th, 2011, President Obama, speaking on the protests in Egypt, essentially gave a public , but cloaked decree to President Mubarak, recommending he resign:

"What I recommend to him is, he needs to consult with the people around him in his administration. He needs to listen to what was voiced by the Egyptian people and make judgments about the way forward that is orderly, but it must be meaningful and serious."

…

"The key question that he must ask for himself is, 'How do I leave a legacy in which Egypt is able through this transformative period?' My hope is that he eventually will make the right decision."

While not aggressively calling for Mubarak's resignation, Mr. Obama's words were interpreted by US and Egyptian media as exactly that. Even President Mubarak understood what was happening, and began a partial hand over of power to his newly appointed Vice President. A few days later, Mubarak declared his refusal to resign. When the riots broke out, he likely believed that the US would fully support the Egyptian government. After all, they had been our "friends" for decades. The official policy and attitude of the United States towards Egypt was clearly defined by President Bush in January of 2008, when the President visited with Mr. Mubarak in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt:

It's an important stop for me because the United States has a longstanding friendship with Egypt. It's important for the people of Egypt to understand our nation respects you, respects your history, respects your traditions and respects your culture. Our friendship is strong. It's a cornerstone of – one of the main cornerstones of our policy in this region, and it's based on our shared commitment to peace, security and prosperity.

…

I appreciate very much the long and proud tradition that you've had for a vibrant civil society. I appreciate the fact that women play an important role in your society, Mr. President. I do so because not only I'm a proud father of two young professional women, I also know how important it is for any vibrant society to have women involved in constructive and powerful ways. And I appreciate the example that your nation is setting.

Progress toward greater political openness is being led by the Egyptians themselves, by pioneering journalists – some of whom even may be here – bloggers, or judges insisting on independence, or other strong civic and religious leaders who love their country and are determined to build a democratic future.

Here's a nation once described by President Bush as a longstanding friend and an example of political openness, women's rights, and vibrant civil society, only to be declared a dictatorship by Western media almost literally overnight.

Similar themes have been playing out throughout the middle east, including Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Iran, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Libya and Syria.

With the exception of Iran, no one in the White House or mainstream media really had any derogatory assessments of these other countries. And now, without warning, their people desire democratic governments? To be sure, the people of these countries have every right to protest, but something just isn't right when you consider how the storyline has been developed.

After the perceptive buildup of dictatorial, power hungry leadership in the middle east, it was only a matter of time before an example needed to be set. Enter Gaddafi.

Libya, undergoing protests, riots and near civil war, seemed to be headed in the direction of Egypt, with an eventual voluntary transfer of power. Unlike Mubarak, however, Gaddafi rejected the West's call for his military to stand down and pursued would-be rebels, going so far as to say they would be given "no mercy" if they continued their revolution.

What happened next makes inquiring minds wonder if Egypt's President Mubarak wasn't privately "asked" by elements of Western governments that he should pull back his military and resign, or end up hiding in a hole like Saddam Hussein.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates may have just given the Syrians the same option. If the Syrians don't take it seriously, or come to the conclusion that Mr. Gates is bluffing, they may very well host the next Libya-style no fly zone.

Reasons provided by the US and coalition forces for the incursion into Libya is that the West is protecting innocent people from slaughter – a storyline that only sheep of state sponsored television could believe considering that the government of Bahrain allowed hundreds of Saudi troops to help quell the rebellion that threatened their monarchy. Government sponsored police forces are authorized to eliminate anyone who threatens the government, including unarmed protesters, many of who were shot in drive by executions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=swScM_glSB0

The US and Western coalitions pick and choose which innocent civilians are worthy of saving, and many have suggested that this is due to one specific reason. If you haven't guessed, it's closely related to the oil and gas reserves in the region, but according to Conn Hallinan, it's a much broader strategy that boils down to regional energy control. The Saudis, being close allies of the US (for today, at least) have a pass to cleanse protesters who would threaten stability. Libya, of course, is lead by a dictator, thus he has to go – just like the Syrian leadership.

Among the many inconsistencies with what's playing out in the middle east is the question of what our President and Secretary of Defense would ask our own military to do if political protests, riots and violence erupted here in the US. Both seem to suggest that the leaders of these middle eastern countries, as well as their law enforcement and military apparatuses, should stand aside. Would the President of the United States, if faced with riots, molotov cocktails, and gun fire outside of the Capitol building or White House allow the military to "empower a revolution driven by unmet political and economic grievances" of the people?

Estimates suggest that Mubarak resigned amid as many as 2 million protesters in the streets. This is about 3% of Egypt's population.

If the United States saw similar turnouts at Federal and State government buildings, would our leadership resign without a fight as well? Are we to believe that the same logic being used to compel dictators in the middle east to step down would be applied domestically if the people, in a public show of protest, deemed our government to be tyrannical and it's leaders dictators? Moreover, does this mean that any such civil disobedience, riots, and gunfire would be ignored by military and law enforcement, who would be ordered to, as Mr. Gates suggested to Syria, stand on the sidelines?

