Wednesday, May 11, 2011

When The People Lose All Faith In Their Government

When The People Lose All Faith In Their Government
http://www.newswithviews.com/JBWilliams/williams148.htm

By J.B. Williams
May 11, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

Running roughshod over the people by manipulating laws, transforming our system of government, destroying our currency, our economic and military superiority and generally forcing the people to accept a lower standard of living in order to make the rest of the world feel more equal to America, may seem like a good idea to the elites in charge, until the people lose all trust, faith and confidence in their government.

When the people determine once and for all, that their government is not their friend, but rather the greatest modern threat to American peace, prosperity and liberty, the rules of the game are going to change dramatically.

Once the people reach a point where they no longer trust anyone in their government, when every government action from the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches seem just another lie intended to manipulate the masses into compliance, the people’s complacency will morph into unbridled rage in an instant. With nothing but liberty left to lose, the people will do whatever it takes to reclaim their freedom and deal with those so bold as to directly and overtly assault them.

How smart is it for the political elite to push Americans into that corner, and how close are we to this moment of truth?

America is Not the Middle East

Manipulating the people of the Middle East into a so-called “democratic uprising” was easy for Obama’s U.S. State Department. It was a classic Alinsky Rules for Radicals community organizing op and in parts of the world populated by uneducated people accustomed to living under the boot of brutal dictatorships, with no experience in freedom, liberty or self-reliance, it was a walk in the park for modern Marxists at the helm of U.S. foreign policy.

Even though many American citizens easily fall for the same tricks today, most Americans don’t. Many have been forced to answer their own questions over the last few years, researching and becoming familiar with things such as the Cloward-Piven Strategy being followed to the letter by the current DC regime.

Americans are cut from the cloth of freedom and liberty. They have never lived under anyone’s boot. They are a peaceful bunch, so long as you don’t try pushing them around. But when push comes to shove…

Don’t Tread on Me!

On most days, the average American is focused on making a living, raising a family, enjoying the fruits of their labor and the freedom and liberty endowed by our Creator. But when the policies of government directly interfere with the life style that Americans have taken for granted all of their lives, daily routines take a back seat to the preservation of the American Dream.

Americans are a hopeful bunch, no matter the circumstances or odds. They will hope for a better tomorrow no matter what. When they deem that the best hope for tomorrow rests in their own hands rather than in the hands of those who failed to govern wisely, they will take the necessary actions to protect freedom.

After all, in America, the people are the government. Politicians are only temporary servants of the people, who are easily and often replaced. The people are America. Yet the elites not forget…

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Tread on me at the risk of your own peril… That’s the message!

A Government Based on Blatant Lies

Sadly, our government now has such a consistent track record of blatant lies that very few American trust anything that drips from the lips of government officials today.

• Our military action in Libya is not a ‘no-fly zone” operation, it is an unconstitutional war intended to topple the Libyan government.

• The economic stimulus spending is not designed to return America to free-market prosperity, but rather to destroy any chance of future free-market prosperity.

• The mortgage crisis was not created by bad lenders; it was created by bad federal government lending requirements, which still persist today.

• Our debt crisis was not caused by greedy rich capitalists who do not pay their fair share in taxes; it was caused by more than seventy years of gross irresponsible government mismanagement that far exceeds the crimes of Bernie Madoff.

• President Obama issued a second false birth certificate after swearing for two-and a half years that the first forged COLB was his birth certificate, an outright lie, twice.

• Natural Born Citizen does not mean “born in Hawaii.” It means born the natural blood offspring of legal U.S. citizen father, and Obama does not pass the test. But nobody in the press will ask the right question – was his daddy ever a legal U.S. citizen?

• Democrats did not free the slaves, they fought against it. Republicans freed the slaves.

• Patriotic Americans are not terrorists; the people who fear American patriots are terrorists.

• Our government does not work to free people; it works to enslave people.

• The people don’t answer to the government; the government answers to the people.

• Our immigration system is not broken; it’s simply not enforced. A direct violation of constitutional law and U.S. sovereignty and security, and yet another lie.

We may or may not have recently killed Osama Bin Laden. The people trust nothing that their government tells them today and that’s because their government has a track record of lying to the people all day, every day, on every issue.

Patriotic Americans have been sending a clear message to Washington DC elites for a few years now, stop the lies and stop destroying our country. But Washington DC still isn’t listening, even after the 2010 landslide shift in legislative power.

Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible

There are two sides to this famous JFK quote and both sides must be heeded…

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” – This might be the most important statement ever made by John F. Kennedy. It is certainly the most unavoidably true statement he ever made.

If American patriots make it impossible for the current regime to complete their anti-American mission peacefully, forever altering our form of government into some insane international social justice experiment, I predict that they will become violent towards the American people in order to complete their revolution. They will do worse than they condemn Middle East regimes for doing today.

On the other hand, if the ruling class legal beagles persist in denying the people any peaceful remedy to the tyrannical theft of their country, I expect that sooner or later, the people will resort to violence as well. JFK’s point well made – on both sides of the battle for the future of America - “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.”

Without the Consent of the Governed

Our government is legitimate only when it operates with the vast consent of the governed. Today, more than 60% of Americans opposes pretty much everything going on in Washington DC.

