Monday, April 25, 2011
California: Court of Appeal Refuses to Hear Parking Ticket Cases
California's second highest court has no interest in dealing with parking tickets. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal on April 12 rendered a decision in a case involving nothing more than a disputed $44 parking ticket. Motorist Angelica Guevara argued that the citation she received on December 28, 2008 for parking in Bell was void because the city failed to provide adequate notice of overnight restrictions. The justices made it clear they will not consider the merits of this or any other parking case.
Bell, which has a population of 36,500, has seventeen signs describing the restriction on roads entering the city, but Guevara was visiting from Oakland and did not see them. After two administrative challenges, Guevara had a trial before a superior court judge who found her guilty on March 27, 2009. That October, she asked the superior court's appellate division to overturn the adverse ruling, but it declined to do so.
"The city's overnight parking ordinance well may be simply a revenue generating device without adequate notice," the superior court's appellate division explained in denying Guevara's appeal. "The problem is that the court cannot decide the issue."
Citing the limited procedures for appeal laid out by the legislature in the California Vehicle Code, the Court of Appeal panel agreed with the lower court's reasoning, insisting motorists have fewer rights in such cases.
"A parking violation... is neither an infraction nor a misdemeanor, but rather results only in a civil penalty," Associate Justice Orville A. "Jack" Armstrong wrote. "Thus, the superior court conducting the trial de novo of a parking violation is the court of last resort; the appellate department of the superior court has no jurisdiction to review the final judgment entered in the trial de novo.... We conclude that the Legislature intended this 'de novo' review of the administrative decision to be the extent of the process due a parking violation contestant."
The court likewise threw out Guevara's request for an injunction against the city because she now knows about the restriction and will not suffer irreparable harm if Bell continues with its existing practices. The higher court also refused to provide declaratory relief.
"Here, the legal rights of the parties have been adjudicated," Armstrong wrote. "That is to say, in the de novo trial, the superior court finally determined that Guevara was required to pay a $44 fine for parking overnight on a city street, even though she had no actual notice of the parking restriction. There is no actual controversy between Guevara and the city such that a judicial declaration would affect Guevara's behavior -- the very purpose of a declaratory relief action."
A copy of the unpublished decision is available in a 60k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: Guevara v. Los Angeles Superior Court (Court of Appeal, State of California, 4/12/2011)
Freedom Is Always Illegal.
Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.
I accomplished the same outcome with 43 words of clarity that you did with your convoluted paragraph of more than 160 words.
On 04/24/2011 05:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
J. Ashley: How quickly YOU forget! The following is from my New Constitution: "Section 9 & 10: Other than the President or his agents, no person, news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any lobby, within government or without, shall be allowed to contact representatives while such are in Washington. However, invited persons or groups can make scheduled depositions provided they don't communicate with the representatives otherwise. A representative's constituents shall be allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing their votes only while they are in their home states or districts. Representatives shall regularly contact their district offices or return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of their constituents, and their constituents only, and shall be held accountable for the representativeness of their votes. The solicitation of Citizen support is permitted, but the targeted solicitation of representatives in any place, by any person, organization, group, or lobby within government or without, is prohibited. Overt solicitation, feting, or laudatory ceremony, as above, is a felony—defined as any crime requiring a minimum three year prison sentence, but time off for good behavior is allowed." — John A. Armistead — PatriotOn Apr 22, 11:50 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John, How quick you forget. Do you not remember when you challenged me once before? I posted the following problem and solution: (1) The lobbying of Members of Congress by any Person on behalf of anyone other than themselves shall be prohibited. (2) Any Person found guilty of lobbying under the Prohibitions of this Article shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 Years and/or deported; On 04/21/2011 06:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:J. Ashley: You never did define a single problem with our government or society, and solve that problem in less than four sentences. I did that for fourteen years! Convoluted or not, my New Constitution solves society's problems! � J. A. A. �On Apr 21, 12:06 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John,How does your reply have anything to do with what I posted? It's no wonder YOUR New Constitution is so convoluted.On 04/20/2011 08:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Jonathan: "Polite" public figures can't go around calling everyone stupid. There are contexts in which public health care makes sense. But FORCED Obama Care isn't that context! � J. A. A. � On Apr 20, 12:54 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John, 1) Trump has no ideology! 