California and the budget - so glad I do not live there!!

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/16/3704538/democrats-give-jerry-brown-majority.html

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives
Posted on June 16, 2011 by LHR Jr.

On the fundamental question of politics -- indeed, the only question -- liberals and conservatives are identical. They both see the state as providing the foundation and structure of society. They hold that pervasive official violence brings us civilization. Why, why, without it, we couldn't have wars, Wall Street bailouts, welfare, the FBI, CIA, IRS, EPA, and...marriage. According to conservative Ann Coulter, Ron Paul is to be traduced when he notes that in state-controlled areas, certain problems are insolvable.

Ron has his strong, traditional, religious view of marriage, but as a public official, should he impose it on others? Coulter tells us that marriage is a legal (meaning governmental) construct, and to argue that the church should control marriage and not the government is cowardly. Of course, throughout the history of mankind, marriage -- which far antedates the state -- was not a government monopoly. The French Revolution enshrined this montrous idea. What sets her and the rest of the Beltway sputtering is the power of the radical libertarian realism of Ron Paul -- in foreign affairs, economics, social policy, and so many other areas. It has captured the spirit of the young. This is Ron's great legacy. No wonder that state conservatism, like state liberalism, is feeling threatened. (Thanks to Jonathan Garthwaite)

Re: Obama is fit and trim!

The more you post, the more pathetic you get. Sarah Palin would kick
Obama's ass from now to eternity and not even be breathing hard. If
Obama is so athletic, then why does he pitch so badly. If you want an
athletic president, check out George W Bush. He was athletic. Obama is
a skinny girly man in comparison.

Stephen Stink wrote:
> Yep....tea fags are fat and ugly! Turn your heads! It's all that red
> state meat they eat! Poooo!
> Our president is athletic! Doncha Know? Sara Palin is soooo lazy? How
> lazy is she Stevie?
> She goes hunting from a helicopter! Doncha just love it?
> Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>

--
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 is fit and trim!

Yep....tea fags are fat and ugly! Turn your heads! It's all that red
state meat they eat! Poooo!
Our president is athletic! Doncha Know? Sara Palin is soooo lazy? How
lazy is she Stevie?
She goes hunting from a helicopter! Doncha just love it?
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
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: Yes, It Is a Police State

Law and Justice are not necessarily synonymous with right and wrong.

---

The Right to Ignore the State
by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)

Herbert Spencer was an incredible prophet and a magnificent defender of laissez-faire. Among his numerous works is The Man Versus The State, first published in 1884. That book launched one of the most spirited attacks on statism ever written. He ridiculed the idea that government intervention of any kind "will work as it is intended to work, which it never does." He drew on his tremendous knowledge of history, citing one dramatic case after another of price controls, usury laws, slum clearance laws, and myriad other laws which, touted as compassionate policies, intensified human misery. Below is one of his essays that explores the principles of self-government, which Henry David Thoreau defended in his seminal essay, Civil Disobedience.

The Right to Ignore the State

1. The Right to Voluntary Outlawry

As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state -- to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man's property against his will, is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment -- a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

2. The Immorality of the State

"No human laws are of any validity if contrary to the law of nature; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority mediately or immediately from this original." Thus writes Blackstone[1], to whom let all honour be given for having so far out seen the ideas of his time; and, indeed, we may say of our time. A good antidote, this, for those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good check upon that sentiment of power-worship which still misleads us by magnifying the prerogatives of constitutional governments as it once did those of monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not "our God upon earth," though, by the authority they ascribe to it, and the things they expect from it, they would seem to think it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose, whose power, when not stolen, is at the best borrowed.

Nay, indeed, have we not seen that government is essentially immoral? Is it not the offspring of evil, bearing about it all the marks of its parentage? Does it not exist because crime exists? Is it not strong, or as we say, despotic, when crime is great? Is there not more liberty, that is, less government, as crime diminishes? And must not government cease when crime ceases, for very lack of objects on which to perform its function? Not only does magisterial power exist because of evil; but it exists by evil. Violence is employed to maintain it; and all violence involves criminality. Soldiers, policemen, and gaolers; swords, batons, and fetters, are instruments for inflicting pain; and all infliction of pain is in the abstract wrong. The state employs evil weapons to subjugate evil, and is alike contaminated by the objects with which it deals, and the means by which it works. Morality cannot recognize it; for morality, being simply a statement of the perfect law can give no countenance to any thing growing out of, and living by, breaches of that law. Wherefore, legislative authority can never be ethical_must always be conventional merely.

Hence, there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the right position, structure, and conduct of a government by appeal to the first principles of rectitude. For, as just pointed out, the acts of an institution which is in both nature and origin imperfect, cannot be made to square with the perfect law. All that we can do is to ascertain, firstly, in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid being by its mere existence an embodied wrong; -- secondly, in what manner it must be constituted so as to exhibit the least incongruity with the moral law; -- and thirdly, to what sphere its actions must be limited to prevent it from multiplying those breaches of equity it is set up to prevent.

The first condition to be conformed to before a legislature can be established without violating the law of equal freedom, is the acknowledgment of the right now under discussion -- the right to ignore the state.[2]

3. The People as the Source of Power

Upholders of pure despotism may fitly believe state-control to be unlimited and unconditional. They who assert that men are made for governments and not governments for men, may consistently hold that no one can remove himself beyond the pale of political organization. But they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source of power -- that legislative authority is not original, but deputed -- cannot deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an absurdity.

For, if legislative authority is deputed, it follows that those from whom it proceeds are the masters of those on whom it is conferred: it follows further, that as masters they confer the said authority voluntarily: and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please. To call that deputed which is wrenched from men whether they will or not, is nonsense. But what is here true of all collectively is equally true of each separately. As a government can rightly act for the people, only when empowered by them, so also can it rightly act for the individual, only when empowered by him. If A, B, and C, debate whether they shall employ an agent to perform for them a certain service, and if whilst A and B agree to do so, C dissents, C cannot equitably be made a party to the agreement in spite of himself. And this must be equally true of thirty as of three: and if of thirty, why not of three hundred, or three thousand, or three millions?

4. Subordination of Government Authority

Of the political superstitions lately alluded to, none is so universally diffused as the notion that majorities are omnipotent. Under the impression that the preservation of order will ever require power to be wielded by some party, the moral sense of our time feels that such power cannot rightly be conferred on any but the largest moiety of society. It interprets literally the saying that "the voice of the people is the voice of God," and transferring to the one the sacredness attached to the other, it concludes that from the will of the people, that is of the majority, there can be no appeal. Yet is this belief entirely erroneous.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that, struck by some Malthusian panic, a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the next ten years should be drowned. Does any one think such an enactment would be warrantable? If not, there is evidently a limit to the power of a majority. Suppose, again, that of two races living together -- Celts and Saxons, for example -- the most numerous determined to make the others their slaves. Would the authority of the greatest number be in such case valid? If not, there is something to which its authority must be subordinate. Suppose, once more, that all men having incomes under 50 pounds a year were to resolve upon reducing every income above that amount to their own standard, and appropriating the excess for public purposes. Could their resolution be justified? If not, it must be a third time confessed that there is a law to which the popular voice must defer. What, then, is that law, if not the law of pure equity -- the law of equal freedom? These restraints, which all would put to the will of the majority, are exactly the restraints set up by that law. We deny the right of a majority to murder, to enslave, or to rob, simply because murder, enslaving, and robbery are violations of that law -- violations too gross to be overlooked. But if great violations of it are wrong, so also are smaller ones. If the will of the many cannot supersede the first principle of morality in these cases, neither can it in any. So that, however insignificant the minority, and however trifling the proposed trespass against their rights, no such trespass is permissible.