• More than 70% want an immediate stop to deficit spending and debt building
• 59% want federal funding cut off to illegal aliens and sanctuary cities
• 57% want ObamaCare repealed in total
• Only 1 in 4 have an overall favorable view of their federal government
• 57% believe America has been changed for the worse
• More than 75% still disapprove of congress even after the 2010 election
• Only 26% strongly support Obama
• Less than 40% of citizens trust either Eric Holder or Janet Napolitano
• Less than 40% trust the U.S. Supreme Court

The bottom line here is that citizens are fast losing faith, trust and confidence in their elected servants and that is largely due to a steady diet of overt lies from those servants, their anti-American policies and a total disregard for the will of the people or consent of the governed.

Worse yet, they are losing hope that there is any peaceful solution to the intentional dismantling of everything they believe in.

When the people lose total faith and all hope in a peaceful solution, nobody is going to like what happens next, least of all the governing elite.

What they thought they could control with fancy teleprompter speeches full of lies or carefully crafted violations of the rule of law aimed at silencing their critics, will in the end, make the uprisings in the Middle East look like a day at Disney.

No American in his or her right mind would call for or hope for violence as a solution to anything. But when liberty is the only thing left to lose, and no peaceful remedies exist, violence becomes just as predictable as JFK suggested.

Like most Americans, I had hoped to live a full life without ever seeing this day come in my country. But when all peaceful means of preserving freedom fail, freedom will be preserved by any methods available.

I’m afraid that the ruling class elite have overlooked the reality that Americans are cut from the cloth of freedom and liberty. No matter to odds, no matter the cost, Americans will be free. For if Americans are not free, no man, women or child on earth will be free.

The outcome is certain, but the cost is not yet known. My hope is that the people will act peacefully, before only violent options remain.

I pray that the ruling elite come to their senses and realize that when the people lose all faith in the system the rulers have destroyed, the rules of engagement have changed as well. May God have no mercy on their souls if they push Americans into that corner…

The day of reckoning draws near.

© 2011 JB Williams - All Rights Reserved

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

Ron Paul: Less Lonely These Days


Ron Paul: Less Lonely These Days
By John Stossel
5/11/2011
 
The man who likely has done more than anyone to put the libertarian philosophy of freedom and small government on the political agenda probably will make another run for the presidency: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul.

Paul is always upbeat, but lately he's had more reason to be, as he sees libertarian ideas bubbling up from the grass roots.

"People outside of Washington are waking up," he told me, "and they're getting the attention of a few in Washington."

Paul has been in Congress more than 20 years, and much of that time he's played a lonely role, often being the only representative to cast "no" vote on bills to expand government.

"Twenty years ago, there weren't very many people around that would endorse these views. So ... I'm very pleased with what's happening. There are more now, but the problems are so much greater."

Because bigger government creates built-in resistance to cuts.

"Everybody has their bailiwick they want to protect: 'We know the spending is bad. But don't touch my stuff.'"

The biggest growth is in entitlements. Recently, after constituents yelled at them, Republicans backed off on their reasonable plan to try to make Medicare sustainable.

"This is one of the places where good conservatives and good libertarians have come up short. ... We get a bad rap that we lack compassion. A liberal who wants to take your money and give it to somebody else ... grab(s) the moral high ground."

At the recent Conservative Political Action Conference, Paul floated a novel idea: "Would you consider opting out of the whole system under one condition? You pay 10 percent of your income, but you take care of yourself -- don't ask the government for anything."

The CPAC crowed applauded. But liberals like MSNBC's Chris Matthews mocked him, sneering that anyone who accepted Paul's offer would have no access to federal highways, air safety, food inspection, cancer research or defense.

Paul laughs at Matthews' shallow criticism. Ever the constitutionalist, he'd like to privatize the federal highways someday, but he notes that even now they are largely financed by the gasoline tax -- essentially a user fee. As for air and food safety, he's sure the airlines and food companies have no desire to kill their customers and that careless companies would be disciplined by competition and the tort system. He claims that government stands in the way of a lot of cancer research.

In other words, it's foolish to assume that just because the government doesn't do something, that it wouldn't be done at all.

"(Matthews is) using fear," Paul said. "They all do that ... use fear to intimidate."

A member of my studio audience asked Paul about the coming vote to raise the debt ceiling.

"They're probably going to ... (but) we shouldn't raise it. We should put pressure on them. If you took away the privilege of the Federal Reserve to buy debt, this thing would all come to an end because if you couldn't print the money to pay for the Treasury bills, interest rates would go up and Congress then would be forced (to cut spending)."

But smart people say we need the Fed to keep the economy going.

"The people who benefit from big government spending love the Fed. ... The Fed is very, very detrimental. You cannot have big, runaway government -- you cannot have these deficits -- if you don't have the Fed."

We libertarians say government is too big, but one thing it is supposed to do is provide for the common defense. Paul criticizes conservatives who support an aggressive foreign policy and says much of what is called "defense" is really offense. "I don't want to cut any defense," he said.

He added: "You could cut (the military budget) in half and even (more) later on because there's nobody likely to attack us. Who's going to invade this country?"

Ever the optimist, Paul says, "We have a tremendous opportunity now because most people realize government's failing ... ."

Yet he's a realist: "I think ... our problems are going to get worse ... before we correct them."


http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2011/05/11/ron_paul_less_lonely_these_days

Re: Obama turns down 900 billion dollar savings

It also means fewer bodies sitting in overpriced jobs in Washington, D.C.

On 05/11/2011 12:37 AM, Keith In Köln wrote:
Nevertheless, it's true.   What logical reason would the Obama Administration turn down this offer from IBM?  The only reason that I can think of, is that the Obama Administration, just like all Democrats, do not want to end Medicaid or Medicare fraud.  This would hurt their constituency.
 


