Pay your fair share

The left has some clever main strategies for getting their hands on
the vast amounts of money required to pay for their Robin Hood
programs. It is buried in their foundation words like "citizen" and
"society" and in my favorite phrase "pay your fair share." I hear
that one on the news everyday "corporations need to pay their fair
share!"

Let's take a closer look at that phrase. The poor don't pay any
income taxes and yet they get all those "benefits." All those benefits
are paid for by somebody else, not them. I don't see how THAT fits
under pay your fair share. Monetarily speaking, that is as unfair as
it gets. And with the progressive tax idea, the more money you
generate the more "fair" it is to take your money apparently. I don't
know how they got away with that one, but I think it goes back to
"citizen of society" concepts.

By framing the issue around our big happy family, our society, all
people are members. As an esteemed member of the group, you the
citizen (member), are entitled to a wonderful set of benefits and
rights!
Notice how the word "entitled" just slips right through that door
along with "member." Clever huh? You have to admire that. You are an
"equal" member in our big club and you get to "share" in the
benefits! This sounds great doesn't it? There is a tiny problem
however in that all you have to do to become a "member" is to be BORN.
That is pretty much it. You don't really have to pay your fair share
at all! That part is a lie. Just "show up" and open your hand. Now I
am only speaking monetarily here as that is my main concern, not to
ignore the "humanitarin" aspects of all of this. I know this all
sounds so callous but I am talking about the simple math here. Math is
callous, and it cannot be ignored.

So you see how the left has made these ideas SO compelling, mainly
to the poor, and ultimately beneficial to themselves as well, because
along with giving out all the goodies they get those votes. It is the
greatest system ever devised. Right up until the money runs out. We
have arrived there. Now it gets ugly. All those members firmly believe
in these ideas of entitlement. It is burned into their very DNA. We
are in for quite the catfight. Too bad we couldn't have had this
simplistic debate earlier.

--
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.

Invitation to Visit the Most Luxurious Guest House in Town

eMarketing by Connect Marketing Services (418,302 Email Addresses - 98% All Over Pakistan)

Dear Sir,

Finding the right place to stay at the right price & time is never an easy job but we, Continental Islamabad, brings you this ease & comfort. A premium guest house located at a secure & peaceful place in F-8 offers the true luxury during your business or leisure trip. The Place is a comfortable combination of modern design elements, sleek facilities & family-friendly features: because having responsibilities & children doesn't mean you have to sacrifice good taste..Strategic location of Continental Islamabad facilitates all "must go" places in Islamabad just a few minutes’ drive away.

Tastefully decorated 24 rooms including executive suits, Family room, double deluxe & standard room welcomes you for a memorable stay. You might be flying by, but slow it down & see what a difference a cozy stay makes!

You can enjoy the following Facilities including in the standard package.

• Lavishly decorated rooms equipped with air-conditioning & central heating system.
• Satellite TV with more than 500 multi channels program in almost all languages available.
• Same Day Dry Cleaning.
• A wide area of car parking.
• Business Center (Fax, Scanner, Printer, Copier).
• Various other amenities such as hot and cold water, cleaned bed sheets, towels, sleepers and everything those are necessary to make your stay comfortable.
• A secure place, where armed security guards equipped with metal detectors. Night vision cameras are also installed so that our guests can remain secured and peaceful.
• Friendly staff passionate to serve you 24/7 for your queries and for guidance, maps and for other general information.

Value Added Services for FREE just for you!

• Continental and Pakistani Breakfast.
• DSL/WI-FI (2MB)
• WIMAX 15 GB internet connections (through satellite)
• Welcome Drinks
• Shoe Shine
• Pick and Drop from the Airport, Railway Station and Bus Stands.
• Ironing (1 suit).
• Evening Tea/Coffee.
• Newspapers.