We'd like to believe it is that easy, except we live in a little place we like to call reality.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/would-us-military-stand-down-and-empower-a-revolution_03252011

Republican Hypocrisy on Budget Cuts

Republican Hypocrisy on Budget Cuts
by Laurence M. Vance, March 28, 2011

With the national debt fast approaching $15 trillion, no member of Congress of either party, and no American citizen of any political persuasion, would argue against the proposition that the federal budget needs to be cut, and cut drastically.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2011, giving us the third straight year of trillion-dollar budget deficits. The projected budget deficit for this year is larger than the entire federal budget was as recently as 1994 -- when the government "only" spent $1.461 trillion while running a deficit of $203 billion.

In its 2008 party platform, the Republican Party maintains:

Republicans will uphold and defend our party's core principles: Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions. Let it empower people, while limiting its reach into their lives. Spend only what is necessary, and tax only to raise revenue for essential government functions.

In this platform, the Republicans also contrast themselves with the Democratic Party:

The other party wants more government control over people's lives and earnings; Republicans do not. The other party wants to continue pork barrel politics; we are disgusted by it, no matter who practices it. The other party wants to ignore fiscal problems while squandering billions on ineffective programs; we are determined to end that waste. The entrenched culture of official Washington an intrusive tax-and-spend liberalism remains a formidable foe, but we will confront and ultimately defeat it.

Clearly, the Republicans want to be known as the party of fiscal responsibility. Yet, under the leadership of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney (individuals the GOP platform expresses "gratitude for eight years of honorable service from"), the federal budget increased from$2 trillion in fiscal year 2002 (Bush's first budget) to $3.1 trillion in fiscal year 2009 (Bush's last budget). This last of Bush's budgets was the first in U.S. history to have a deficit of over $1 trillion. During the eight years of Bush's reign (which included a Republican majority in both houses of Congress for over four years), the national debt practically doubled, increasing from $5,727,776,738,304.64 at the time Bush's first inauguration in 2001 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the last day of Bush's second term.

Then, on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections in which Republicans tried (and succeeded only in the House) to regain control of the Congress, House Republicans released their "Pledge to America." In it they promised a "new governing agenda for America" that "stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government."

But on the very day that House Republicans issued their worthless pledge, they also voted in overwhelming numbers along with Democrats to pass four pieces of legislation that violate the very pledge that the Republicans maintained they would adhere to if they gained a majority in the House in the midterm election: The Family Health Care Accessibility Act, The Emergency Medic Transition Act, The National All Schedules Prescription Electronic Reporting Reauthorization Act, and The Training and Research for Autism Improvements Nationwide Act.

But now that the Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives, certainly they are taking drastic measures to deal with our trillion-dollar deficits and crushing debt and avert a financial collapse? Think again.

Oh, on the surface the Republicans continue to masquerade as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government. But how hard is it to position oneself to the right of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin? It doesn't take much digging before we begin to see the Republican hypocrisy on budget cuts ooze to the surface.

The Republicans are patting themselves on the back for recently passing a bill that cuts $6 billion from government spending. H.J. Res. 48, Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011, amends the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 ( PL 111-242) by "striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting 'April 8, 2011.'" This bill basically authorizes the federal government to continue paying its bills for three more weeks. It passed with the help of 186 out of 240 Republicans in the House and 36 out of 47 Republicans in the Senate.

This is the fifth time the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 has been amended to avert a government shutdown. This Act was necessitated in the first place because Congress never passed its typical series of regular appropriations bills for fiscal year 2011, which began on October 1, 2010. It was signed into law on the last day of fiscal year 2010 (Sept. 30), but only funded the government until December 3, 2010.

Public Law 111-290 extended this deadline to December 18, 2010. Public Law 111-322 extended it to March 3, 2011. The recently passed H.J. Res. 44, Further Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011, which became Public Law 112-4, extended government operations only through March 18, 2011, thus necessitating the above-mentioned H.J. Res. 48

So, how could anyone object to a bill that cuts federal spending by $6 billion by eliminating funding for things like the "International Fund for Ireland" and "Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction" and partially rescinding money previously appropriated for things like the "Emergency Steel, Oil, and Gas Guaranteed Loan Program Account" and "Periodic Censuses and Programs"?

Easy, if you actually read the bill.

First, although H.J. Res. 48, Additional Continuing Appropriations Amendments, 2011, eliminates $6 billion in federal spending, it at the same time authorizes over $30 million for "Minority Business Development," over $152 million for the "Office of National Drug Control Policy," over $6 million for construction projects of the "Bureau of Land Management," and millions more for a host of other programs and agencies, including over $33 million for the "Forest Service" for "Land Acquisition."

Second, the proposed federal budget for fiscal year 2011 is around $3.8 trillion. $6 billion is less than .2 percent of the budget. In other words, the $6 billion cut is statistically meaningless.

And third, on the same day (Mar. 15) that House Republicans passed H.J. Res. 48 with its $6 billion in budget cuts for the year, the national debt increased by $72 billion for the day. According to the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt, the total national debt began the day at $14.166 trillion ($14,166,030,787,779.80 and ended the day at $14.237 trillion ($14,237,952,276,898.69), an increase of $71.9 billion ($71,921,489,118.89).