 
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Jonathan <jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
That information is seven months old.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/enterprise-architecture/227700214


On 05/09/2011 03:10 PM, JSM wrote:
IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free... The offer is true.  Zukermann, US News and World Report, owner, a Democrat was interviewed on Fox and confirmed it. IBM has confirmed it. You won't believe it .
It would save 900 Billion and Obama turned them down

IBM offered to help reduce Medicare fraud for free...
--
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.
Catch weekly reviews of the hottest games on such video games consoles as the
Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii, PSP, PS2, PC and DS. Only on Mevio!
http://click.lavabit.com/3944j98brk1bm5w536x9gw48qo98ugwdhf7rgf4xixzii4kduj8b/

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.
--
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.

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

NPR and its reporting on its own reporting as seen by the ombudsman

Question I have is whether this was also reported during regular
broadcasting of that particular program. If not, why not. If a
reporters screws up a story then the network should admit it at a time
and place that agrees with the initial wrong reporting. Makes you
wonder just how much bad reporting gets through without comment to the
general public, just in this blog column.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2011/05/10/135988273/a-grizzly-bear-story-with-too-many-leaps-and-not-enough-skepticism?ft=1&f=17370252

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

John,

By "fair" I assume you mean "equality of terms; equity; as the fairness of a contract."

How do you propose to accomplish such fairness? Any scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life is socialism/communism - the very thing you "claim" to abhor.



On 05/10/2011 10:22 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points. Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair, not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are.  Wal-Mart started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores, until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing plan.  A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the company and had several million dollars in the bank.  That sort of fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.  I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do— the compensation needs to be tops.  In the long run, everyone in the employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at the bottom or at the top.  — John A. Armistead — Patriot. 
 
On May 10, 11:59 am, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 
John,  Repeat after me: Donald Trump is a socialist. From a 2009 interview about whether there should be executive pay limits:  Larry King: Is Obama right or wrong to go after these executives with salary caps?  Donald Trump: Well, I think he's absolutely right. Billions of dollars is being given to banks and others. You know, once you start using taxpayer money, it's a whole new game. So I absolutely think he's right.  That's socialism Einstein.  On 05/09/2011 11:38 PM, NoEinstein wrote:          
Republican presidential contenders are gearing-up to fight-it-out for the right to run against� �Obama� in 2012.  Every one of those should be required to answer this question: �Is it FAIR to have hugely expensive primaries spread over months, with the most �power� going to the voters in the corn state of� Iowa?  Answer:  Hell NO!  Nor is it FAIR to allow political parties to have any say-so, whatsoever, regarding who the contenders can be, and how the country will be run once the �winning party� has been decided. 
 
Rep. Ron Paul, that sunken-cheek retread from the 2008 election, has already raised a million dollars�probably earmarked for brown-nosing the farmers of Iowa for a chance to become President.  Paul�s early polling lead among the announced candidates has him positioned much as he was four years ago.  The same anti-war, less-government crowd who filled his coffers with hard cash, must still be impressed by his unwavering positions on most issues.  When Paul withdrew in 2008, he said, �Elections are over quickly.  Winning a revolution will take a bit longer.�  But instead of leading a revolution, Paul settled back into business as usual in our broken and corrupt, party-dominated government.  Anyone so corrupted could never lead this country in the new direction needed. 
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano, filling in for a flagging Glenn Beck, asked a guest this question: �Who among the possible Republican presidential candidates do you think Barack Obama would LEAST like to run against?�  The answer to that question isn�t as important as the fact Napolitano is so matter-of-fact that Barack Obama will still be in office, let alone be a candidate for President in 2012.  My above average computer graphics experience leads me to conclude that both of Obama�s purported birth certificates are bogus.  *** In a very public and straightforward way, the US Secret Service should conduct a definitive investigation of all �birther� issues, lest they continue to �protect� a scoundrel who isn�t a bona fide President of the USA. Napolitano shows his naivet� by recommending we vote for candidates desiring smaller, lower cost Government who will support� the Constitution.  Over the decades, the Constitution has been ritually praised.  But that document was so WEAK that our government evolved away from being the Representative Republic the Founding Fathers surely wanted to mandate.  My New Constitution is strength (control over what goes on in Washington) made manifest! 
 
Donald Trump is being �tagged� a �birther� and a �racist� by Mort Zuckerman�s NY news paper.  Liberals call it a conspiracy that anyone would wish to apply the same level of technical facility to analyzing two questionable birth certificates, as was used to assess the Shroud of Turin, or the remains of King Tut.  The long form birth certificate, which Obama released to the press, was a *.PDF file, not a photocopy of an original.  That file was clearly LAYERS of PDF files placed one over the other to form a composite, counterfeit certificate.  Detractors of scientific reason, such as my own and the hundreds of others like me, like to state that �The officials of the State of Hawaii have confirmed that the birth certificate is real.� Great!  (Gag, gag.)  Objective, concerned Americans are expected to defer to the word of officials in perhaps THE most liberal state in the union.  And only one corrupt official would be needed to unbind and stitch-in a bogus certificate. 
 
I found it most interesting that a supposed girlfriend of the daughter of the Dr. Sinclair, who purportedly delivered Obama, recalled, *** after half a century *** a dinner conversation like this: �What interesting things have happened to you this week, Dr.� 
 
�Oh, I gave birth to a kid named Barack Hussein Obama.  Isn�t that a pretty name!  His mother is named Stanley, like I�m searching in my family genealogy.� 
 
That girlfriend then went on to say that she was �the last surviving person who remembers Obama�s birth.�  Yeah, right.  And that aunt of Obama who was at his birth in Kenya, must have had a� flawed memory. And wasn�t a Kenya birth certificate shown to be fake?  Or� was a fake birth certificate PLANTED to discredit those seeking the truth? 
 