When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for this age, is a very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable. The freest form of government is only the least objectional form. The rule of the many by the few we call tyranny: the rule of the few by the many is tyranny also; only of a less intense kind. "You shall do as we will, and not as you will," is in either case the declaration: and if the hundred make it to the ninety-nine, instead of the ninety-nine to the hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of two such parties, whichever fulfills this declaration necessarily breaks the law of equal freedom: the only difference being that by the one it is broken in the persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is broken in the persons of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic form of government consists solely in this, that it trespasses against the smallest number.

The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law, we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise constituted -- implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied without sacrificing the desires of others -- implies that in the pursuit of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of unhappiness on the minority -- implies, therefore, organic immorality. Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even in its most equitable form it is impossible for government to dissociate itself from evil; and further, that unless the right to ignore the state is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.

5. The Limits of Taxation

That a man is free to abandon the benefits and throw off the burdens of citizenship, may indeed be inferred from the admissions of existing authorities and of current opinion. Unprepared as they probably are for so extreme a doctrine as the one here maintained, the radicals of our day yet unwittingly profess their belief in a maxim which obviously embodies this doctrine. Do we not continually hear them quote Blackstone's assertion that "no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defense of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament?" And what does this mean? It means, say they, that every man should have a vote. True: but it means much more. If there is any sense in words it is a distinct enunciation of the very right now contended for. In affirming that a man may not be taxed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent, it affirms that he may refuse to be so taxed; and to refuse to be taxed, is to cut all connection with the state. Perhaps it will be said that this consent is not a specific, but a general one, and that the citizen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do, when he voted for him. But suppose he did not vote for him; and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views -- what them? The reply will probably be that, by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority. And how if he did not vote at all? Why then he cannot justly complain of any tax, seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. So, curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted -- whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this. Here stands an unfortunate citizen who is asked if he will pay money for a certain proffered advantage; and whether he employs the only means of expressing his refusal or does not employ it, we are told that he practically agrees; if only the number of others who agree is greater than the number of those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that A's consent to a thing is not determined by what A says, but by what B may happen to say!

It is for those who quote Blackstone to choose between this absurdity and the doctrine above set forth. Either his maxim implies the right to ignore the state, or it is sheer nonsense.

6. On Civil and Religious Liberty

There is a strange heterogeneity in our political faiths. Systems that have had their day, and are beginning here and there to let the daylight through, are patched with modern notions utterly unlike in quality and colour; and men gravely display these systems, wear them, and walk about in them, quite unconscious of their grotesqueness. This transition state of ours, partaking as it does equally of the past and the future, breeds hybrid theories exhibiting the oddest union of bygone despotism and coming freedom. Here are types of the old organization curiously disguised by germs of the new -- peculiarities showing adaptation to a preceding state modified by rudiments that prophesy of something to come -- making altogether so chaotic a mixture of relationships that there is no saying to what class these births of the age should be referred.

As ideas must of necessity bear the stamp of the time, it is useless to lament the contentment with which these incongruous beliefs are held. Otherwise it would seem unfortunate that men do not pursue to the end the trains of reasoning which have led to these partial modifications. In the present case, for example, consistency would force them to admit that, on other points besides the one just noticed, they hold opinions and use arguments in which the right to ignore the state is involved.

For what is the meaning of Dissent? The time was when a man's faith and his mode of worship were as much determinable by law as his secular acts; and, according to provisions extant in our statute-book, are so still. Thanks to the growth of a Protestant spirit, however, we have ignored the state in this matter -- wholly in theory, and partly in practice. But how have we done so? By assuming an attitude which, if consistently maintained, implies a right to ignore the state entirely. Observe the positions of the two parties. "This is your creed," says the legislator; "you must believe and openly profess what is here set down for you." "I shall not do any thing of the kind," answers the non-conformist, "I will go to prison rather." "Your religious ordinances," pursues the legislator, "shall be such as we have prescribed. You shall attend the churches we have endowed, and adopt the ceremonies used in them." "Nothing shall induce me to do so," is the reply; "I altogether deny your power to dictate to me in such matters, and mean to resist to the uttermost." "Lastly," adds the legislator, "we shall require you to pay such sums of money toward the support of these religious institutions, as we may see fit to ask." "Not a farthing will you have from me," exclaims our sturdy Independent: "even did I believe in the doctrines of your church (which I do not), I should still rebel against your interference; and if you take my property, it shall be by force and under protest."

What now does this proceeding amount to when regarded in the abstract? It amounts to an assertion by the individual of the right to exercise one of his faculties -- the religious sentiment -- without let or hindrance, and with no limit save that set up by the equal claims of others. And what is meant by ignoring the state? Simply an assertion of the right similarly to exercise all the faculties. The one is just an expansion of the other -- rests on the same footing with the other -- must stand or fall with the other. Men do indeed speak of civil and religious liberty as different things; but the distinction is quite arbitrary. They are parts of the same whole and cannot philosophically be separated.

"Yes they can," interposes an objector; "assertion of the one is imperative as being a religious duty. The liberty to worship God in the way that seems to him right, is a liberty without which a man cannot fulfill what he believes to be Divine commands, and therefore conscience requires him to maintain it." True enough; but how if the same can be asserted of all other liberty? How if maintenance of this also turns out to be a matter of conscience? Have we not seen that human happiness is the Divine will -- that only by exercising our faculties is this happiness obtainable -- and that it is impossible to exercise them without freedom? And if this freedom for the exercise of faculties is a condition without which the Divine will cannot be fulfilled, the preservation of it is, by our objector's own showing, a duty. Or, in other words, it appears not only that the maintenance of liberty of action may be a point of conscience, but that it ought to be one. And thus we are clearly shown that the claims to ignore the state in religious and in secular matters are in essence identical.

The other reason commonly assigned for nonconformity, admits of similar treatment. Besides resisting state dictation in the abstract, the dissenter resists it from disapprobation of the doctrines taught. No legislative injunction will make him adopt what he considers an erroneous belief; and, bearing in mind his duty toward his fellow-men, he refuses to help through the medium of his purse in disseminating this erroneous belief. The position is perfectly intelligible. But it is one which either commits its adherents to civil nonconformity also, or leaves them in a dilemma. For why do they refuse to be instrumental in spreading error? Because error is adverse to human happiness. And on what ground is any piece of secular legislation disapproved? For the same reason -- because thought adverse to human happiness. How then can it be shown that the state ought to be resisted in the one case and not in the other? Will any one deliberately assert that if a government demands money from us to aid in teaching what we think will produce evil, we ought to refuse it; but that if the money is for the purpose of doing what we think will produce evil, we ought not to refuse it? Yet such is the hopeful proposition which those have to maintain who recognize the right to ignore the state in religious matters, but deny it in civil matters.

7. Progress Hindered by Lack of Social Morality

The substance of the essay once more reminds us of the incongruity between a perfect law and an imperfect state. The practicability of the principle here laid down varies directly as social morality. In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy. In a completely virtuous one its admission will be both innocuous and inevitable. Progress toward a condition of social health -- a condition, that is, in which the remedial measures of legislation will no longer be needed, is progress toward a condition in which those remedial measures will be cast aside, and the authority prescribing them disregarded. The two changes are of necessity coordinate. That moral sense whose supremacy will make society harmonious and government unnecessary, is the same moral sense which will then make each man assert his freedom even to the extent of ignoring the state -- is the same moral sense which, by deterring the majority from coercing the minority, will eventually render government impossible. And as what are merely different manifestations of the same sentiment must bear a constant ratio to each other, the tendency to repudiate governments will increase only at the same rate that governments become needless.