2) The District of Criminals is filled with Republican socialists. On 04/20/2011 02:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote:Jonathan: That would be "the pot calling the kettle black". If Trump was a socialist he would be a Democrat and pro Obama. When one's ideology has failed, like yours has, blame the opposition for your own socialist-communist traits. You, like Mark, are very screwed-up in the head. � J. A. A. � On Apr 19, 12:50 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:*John, I cannot belive you call me -- a voluntaryist/anarchist -- a socialist, yet you cannot see that Donald Trump is a full-blown socialist. Pay attention!* http://www.americablog.com/2009/02/donald-trump-is-socialist.htmlhttp...... On 04/18/2011 08:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Folks: The following essay contains the first two articles of my New Constitution. I'm copying it, below, so those looking in the present post can find it. Hope you readers are having a great Spring! Can Donald Trump �Fix� the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on? The contrast is striking between the potential presidential candidacy of The Donald and every other might-be candidate mentioned. For one thing, if The Donald says he can fix something�like our broke economy� you can damn-well take him seriously! Some of you may recall that a certain new ice skating rink in New York�s Central Park started leaking water and couldn�t be used. That work had been done by three or four labor unions with each one pointing the fingers at the other. After millions of dollars had been wasted on attempted patches, The Donald took over the entire job and had happy skaters out on that ice before long. Every day when I realize how much labor unions of all kinds are effectively screwing the US economy and preventing our having a really �free� free enterprise system, I think of The Donald. He has been able to find considerable success working in the morass of labor unions and government regulations that are found in NYC. That man THRIVES on being able to get the disparate powers-that-be to get the job done! Part of the secret is his charisma. But most of it is because he is a trustworthy man-of-his-word. He makes sure that all those involved in a project realize just what their responsibilities are, and what they are expected to do if there are any glitches. In short, The Donald is one of the top businessmen in the country of all time. His executive experience probably exceeds that of the governors of most states. Under him people do their jobs and do them well. Just having The Donald as the head man improves the quality of projects, because it�s an honor just to be associated with one of his projects! Obviously, Donald Trump is politically conservative. But he doesn�t owe-his-soul to the Republican Party like most of his would-be rivals do even without realizing that they do. The USA has been hamstrung trying to avoid looking like a colonialist aggressor every time we �invade� other nations to help the oppressed. The reason oil fields get set on fire is because those people suppose we are there� just for their oil. By destroying the oil, they believe we will simply go away. The blind-leading-the-blind in our government think that the USA has the financial wherewithal to finance long wars, and will have enough wherewithal remaining to rebuild the busted infrastructure of the invaded countries; train the new armies; and care for those �poor� people till they are back on their feet. All of that is being done like forced charity from the big-hearted American People whose standards of living keep dropping, because of the explosion in the size and the over-control of our government. If The Donald can get us trillions of dollars worth of oil to repay the American Taxpayers for our sacrifices, I�ll vote for him! Some good news is that Republicans now have trillions of dollars in �possible� budget cuts that might save this country. The bad news is that those takes-too-long-to-happen cuts will still leave the never- should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place entitlement programs being run by government. After the nearly 15 years that I�ve spent penning and polishing my New Constitution, I have better than average ideas how to fix our government, fast. The following 5 things aren�t written into the New Constitution, but are of fundamental importance: 1. Get our government out of the entitlement business! Privatize Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and Unemployment Insurance, etc. Like the Republicans are now planning to do, protect those now in programs from being hurt who are close to retirement. But unlike Republicans, once and forever, get the USA out of managing the entitlement business! If government pulls any of the strings, things will start getting bad again, soon. 2. Inform China and our other creditors that the USA will not be paying them any interest on their loans. We will repay the principal, but only when doing so won�t jeopardize our recovery. 3. Bring home 90% of US troops within 90 days. Leave 10% of the troops in bases around the world to serve as a front guard in case redeployment is necessary. 4. Stop wasting billions and billions of dollars on political campaigns! That money is going into the pockets of the media. Those media rascals salivate over the ad money they generate by �talking up� how �close� the elections are going to be. Britt Hume, though a conservative, keeps pumping air into Obama by talking about the money Obama can spend (waste!) to get re elected. Barack Obama is a cash cow for the media. That�s why no one in the media will call the majority of Democrats CROOKS! 