*** Donald Trump is�in my well-considered opinion�the most qualified person to be President.  I view his being a government outsider as a 200% advantage, because, as has been the case with Ron Paul, the corruption of the rituals of Washington runs deep for those who�ve been there too long.  Trump commented that his running as an independent might actually help Obama by drawing votes from the� Republican candidate.  But know this, Mr. Trump: When Obama�s birth certificates and etc. are recognized as being fake, no candidate needs to fear helping Obama win.  Political parties are UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the present Constitution.  So, all primaries and runoffs should rightfully be held on the dates spelled out in my New Constitution: �The 3rd Tuesday in July, voters of all the states and territories shall reduce the field of presidential candidates to 8, with the incumbent Pres.&  VP to be included in such number, if applicable. The 3rd Tuesday in October, voters shall reduce the field to four, with the incumbent Pres. and VP not automatically included.  The 1st Tuesday in November, each voter selects their 1st&  2nd choices�points 4 and 3 respectively.  The President and Vice President Elect receive the highest the 2nd highest total points.� 
 
It�s obvious that few in the media, including at Fox News, want Obama�s birth certificate to be shown to be fake.  Glenn Beck calls the �birthers� a conspiracy.  And Beck discredits my calling Obama the �Manchurian Candidate,� saying, simply, that isn�t so.  With regularity, Beck talks about America needing� �manafacturing� (sic) jobs.  And he says� �If they �would have� done that�� rather than saying, correctly, if they HAD done that.�  Beck�s regularly making grammatical errors like those, places his IQ at between 90 and 95�too low to understand the figurative meaning in calling Obama the Manchurian Candidate. 
 
Those in the media, such as Britt Hume, Mort Zuckerman and Andrew Napolitano, want to stampede the voters into believing there will be business as usual in government.  Nothing would so �shake up� the media and our corrupt two-party government as having overwhelming acceptance that Obama is indeed a FORGER as well as a bribe-giver and taker.  He did the latter things in arranging the endorsements of the Clintons, and others, to allow him to become our� Manchurian Candidate President. 
 
The (White) House cleaning that this country so needs, should be the end of business as usual in Washington, and the beginning of our rebirth as a prosperous nation! 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
� John A. Armistead �  Patriot 
 
AKA NoEinstein on Google�s sci.physics news group. 
 --        Freedom is always illegal!  When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free. 
 

--

Freedom is always illegal!

When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we have any possibility of being free.

newsletter dated 9 May 2001


Mr. Walden,

    My thanks to the fighting citizens of this Union for their part in the ending of one chapter of our "war on terrorism".  But i have some serious questions concerning the death of bin Laden.  First off, yes, it has been ten years but we 'got him'...at what cost?  This man was NEVER charged with ANY connection to the attacks of 11 September 2001, yet we have invaded a sovereign nation to get him.  And how much MONEY was squandered in FINDING him?

    As for HEAT...just what we need, to pay for ANOTHER committee.  If you want to help small business, get out of the WAY.  Allow the small businessman to conduct his local business WITHOUT federal government interference.  IF a person conducts 'business' and his business is with local individuals, even if he IMPORTS his product, the only part the Federal government should have ANY say about is the import...not where the import was built, not where the components of the import came from, not how the components of the import were grown.  only the FINISHED imported product, and only with the EXporting company.

    To get veterans to sign up for the new VA website, how about allowing the VA rep at EVERY STATE UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE deal with signing up local vets?  after all, they are ALREADY in the area, and are already dealing with VETS.





sign me
daniel karl seigler, born in Fort Benning, Cussetta County, Georgia, son of
Clarance Roland O'Neil Seigler, born in Ozark, Dale County, Alabama, son of
Thomas Malcolm Seigler, born somewhere in Alabama


Michael Gerson’s Attack on Ron Paul


Tuesday, May 10, 2010
Michael Gerson's Attack on Ron Paul
by Jacob G. Hornberger

Michael Gerson's attack on Ron Paul in Tuesday's Washington Post confirms, once again, that the real battle facing our nation is between statists and libertarians.

Gerson is your standard conservative. He worked at the Heritage Foundation and then as a speechwriter for President George W. Bush.

Not surprisingly, Gerson is a proponent of the 40-year-old war on drugs. It's not surprising because most conservatives favor the war on drugs. Conservative icon Bill Buckley was a rare exception with his support of ending the drug war.

In his column Gerson took Ron Paul, and implicitly libertarians in general, to task for calling for an end to the drug war and other crimes that do not involve the initiation of violence. Gerson specifically pointed to Paul's call to end the drug war during the recent presidential debate in South Carolina.

In the debate, Paul compared the freedom to use drugs with the freedom of people to practice their religion. That reasoning confounds Gerson, who is a devout Christian. He simply cannot understand why a society that tolerates religious liberty and diversity should also tolerate the right of people to buy, sell, possess, and use heroin and other illicit drugs.

What Gerson doesn't understand or appreciate is that a free society does not turn on the right of people to engage only in the activities that are commonly accepted. The true test of a free society is whether people are free to do what is not popularly accepted, especially when most everyone considers the activity to be irresponsible, immoral, dangerous, or self-destructive, so long as the conduct is peaceful.

Thus, in the religious realm people are free to worship Satan, even though most people would not approve of that. The principle is the same with respect to freedom of speech. People are free to embrace and promote Nazism or communism, even though the majority of people would not approve.