Republican budget cutting is nothing but smoke and mirrors. When will Americans who really do treasure liberty and limited government stop trusting in Republican politicians to not be as bad as the Democrats and hoping that perhaps, maybe, possibly this time the Republicans will actually do something toward those ends?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1103m.asp

Re: On Doing Something About It

that sounds like good news in a way because it might be a good idea to make persons guilty of sex crimes slaves until a programme teaches them to repent while they pay debt owed where they refused a compensation contract

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:21 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

"If a man cannot enjoy the fruits of his labor, without let or hindrance, he is enslaved to the one who appropriates his property; a slave has no property rights."

On Doing Something About It
Monday, March 28, 2011
by Frank Chodorov

[Excerpted from chapter 10 of Out of Step (1962). An MP3 audio file of this article, narrated by Colin Hussey, is available for download.]

A young fellow has to have a "cause." Utopianism is as natural a disease for the boy of college age as was measles in his childhood. My malady was anarchism. I don't know whether I took to Kropotkin and Proudhon because they furnished me with arguments with which to refute the socialists on the campus or because they wrote much about individualism, which seems to be ingrained in my makeup.

At any rate, I experienced a violent love affair with anarchism, which was terminated only when I looked into the economic doctrines of the various schools of anarchism then extant. All of them took a dim view of the institution of private property, without which, it seemed to me even then, individualism was meaningless.

If a man cannot enjoy the fruits of his labor, without let or hindrance, he is enslaved to the one who appropriates his property; a slave has no property rights.

Besides, I reasoned, the abolition of private property could be accomplished only by the intervention of an all-powerful State, which the anarchists were so bent on destroying. This incongruity curbed my short-lived passion for anarchism.

Bakunin especially disturbed me. His urgency to "do something about it" with bombs did not sit well with me, not because I was pacifistically inclined but because I realized no good could come from violence. The bomb thrower might achieve some change in the government by his tactics, but could he contain the temptation to throw bombs? Could he not use them to acquire and exercise power on his own account? At an early age I developed a distaste toward "doing something about it" -- that is, toward organizational and forceful reorienting of society into an image of my own making. I have never been a dues-paying, card-carrying member of any organization, am revolted by any attempt to channel my thinking, and am constitutionally opposed to political action.

I should, of course, like to see society organized so that the individual would be free to carry on his "pursuit of happiness" as he sees fit and in accordance with his own capacities. That is because I assume that the individual is endowed at birth with the right to do so. I cannot deny that right to my fellow man without implying that I do not have that right for myself, and that I will not admit. I claim for myself the prerogative of getting drunk and sleeping off my condition in the gutter, provided, of course, I do not interfere with my neighbor's right to go to the opera; that is my, and his, way of pursuing happiness. How can a third person know that getting drunk or going to the opera is not "good" for either of us? He, or society, or a majority may claim that we, my neighbor and I, have "wrong" values, and might try to tell us so, but the imposition of force to get us to change our values is unwarranted; such use of coercion stems from an assumption of omniscience, which is not a human quality. The best that society can do in the circumstances is to see that one's way of pursuing happiness does not interfere with that of another's and then to leave us all alone.

That is the way I should like to see society, of which I am a part, organized; but it is not so organized and I find its rules quite distasteful. In the first place, it has instituted a system of taxation whereby one-third of our earnings is confiscated; to the extent of such confiscation the pursuit of happiness is delimited or circumscribed, for one cannot spend (on whiskey or the opera) what one does not have. And then, the spending of this vast amount of money calls for a bureaucracy of proportions, and this monstrous bureaucracy in order to justify its existence pays out largess to favored groups, who must conform to certain regulations and controls in order to get it. Our pursuit of happiness is therefore hamstrung -- for our own "good," to be sure.

This I consider bad, wicked, dastardly, and all that. So, I undertake to "do something about it." But, how? Obviously I cannot do anything about changing our tax system all by myself, although I can, if I am so minded, refuse to pay taxes and suffer the consequences; the consequences are a further interference with my pursuit of happiness. My one recourse is to associate myself with like-minded people and hope that we may somehow remove from our statute books the tax laws. To do that we must have a considerable number of minds so determined. We must comb the woods for converts to our cause, for most people are more concerned with making the best of life in the here and now than they are in rewriting the rules for the social order. Only a comparatively few are interested in reform. But, by hard digging and by education we do gather together a goodly number, enough to make their influence felt, who are convinced that our idea is all-wool-and-a-yard wide, and are willing to do or die for it.

Meanwhile, strategy has to be considered. The historic pattern for doing something about it is to confront political power with organized opposition, which, again, is political power. While vengeance is sometimes served by this head-on collision of forces, the record shows that principles remain exactly as they were before the collision. And this is so whether the conflict takes on the form of a violent revolution or of a ballot-box battle. The reason for this invariable outcome is found in the necessary technique of political action; there must be a leader, for without one an army is but a mob, easily dispersed. I nominate myself for the job, not because of any particular qualifications I may have, but because my devotion to the idea entitles me to that distinction. Well, then, under my guidance we roll up a sizable vote for me and presumably for my idea.