5. �Fat cats� should stop being wimps! Government has become no- longer-legal STEALING from the supposed rich to give to the poor. The Democrats talk about how Republicans are wanting to give tax breaks to the wealthy while denying women medical screenings. Republicans should be talking about how �Democrats are criminals for seeking stolen benefits for themselves and other criminals!� Be it known: 1. The Constitution does NOT allow political parties! Those are quasi governmental bodies which get to decide who our candidates for public office can be, and decide who �the leaders� in Congress are. Because our country was conceived as a Representative Republic, such fact tacitly mandates that each representative shall have identical power! Seniority nor party affiliation can give more power to ANYONE! 2. The US Senate is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL oligarchy of elitists who effectively have been running-the-USA-into-the-ground since the birth of this nation. Senators aren�t determined by having a parity of the population which they each serve. Though the Senate was begrudgingly included in the �words� of the Constitution, it has never been within the SPIRIT of the Constitution! 3. The principle of FAIR representation makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow the State of Iowa to have more �power� in determining who our candidates for President can be. And by the same general reasoning, it makes the entire primary system UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the states with earlier-dated primaries always have the most influence in determining who can run. 4. Political party conventions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because those are �governed� by the unsanctioned and UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties! 5. The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow any individual or group to have more influence on.. read more »
AZ: Bill Would Limit Right To Jury Trial For DUI Defendants
Bill Would Limit Right To Jury Trial For DUI Defendants
A bill approved by the Arizona Legislature would end the flat right that misdemeanor DUI defendants now have under state law to a jury trial for a first offense.
The legislator who sponsored the bill called the jury change reasonable because other changes in the bill ease potential penalties for first-time DUI offenders, while a defense attorney called the jury change an "appalling" loss of a protection for defendants.
Arizona CONstitution (toilet paper)
23. Trial by jury; number of jurors specified by law
Section 23. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate. Juries in criminal cases in which a sentence of death or imprisonment for thirty years or more is authorized by law shall consist of twelve persons. In all criminal cases the unanimous consent of the jurors shall be necessary to render a verdict. In all other cases, the number of jurors, not less than six, and the number required to render a verdict, shall be specified by law.
Section 24. In criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to ... have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, ....
Read Full Story
Freedom Is Always Illegal.
Re: Love in the Koran
That book contains rather large sections of the Bible, verbatim.
On Apr 25, 10:02 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [[ The only 'love' in islamoshit is the 'love' of hate and death. And
> beating women. ]]
>
> new from An Inquiry Into Islam <http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/>
> <http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgs&feedurl=http://feeds.feedbur...>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Love in the Koran*<http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam/~...>
>> **<http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-IMLw8W_oev8/TatRQLvcz4I/AAAAAAAAABs/jRi1f3n...>
> Posted: 23 Apr 2011 10:06 AM PDT
>
> *The following is an excerpt from the book, A Simple
> Koran<http://www.inquiryintoislam.com/2010/07/easy-way-to-read-quran.html>
> :*
>> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> While there are 300 references in the Koran to Allah and fear, there are 49
> references to love. Of these references, 39 are negative, such as the 14
> negative references to love of money, power, other gods, and status.
>
> Three verses command humanity to love Allah and two verses are about how
> Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does not love
> Kafirs (non-Muslims).
>
> This leaves five verses about love. Of these five, three are about loving
> kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give for the love of
> Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: Give what you
> love to charity. But even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim
> charity (the zakat) only goes to other Muslims.
>
> There is not one verse about either compassion or love of a Kafir, but there
> are twelve verses that teach that a Muslim is not a friend of the Kafir.
>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
> **<http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/ANon-racistUnbigotedInquiryIntoIslam?...>
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Lawless Rule
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
"For the past seventy-five years Congress has transferred to the federal regulatory agencies the power to govern (to legislative, to prosecute, and to adjudicate). The Constitution vests the power to make law in Congress, the power to execute the laws in the Executive, and the power to adjudicate alleged violations of the law in the Judiciary. By this massive transfer of governing power from the elected to some 220 unelected agencies of the federal government, the United States has replaced its constitutional republic with a bureaucratic oligarchy."
http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan189.htm
Freedom Is Always Illegal.