 

We have a policy not to refer to our customers elsewhere. We improvise every possible way that makes your stay memorable and comfortable. On request we arrange following things just for you:

• Experienced Doctors on Call.
• Rent a Car (economical and reasonable rates with experienced drivers).
• Conference Hall.
• In house Movies.
• Mini Bar- where all the cold drinks are served.
• Nationwide and International Direct Dialing Facility.
• Pakistani, Chinese and Continental cuisines served for 24/7.

 

Prices of all the Suites can be viewed below:

Rooms Details	Rack Rates	Corporate Rates
Single Deluxe Rooms	6000	5000
Double Deluxe Rooms	6500	5500
Executive Suites	8500	7500

 

We are looking forward for a challenge to provide you with the best experience you ever had in any guest house.

                                       

Mahwish Jabeen

General Manager

0300-5552791

House No. 4a, St No. 33, 9th Avenue, Service Road, F/81, Islamabad.

Phone: 92-51-2252677-8

Fax: 92-51-2252679

Web: http://www.continentalislamabad.org

Email: continentalislamabad@gmail.com

---

This email is Broadcast by a marketing agency "Connect Marketing Services". If you no longer 
wish to receive promotion emails, please click to unsubscribe. For customer service inquiry please email or call us. 
We are not responsible for any commitment made by the advertiser. Connect Marketing Services will be fully responsible for this activity only. 
  
©2011 Connect Marketing Services -All rights reserved. Terms and Prices are subject to change.

What Neocons Don't Understand About War

What Neocons Don't Understand About War
By Conor Friedersdorf
Jun 24 2011
Politics shapes strategy in conflicts of choice -- which is another reason to avoid them

In National Review, The Weekly Standard, and the Washington Post, leading War on Terror hawks are expressing outrage at the timeline President Obama set for troop reductions in Afghanistan. Their complaint: politics is driving American policy. "So why September 2012?" Bill Kristol writes. "Because, one has to conclude, Election Day is November 6, 2012. The deadline will allow candidate Obama to say that he has completely withdrawn the surge forces, and that we're on our way out of Afghanistan and coming home. The timetable President Obama has set isn't based on military considerations, diplomatic strategies, or financial calculations."

Perhaps it's time to let these guys in on a secret: elected officials are constantly playing politics. Even on matters of national security. As they wage foreign wars, they concern themselves with the mood of the American people, support for hostilities in Congress, and how troop levels might affect their prospects for being re-elected. Almost inevitably, the strategy and tactics they employ depend at least partly on all those factors, and other political considerations besides.

Most adults know this.

For that reason, it's wise to refrain from waging wars of choice, a label that arguably didn't apply to Afghanistan circa 2001, but certainly started applying at some point over the last decade. When our safety isn't imminently threatened, it is tempting to avoid the slaughter of our sons and daughters, especially if it saves billions of dollars. It's tempting even when it isn't militarily optimal.

Guys like Kristol constantly urge us to undertake ever more wars of choice anyway. It's as if they're blind to the fact that the American people tire of adventures abroad on a timetable that doesn't correspond to however many decades are required to prevail in them (if in fact winning is even possible). A prudent decision-maker, weighing whether to launch or extend a foreign war, would presume the eventual war weariness of the populace, and the political nature of presidents.

Kristol and those who trust his foreign policy judgment aren't prudent decision-makers. In their telling, the US would've prevailed if only we stuck it out longer in Vietnam. Islamist extremists wouldn't have been emboldened if only we'd stuck it out in Beirut. Iraq would've gone better if only we'd invested in a bigger military during the 1990s and sent more troops in earlier. We'd win all our wars of choice if only Americans would give neo-cons a blank check, unlimited troops, and no deadline! That the conditions they deem necessary for victory are fantastical doesn't bother them.

It doesn't help that their desire to wage new wars causes them to mislead the American people about how long victory might take. Here's Bill Kristol on October 1, 2001: "Saddam Hussein, because of his strategic position in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, surely represents a more potent challenge to the United States and its interests and principles than the weak, isolated, and we trust, soon-to-be crushed Taliban. And unlike the Taliban, Saddam Hussein may soon have at his disposal not only terrorist networks, but biological, chemical, and even nuclear weapons."