Let not any be alarmed, therefore, at the promulgation of the foregoing doctrine. There are many changes yet to be passed through before it can begin to exercise much influence. Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the State will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements, and so great a dread of experiments, that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so.

8. The Coming Decay of the State

It is a mistake to assume that government must necessarily last forever. The institution marks a certain stage of civilization -- is natural to a particular phase of human development. It is not essential, but incidental. As amongst the Bushmen we find a state antecedent to government, so may there be one in which it shall have become extinct. Already has it lost something of its importance. The time was when the history of a people was but the history of its government. It is otherwise now. The once universal despotism was but a manifestation of the extreme necessity of restraint. Feudalism, serfdom, slavery, all tyrannical institutions, are merely the most vigorous kinds of rule, springing out of, and necessary to, a bad state of man. The progress from these is in all cases the same -- less government. Constitutional forms means this. Political freedom means this. Democracy means this. In societies, associations, joint-stock companies, we have new agencies occupying big fields filled in less advanced times and countries by the State. With us the legislature is dwarfed by newer and greater powers -- is no longer master, but slave. "Pressure from without" has come to be acknowledged as ultimate ruler. The triumph of the Anti-Corn Law League is simply the most marked instance yet of the new style of government, that of opinion, overcoming the old style, that of force. It bids fair to become a trite remark that the law-maker is but the servant of the thinker. Daily is Statecraft held in less repute. Even the "Times" can see that "the social changes thickening around us establish a truth sufficiently humiliating to legislative bodies," and that "the great stages of our progress are determined rather by the spontaneous workings of society, connected as they are with the progress of art and science, the operation of nature, and other such unpolitical causes, than by the proposition of a bill, the passing of an act, or any other event of politics or of State." Thus, as civilization advances, does government decay. To the bad it is essential; to the good, not. It is the check which national wickedness makes to itself, and exists only to the same degree. Its continuance is proof of still-existing barbarism. What a cage is to the wild beast, law is to the selfish man. Restraint is for the savage, the rapacious, the violent; not for the just, the gentle, the benevolent. All necessity for external force implies a morbid state. Dungeons for the felon; a strait jacket for the maniac; crutches for the lame; stays for the weak-backed; for the infirm of purpose a master; for the foolish a guide; but for the sound mind in a sound body none of these. Were there no thieves and murderers, prisons would be unnecessary. It is only because tyranny is yet rife in the world that we have armies. Barristers, judges, juries, all the instruments of law, exist simply because knavery exists. Magisterial force is the sequence of social vice, and the policeman is but the complement of the criminal. Therefore it is that we call government "a necessary evil."

What then must be thought of a morality which chooses this probationary institution for its basis, builds a vast fabric of conclusions upon its assumed permanence, selects acts of parliament for its materials, and employs the statesman for its architect? The expediency-philosopher does this. It takes government into partnership, assigns to it entire control of its affairs, enjoins all to defer to its judgment, makes it, in short, the vital principle, the very soul, of its system. When Paley teaches that "the interest of the whole society is binding upon every part of it," he implies the existence of some supreme power by which "that interest of the whole society" is to be determined. And elsewhere he more explicitly tells us that for the attainment of a national advantage the private will of the subject is to give way, and that "the proof of this advantage lies with the legislature." Still more decisive is Bentham when he says that "the happiness of the individuals of whom a community is composed -- that is, their pleasures and their security -- is the sole end which the legislator ought to have in view, the sole standard in conformity with which each individual ought, as far as depends upon the legislature, to be made to fashion his behavior." These positions, be it remembered, are not voluntarily assumed; they are necessitated by the premises. If, as its propounder tells us, "expediency" means the benefit of the mass, not of the individual, -- of the future as much as of the present, -- it presupposes some one to judge of what will most conduce to that benefit. Upon the "utility" of this or that measure the views are so various as to render an umpire essential. Whether protective duties, or established religions, or capital punishments, or poor-laws, do or do not minister to the "general good" are questions concerning which there is such difference of opinion that, were nothing to be done till all agreed upon them, we might stand still to the end of time. If each man carried out, independently of a State power, his own notions of what would best secure "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," society would quickly lapse into confusion. Clearly, therefore, a morality established upon a maxim of which the practical interpretation is questionable involves the existence of some authority whose decisions respecting it shall be final, -- that is, a legislature. And without that authority such a morality must ever remain inoperative.

See here, then, the predicament, a system of moral philosophy professes to be a code of correct rules for the control of human beings -- fitted for the regulation of the best as well as the worst members of the race -- applicable, if true, to the guidance of humanity in its highest conceivable perfection. Government, however, is an institution originating in man's imperfection; an institution confessedly begotten by necessity out of evil; one which might be dispensed with were the world peopled with the unselfish, the conscientious, the philanthropic; one, in short, inconsistent with this same "highest conceivable perfection." How, then, can that be a true system of morality which adopts government as one of its premises?

Author's Endnotes

[1] Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) was the most renowned of English jurists.
[2] Hence may be drawn an argument for direct taxation; seeing that only when taxation is direct does repudiation of state burdens become possible.


On 06/16/2011 06:57 AM, plainolamerican wrote:

embrace the law and justice or suffer the consequences  On Jun 16, 7:12 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: 

The CallingYes, It Is a Police StateA line has been crossed.Steven Horwitz Posted June 16, 2011 As regular readers know, I'm not one for hyperbole, so perhaps some are thinking that my title is ironic. Nope, I mean it. An accumulation of events in recent months leads me to no other conclusion than that we are in fact living in a police state in the good old US of A. The list of reasons is fairly long, but we can certainly start with our favorite gropers at the TSA. In my ideal world, airline safety would be the responsibility of those with the most directly to lose financially from doing it poorly: the airlines and the airports. But even in a world where government has taken on that responsibility, we should be protected by the Fourth Amendment against "unreasonable" searches. It's one thing to walk through the standard metal detector, which seems reasonable, but when we are expected to pose virtually nude in a submissive position for government agents, and when refusing to do so earns you a feel-up that would count as sexual battery in most states, that is something else entirely. If I had told you 20 years ago that in 2011 this is what would happen every day to thousands of travelers including toddlers and the handicapped at U.S. airports, you would not have believed me. And on top of everything else,it doesn't work! It's mere "security theatre." When residents of the United States have a legitimate fear of being sexually abused by agents of the State when engaging in peaceful air travel, we live in a police state.SWAT TeamsAdd to this 1) the militarization of the police, with no-knock raids by full SWAT teams being the norm for everything from minor possession of marijuana tosuspected student-loan fraud, and 2) the Supreme Court's complicity in eviscerating the Fourth Amendment -- and two more pieces of the police state are in place. These raids often feature what writer Radley Balko calls "puppycides." The cops shoot and kill any dogs in the house routinely, regardless of their behavior. Of course the cops often raid the wrong house, terrifying inno cent people in the middle of the night and killingtheirdogs too. When residents of the United States have serious reason to fear the door being busted down in the middle of the night by armed agents of the State despite having done nothing wrong, we live in a police state. Then there's my experience this past week as I drove home from the airport in Syracuse, New York. The Border Patrol and the State Police had set up a roadblock on the county line about 30 miles from my house and at least 20 miles as the crow flies from the border with Canada. This is not uncommon, but this time two things were different. First, both groups of officers were fully armed. Second, they were asking questions. Normally they just peer into your car and let you go. This time, I was asked, "Where are you coming from?"; "Were you out of the state?"; and "Do you have luggage in your trunk?" They did not search the car, nor did they ask for ID (the latter probably because I'm white), but it does not matter. When American citizens are stopped while traveling within their own state and asked to account for their whereabouts, we live in a police state.Do You Have Your Papers?Finally, a professional colleague of mine was recently on a train to Chicago with his teenage son. T hey are of Mexican descent, but both are American citizens. Border Patrol agents boarded the train and conducted a similar inquisition. My colleague and his son were hassled quite a bit and told that they probably should keep proof of citizenship with them when they travel within the United States. When innocent American citizens are told they should have "their papers" on them, we live in a police state. My experience last weekend reflects the essence of the problem. Why were the cops and the Border Patrol there? They were looking for illegal immigrants, drugs, and potential terrorists. It's the perfect storm of statism that has brought us to this point. The combination of xenophobia, irrational fear of drugs, and the terror the State has whipped up about terrorists around every corner is the fuel on which this police state feeds. But a police state cannot emerge without many fellow citizens being willing to trade off their actual liberties for the false promise of security. Since 9/11 the biggest threat to the American people is not radical Muslim terrorists, nor deranged domestic terrorists, but the terrorists with the blue uniforms, badges, and body armor. Their weapons of mass destruction are not bombs, but state-approved guns, latex-gloved hands, and a profound disregard for our rights. Until we stand up and say, "Enough!"theseterrorists will keep winning and our rights will continue to be lost.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/headline/yes-this-is-a-police-state/ 