But, while heretofore I was a teacher, a propagandist, and an organizer, I am now as a legislator confronted with the practical problem of making law. Parliamentarianism blocks my way. And I meet up with conditions and interests that make the changing of law difficult. I find, for instance, that powerful groups have a vested interest in taxation; the veterans are for it and so are the farmers living on subsidies, as are the industrialists whose operations are geared to government income, while the owners of government bonds are most vociferous in opposing my idea. I soon learn that politics is the art of the possible, and it is simply impossible to change the tax structure of the country. So, I think of compromise, consoling my conscience with the thought that the compromise is merely temporary, and then when conditions are ripe for it, taxation as a whole will be abolished. Besides, I am human and succumb to the temptation to perpetuate my position of prominence; the honorifics of office are most alluring, and I agree to the compromise in return for the promise of support from the opposition.

The case of Robespierre comes to mind. He was, as everybody knows, a student and disciple of Rousseau, who was dead set against capital punishment. Yet, when it came to voting on the question of regicide, Robespierre cast his ballot in favor of it, accompanying his vote with a long explanatory speech in which he used another aberration of Rousseau -- the General Will -- to justify himself. Expediency impelled him to turn Rousseau inside out. The expediencies of politics plus the frailties of political leaders rule out the possibility of using the political method of putting principle into law. The social order must look after itself; politics and the law will follow the dictates of society, once society knows what it wants and acts as if it wants it. Therefore, to "do something about it" one should concentrate on society and leave politics severely alone; which means education and more education, and ignoring the politician altogether. How such a course might bring about genuine reform becomes evident when we consider the composition of the political machine known as the State.

The weakness of the State lies in the fact that it is but an aggregate of humans; its strength derives from the general ignorance of this truism. From earliest times the covering up of this vulnerability has engaged the ingenuity of the politician; all manner of argument has been adduced to give the State a suprahuman character, and rituals without end have been invented to give this fiction the verisimilitude of reality. The divinity with which the king found it necessary to endow himself has been taken over by a mythical 51 percent of the electorate, who in turn ordain those who rule over them. To aid the process of canonization, the personages in whom power resides have set themselves apart by such artifices as high-sounding titles, distinctive apparel, and hierarchical insignia. Language and behavior mannerisms called protocol emphasize their separateness. Nevertheless, the fact of mortality cannot be denied, and the continuity of political power is manufactured by means of awe-inspiring symbols, such as flags, thrones, monuments, seals, and ribbons; these things do not die. By way of litanies a soul is breathed into this golden calf and political philosophy anoints it a "metaphysical person."

But, Louis XIV was quite literal when he said, "L'état c'est moi." The State is a person, or a number of persons, who exercise force, or the threat of it, to cause others to do what they otherwise would not do, or to refrain from satisfying a desire. The substance of the State is political power, and political power is coercion exercised by persons on persons; the suprahuman character assumed by the State is intended to hide this fact and to induce subservience. The strength of the State is Samsonian, and can be shorn off by popular recognition of the fact that it is only a Tom, a Dick, and a Harry.

The anarchists say the State is evil. They are wrong. The State are evil. It is not a system that creates privilege, it is a number of morally responsible people who do so. A robot cannot declare war and a general staff cannot conduct one; the motivating instrument is a man called a king or a president, a man called a legislator, a man called a general. In thus identifying political behavior with persons, we prevent the transference of guilt to an amoral fiction; we place responsibility where it rightly belongs.

Having fixed in our minds the fact that the State consists of a number of people who are up to no good, we should proceed to treat them accordingly. You do not genuflect before an ordinary loafer; why should you pay homage to a bureaucrat? If a prominent politician hires a hall to make a speech, stay away; the absent audience will bring him to a realization of his nothingness. The speeches and the written statements of a political figure are designed to impress you with his importance, and if you do not listen to the one or read the other you will not be influenced and he will give up the effort. It is the applause, the adulation we accord political personages that registers our regard for the power they wield; the deflation of that power is in proportion to our disregard of these personages. Without a cheering crowd there is no parade.

Social ostracism alone can bring down the top layer of political skullduggery to its moral level. Those whose self-respect has not dropped to the vanishing point will get out of the business and put themselves to honest work, while the degenerates who remain will have to get along on what they can pick up from a reluctant public. Below the top layer there are millions of menials who are more to be pitied than scorned; you find it difficult to scorn the man whose incompetence forces him to the public trough. Yet, if you take the "poor John" attitude toward him you keep reminding him of a higher standard, and you may save him from his own degeneration.

A government building you regard as a charnel house; you enter it under duress only, and you do not demean yourself by admiring its living or dead statuary. The stars on the general's shoulders signify that the man might have been a useful member of society; you pity the boy whose uniform identifies his servility. The dais on which the judge sits elevates the body but lowers the man, and a jury box is a place where three-dollar-a-day slaves enforce the laws of slavery. You honor the tax dodger and pay your respects to the man honorable enough to defy the law.