The use of heroin, cocaine, or any other drug falls into the same category. As Paul points out, a consistent defense of the principles of freedom entails an ardent defense of the right to buy, sell, possess, or consume drugs, even though most people might not approve of the activity.

Thus, the true test of a free society is not whether people are free to do what is popularly accepted but rather whether they are free to do what is not popularly accepted, especially conduct that is considered by others to be irresponsible, immoral, dangerous, or self-destructive, but with one important condition: the conduct must be peaceful. That is, no murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc.

And that's precisely where Gerson goes wrong in his analysis. He converts what is known as the libertarian non-aggression principle from a prohibition against the initiation of coercion or force into an injunction against harm. Thus, Gerson argues, since drugs cause harm in terms of addiction, libertarianism fails to meet its own standard.

But libertarians have never held that the free society ­ and the free choices that such a society necessarily entails ­ does not produce harmful results. On the contrary, of course it does. That's part of what it means to be living in a free society. If there are no harmful consequences arising from people's non-violent choices, then you can be certain that people are not living in a free society.

Consider alcohol and tobacco, two drugs that Gerson oddly does not mention in his column. When people are free to consume these two drugs, all sorts of harm results: alcoholism, family abuse, drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, lung cancer, and second-hand smoke.

Would libertarians advocate prohibition for booze and cigarettes simply because they cause harm to society? Absolutely not because, again, libertarians understand that with freedom comes peaceful choices, many of which produce harmful consequences, including such things as the worshiping of Satan, the embrace of Nazism or communism, or ingesting substances that cause bodily harm.

Gerson also took Paul to task for pointing out most people are not anxiously awaiting the drug war to be ended so that they can begin shooting heroin into their veins. Gerson construed that to mean that Paul was mocking people in those echelons of society where people are addicted to heroin and other drugs.

But that's a ridiculous conclusion to be drawn from the point Paul was making. Paul was simply pointing out the obvious: people who don't take drugs aren't doing so because of drug laws.

The corollary point, of course, is that people who are taking drugs are doing so despite the drug laws.

And that's the point that Gerson never addresses. Despite 40 years of drug warfare, drug use has still not been eradicated from society. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Drugs are plentiful for those who want them, notwithstanding the illegality that Gerson no doubt would like to see continued for another 40 years.

Gerson also fails to address (or take responsibility for) the horrific consequences of the war on drugs, including the 45,000 innocent people killed in Mexico during the past 5 years of fierce drug warfare, the robberies, muggings, and killings associated with the exorbitant black-market prices for drugs, the rise of the drug cartels, the gang wars, police and judicial corruption, infringements on civil liberties and privacy, and all the ruined lives of people serving long terms in the penitentiary for nothing.

"Judge us conservative drug warriors by our good intentions, not by the actual results of our policies," Gerson would undoubtedly respond.

Like other conservatives, Gerson has undoubtedly used the old conservative mantra "free enterprise, private property, and limited government" countless times in his articles, columns, and speeches. Unfortunately, he failed to use his column attacking Ron Paul to reconcile that favorite conservative mantra with the drug war. For that matter, wouldn't it have been nice if Gerson had explained how drug laws can be reconciled with God's great gift of free will?

Statism, whether conservative-style or liberal-style, has proven to be a disastrous and deadly failure. That shouldn't surprise anyone, given that God has created a consistent universe, one in which a bad tree will produce rotten fruit. It is only by restoring libertarianism to our land that we can restore freedom, harmony, and prosperity to our land. A good place to start would be by ending the drug war.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-05-11.asp

Not Even the Sky Is the Limit

"Although there would be nothing wrong with a private space shuttle, there should be no government space shuttle. And that's not all. There should be no government space program to begin with. The only justifiable purpose of government is for the protection of life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. There are no other legitimate reasons. Space exploration and experimentation are no more legitimate purposes of government than providing health care to the poor (Medicaid) or the aged (Medicare), micro-managing personal behavior, publishing dietary guidelines, undertaking scientific research, fluoridating the water supply, banning unpasteurized dairy products, or mandating that car dealers close on Sunday."

Not Even the Sky Is the Limit
by Laurence M. Vance, May 11, 2011

The scheduled launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour last month was supposed to be notable, not just because it was to be the last launch of this particular shuttle, but because of two special guests who traveled to the Space Center to witness the now-delayed launch.

President Obama traveled to Florida for the launch, as did Gabrielle Giffords, the member of Congress who was shot on January 8 in Tucson, Arizona. Giffords is the ranking Democrat on the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. She is also the wife of Mark Kelly, the pilot of the Space Shuttle.

The first shuttle, named Columbia, was launched in 1981. After twenty-seven more missions, it disintegrated upon re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, killing all seven of its crew members. The shuttle Challenger was first launched in 2003. On its tenth mission in 1986, it broke apart 73 seconds into its takeoff, killing all seven of its crew members. The shuttle Discovery was retired earlier this year after 39 flights into space. The shuttle Atlantis will fly its thirty-third and last mission this summer. The shuttle Endeavour that was supposed to launch last month has already made twenty-four flights. All told, there have been 133 Space Shuttle missions.

Everyone seems to support the Space Shuttle program. When President Obama visited the Kennedy Space Center last year and addressed NASA workers, self-proclaimed fiscally conservative Tea Party members demonstrated outside about the president's supposed scrapping of the government's space program. A demonstrator with Space Coast Patriots said she didn't have a problem reconciling her Tea Party beliefs with her support for more NASA spending.