--

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.

Re: And not much mention of the union protests here - and the legal protests

Too many dems involved. Shhhh!

Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, proposed that all future state and New
York City employees pay 6 percent of their salary toward their
pensions, double the current 3 percent. Oregon's Democratic governor
is pushing state and local employees to contribute as much as 6
percent of pay, up from zero at present.

On Jun 16, 12:02 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/business/16pension.html?_r=1&nl=tod...

--
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: And not much mention of the union protests here - and the legal protests

eight states, including Wisconsin and Florida, have decided to require
government employees to contribute more, sometimes far more, to their
pensions.
---
in the private sector, the employer is not obligated to contribute
anything to an employees pension

what's good enough for the public is good enough for the government
in fact, government employees aren't really public servants if they
are demanding more than what a citizen get

I propose that we end all contributions to government employee
pensions.

On Jun 16, 11:02 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/business/16pension.html?_r=1&nl=tod...

--
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: obama birth certificate a fraud

I see this all of the time...forged not forged.  One way to lay this crap to rest and remove him from office if he was not born in the US is to get the medical records.  His mom (unless he was born in a taxi or at home) should have been in the hospital and a medical record should exist.  I do not know what the state requirement is for his birth state of Hawaii for retaining medical records; but, the certificate he offers is from Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital.....get the fricking records from the hospital. He should produce them since this in such a contentious and distracting issue.  If he is legit, provide the records. 

 

S

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, JSM <ekrubmeg@gmail.com> wrote:

Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
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: [Fwd: News Alert: Weiner Tells Friends He Is Stepping Down]

maybe his wife's mosque will give him a job

On Jun 16, 10:50 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> [ Attached Message ]From:NYTimes.com News Alert <nytdir...@nytimes.com>To:rhomp2...@earthlink.netDate:Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:46:53 -0400Local:Thurs, Jun 16 2011 8:46 amSubject:News Alert: Weiner Tells Friends He Is Stepping DownBreaking News Alert
> The New York Times
> Thursday, June 16, 2011 -- 9:34 AM EDT
> -----
>
> Representative Anthony D. Weiner Tells Friends He Is Stepping Down
>
> Representative Anthony D. Weiner has told friends he plans to resign his seat after coming under increasing pressure from Democratic colleagues in the House as a result of his salacious online communications with several women.
>
> Read More:http://www.nytimes.com/?emc=na
>
> About This E-Mail
> You received this message because you are signed up to receive breaking news
> alerts from NYTimes.com.
>
> To unsubscribe, change your e-mail address or to sign up for daily headlines
> or other newsletters, go to:http://www.nytimes.com/email
>
> NYTimes.com
> 620 Eighth Ave.
> New York, NY 10018
>
> Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: RIGHT!! And I believe everything they say - no hostilities at all

Obama is powerless against those who decide US middle east policy.

See Wolfowitz Doctrine

On Jun 16, 10:57 am, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?nl=todays...

--
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.

And not much mention of the union protests here - and the legal protests

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/business/16pension.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&adxnnl=1&emc=tha25&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1308240020-a

--
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.

RIGHT!! And I believe everything they say - no hostilities at all

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

--
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.

[Fwd: News Alert: Weiner Tells Friends He Is Stepping Down]

--
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: Fwd: Religious Left Links Conservatives to Ayn Rand's Atheism

consider the source:

http://americanvaluesnetwork.org/about-us/
We believe America needs leaders who understand public service is a
calling, and who know they will be held accountable not only by
voters, but by their Creator. We should not be afraid to proudly
embrace the traditional and fundamental values that have guided and
defined our country since its inception and helped make America a
shining beacon of hope and freedom around the world.
---
it's their judaic belief in an obligation to repair the world that
makes them a problem
you're either an American or something else

SENIOR STAFF

Burns Strider
President
(Burns Strider, a native of Grenada County, Mississippi, served in an
array of positions, prior to founding Eleison and The American Values
Network, including Senior Advisor and Director of Faith Outreach to
the Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign for President,
Director of Policy for the U. S. House Democratic Caucus, Advisor to
Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) , Director of the U. S. House
Democratic Faith Working Group and Rural Working Group and regional
Communications Director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee.
Strider is one of the 12 most influential Democrats in the nation on
faith and values politics and issues according to Religion News
Service.)

On Jun 16, 10:33 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Christians Must Choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus,"
>
> that absolutely pegs the Dunce-o-Meter

--
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 birth certificate a fraud

Ex-CIA: 'Forged document' released as birth certificate

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, the chief of Stand Up America, a national security expert and Fox News contributor, says the "Certificate of Live Birth" released in April by the White House as "proof positive" of President Obama's Hawaiian birth is a forgery, but the FBI is covering the fraud and no one in Congress is willing to tackle the situation because of fears of a "black backlash" if the failings of the nation's first black president are revealed.

Read the latest now on WND.com.

--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
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: Fwd: Religious Left Links Conservatives to Ayn Rand's Atheism

"Christians Must Choose: Ayn Rand or Jesus,"

that absolutely pegs the Dunce-o-Meter

--
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.

Triumphalism Hides Many Important Foreign-Policy Failures

Triumphalism Hides Many Important Foreign-Policy Failures
by Ivan Eland, June 15, 2011

Nationalism in many countries prompts their governments to trumpet foreign-policy successes while sweeping disappointments under the rug. The inclination toward such biases may only be human nature, but democracies should also take the difficult step of heeding and analyzing the failures­that is, if they want to embrace truth and avoid the path to authoritarianism.

Because American nationalism is especially strong, the U.S. government regularly attempts to take maximum credit for events such as the fall of the communist bloc and the killing of terrorist Osama bin Laden­while forgetting about profligate blunders that have made America and its citizens less secure, a failure in the most importance function of government.

Although communism did fall, in most such societal revolutions, domestic factors usually overwhelm external influences. Although Reaganophiles give that president almost sole credit for toppling the communist bloc, an unviable economic system is what ultimately brought down the Soviet Union and its communist allies.

As for killing Osama bin Laden, it took the gold-plated U.S. intelligence community, which probably spends as much on intelligence as the rest of the world combined, a decade and a half to neutralize him. Moreover, the CIA's greatest triumph has been its greatest failure; its encouragement and funding of radical Islam, including the Afghan "freedom fighters," as a counterweight to Soviet communism helped create al-Qaeda in the first place. Moreover, the U.S. government's unneeded meddling and military presence in the Islamic world motivated bin Laden to attack the United States and continue to fuel Islamists' anti-American attacks­for example, the nation-building occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq inflame Islamic jihadists worldwide. Because many anti-American jihadists in Iraq came from eastern Libya, American provision of the air force for the Libyan rebels may replicate the unintended threat-creation experience of U.S. aid to Islamists in Afghanistan. And getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi­whom Ronald Reagan originally demonized and attacked but who had more recently given up his nuclear-weapons program and made nice with the West­won't enhance U.S. security very much.