John McCain - Lost in Space
John McCain - Lost in SpaceHarold | April 25, 2011 at 8:29 am | Categories: Afghanistan, Banks, Corruption, Criminal Activity, Financial, Government, Iran, Iraq, Legislative, Libya, Military, NeoConservatives, Propaganda, U.S. Constitution | URL: http://wp.me/pmtmV-5Q0 |
Brasscheck TV 4/24/2011 John McCain never saw an illegal war he didn't like - or a crooked banker. (He was one of the "Keating Five" who aided one of the biggest scams of the Savings and Loan crisis days.) Just wind him up, pay him and he'll say anything. Thus his proclamation that the media-created [...]
WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
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.
Ellison in Saudi Arabia says we "have common interests and apsirations"
Ellison in Saudi Arabia says we "have common interests and apsirations"creeping | April 25, 2011 at 11:34 AM | Tags: Barack Obama, Creeping Sharia, dhimmi, finance, islam, Life, Media, Muslim, News, Obama, Politics, Random, Religion, Sharia, travel | Categories: Alerts, Creeping Sharia, Media, Middle East, Minnesota, News, Politics, Religion, Stealth Jihad | URL: http://wp.me/pbU4v-8pN |
Surely Keith Ellison (Muslim - Ummah) wasn't referring to women drivers, beheading in Chop Chop Square, Muslim-only cities, or sharia law was he? Last we checked Obama promised to end American dependence on foreign oil in ten years. Not a common interest or aspiration. via Saudi, US businessmen look for synergies - Arab News. DAMMAM: [...]
WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
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.
WHAT THE H--- IS WRONG
|
--
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.
Obama Snubs Christians: Omits Easter Sunday Proclamation
Obama Snubs Christians: Omits Easter Sunday Proclamationdoctorbulldog | 25 April, 2011 at 9:56 am | Categories: Christians, Christians under attack, Obama Sucks, politics, Religion | URL: http://wp.me/p1NPg-72h |
Yeah, I noticed that on Friday, Obama had released a statement recognizing Earth Day, but not Good Friday. I figured he might have just been busy campaigning and accidentally overlooked Good Friday (okay, I didn't really think that, but I'm sure that would have been his excuse if he would have been called on it). However, I don't care what excuse Obama pulls out of his backside for omitting Easter Sunday; THERE IS NO EXCUSE!
The only way a supposed Christian President forgets about Easter is if he/she does it on purpose!
You need to tell EVERY Christian you know about this! This guy is NOT a Christian!
WH Fails to Release Easter Proclamation
FoxNation
President Obama failed to release a statement or a proclamation recognizing the national observance of Easter Sunday, Christianity's most sacred holiday.
By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha.
The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president's weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.
[...]
In 2010, Obama was criticized for releasing an all-inclusive Easter greeting. He reached out to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and people of no faith at all in a statement about a holiday that is uniquely Christian.
"All of us are striving to make a way in this world; to build a purposeful and fulfilling life in the fleeting time we have here," Obama said in his 2010 "Easter" message. "A dignified life. A healthy life. A life, true to its potential. And a life that serves other." "These are aspirations that stretch back through the ages – aspirations at the heart of Judaism, at the heart of Christianity, at the heart of all the world's great religions," the president added.
When the White House released statements about Muslim holidays, no attempts were made to include Christianity or to mention a spirit of inclusivity. For example, in his 2010 statement on Hajj and Eid-ul-Adha, Obama made no references to Christianity or any other religion.
[...]
WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
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.
Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.
Once again you have twisted what was said to reflect what you want to hear.
I never said that Belgium was "the ideal of the world." I merely pointed out that Belgium has gone more than 300 days without a national government and they are doing just fine.