Social power resides in every individual. Just as you put personal responsibility on political behavior, so must you assume personal responsibility for social behavior. You think poorly of legislator Brown not because he has violated a tenet of the Tax Reform Society, to which you belong, but because his voting for a tax levy is in your estimation an act of robbery. It is not a peace society that passes judgment on the war maker, it is the individual pacifist. All values are personal. The good society you envision by the decline of the State is a society of which you are an integral part; your campaign is therefore a personal obligation.

You are ineffective alone? You need an organization to help you? Only individuals think, feel, and act; the organization serves only as a mask for those unable to think or unwilling to act on their own convictions. In the end, every organization vitiates the ideal that at first attracted members, and the more numerous its membership the surer this result; this is so because the organizational ideal is a compromise of private values, and in an effort to find a workable compromise the lowest common denominator, descending as the membership increases, becomes the ideal. When you speak for yourself you are strong. The potency of social power is in proportion to the number who are of like mind, but that is a matter of education, not organization.

So, let's try social ostracism of politics and politicians. It should work. Reform through politics only strengthens the State.

Frank Chodorov was an advocate of the free market, individualism, and peace. He began as a supporter of Henry George and edited the Georgist paper the Freeman before founding his own journal, which became the influential Human Events. He later founded another version of the Freeman for the Foundation for Economic Education and lectured at the Freedom School in Colorado. See Frank Chodorov's article archives.

This article is excerpted from chapter 10 of Out of Step (1962). An MP3 audio file of this article, narrated by Colin Hussey, is available for download.

http://mises.org/daily/5027/On-Doing-Something-About-It

--
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.

--
yorkton environment directorate

California: Grand Jury Slams Right Turn Tickets

Proof that Grand Juries can be used to right many of the wrongs in this country.

California: Grand Jury Slams Right Turn Tickets
Napa, California grand jury questions red light camera program dependent on right turn tickets and short yellows for revenue.

The Grand Jury in Napa, California last month issued a report calling for reform and refunds in the city's red light camera program. The jurors uncovered yellow light timing discrepancies and an unusual dependence upon right-turn tickets to generate revenue at the most productive intersection. The Australian vendor Redflex Traffic Systems began issuing tickets in May 2009, and citations at four intersections now cost $475 each. So far, 9278 tickets worth $4 million have been mailed -- 3789 of which were sent to vehicle owners that turned right on red.

The program's top intersection, Highway 29 and Highway 121, gives out 78 percent of its tickets for turning right on red. The location has never had an right-turn accident problem. From 2004 to 2008, the intersection experienced 77 accidents, only one of which was related to a right turn -- a non-injury collision where a speeding car hit a fixed object, not another vehicle or pedestrian. The jurors questioned the emphasis on right-turn ticketing, which Redflex requires in its contract.

"Based on this accident history, the automated red light enforcement of right turn stops has limited direct benefit of reducing accidents," the report stated.

Jurors also noted that Caltrans ignored its own stated policies by allowing red light camera enforcement at the intersection without first performing a study to examine engineering alternatives. The jurors found this resulted in drivers being shortchanged by the signal timing at this 60 MPH approach. When the camera was first installed, drivers had a 5.4 second yellow after a circular green signal, but after a protected green arrow the yellow dropped to just 3.2 seconds. On May 13, 2010 Caltrans engineers increased the 3.2 second yellow to 3.8 seconds. This had a big impact.

"Following the change in yellow interval time and enforcement procedures, the average number of right turn citations dropped significantly," the report noted. "To verify that the change in citations was not a result of effectiveness of the automated red light enforcement system's ability to modify driver behavior, the grand jury also evaluated the right turn citations at the First/Jefferson intersection. The grand jury found that the number of right turn citations remained relatively steady over the first eight months of operation at this intersection."

New state regulations are expected to prohibit having two different yellow times on the same signal, so Napa at some point quietly implemented an informal procedure giving a 1.6 second "grace period" to the shorter yellow phase where tickets would not be issued. The grand jury criticized the interpretation of the law that Caltrans used to justify the shorter yellow.

"Had Caltrans applied the approach speed as the criteria for setting the SH 29/12/121 signal, the southbound right turn yellow change interval would have been set at 5.4 seconds for all signal phases," the report stated.

The jurors asked the county to seek clarification from the attorney general about the proper interpretation of the statute. Jurors noted that accidents have decreased since cameras were installed, but that may not be as a result of the photo enforcement program.

"The data more clearly shows that the incidents of injury accidents have been on a steady decline since 2007 with the highest level of decline occurring between 2007 and 2008 prior to the installation of the automated red light enforcement system," the report stated.

The report recommended refunds to the estimated 1000 vehicle owners ticketed under the old signal timing practice. A copy of the report is available in a 1.7mb PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Final Report on Automated Red Light Enforcement (Napa County, California Grand Jury, 2/25/2011)

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Einstein,

the very next time I see this

MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
undeserving of a reply.

or anything similar you will be placed on moderation so I can delete
it.