But such reckless behavior should not be surprising. The U.S. government has made or strengthened enemies before. Recent examples are in Somalia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Iran. In Somalia, the U.S. government recently trumpeted the killing of Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, a leader in both the Somali Islamist Shabaab movement and al-Qaeda. Yet the Islamists had little support in the moderate Islamic country of Somalia until the U.S. government began supporting corrupt, violent warlords there. And Somali support for Shabaab against foreign influence really spiked during the catastrophic U.S.-backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia in 2006. The Bush administration's encouragement­with weapons and advisers­of a Christian-led Ethiopian government's invasion of a Muslim country further stoked the fires of radical Islam, coming in the wake of the post-9/11 U.S. invasions of Muslim Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Lebanon, the Shi'ite Islamist group Hezbollah­which formed during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon by U.S.-backed Israel and which enhanced its reputation by throwing Reagan's forces out of Lebanon soon thereafter­now dominates the Lebanese government. This result was made possible by Israel's second invasion of Lebanon in 2006, which again enhanced Hezbollah's reputation by demonstrating its ability to withstand an attack by a stronger power.

In Pakistan, the Pakistani Taliban did not try to attack targets in the United States­the attempted Times Square bombing­until the United States began to kill Pakistani Taliban fighters with drone attacks in Pakistan. Similarly, Islamist militants in Yemen did not try to attack targets in the United States until our government escalated military involvement in Yemen.

In Iraq, the United States helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, made him the dominant power in the Persian Gulf by supporting him in his successful war with Iran, and then demonized him and fought two wars against him.

Finally, creating an enemy in Iran goes way back to 1953, when the CIA helped overthrow the elected anti-communist government of Mohammed Mossadegh because he had nationalized British oil interests. The United States restored the autocratic shah, who allowed U.S. companies to have some of Iran's oil, oppressed his people with the secret police, and spent too many of the country's resources on U.S.-made weapons and not enough on economic development. He was overthrown by a Shi'ite Islamist regime, which has always been predictably hostile to the United States.

Throw in the expensive and pointless Korean and Vietnam Wars, the reckless and failed invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, and the resulting near incineration of the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis for no American strategic gain, and post-World War II U.S. foreign policy doesn't look so successful after all.

http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/06/14/triumphalism-hides-many-important-foreign-policy-failures/

Why the Pentagon Papers matter now

Why the Pentagon Papers matter now
While we go on waging unwinnable wars on false premises, the Pentagon papers tell us we must not wait 40 years for the truth
Daniel Ellsberg
Monday 13 June 2011 17.02 BST

The declassification and online release Monday of the full original version of the Pentagon Papers -- the 7,000-page top secret Pentagon study of US decision-making in Vietnam 1945-67 -- comes 40 years after I gave it to 19 newspapers and to Senator Mike Gravel (minus volumes on negotiations, which I had given only to the Senate foreign relations committee). Gravel entered what I had given him in the congressional record and later published nearly all of it with Beacon Press. Together with the newspaper coverage and a government printing office (GPO) edition that was heavily redacted but overlapped the Senator Gravel edition, most of the material has been available to the public and scholars since 1971. (The negotiation volumes were declassified some years ago; the Senate, if not the Pentagon, should have released them no later than the end of the war in 1975.)

In other words, today's declassification of the whole study comes 36 to 40 years overdue. Yet, unfortunately, it happens to be peculiarly timely that this study gets attention and goes online just now. That's because we're mired again in wars -- especially in Afghanistan -- remarkably similar to the 30-year conflict in Vietnam, and we don't have comparable documentation and insider analysis to enlighten us on how we got here and where it's likely to go.

What we need released this month are the Pentagon Papers of Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya). We're not likely to get them; they probably don't yet exist, at least in the useful form of the earlier ones. But the original studies on Vietnam are a surprisingly not-bad substitute, definitely worth learning from.

Yes, the languages and ethnicities that we don't understand are different in the Middle East from those in Vietnam; the climate, terrain and types of ambushes are very different. But as the accounts in the Pentagon Papers explain, we face the same futile effort in Afghanistan to find and destroy nationalist guerrillas or to get them to quit fighting foreign invaders (now us) and the corrupt, ill-motivated, dope-dealing despots we support. As in Vietnam, the more troops we deploy and the more adversaries we kill (along with civilians), the quicker their losses are made good and the more their ranks grow, since it's our very presence, our operations and our support of a regime without legitimacy that is the prime basis for their recruiting.

As for Washington, the accounts of recurrent decisions to escalate in the Pentagon Papers read like an extended prequel to Bob Woodward's book last year, Obama's War, on the prolonged internal controversies that preceded the president's decisions to triple the size of our forces in Afghanistan. (Woodward's book, too, is based on top secret leaks. Unfortunately, these came out after the decisions had been made, and without accompanying documentation: which it is still not too late for Woodward or his sources to give to WikiLeaks.)

In accounts of wars 40 years and half a world apart, we read of the same irresponsible, self-serving presidential and congressional objectives in prolonging and escalating an unwinnable conflict: namely, the need not to be charged with weakness by political rivals, or with losing a war that a few feckless or ambitious generals foolishly claim can be won. Putting the policy-making and the field realities together, we see the same prospect of endless, bloody stalemate – unless and until, under public pressure, Congress threatens to cut off the money (as in 1972-73), forcing the executive into a negotiated withdrawal.

To motivate voters and Congress to extricate us from these presidential wars, we need the Pentagon Papers of the Middle East wars right now. Not 40 years in the future. Not after even two or three more years of further commitment to stalemated and unjustifiable wars.

Yet, we're not likely to get these ever within the time frame they're needed. The WikiLeaks' unauthorised disclosures of the last year are the first in 40 years to approach the scale of the Pentagon Papers (and even surpass them in quantity and timeliness). But unfortunately, the courageous source of these secret, field-level reports – Private Bradley Manning is the one accused, though that remains to be proven in court – did not have access to top secret, high-level recommendations, estimates and decisions.

Very, very few of those who do have such access are willing to risk their clearances and careers – and the growing possibility (under President Obama) of prosecution – by documenting to Congress and the public even policies that they personally believe are disastrous and wrongly kept secret and lied about. I was one – and far from alone – with such access and such views, as a special assistant to the assistant secretary of defence for international security affairs in the Pentagon in 1964-65. (My immediate boss John T McNaughton, Robert McNamara's primary assistant on Vietnam, was another; as documented in the recent publication of his personal diary.)

I've long regretted that it didn't even occur to me, in August 1964, to release the documents in my Pentagon safe giving the lie to claims of an "unequivocal, unprovoked" (unreal) attack on our destroyers in the Tonkin Gulf: precursors of the "evidence beyond any doubt" of nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, which manipulated Congress, once again, to pass the exact counterpart of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.

Senator Morse – one of the two senators who had voted against that unconstitutional, undated blank cheque for presidential war in 1964 – told me that if I had provided him with that evidence at the time (instead of 1969, when I finally provided it to the senate foreign relations committee, on which he had served): "The Tonkin Gulf resolution would never have gotten out of committee; and if it had been brought to the floor, it would have been voted down."

That's a heavy burden for me to bear: especially when I reflect that, by September, I had a drawer-full of the top secret documents (again, regrettably, not published until 1971) proving the fraudulence of Johnson's promises of "no wider war" in his election campaign, and his actual determination to escalate a war that he privately and realistically regarded as unwinnable.