On 04/25/2011 06:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Mark: Tell that to J. Ashley. He's holding up Belgium as the ideal of the world, and Jonathan is an out-and-out anarchist. — J. A. A. —On Apr 24, 11:37 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:There is no "anarchy in Belgium: *an·ar·chy*/ˈanərkē/Noun 1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority. 2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. It is not history, it is current events. If you are writing a constitution you should have known this. You should also know that absolute Democracy, absolute Communism and Socialism are for the most part identical in practice (if it were possible) To say we need more Democracy as you often do is the same as saying we need more Communism and or Socialism.... Just how ignorant are you ?? On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:02 PM, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote:Mark: Please find yourself a history buff. I'm not the least interested in anarchy, in Belgium or anywhere! — J. A. A. —On Apr 22, 4:33 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:And it still functions without the lawmakers.... Go figure.On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:John,"In terms of comparative social spending on welfare-related programs asapercentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), Denmark ranks first, spending more than 29 percent of GDP on its welfare-related programs.Nextis Sweden (nearly 29 percent), followed by France, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, and Finland. The United Kingdom ranks in themiddle ofthe pack in 13th place (nearly 22 percent of GDP). The United Statesranksnear the bottom, in 26th place (out of 29), spending less than 15percent ofits GDP on social welfare programs. The United States ranks just aheadofIreland, Mexico, and South Korea."http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2011/03/what-is-welfare-state/------------------------------ On 04/22/2011 08:41 AM, NoEinstein wrote:On average, yes they are! Few in Belgium look to government for handouts. In the USA, close to 45% want a government handout. Anything over 5% is excessive. But that's why I've written my New Constitution—to get government out of the hand-out, pull-the-strings business! — John A. Armistead — PatriotOn Apr 21, 9:56 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>wrote:So, you're saying the People of Belgium are better People than thoseinthe United States?J. Ashley: Run your experiments in Belgium, then! The USA would be in civil war... � J. A. A. � On Apr 21, 12:04 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>wrote:John,It is highly doubtful that we would return to the stone age without government. Belgium has been without a national government for morethan313 days and "Belgians say the absence of a government doesn't makemuchof a difference in their daily lives."On 04/20/2011 08:42 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Jonathan: You are showing some smarts there! Since I am an untra- conservative capitalist, I don't like being... "left" of anyone, because that would seem to make me... a God-damned liberal. I deliberately avoided using the "L" word, because I am the exact opposite. If your ego considers being an anarchist more conservative than me, consider this: The USA would return to the 'stone ages' within one month of there being no government(s). So, your "ideal" of no taxation and no government won't benefit a soul on Earth. Is having you "get real" too much to ask? � J. A. Armistead �PatriotOn Apr 20, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>wrote:John, Since anarchy is absence of government, how can one be "right" of anarchy? (I don't actually expect an answer, as you NEVER answer questions posed to you.) On 04/20/2011 01:54 AM, NoEinstein wrote:Jonathan: For you, anything 'right' of anarchy is socialist. I suggest you write your one paragraph constitution banning government. Unless you are from the stone ages, you won't survive very long on your own. � J. A. A. � On Apr 18, 11:53 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>wrote:But John, you're the one who has written a socialist constitution. On 04/18/2011 08:31 PM, NoEinstein wrote:Jonathan: Mainly he's done that by attacking the capitalist system that made this country great; and by supposing that government should control everything (with him in charge). The fact that you even ask that question confirms my initial gut reaction that you are a socialist-communist, like 95% of Democrats are. The remaining 5% are just stupid. You're in both of those groups. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Apr 18, 3:03 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>wrote:John, That you own stock in a company that routinely downgrades websitesbasedon "link relevance" over "content relevance" says much about your credibility regarding the understanding of what freedom of expressionmeans.That you believe Obama "has caused more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler" seems ludicrous. Just how has he (as an individual) been able to pull offthistremendous task? On 04/17/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote:Dear Mark: I own Google stock. It's an American multinational Corporation that's headquartered in Mountain View, California. Google World shows the new complex quite well. In many ways you are very naive. Your obvious desire to protect Barack Obama's neck from the noose is tantamount to looking-the-other-way to those who commit TREASON every day of their existence. Would you put on moderation someone who proposes that Libyan President Kadafi should be killed? Do you suppose it is Google's obligation to protect those who kill their citizens? Hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans have committed suicide because of the bad economy and the lack of jobs resulting from Obama's socialist-capitalist policies. He has caused more economic and social harm to the USA than any other person who ever lived, including Hitler. Treason is a recognized capital offense. Those in our government and in our law enforcement who don't press to have that bastard arrested, tried and hanged are themselves in violation of the Constitution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Keith suggested that you, Jonathan and MJ are anxious to read my next "missive". He's viewed you all in a favorable light, before. As for me, I suspect you are so screwed-up in the head that you are both for and against having a better government. That means you have schizophrenia. Get some couch- time, Mark. You need it! � J. A. Armistead � Patriot On Apr 16, 10:28 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE<markmka...