On Mar 28, 8:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> MJ, the party crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
> On Mar 26, 1:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Another meaningless fallacy spew from Armistead. A pity.
> > Post this Constitution of yours so we can all revel in its splendor -- of course doing so would further expose your failures.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:10 PM 3/25/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party-crasher, socialist-communist is bent on destroying, not
> > saving the USA. So, that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly
> > undeserving of a reply. — J. A. A. —
>
> > On Mar 24, 12:40 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > And yet ANOTHER response parading as though a response is somehow undeserving -- complete with fallacy spew.
> > > Is it any wonder he chooses fallacy and name-calling over the 'defense' of his nonsense exposed for what it actually is?
> > > Regard$,
> > > -MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:08 PM 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not saving the USA. So,
> > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply. —
> > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > On Mar 22, 6:47 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending it did not occur.ELSEWHERE in THIS thread:Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy. My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who support socialism and communism. When you attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet! Get lost, Jonathan! J. A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatizedwhile continuing to "cover" only those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of getting first rate care. The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism.There is ALSO this from the same person:Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing jurisdictionbeyond fair registration cost. No more than 25% of regulatory board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry regulated.Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.<sigh> Sad.As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you refuse to present and merey proclaim.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> > > > the people-oriented content of my New Constitution! Please reference
> > > > a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> > > > property is used. You can't do that, I'm sure! Ha, ha, HA! — John
> > > > A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA! You
> > > > > aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily. You are probably
> > > > > doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> > > > > and I the converse.
> > > > > It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> > > > > Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> > > > > Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.If you agree with me say something like this: "I
> > > > > applaud your New Constitution! We need less, more efficient
> > > > > government and the return of lost civil liberties. Outlawing career
> > > > > politicians from Congress seems like a great place to start. Good
> > > > > luck in everything you are seeking to do for the good of the country!
> > > > > — J. A. Armistead —
>
> > > > > On Mar 21, 11:54 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > John,
>
> > > > > > eBay is a perfect example of capitalism at work. Over 2,000 transactions
> > > > > > are performed every minute throughout the world with no need for
> > > > > > government. Both parties involved in those transactions report they are
> > > > > > happy with the transaction 96% of the time.
>
> > > > > > There is no need for government involvement in commerce.
>
> > > > > > On 03/21/2011 07:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative
> > > > > > > republic or a democracy. My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties
> > > > > > > to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who
> > > > > > > support socialism and communism. When you attack my New Constitution
> > > > > > > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism
> > > > > > > and pro civil liberties person on the planet! Get lost, Jonathan! ï¿½
> > > > > > > J. A. A. ï¿½
> > > > > > > On Mar 19, 10:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> Civil liberties require government permission. As I choose to be a free
> > > > > > >> sovereign, I do not consent.
>
> > > > > > >> As for free enterprise, I sell on eBay. No government interference, 96%
> > > > > > >> successful transactions worldwide. That is as pro free enterprise as it
> > > > > > >> gets.
>
> > > > > > >> On 03/19/2011 07:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > > >>> Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise.
> > > > > > >>> So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on tearing
> > > > > > >>> down this country rather than saving it. He should be railroaded out
> > > > > > >>> of the USA! ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½
> > > > > > >>> On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>> Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again!
> > > > > > >>>> He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political parties.
> > > > > > >>>> He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the smarts
> > > > > > >>>> and the temperament to be President."
> > > > >...
>
> > 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.

Revolutionary Calls for Freedom - Where Are They in America?

Revolutionary Calls for Freedom - Where Are They in America?
By Mary Theroux
Published 03/25/11

This appeared in the Statesman Journal

As revolts demonstrating humankind's innate yearning to be free erupt around the world, it is deeply ironic that here in the formerly freest nation ever established, Americans are being conditioned to submit to unreasonable searches on top of the warrantless wiretaps and other rights violations that have escalated over the past 10 years.

That such is the most recent outcome of the "War on Terror" was made personally apparent during my recent encounter with the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Oakland, CA airport.

Entering security, I was motioned towards the backscatter screening machine. Having read warnings of potential serious health risks from scientists at the University of California San Francisco and Columbia University, I refused, and told the TSA agents why.

As I then complied with the "enhanced pat-down" procedure, I simultaneously carried on a loud vocal protest of the unreasonableness of the search and the gross violation of my rights. Meanwhile, my adult stepson, who had preceded me through security via the "regular" metal detector, was seated on a bench a few feet away and took out his cell phone to record the proceedings.

A TSA agent stood in front of him and ordered him to stop. When asked on what authority, the agent responded that it was against their "procedures" -- in contradistinction to the TSA's own website stating that such recording is not prohibited. After some further exchange, my stepson complied and put his cell phone away, my "pat-down" was completed, and we went on our way.

We were therefore surprised when, 10 minutes prior to take-off, a uniformed TSA Supervisor, two uniformed TSA agents, and a plain-suited Supervisory Transportation Security Officer (TSO) made their way down the aisle of the fully-loaded plane to where we were seated and ordered us to go with them.

As I protested, the Supervisory TSO told the TSA Supervisor that all they needed were our names and flight information, and I handed him our boarding passes. The TSA Supervisor officiously insisted we had to get off the plane with them, and not wishing to miss the flight, now even nearer take-off, we accompanied them to the jet-way, where another plain-suited man and a baggage handler waited, who left as I continued my verbal protest of the proceedings.

As the TSA Supervisor took down our drivers license information, I recorded their names from their security badges, and we were eventually allowed to re-board.