Total spending on the Space Shuttle program is estimated to reach about $175 billion when the last shuttle is retired later this year. The program occupies over 654 facilities, uses over 1.2 million line items of equipment, valued at over $12 billion, and employs over 5,000 workers. The costs related to each Shuttle launch are over a billion dollars.

The Space Shuttle program has been criticized for failing to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, safety issues, deadly accidents, low launch rates, complex maintenance requirements, and failing to reduce the cost and increase the reliability of space access.

These things may all be true, they may all not be true, or some of them may be true and some of them may not be true. To the libertarian, these things are all irrelevant.

Although there would be nothing wrong with a private space shuttle, there should be no government space shuttle. And that's not all. There should be no government space program to begin with. The only justifiable purpose of government is for the protection of life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. There are no other legitimate reasons. Space exploration and experimentation are no more legitimate purposes of government than providing health care to the poor (Medicaid) or the aged (Medicare), micro-managing personal behavior, publishing dietary guidelines, undertaking scientific research, fluoridating the water supply, banning unpasteurized dairy products, or mandating that car dealers close on Sunday.

But regardless of what Americans may want the federal government to do, a simple reading of the Constitution is all it takes to see that 95 percent of everything the government does is illegitimate. The Constitution doesn't even authorize the federal government to make internal improvements like constructing canals, roads, and bridges. President James Madison, in 1817, vetoed a public works bill for this very reason:
I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.
Conservatives who recognize that the federal government has no business providing health care, welfare, and school lunches are woefully inconsistent when they support a government-run and government-financed space program.

But what about the supposed benefits of the space program to science, medicine, and engineering? Just like the supposed benefits brought about military spending, the supposed benefits of the space program are used to justify its cost. According to NASA:
Technology transfer has been a mandate for NASA since the agency was established by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. The act requires that NASA provide the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and results. It also provides NASA with the authority to patent inventions to which it has title. The term "spinoff"was invented to describe specific technologies developed by NASA for its missions that are transferred for commercial use or some other beneficial application. Thus far, NASA has documented more than 1,500 spinoff success stories.
But it should be noted that NASA has been incorrectly credited with inventing a host of things like Tang, Velcro, the microwave oven, Teflon, nylon, semiconductors, microprocessors, and integrated circuits. The first liquid-fueled rocket was invented thirty years before the government even created NASA. And despite what we hear about the merits of the space program and all the technological achievements it has wrought, there is actually no way to tell what the space program has done for society.

But regardless of what benefits the space program has or hasn't given to the world, there is still no philosophical or constitutional justification for the U.S. government's having a space program. If an exception can be made for the space program, when there is no constitutional authority for the government to conduct any scientific exploration, experimentation, or investigation, then an exception can be made for anything.

As a last resort, the importance of NASA to national security is sometimes cited. God only knows how much evil has been perpetrated by the U.S. government in the name of national security. But the space program was never about national security. It was always about national pride and funneling taxpayer dollars to privileged scientists, researchers, and contractors.

There is absolutely no reason why space exploration and experimentation could not be handled on a voluntary basis on the free market. Back in October of 2004, the privately funded SpaceShipOne climbed to an altitude of over 70 miles, becoming the first manned private spaceflight and winning a $10 million prize for doing so. The government space program has likewise overshadowed other private space-related achievements. Private space shuttles, private rockets, private satellites, private trips into space, private trips to the moon -- in the absence of a government monopoly and market restrictions, not even the sky is the limit.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1105g.asp

Fwd: What is he running for??????????????????? That is a good question

    Wonder if he is thinking of running for mayor of NYC

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: What is he running for???????????????????
Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 12:54:25 -0400
From: Kerwin, Michael Contractor <Michael.Kerwin@ssa.gov>
To: 'dick thompson' <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>


 

Re: Newt Gingrich, Weasel


I was merely following your rubric (as you likely understood).
I have never disappeared.

Regard$,
--MJ

"One horse-laugh is worth ten thousand syllogisms." -- H.L. Mencken





At 11:52 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Michael, 
 
Do you kiss your Mama with that Mouth? 
 
Every time I have ever offered tangible, hard proof and evidence, you usually disappear for a day or two.
 
Didn't want to scare ya off.
 


 
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:24 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
At 03:35 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Like most Moonbats,  Tom Woods ignores most all of Gingrich's positions on a number of issues.  


Like most cock-sucking apparatchiks (is that how this forum 'rolls'?), Keith offers NOTHING tangible in his fallacious effort.

Regard$,
--MJ

Much 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 Sowell



 
KeithInKöln

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
Question still unresolved.
Newt's book, "Gettysburg", I HIGHLY, recommend.   Superb!
On May 10, 9:33 am, plainolamerican < plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> like Obama, he will say anything for votes
>
> he's been a disgrace to his party and his family
>
> noQuestion stilt someone I'd like to see as potus
>
> On May 10, 7:57 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I will be interested to see if any lefties embrace this piece, and
> > realize whom and what the are embracing
>
> > On May 9, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> May9thNewt Gingrich, WeaselTom Woods
> > > Check outBohis b Wenzel s brief but very sharp analysisof Newt Gingrich s weasel platform that avoids discussing spending cuts on the grounds that first we have to get things moving again, etc.  All I would add to Bob s analysis is what I wrote about Gingrich inRollback: his record is horrendous.  Of course, the media portrays him as some kind of strict free-marketeer, since that s the media s job: define the range of opinion in such a way as to exclude genuine friends of freedom.  For if you are to the right of Newt Gingrich -- and, citizen, we have already told you Newt is as free market as they come! -- you must be some kind of extremist !  In fact, you probably don t exist. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/newt-gingrich-weasel-2/xxx
> > > Monday, May 9, 2011Gingrich to Announce Presidential RunPosted by Robert Wenzel at 11:38 AM
> > > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,according to his spokesman.
>
> > wiThe Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on
> > any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
>
> > > A Gingrichsnippet:The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policiesAside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/gingrich-to-announce-pre...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.