@gmail.com> <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:Einstein, Again, you mistake me for someone that is liable under the present, or your future, US Constitution. The message you received is the standard message sent to all new or moderated members, get used to it. It originates from outside the US and is also not liable under US law. Isn't the internet grand when the originating country has the responsibility for what is or is not allowed under their law(s). On Apr 16, 7:11 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net> <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:Dear Keith: I sensed that there was a common thread of "reasoning" in those you name. My last missive, as you say, was explaining why Jews are causing a lot of problems and expense while seeming to be such nice people. Israel should become a training place for successful capitalism. Only the latter can start to heal the deep wounds Muslims feel. Today, when I posted: "Can The Donald 'Fix' the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?" There was a message (Mark's responsibility?) saying that moderators must approve what I say. Of course that in UNCONSTITUTIONAL by both the present Constitution, and by my New Constitution, which requires that Mark be fired from his job. If you butterfly conservatives are starting to understand what I'm saying, then you should like to know that about 85% of my New Constitution has now been copied and pasted for interested citizens to read. The last 15% relates to problems with government which I have batted heads with, first hand. Once people begin showing appreciation for the 85% of my non-Stalinesk document, the remainder will become available. But NOT on this forum. The full document will be presented as part of a book containing my many essays and detailed rational for why this country needs a New Constitution Now. You guys can help speed things along by talking-up my document on the NET. � John A. Armistead � Patriot On Apr 16, 4:17 pm, Keith In K�ln<keithinta...@gmail.com> <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:Hey John! I am atwitter with excitement and anticipation! Jonathan, Mark andMJ arealready chomping at the bit to sling complimentary praise and one ofthemmaybe even will write a haiku in your honor! Sugarshack Literal Truthmighteven.. read more »
Grocery School
by Don Boudreaux on April 24, 2011
Suppose that we were supplied with groceries in same way that we are supplied with K-12 education.
Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. A huge chunk of these tax receipts would then be spent by government officials on building and operating supermarkets. County residents, depending upon their specific residential addresses, would be assigned to a particular supermarket. Each family could then get its weekly allotment of groceries for "free." (Department of Supermarket officials would no doubt be charged with the responsibility for determining the amounts and kinds of groceries that families of different types and sizes are entitled to receive.)
Except in rare circumstances, no family would be allowed to patronize a "public" supermarket outside of its district.
Residents of wealthier counties – such as Fairfax County, VA and Somerset County, NJ -- would obviously have better-stocked and more attractive supermarkets than would residents of poorer counties. Indeed, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in determining people's choices of neighborhoods in which to live.
Of course, thanks to a long-ago U.S. Supreme Court decision, families would be free to shop at private supermarkets that charge directly for the groceries they offer; such private-supermarket families, though, would get no discount on their property-tax bills.
When the quality of supermarkets is recognized by nearly everyone to be dismal, the resulting calls for "supermarket choice" would be rejected by a coalition of greedy government-supermarket workers and ideologically benighted collectivists as attempts to cheat supermarket customers out of good supermarket service -- indeed, as attempts to deny ordinary families the food that they need for their very survival. Such 'choice,' it would be alleged, will drain precious resources from the public supermarkets whose (admittedly) poor performance testifies to the fact that these supermarkets are underfunded.
And the small handful of people who call for total separation between supermarket and state would be criticized by nearly everyone as being, at best, delusional and -- it would be thought more realistically -- more likely misanthropic devils who are indifferent to the malnutrition and starvation that would sweep the land if only private market forces governed the provision and patronizing of supermarket. (Some indignant observers would even wonder aloud at the insensitivity of referring to grocery shoppers as "customers"; surely the relationship between suppliers of life-giving foods and the people who need these foods is not so crass as to be properly discussed as being 'commercial.')