Yet the entire incident could have served no legitimate purpose -- they had already established beyond a reasonable doubt, utilizing their own "enhanced" screening methods, that we posed no danger, and we had been easily approachable in the boarding area for at least 25 minutes prior to boarding the plane. I could thus only conclude that it had been staged for the sole purpose of demonstrating to the entire captive audience of passengers that those who do not comply quietly will be made examples of.

After returning home, I posted the incident on the Independent Institute's blog, from whence it garnered a remarkable 3,300 socal-network "Shares."

I have subsequently been bombarded with emails detailing experiences ranging from petty humiliations to horrifying, including an inordinate number of women reporting overly intrusive groping of their breasts and pubic areas.

I have thus come to the conclusion that these represent far more than mere anecdotal accounts, and are rather evidence of a pervasive attitude and culture among the TSA of wanton disregard for the dignity and rights of Americans -- especially, apparently, of women.

Yet despite widespread protests, congressional hearings, and proposed legislation to reverse the trend, the thuggery continues unchecked. Will the generation that has allowed the steady erosion of the liberties we claimed in the '60s to hold so dear affect a reversal of this culture of fear, or will we pass on to our children and grandchildren a nation whose citizens are lorded over by power-corrupted government agents?

If so, we will have failed in our stewardship indeed.

Copyright © 2011 The Independent Institute

Mary Theroux is is Senior Vice President of The Independent Institute. Having received her A.B. in economics from Stanford University, Ms. Theroux is Managing Director of Lightning Ventures, L.P., a San Francisco Bay Area investment firm, and Vice President of the C.S. Lewis Society of California. She is Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Salvation Army of Oakland, former Chairman of the Advisory Board for the Salvation Army of San Francisco, and is on the National and San Francisco Advisory Boards of The Salvation Army.

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Hey Einstein.... One there is no bridge here that is high enough and
B. there are no icy waters any time of the year.... Geographically
challenged as well I see........and 3. you can't tie a concrete block
to a ball of slime...just won't work.

You metaphors/similes (or whatever they are) are just as poorly
thought out as your "New Constitution".

With all that you include in your Constitution that is prohibitive and
answerable to the state.... it is indeed

"STALINESQUE"