Had I or one of the scores of other officials who had the same high-level information acted then on our oath of office – which was not an oath to obey the president, nor to keep the secret that he was violating his own sworn obligations, but solely an oath "to support and defend the constitution of the United States" – that terrible war might well have been averted altogether. But to hope to have that effect, we would have needed to disclose the documents when they were current, before the escalation – not five or seven, or even two, years after the fateful commitments had been made.

A lesson to be drawn from reading the Pentagon Papers, knowing all that followed or has come out in the years since, is this. To those in the Pentagon, state department, the White House, CIA (and their counterparts in Britain and other Nato countries) who have similar access to mine then and foreknowledge of disastrous escalations in our wars in the Middle East, I would say:

Don't make my mistake. Don't do what I did. Don't wait until a new war has started in Iran, until more bombs have fallen in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, Libya, Iraq or Yemen. Don't wait until thousands more have died, before you go to the press and to Congress to tell the truth with documents that reveal lies or crimes or internal projections of costs and dangers. Don't wait 40 years for it to be declassified, or seven years as I did for you or someone else to leak it.

The personal risks are great. But a war's worth of lives might be saved.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/13/pentagon-papers-daniel-ellsberg

What Is "Fair"?

What Is "Fair"?
by Don Crawford
Posted June 15, 2011

When taxes are under discussion, we often hear a call for rich people to "pay their fair share." The message is that tax rates on those with higher incomes should be raised to make sure that fairness is achieved. However, if we look at this honestly, as a real-life ethical issue, we will have to conclude that people with higher incomes are already paying more than their fair share. Let's try a thought experiment.

Suppose we are part of a group of friends from work who decide to go out to dinner together. "We" includes the owner of the business, the new person in the mailroom, and two of us in between. We choose a nice restaurant and enjoy our meal together. For some reason we cannot get separate checks and are given one large bill. What are some fair ways to pay for this meal -- and what are some unfair ways?

Normally what happens is this: each person puts money into the kitty based on what he or she ordered. Often after the check goes around the table it isn't quite enough because people forget to add in enough money to cover the tip or their second drink or the taxes or something. So the check goes around again while everyone refigures the cost and puts in a little more. So each pays based on what each received. That is what we ordinarily regard as fair.

Now suppose the bill isn't itemized and we can't find out what each person received and therefore what each person owes. People might try to guess, but generally we feel that one fair way is for each to pay the same amount. If we do that, we recognize that people who ordered a more lavish dinner or an extra bottle of wine will be getting more than their fair share, but still the same amount for each person seems close to fair. So each person paying the same amount without regard to any other criterion looks fair to us. This is equivalent to a per capita or per person tax. But that is not how we do taxes in America. We don't all pay the same amount or the same amount per person, do we, despite the fact that it's impossible to construct an itemized list of each taxpayer's liability for government services received?

So let's go back to the arrival of the unitemized bill for the group's dinner. How should we divide it up fairly?

When the check came, the boss could offer to pay for everyone's dinner. That would be voluntary, private charity. But imagine if, when that happened, the new mail oom guy said, "Wow. This is great. I got this fabulous meal for free. I propose we do this every night! How many people are in favor?" Perhaps most of us who received the boss' charity would vote to make him give it more often, but that would be clearly unfair.

No one would dream that three people should "vote" to make the fourth person pay for them. Why does it become right when we do it through the government?

The boss would be well within his rights to say, "You guys can do this again if you want, but count me out. I'm not interested in paying for everyone's meal night after night." Would it be fair or right to claim that he must do so because it was a "majority vote?" People shouldn't just be able to vote to oblige others to give them things, should they? In normal, face-to-face interactions, in a small group of four people no one would dream that three people should "vote" to make the fourth person pay for them. Why does it become right when we do it through the government?

Now imagine this. Imagine that someone in the group said, "Let's take a vote. Who thinks we should base what we pay on how much income each of us has? Wouldn't that be fair?" Several things come to mind right away. First, it's extremely rude to require people to tell you what they earn. It is simply not anyone else's business. But we do it as a country when we make people fill out their income tax returns so that a progressive tax can be levied. We intrude in a way we ordinarily don't think is right or fair -- because we do it through the government. Does that make it fair?

Second, voting on this proposition doesn't seem right, because the boss makes more than any of the rest of the group, and will always have to pay more, yet he has only one vote. So of course, voting for this proposition is self-serving for everyone else. It is the same as the other case, when the boss was made to pay the whole tab: we are voting to force the boss to subsidize us.

Charity performed voluntarily is one thing. It is common for people who are better off to pay a bit more than their equal share, voluntarily. But where do the lower paid people get the right to vote to force the higher paid person to pay more? Does that strike you as fair? Again, what if we voted to regularize it by law, so that he had to do it every night? Would that make it fair?

This unfair situation is equivalent to the flat income tax that people propose from time to time. The flat tax would have everyone pay the same percentage. If you made more money, you would therefore pay more, whether you received more from the government or not. When we take this down to the personal level in our thought experiment, basing the fair share calculation on someone's income level is embarrassingly unfair, yet it is criticized as being not fair enough. They aren't paying their fair share, that's true. They are paying more than their fair share.

But instead of having a flat tax, which requires people to pay more if they earn more, we have a tax system in which the percentage goes up as they earn more. The harder they work, the more money they make, the higher the percentage of their income is taken. The federal income tax percentage goes up to 35% for some people, while others, with lower incomes, pay 10%, and many pay nothing at all. Yet people are calling for the top tax brackets to go even higher, so that wealthy people will be required to "pay their fair share."

Well, how will we know when fairness is achieved? How will we establish the "fair share"? We will take a vote, of course -- because that's really the fair way to decide.



About this Author
Don Crawford lives in Portland OR, where he manages a group of six charter schools.


http://libertyunbound.com/node/586

One of many ob lies

 *What a lying bastard! Can you imagine the Media outcry if this were a
 Republican?*
 **
 **
 *Obama's father served in WW II, really?*
 **
 *Of all the things I've seen or heard about Obama on the Internet, NONE has
 hit me like this!!  How can we not believe some of the charges about
 citizenship, religion, etc., after hearing what he says on this? *
 *  *
 *Obama said his father served in WWII?  Barack's father served in WW II? *
 *  *
 *He said so in a speech.  **Here is an 18 second video**: *
 *  *
 *CNN News clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fv4jnlkxOaw *
 *  *
 *Is he a compulsive liar?  Were there no reporters who checked or
 double-checked these statements and called the party on this?  They did for
 everyone else…Why not him? *
 **
 *Like it or not, here are the facts: *
 **
 *Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (Obama's father), Born: 04/04/1936 – Died:
 11/24/1982 at the age of 46.  Obama was 5 years old when WW II started, and
 less than 9 1/2 yrs old when it ended.*

 *Lolo Soetoro (Obama's step father) Born: 01/02/1935 - Died: 03/02/1987 at
 the age of 52.  He was 6 years old when WW II started, and 10 years old when
 it ended.  He must have been the youngest Veteran in the war.*

 *Watch the video. **RIGHT OUT OF HIS MOUTH!!!**  And the Media doesn't say
 anything!!!  If you doubt it, Google both of these guys. *

 *It appears this guy doesn't know how to tell the truth -- or he doesn't
 care about telling the truth!  Or perhaps he doesn't know when he isn't
 telling the truth (which is also a very scary angle).  Talk about **STOLEN
 HONOR**!!! *

 *Had this been Bush, the Media would still be on this! *

 *The CNN clip of Obama is surprising.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that
 this lie wasn't uncovered, questioned or debated before the November 2008
 election. *
 **
 *Oh well, he must have just "forgotten" the facts, again.  Or perhaps he
 really doesn't even know the difference between truth and fabrication? *
 **
 *LET'S MAKE THIS GO VIRAL*
 **
 *BE WHO YOU ARE AND SAY WHAT YOU FEEL...... BECAUSE THOSE THAT MATTER DON'T
 MIND..... AND THOSE THAT MIND DON'T MATTER.*




--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.