….
Does anyone believe that such a system for supplying groceries would work well, or even one-tenth as well as the current private, competitive system that we currently rely upon for supplying grocery-retailing services? To those of you who might think so, pardon me but you're nuts.
To those of you who understand that such a system for supplying grocery-retailing services would be a catastrophe, why might you continue to count yourself in the ranks of those who believe that government schooling (especially the way it is currently funded and supplied) is the system that we should continue to use?
http://cafehayek.com/2011/04/grocery-school.html
Re: Liberty Defined
On Apr 24, 2:38 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Liberty DefinedBy Ron Paul
> Published 04/15/11The following is the Introduction toLiberty Defined, Ron Paul's newest book, to be released on April 19, 2011America's history and political ethos are all about liberty. The Declaration of Independence declares that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are unalienable rights, but notice how both life and the pursuit of happiness also depend on liberty as a fundamental bedrock of our country. We use the word almost as a cliche. But do we know what it means? Can we recognize it when we see it? More importantly, can we recognize the opposite of liberty when it is sold to us as a form of freedom?
> Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilization, provide security, generate wealth, and protect the people from systematic rights violations. In this sense, only liberty can truly ward off tyranny, the great and eternal foe of mankind.
> The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704). I use the term "liberal" without irony or contempt, for the liberal tradition in the true sense, dating from the late Middle Ages until the early part of the twentieth century,1 was devoted to freeing society from the shackles of the state. This is an agenda I embrace, and one that I believe all Americans should embrace.
> To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions.
> Do our leaders in Washington believe in liberty? They sometimes say they do. I don't think they are telling the truth. The existence of the wealth- extracting leviathan state in Washington, DC, a cartoonishly massive machinery that no one can control and yet few ever seriously challenge, a monster that is a constant presence in every aspect of our lives, is proof enough that our leaders do not believe. Neither party is truly dedicated to the classical, fundamental ideals that gave rise to the American Revolution.
> Of course, the costs of this leviathan are incalculably large. The twentieth century endured two world wars, a worldwide depression, and a forty- five- year "Cold War" with two superpowers facing off with tens of thousands of intercontinental missiles armed with nuclear warheads. And yet the threat of government today, all over the world, may well present a greater danger than anything that occurred in the twentieth century. We are policed everywhere we go: work, shopping, home, and church. Nothing is private anymore: not property, not family, not even our houses of worship. We are encouraged to spy on each other and to stand passively as government agents scan us, harass us, and put us in our place day after day. If you object, you are put on a hit list. If you fight to reveal the truth, as WikiLeaks or other websites have done, you are targeted and can be crushed. Sometimes it seems like we are living in a dystopian novel like 1984 or Brave New World, complete with ever less economic freedom. Some will say that this is hyperbole; others will understand exactly what I'm talking about.
> What is at stake is the American dream itself, which in turn is wrapped up with our standard of living. Too often, we underestimate what the phrase "standard of living" really means. In my mind, it deals directly with all issues that affect our material well-being, and therefore affects our outlook on life itself: whether we are hopeful or despairing, whether we expect progression or regression, whether we think our children will be better off or worse off than we are. All of these considerations go to the heart of the idea of happiness. The phrase "standard of living" comprises nearly all we expect out of life on this earth. It is, simply, how we are able to define our lives.
> Our standards of living are made possible by the blessed institution of liberty. When liberty is under attack, everything we hold dear is under attack. Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty.
> Take the United States, for example. Our country was established with the greatest ideals and respect for individual freedom ever known. Yet look at where we are today: runaway spending and uncontrollable debt; a monstrous bureaucracy regulating our every move; total disregard for private property, free markets, sound money, and personal privacy; and a foreign policy of military expansionism. The restraints placed on our government in the Constitution by the Founders did not work. Powerful special interests rule, and there seems to be no way to fi ght against them. While the middle class is being destroyed, the poor suffer, the justly rich are being looted, and the unjustly rich are getting richer. The wealth of the country has fallen into the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Some say this is because of a lack of regulations on Wall Street, but that is not right. The root of this issue reaches far deeper than that.