--
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.

**JP** Job Announcement - F&A Officer

 
Dear all,
 
Please, find attched job advertisment of F&A Officer.
 
regards,
 
Zubair Khan
HR Officer


Selection of computer cartoons




 


 






-
Description:                                                           cid:CB91872A6E1A43BA9AF4AF44E6B797B8@NormaPC



Ever had days like these?

If not, you haven't had a computer long enough. 







Description: cid:EB68A442C9184F40BECA75EAC0D434B2@NormaPC



Description: cid:FAFDEDD328D04D70B3F8C22A7AEC5C21@NormaPC





Description: cid:5CCB2F010655419586665DB33A9F8A70@NormaPC






Description: cid:550EFF4B6F844C6ABD50BB77084978C3@NormaPC






Description: cid:DC043C113B9C4D2D84095E95F2A28338@NormaPC







Description: cid:448F7E1EC7F6407699C0E00443597B7E@NormaPC





Description: cid:6C3CAA46271D4936A2DA64CA12F2E674@NormaPC






Description: cid:C5112D51FD47471A9765C6CBDB1B604D@NormaPC


Description: cid:5BFF0E503D6D4468BE9EEBEBEE4C5625@NormaPC







Description: cid:1FB82B43095C46CCA6FF05F4991D4EFD@NormaPC









Description:                                                           cid:ED87B98D7F7C44A0A23B1F81568C8A6F@NormaPC





Description: cid:020A1C5318424809BE7E3BFD2ACA6A13@NormaPC





Description: cid:E1D799CF13C94FABA766A1131F28B964@NormaPC





Description: cid:C7FD3B202D6D442AAE5A11CE94058D4B@NormaPC




Description: cid:6DAB97E38700459ABA3BFD4B3A74D129@NormaPC




Description: cid:CB76A61982AA472CBF12ABB0BDF68DC3@NormaPC





Description: cid:17077A32659D4958996A67B037BA84E0@NormaPC





Description: cid:E6629AF96B79416CB6A7E38FDA2B72D8@NormaPC

 

 
 



--
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.

Best and worst states for business (hint: largely red vs. blue states)





Daily Update: Best and worst states for business (hint: largely red vs. blue states)

Link to Conservative Outpost

Best and worst states for business (hint: largely red vs. blue states)

Posted: 10 May 2011 11:37 AM PDT

More than 500 CEOs considered a wide range of criteria, from taxation and regulation to workforce quality and living environment, in our annual ranking of the best states for business. The charts and articles in this special report show how each state fares on the factors most essential for a business-friendly environment—as well as what states are doing to attract and retain companies in the increasingly competitive battle to win site selection.

While the Lone Star State may not be perfect—many leaders would like to see improvements in its education system—it is Periclean Athens compared to California in the eyes of the 550 CEOs surveyed for Chief Executive's seventh annual report on the best and worst states in which to do business. It's the seventh time in seven years running that Texas has led the states, and the seventh year California—to no one's great surprise—ranked as worst state.

But there has been some jockeying within the ranks. The Golden State was closely followed in the hall of shame by New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Michigan, with Illinois elbowing its way past New Jersey this year for the dubious distinction of third worst. Meanwhile, among the best states, Indiana jumped to sixth place from 16th in 2010, giving Hoosiers the third-biggest advance in the rankings in a single year.

Wisconsin and Louisiana posted the two biggest gains since 2010, with the latter, along with Oklahoma, also showing the biggest gains over the last five years. By proactively reshaping its posture toward business taxation and regulation, Louisiana has been quietly stealing pages from the Texas playbook.  read more »


You are subscribed to email updates from Conservative Outpost
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610


--
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: Newt Gingrich, Weasel

Michael, 
 
Do you kiss your Mama with that Mouth? 
 
Every time I have ever offered tangible, hard proof and evidence, you usually disappear for a day or two.
 
Didn't want to scare ya off.
 


 
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 4:24 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
At 03:35 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:
Like most Moonbats,  Tom Woods ignores most all of Gingrich's positions on a number of issues.  


Like most cock-sucking apparatchiks (is that how this forum 'rolls'?), Keith offers NOTHING tangible in his fallacious effort.

Regard$,
--MJ

Much 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 Sowell



 
KeithInKöln

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 3:48 PM, GregfromBoston <greg.vincent@yahoo.com > wrote:
Question still unresolved.

Newt's book, "Gettysburg", I HIGHLY, recommend.   Superb!