Sinclair Lewis

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

More fun and games with Weiner - now Gloria Allred is involved

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/alright-my-package-and-i-are-not-going.html

--
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.

Quite a campaign ad

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/in-ca-36-democrat-calls-for-blanket-condemnation-of-stunning-new-web-ad-video.php

The State’s Borders, Our Cage

The State's Borders, Our Cage
Posted by David S. D'Amato on Jun 15, 2011

Through a referendum in January the southern region of Sudan resolved to separate and form its own, independent political entity. Already largely autonomous, nearly 99 percent of the region's population favored secession, and the Republic of South Sudan is to ascend to full and distinct statehood in a matter of weeks.

With Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir accepting the results of the referendum and the birth of the new state, the country seemed to be prepared for a smooth and peaceful transition. But, alas, when the nebulous border territory between the country's stands on a plentiful oil well, a seamless transition is probably too much to ask for.

For decades, the areas now disputed by the north and south, in particular the small region of Abyei, have been seedbeds for violent conflict, putting them at the center of various peace deals devised to put an end to long-running wars. Now, BBC News reports, "The UN has accused the Sudanese government of carrying out an 'intensive bombing campaign' near the north-south border."

In the unified Sudan, wealth and political power were concentrated almost exclusively in the Arab, Muslim north, and Bashir has insisted that Abyei "is northern and will remain northern," adding that northern recognition of the new southern republic turns on Abyei's status. For market anarchists, who urge an end to systematized violence within society, Sudan's present state is a foreseeable repercussion of the state's introduction of capricious, aggressive authority.

"[T]he present-day boundaries of nations," wrote Murray Rothbard "are purely historical and arbitrary, and there is no more need for a monopoly government over the citizens of one country than there is for one between the citizens of two different nations." The political system, one of borders and coercive rather than consensual bonds, is necessarily divisive, rooted in the idea that we need the rules of masters to delineate our relationships.

But all the time, every single day, we deal with our neighbors without oversight, in nonviolent, mutually beneficial relationships governed by nothing but our agreements. If you've ever so much as sold something at a yard sale, you've seen what market anarchists mean by "anarchy."

To counsel a society without masters and their borders, then, is not to invite mayhem or injustice, but is simply to turn both the geographic and social cartography over to the aggregate of individual judgments. Over the centuries, political leaders have refined the oratorical wiles used to persuade us to fight their battles, to regard the perimeters they have drawn amongst themselves as a source of unity and pride in society.

So instead of looking on the "nationality" of the state as it really is ­ as something opposite true community ­ we have been trained to identify with our captors. Where language and culture have evolved freely and spontaneously without central, hierarchical direction, the state is an inorganic power structure manufactured by the ruling class out of a desire to loot and exploit.

The flags of governments should not motivate us toward the battlefield, but instead should fill us with a deep, moral indignation. Quite contrary to the prattle of the corporate media, the starting point of the conflict between Sudan and Southern Sudan is not ethnicity in and of itself.

Instead, the very existence of the state, as a mechanism for aggressively gaining control over valuable resources, inescapably pits neighbors against one other. Even if most are naturally inclined to trade peacefully, for some the opportunity to brandish the power to despoil society of its natural wealth proves alluring.

A small, warlike few has, under the aegis of the sacred state, been able to condemn the vast, productive majority to an unbroken civil war; that war is made conspicuous by inter-state armed conflicts and situations like that in Sudan, but it rages everywhere, even intra-state.

It is the war that the state wages on its own citizens, and it won't ­ and can't ­ draw to a close until the natural harmony of the marketplace succeeds the alienating aggression of government. No new borderlines can solve the underlying problem in Sudan because political solutions are the problem.

Only work and free, equal exchange, a stateless system of market anarchy, can decide who owns scarce resources. When the world realizes that fact and loses faith in the state, it won't matter what we call it ­ we'll have anarchy.


http://c4ss.org/content/7492

Re: Impeach Obama

At 06:06 PM 6/15/2011, you wrote:

War hasn't been declared since December 8, 1941.

But, there is no provision in the constitution that war must be
declared in order for CinC to use the military.

ROTFLMAO!
Here is the (actual) Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt

Which article, section and clause or amendment do you imagine provides the President with power to send troops to "use the military".

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


The President is Commander in Chef ONLY when called into actual service.
The US is NOT supposed to have a standing army ... the Founders understood all too well.


Regard$,
--MJ

Where is it written in the Constitution, in what section or clause is it contained, that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battle in any war in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? -- Daniel Webster

Re: Impeach Obama

War hasn't been declared since December 8, 1941.

But, there is no provision in the constitution that war must be
declared in order for CinC to use the military.

On Jun 15, 5:01 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> MJ...Can you please remind me if Congress voted to declare war on Iraq
> during the second invasion? I think I remember them voting.  But did not
> Clinton do the same when he attacked the camps in Lebanon trying to squelch
> hisbola and Bin Laden? Thanks S.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't
> > be impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the
> > Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully."
>
> > *Wednesday, June 15, 2011
> > *Impeach Obama
> > *by Jacob G. Hornberger
>
> > Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution states in part:
>
> > "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
> > shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
> > Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>
> > Article I, Section 8, states in part:
>
> > "The Congress shall have Power To Declare War…."
>
> > The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is the law that the
> > citizenry of the United States imposed on federal officials as a condition
> > to calling the federal government into existence.
>
> > Since the Framers delegated the power to declare war to Congress, the
> > Constitution prohibits the president from waging war without first securing
> > a declaration of war from Congress.
>
> > Everyone acknowledges that President Obama has waged war against Libya
> > without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. By
> > ordering U.S. armed forces to attack Libya, Obama intentionally, knowingly,
> > and willingly violated the law ­ the law of the Constitution.
>
> > Obama's war on Libya has resulted in the deaths of untold number of people
> > who have never attacked the United States. His war of aggression has also
> > exposed the American people to the increased threat of terrorism, which
> > federal officials commonly cite as the justification for further
> > infringements on the civil liberties of the American people.
>
> > Obama's war on Libya clearly falls within the category of a "high crime or
> > misdemeanor." In fact, given the death and destruction and the real and
> > potential harm to the safety and freedom of the American people, Obama's war
> > is akin to a political felony.
>
> > So, I say: Impeach him. In fact, I can't see any reason why he shouldn't be
> > impeached. He has broken the law -- the people's law -- the law of the
> > Constitution, and he has done so knowingly, intentionally, and willfully.
>
> > What would be Obama's defense at his impeachment trial? Unable to deny the
> > charge, his only claim would be that since other presidents have violated
> > the same law and nothing was done to them, he should be let off the hook
> > too.
>
> > But is that a valid defense? It certainly isn't permitted in criminal cases
> > in which the feds charge citizens with violations of their laws. If a
> > citizen is charged with illegal possession of drugs, for example, he isn't
> > permitted to defend against the charge by claiming that others similarly
> > situated weren't charged.
>
> > So, why should Obama's "defense" be treated any differently?
>
> > Even if Obama were to be acquitted, wouldn't it be constructive to finally
> > bring a president to account for his willful violation of this particular
> > provision of the Constitution? At the very least, a powerful message would
> > be sent to Obama and all future presidents: Try this again and you will be
> > removed from office.
>
> > Given that the U.S. Supreme Court long ago signaled that it would not
> > enforce this particular provision of the Constitution no matter how
> > important it was, it's up to Congress to do so. If presidents can ignore the
> > law, then what's the point of having a Constitution?
>
> > It's time for Congress to enforce our law -- the law of the Constitution --
> > the law that we the people have imposed on federal officials. What better
> > way to do that than by impeaching President Obama for the high crime or
> > misdemeanor of waging war on Libya without the congressional declaration of
> > war required by the Constitution?
>
> >http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-06-15.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- 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.