> The threat to liberty is not limited to the United States. Dollar hegemony has globalized the crisis. Nothing like this has ever happened before. All economies are interrelated and dependent on the dollar's maintaining its value while at the same time the endless expansion of the dollar money supply is expected to bail out everyone.
> This dollar globalization is made more dangerous by nearly all governments acting irresponsibly by expanding their powers and living beyond their means. Worldwide debt is a problem that will continue to grow if we continue on this path. Yet all governments, and especially ours, do not hesitate to further expand their powers at the expense of liberty in a futile effort to force an outcome of their design on us. They simply expand and plummet further into debt.
> Understanding how governments always compete with liberty and destroy progress, creativity, and prosperity is crucial to our effort to reverse the course on which we find ourselves. The contest between abusive government power and individual freedom is an age- old problem. The concept of liberty, recognized as a natural right, has required thousands of years to be understood by the masses in reaction to the tyranny imposed by those whose only desire is to rule over others and live off their enslavement.
> This conflict was understood by the defenders of the Roman Republic, the Israelites of the Old Testament, the rebellious barons of 1215 who demanded the right of habeas corpus, and certainly by the Founders of this country, who imagined the possibility of a society without kings and despots and thereby established a framework that has inspired liberation movements ever since. It is understood by growing numbers of Americans who are crying out for answers and demanding an end to Washington's hegemony over the country and the world.
> And yet even among the friends of liberty, many people are deceived into believing that government can make them safe from all harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior. If the government is granted a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, history shows that that power is always abused. Every single time.
> Over the centuries, progress has been made in understanding the concept of individual liberty and the need to constantly remain vigilant in order to limit government's abuse of its powers. Though steady progress has been made, periodic setbacks and stagnations have occurred. For the past one hundred years, the United States and most of the world have witnessed a setback for the cause of liberty. Despite all the advances in technology, despite a more refi ned understanding of the rights of minorities, despite all the economic advances, the individual has far less protection against the state than a century ago.
> Since the beginning of the last century, many seeds of destruction have been planted that are now maturing into a systematic assault on our freedoms. With a horrendous financial and currency crisis both upon us and looming into the future as far as the eye can see, it has become quite apparent that the national debt is unsustainable, liberty is threatened, and the people's anger and fears are growing. Most importantly, it is now clear that government promises and panaceas are worthless. Government has once again failed and the demand for change is growing louder by the day. Just witness the dramatic back- and- forth swings of the parties in power.
> The only thing that the promises of government did was to delude the people into a false sense of security. Complacency and mistrust generated a tremendous moral hazard, causing dangerous behavior by a large number of people. Self-reliance and individual responsibility were replaced by organized thugs who weaseled their way into achieving control over the process whereby the looted wealth of the country was distributed.
> The choice we now face: further steps toward authoritarianism or a renewed effort in promoting the cause of liberty. There is no third option. This course must incorporate a modern and more sophisticated understanding of the magnificence of the market economy, especially the moral and practical urgency of monetary reform. The abysmal shortcomings of a government power that undermines the creative genius of free minds and private property must be fully understood.
> This conflict between government and liberty, brought to a boiling point by the world's biggest bankruptcy in history, has generated the angry protests that have spontaneously broken out around the country -- and the world. The producers are rebelling and the recipients of largess are angry and restless.
> The crisis demands an intellectual revolution. Fortunately, this revolution is under way, and if one earnestly looks for it, it can be found. Participation in it is open to everyone. Not only have our ideas of liberty developed over centuries, they are currently being eagerly debated, and a modern, advanced understanding of the concept is on the horizon. The Revolution is alive and well.
> The idea of this book is not to provide a blueprint for the future or an all-encompassing defense of a libertarian program. What I offer here are thoughts on a series of controversial topics that tend to confuse people, and these are interpreted in light of my own experience and my thinking. I present not final answers but rather guideposts for thinking seriously about these topics. I certainly do not expect every reader to agree with my beliefs, but I do hope that I can inspire serious, fundamental, and independent- minded thinking and debate on them.
> Above all, the theme is liberty. The goal is liberty. The results of liberty are all the things we love, none of which can be finally provided by government. We must have the opportunity to provide them for ourselves, as individuals, as families, as a society, and as a country. Off we go: A to Z.http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1413
--
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.