On May 10, 9:33 am, plainolamerican < plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> like Obama, he will say anything for votes
>
> he's been a disgrace to his party and his family
>
> noQuestion stilt someone I'd like to see as potus
>
> On May 10, 7:57 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I will be interested to see if any lefties embrace this piece, and
> > realize whom and what the are embracing
>
> > On May 9, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:> May9thNewt Gingrich, WeaselTom Woods
> > > Check outBohis b Wenzel s brief but very sharp analysisof Newt Gingrich s weasel platform that avoids discussing spending cuts on the grounds that first we have to get things moving again, etc.  All I would add to Bob s analysis is what I wrote about Gingrich inRollback: his record is horrendous.  Of course, the media portrays him as some kind of strict free-marketeer, since that s the media s job: define the range of opinion in such a way as to exclude genuine friends of freedom.  For if you are to the right of Newt Gingrich -- and, citizen, we have already told you Newt is as free market as they come! -- you must be some kind of extremist !  In fact, you probably don t exist. http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/newt-gingrich-weasel-2/xxx
> > > Monday, May 9, 2011Gingrich to Announce Presidential RunPosted by Robert Wenzel at 11:38 AM
> > > Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich will officially jump into the race for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday with announcements on Facebook and Twitter,according to his spokesman.
>
> > wiThe Gingrich campaign strategy appears to be that he will run not on
> > any principles, but more on the fact that he is not President Obama.
>
> > > A Gingrichsnippet:The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policiesAside from the attack on President Obama, the underlying message here is that Gingrich wants to balance the budget not by reducing government spending, but by increasing tax revenues through more jobs. In other words, Gingrich sees no problem with the current size of government. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/gingrich-to-announce-pre...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
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.

--
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.

Re: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

Dear MJ: The "ritual" has been that government controls things, and
thus should control businesses. Socialism, the anti-thesis of
'freedom of property' and civil liberties, gives the 'power' to those
who want something for nothing. In the example I gave to Jonathan,
Wal-mart, on its own, decided to let employees share in the profits.
There was no government edict that money be taken from management to
be given to those who don't even work for that company, nor even have
a job. Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. All of those must be privatized
EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise. Generally
speaking, no more than 5% of the non-employees of government should
ever get anything from government. In the case of Social Services,
such should be administered at the local and state levels, NEVER by
the federal government! — J. A. Armistead —
>
On May 11, 10:21 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.Really?
> Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
> What are the 'bad points'?Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
> workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
> not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. Endorsing socialism again, huh.
> What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?Wal-Mart
> started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
> until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
> job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
> plan.  A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
> company and had several million dollars in the bank.  That sort of
> fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
> But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
> building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
> the compensation needs to be tops.  In the long run, everyone in the
> employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
> the bottom or at the top.Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?
> FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing hereSalin on Sarkosy in the WSJMay 10, 2011 byPeter G. KleinAgreat op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:[I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.Regard$,
> --MJ
> "There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.

--
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: Empty Ritual is stymieing America’s hopes

MJ, Johnathon and the world of fairness need to go the next step......

It is ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR that the public should pay one cent more than the actual cost

of a product. Why is there a "profit". All a "Profit does is to rip off the consumer.


On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 8:21 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Dear Jonathan: In any economic system there are good and bad points.

Really?
Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
What are the 'bad points'?



Executive compensation, that has sometimes been at the expense of the
workers cranking out the products, should be based on what is fair,
not just who the supposed leaders of the corporations are. 

Endorsing socialism again, huh.
What is 'fair'? Who gets to decide? Why them?



Wal-Mart
started out giving financial incentives to the managers of the stores,
until the wife of the founder insisted that workers would do a better
job, and stay on those jobs longer if there was a profit sharing
plan.  A black janitor retired after forty or so years with the
company and had several million dollars in the bank.  That sort of
fairness doesn't sound like socialism, now, does it.

If you mean Walmart VOLUNTARILY and within THEIR business model utilized 'profit sharing', then no.
But having the Government FORCE businesses to do so ... is certainly socialism.



I can't speak for Donald Trump, but in order to get quality labor for
building quality real estate properties—as he knows so well how to do—
the compensation needs to be tops.  In the long run, everyone in the
employment hierarchy will benefit when fairness reigns for those at
the bottom or at the top.

Joe owns a business. He puts a sign in the window/on the lawn advertising that he needs employees. Pete applies for the job and agrees to wage X in exchange for task Y. Is Pete being paid fairly?



FRANCE is currently implementing the type of socialism you are endorsing here

Salin on Sarkosy in the WSJ
May 10, 2011 by Peter G. Klein
A great op-ed from Pascal Salin, the Mises Institute's 2008 Schlarbaum Laureate, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Writes Pascal:
[I]n his more recent statements and decisions Mr. Sarkozy seems to have tilted France even closer toward socialism than one might previously have thought possible. Last month, reiterating a theme that he first broached during his election campaign, the president declared that it is unfair that shareholders and owners get to keep all of a firm's profit, and that it would be more fair for company profits to be divided into three equal parts: one for shareholders, one for wage earners and one for reinvestment into the enterprise.

This proposal suggests that Mr. Sarkozy totally fails to understand the role and nature of profit or the workings of a capitalist firm. A firm's employees, like its lenders and suppliers, receive a fixed price, their wages, in return for what they supply to the business -- their labor. This wage is guaranteed whether the firm turns a profit or not. The owners, in exchange for taking the risk of loss, receive any residual income -- that is, what is left over from the business's revenue after the wages, suppliers and the rest have been paid. Saying that it is unfair that owners get the profit is as meaningless as it would be to say that it is unfair that wage-earners get all the wages.

Nevertheless, Mr. Sarkozy is now preparing to make his sense of fairness the law of the land. After some discussions about the precise features of this proposal, his government has now put forward a law that will force firms with more than 50 employees to pay them a bonus whenever profit increases from one year to the next. The precise amount of the bonus is to be negotiated with trade unions. And of course, unlike a business's owners, wage earners will share in the profit but not help bear the cost of any losses.



Regard$,
--MJ

"There is only one boss--the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else" -- Sam Walton.

--
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.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.



--
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.