Re: The 40-Year War on Freedom

There is a percentage of EVERY population that will be addicted to
something....This is simple fact and hardcore human nature.

On Jun 15, 3:08 pm, Sharon Fuentes <oneforentr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always love this argument....I would much rather be smoking pot and paying
> taxes on it than pissing away billions of dollars to keep up this futile
> effort.  Can you see the coffee houses all set up like Starbucks?  They
> could be called "CannibusHuts" and equipped with drive thrus.  Then we can
> be the United States of Americadam and follow the lead of the Dutch. The
> redlight district can be placed in Weiner's district so we will have Vegas
> on the West, and Weinerworld on the East.  Everyone will be a little calmer
> and the men that like to venture out can get the fixes legally rather than
> compromising thier politcal stature and sending photos to strange women.
>
> S
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:45 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > *"The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For
> > the first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against
> > any drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco
> > kills more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal
> > drugs in the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce
> > the demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking
> > marijuana is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the
> > cause of our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not
> > drug abuse, is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United
> > States. The war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More
> > people in America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by
> > physicians than from illegal drugs."
>
> > **The 40-Year War on Freedom
> > *by Laurence M. Vance, June 15, 2011
>
> > Although the U.S. government's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken
> > center stage for the better part of the last ten years, there is another
> > failed war that has been waged by the federal government for the past forty
> > years.
>
> > The war on drugs was declared by President Richard Nixon on June 17, 1971.
>
> > Speaking at a press conference<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=3047&st=&st1=>in the Briefing Room at the White House, Nixon announced his plan:
>
> >  I would like to summarize for you the meeting that I have just had with
> > the bipartisan leaders which began at 8 o'clock and was completed 2 hours
> > later. I began the meeting by making this statement, which I think needs to
> > be made to the Nation: America's public enemy number one in the United
> > States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is
> > necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.
>
> > Nixon left no doubt as to the scope of his offensive:
>
> >  This will be a worldwide offensive dealing with the problems of sources
> > of supply, as well as Americans who may be stationed abroad, wherever they
> > are in the world. It will be government wide, pulling together the nine
> > different fragmented areas within the government in which this problem is
> > now being handled, and it will be nationwide in terms of a new educational
> > program that we trust will result from the discussions that we have had.
>
> > He went on to say how "essential it was for the American people to be
> > alerted to this danger."
>
> > In a special message <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=3048> to the
> > Congress on Drug Abuse Prevention and Control on the same day, Nixon
> > declared drug use to be a "menace," an "increasing grave threat," and a
> > "national emergency."
>
> > He also continued his military rhetoric:
>
> >  I am transmitting legislation to the Congress to consolidate at the
> > highest level a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.
> > The problems of drug abuse must be faced on many fronts.
> > To wage an effective war against heroin addiction, we must have
> > international cooperation. In order to secure such cooperation, I am
> > initiating a worldwide escalation in our existing programs for the control
> > of narcotics traffic, and I am proposing a number of new steps for this
> > purpose.
> > The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 provides a
> > sound base for the attack on the problem of the availability of narcotics in
> > America.
>
> > Nixon then issued Executive Order No. 11599 establishing the Special Action
> > Office of Drug Abuse Prevention (SAODAP) in the Executive Office of the
> > President. He also appointed the first drug czar, Dr. Jerome H. Jaffe, as
> > Special Consultant to the President for Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
>
> > Nixon's war on drugs really took off after the formation of the Drug
> > Enforcement Agency (DEA) in 1973 and the declaration of an "all-out global
> > war on the drug menace."
>
> > This does not mean that the federal government didn't fight against drugs
> > before Nixon declared his war. To the contrary, the feds have waged war on
> > personal freedom via the drug war since the passage in 1905 of the first
> > federal anti-narcotics law aimed at ending the opium trade in the
> > Philippines.
>
> > This was followed by the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, the Opium
> > Exclusion Act of 1909, the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914, the Marijuana
> > Tax Act of 1937, the Narcotic Control Act of 1956, and the Comprehensive
> > Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
>
> > And since the beginning of Nixon's war, we have had the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
> > of 1986, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, the Chemical Diversion and
> > Trafficking Act of 1988, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003,
> > and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005.
>
> > And who can forget the D.A.R.E. school-lecture program, "Just Say No"
> > clubs, and the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's television ad featuring
> > a hot skillet, an egg, and the phrase, "This is your brain on drugs."
>
> > The case against the drug war has been made so many times that, at the risk
> > of sounding like a broken record, I will limit myself to ten key points:
>
> > The war on drugs costs American taxpayers over $40 billion a year. For the
> > first half of our nation's history there were no prohibitions against any
> > drug. The war on drugs is not authorized by the Constitution. Tobacco kills
> > more people every year than all of the people killed by all illegal drugs in
> > the twentieth century. The war on drugs has done nothing to reduce the
> > demand for illicit drugs. Numerous studies have shown that smoking marijuana
> > is less dangerous than drinking alcohol. The war on drugs is the cause of
> > our unnecessarily swelled prison populations. Alcohol abuse, not drug abuse,
> > is one of the leading causes of premature deaths in the United States. The
> > war on drugs has ruined more lives than drugs themselves. More people in
> > America die every year from drugs prescribed and administered by physicians
> > than from illegal drugs.
>
> > To drug warriors, these things don't matter: Because taking drugs is bad
> > for one's health and morally corrupting, the state has the duty to regulate
> > and ban them.
>
> > But as true and important as these things are, the drug-warrior statists
> > are right about dismissing them for in the end they really don't matter. And
> > there are many other things that don't matter as well.
>
> > It doesn't matter if the drug war can or can't be "won." It doesn't matter
> > if drug addiction destroys or doesn't destroy lives and families. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't a gateway drug. It doesn't matter if the
> > majority of Americans support or don't support the drug war. It doesn't
> > matter if marijuana is or isn't beneficial for pain management. It doesn't
> > matter if fighting the drug war is or isn't a bipartisan issue. It doesn't
> > matter if cocaine and heroin are or aren't addictive. It doesn't matter if
> > drug use would or wouldn't increase if drugs were legalized. It doesn't
> > matter if advocates for drug decriminalization want or don't want to get
> > high. It doesn't matter if smoking crack is or isn't dangerous. It doesn't
> > matter if drug use is or isn't immoral. It doesn't matter if the war on
> > drugs is or isn't "worth it."
>
> > What matters is personal freedom, private property, personal
> > responsibility, individual liberty, personal and financial privacy, free
> > markets, limited government, and the natural right to be left alone if one
> > is not aggressing against his someone and is doing "anything that's
> > peaceful."
>
> > Ending the war on drugs is not an esoteric issue of libertarians or a pet
> > issue of those who want to get high. Once the government claims control over
> > what a man smokes, snorts, sniffs, inhales, or otherwise ingests into his
> > body, there is no limit to its power. As the economist Ludwig von Mises so
> > eloquently said: "As soon as we surrender the principle that the state
> > should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of
> > life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest
> > detail." The war on drugs is incompatible with a free society.
>
> >http://www.fff.org/comment/com1106o.asp
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<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.