On Mar 28, 8:41 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Mark: Glenn Beck says he employs eight people to produce his TV
> show. But the liberal media which attacks him employs 40 or so. You
> are a socialist-communist of the worst order (worthy of being HANGED
> for treason) for trying to peg my for-the-people New Constitution
> Stalinesque! You are attacking me for doing things diametrically
> opposed to your God-damned liberal ideals. Do the world a favor,
> slime-ball, tie a concrete block to your feet and jump off the nearest
> bridge into icy waters. People will rejoice at your passing—the only
> acclaim you'll ever get in your miserable life! — John A. Armistead
> — Patriot
>
> On Mar 25, 3:01 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Not to defend MJ or anything of the sort but to say this:
>
> > Those
> > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written!
>
> > Is so Stalinesque that it is hilarious. You write that and call someone else
> > an idiot ??
>
> > If by disagreeing with you (or anything else for that matter) is cause in
> > your little mind to say that someone is un-American then you really need a
> > little (or a lot) of "rest" (accompanied by some gentle but consuming
> > drugs).
>
> > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:06 AM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:
>
> > > Dear MJ, the socialist-communist, party-crashing jerk: You have an IQ
> > > problem, evident in your continued YELLING of the words of others,
> > > while having nothing worthy to say, yourself. From day one, you have
> > > been rude to attack even the fringes of anything I say or do. Those
> > > WITH enough IQ surely must realize that my New Constitution is the
> > > strongest and most people-oriented document ever written! If, like
> > > you say, you are... "interested" (very weak compared to MOTIVATED)
> > > toward returning America to liberty and freedom, you would be praising
> > > everything I am doing for the benefit of hard-working Americans. Your
> > > TONE is clearly one of opposition to me. That fact is proof positive
> > > that you are a fraud who is undeserving of being called an American!
> > > — J. A. A. —
>
> > > On Mar 24, 12:17 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > And yet you continue to reply -- spewing fallacy -- while pretending NOT
> > > to reply.
> > > > In reality, I am interested in returning America to liberty and freedom.
> > > What is obvious, however, are your Orwellian efforts.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 12:07 PM
> > > 3/24/2011, you wrote:MJ, the party crasher, is bent on destroying, not
> > > saving the USA. So,
> > > > that YELLING, quotation-mad jerk is rightly undeserving of a reply. —
> > > > J. A. A. —
>
> > > > On Mar 22, 6:43 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > And yet you AGAIN provide a response.
> > > > > You will be hard-pressed to PROVE your silly assertion that I am
> > > somehow a "deranged, socialist-communist" ... but I suggest you do so.
> > > > > There is a pattern here ... you provide absurd claims/assertions ...
> > > others 'call' you on it -- usually requesting substantiation ... you pitch a
> > > fit and spew fallacy while calling names.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual
> > > legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught
> > > many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient
> > > facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the
> > > intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its
> > > enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and
> > > using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 06:38 PM
> > > 3/22/2011, you wrote:MJ, the deranged, socialist-communist, party crasher is
> > > undeserving of
> > > > > being replied to. — J. A. A. —
>
> > > > > On Mar 22, 12:57 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >Folks: Apparently, MJ is incapable of reasoning. He supposes that
> > > > > > >since my "ideal" (not mandated in my New Constitution) government
> > > > > > >would have ZERO outlays to individual citizens, i.e., no SS,
> > > Medicare,
> > > > > > >Medicaid, nor Unemployment, that that shows me to be a socialist.
> > > Can
> > > > > > >you believe it?!
>
> > > > > > <sigh>
> > > > > > How a Government programs the STEALS from person
> > > > > > A in order to give to person B will be
> > > > > > 'privatized' not being provided notwithstanding,
> > > > > > the portion that continues to embrace socialism,
> > > > > > of course, was "while continuing to "cover" only
> > > > > > those older or sicker people who have no other
> > > > > > means of surviving or of getting first rate
> > > > > > care". Like the woman who finally agrees on her
> > > > > > price being a 'prostitute', so too is yours an embrace of socialism.
>
> > > > > > Sad isn't it, that Armistead is reduced to
> > > > > > projecting his shortcomings onto others.
>
> > > > > > It is also noted that you AVOIDED the second
> > > > > > example (like the misdirection you attempt on the
> > > > > > first) of your socialist tendencies.
>
> > > > > > >Socialism and communism (the ideal of Barack Obama)
> > > > > > >have government providing everything and controlling everything.
>
> > > > > > Government 'providing' everything is not required
> > > > > > for socialism's myriad of children.
>
> > > > > > > I want government to provide next to nothing and to control next
> > > to
> > > > > > >nothing.
>
> > > > > > Except what excerpts of your Constitution you
> > > > > > have provided does not bolster such a claim.
>
> > > > > > > A properly functioning free enterprise system can do those
> > > > > > >thing, AND allow the maximum FAIR prosperity for the maximum number
> > > of
> > > > > > >Americans!
>
> > > > > > And yet your own brand of utopian socialism raises its head again.
>
> > > > > > >MJ is revealing himself to be a socialist-communist bent on
> > > retarding
> > > > > > >my efforts to promote my New Constitution. He and Jonathan Ashley
> > > > > > >aren't wanting to save the USA, but to have the USA fail. A person
> > > > > > >can be either FOR me or AGAINST me. 100% of those who are against
> > > me
> > > > > > >are criminal, socialist-communists like OUTLAW Barack Obama. — John
>
> > > > > > Your fantasies and fallacies may aid you in
> > > > > > retaining that pleasing vision, but they do little to those who grasp
> > > reality.
>
> > > > > > I certainly understand your need to pretend your
> > > > > > embraces of socialism are really not. I can also
> > > > > > understand your desire for baseless
> > > > > > 'name-calling'. I am quite certain that OTHERS do as well.
>
> > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > --MJ
>
> > > > > > Nothing in the world is more dangerous than
> > > > > > sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther
> > > King, Jr
>
> > > > > > >A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > > > > >On Mar 21, 10:26 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > ELSEWHERE in THIS thread:Socialism and
> > > > > > > communism are the anti-thesis of a
> > > > > > > representative republic or a democracy. My New
> > > > > > > Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the
> > > > > > > People and will fire, jail or hang those in
> > > > > > > government who support socialism and
> > > > > > > communism. When you attack my New Constitution
> > > > > > > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> > > > > > > THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties
> > > > > > > person on the planet! Get lost, Jonathan! J.
> > > > > > > A. A.And now HERE in THIS thread the same
> > > > > > > person:I am personally recommending that Social
> > > > > > > Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> > > > > > > Insurance ALL be privatized—while continuing to
> > > > > > > "cover" only those older or sicker people who
> > > > > > > have no other means of surviving or of getting
> > > > > > > first rate care. The implications are rather
> > > > > > > OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of
> > > socialism.
> > > > > > > > There is ALSO this from the same
> > > > > > > person:Businesses or professions meeting
> > > > > > > licensing standards germane to the type and
> > > > > > > scope of work such perform, and being regularly
> > > > > > > apprised of substantive new developments, may
> > > > > > > control their own work without governmental
> > > > > > > sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to
> > > > > > > be other than self-trained to maintain
> > > > > > > continuing competency for doing safe work
> > > > > > > within their chosen type. Professionals
> > > > > > > qualified by training, testing and experience
> > > > > > > who perform safe and acceptable work within an
> > > > > > > area of their competency shall not be
> > > > > > > sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job
> > > > > > > class or licensing jurisdiction—beyond fair
> > > > > > > registration cost. No more than 25% of
> > > > > > > regulatory board members shall have been
> > > > > > > employed in the profession or industry
> > > > > > > regulated.Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
> > > > > > > > It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this
> > > > > > > 'constitution' is NEVER fully presented NOR
> > > > > > > that the author cannot support what drivel he presents.
> > > > > > > > <sigh> Sad.
> > > > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > > > --MJThere is simply no other choice than
>
> ...
>
> 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.