Here he is on November 26, 2001: "WITH THE TALIBAN DISLODGED and Osama bin Laden increasingly shorn of allies, the endgame seems to be in sight in Afghanistan." It's no wonder the American people are war weary and uninclined to trust the assurances of hawks that we just need to stay a little bit longer - but without any timetable for withdrawal - to assure American victory. They've been telling us for a decade that victory is just over the next hill. Why trust them now?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/what-neocons-dont-know-about-war/240956/

There Is More to Life than Elephants and Jackasses

June24th
There Is More to Life than Elephants and Jackasses
Tom Woods

This article is example #8,933 of the importance of Jack Hunter as an Old Right, non-neocon writer and speaker.  Jack discusses his meeting with Kirkpatrick Sale, the radical decentralist who had enough principle to have his name removed from the masthead of The Nation when that magazine began drooling over Obama.

Sale, whom I have also met, and who even contributed a blurb to Who Killed the Constitution? (which I wrote with Kevin Gutzman), is a very interesting person. Long associated with the Left (though not the managerial, centralist Clinton/Biden/Obama kind), Sale thinks the present system is evil and corrupt beyond repair, that it is possible for political societies (yes, ours included) to be simply too big, and that the only solution is a radical decentralization in which the imperial temptation to force every neighborhood into a centrally planned mold is set aside, and where everyone can simply find a place he likes.

Say these things to neoconservatives like Bill Kristol and you may as well be waving a crucifix before Dracula. Why, why, why, this is…non-mainstream thinking! Shame on you, citizen! We should be debating whether the top marginal income tax rate should be 39.5% or 35%!

I am tempted to say that you are succeeding in emancipating yourself from the ideological prison camps the mainstream media and political classes would confine us to (i.e., choose Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, citizen!) in proportion to how much Jack's appreciation of Kirkpatrick Sale resonates with you.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/there-is-more-to-life-than-elephants-and-jackasses/

xxx

Radical Kirk
Kirkpatrick Sale's secessionism brings left and right together.
by Jack Hunter
June 16, 2011

Part of being the "Southern Avenger" ­the talk-radio moniker I have used for over a decade broadcasting from Charleston, South Carolina­means defending a political act many Americans consider radical: secession. In May 2009, I quoted a contemporary advocate of disunion, Kirkpatrick Sale, in my weekly column for the Charleston City Paper: "Of course, it is true that the particular secession of 1861-65 did not succeed, but that didn't make it illegal or even unwise. It made it a failure, that's all. The victory by a superior military might is not the same thing as the creation of a superior constitutional right."

After the column was published, I received an email from my editor telling me that Mr. Sale had contacted his office, said he enjoyed the piece, and in fact was living in Charleston. That Kirkpatrick Sale was living in the cradle of Southern secession didn't seem that strange. That Sale arrived at his radically decentralist philosophy as a man of the left, however, might surprise those who associate disunion exclusively with the old Confederacy.

Sale's hard-left credentials began as a writer for the New Leader, a magazine founded in 1924 in part by socialists Norman Thomas and Eugene Debs. His book SDS is still considered one of the best sources on the youth activist organization that helped define 1960s radicalism, Students for a Democratic Society. And Sale has been a regular contributor to progressive magazines like Mother Jones and The Nation for the better part of his writing career.

His philosophy springs not only from his anti-authoritrianism, his support for environmentalism, and his opposition to globalization, but also from what some have called his "neo-Luddite" tendencies­a term he has embraced. Sale told Wired in 1995:

The Amish have said there are limits: There are certain things that we like, that seem to enhance our lives, and that do not do danger to our sense of family and community, and therefore we can use them; and there are others, quite clearly, that do harm. This is intelligent decision making. The Luddites were the same. The Luddites all worked with machinery, some with fairly complicated weaving machines in their cottages. They were not against machinery, but against 'machinery hurtful to commonality…'

Sale's critiques of modernity are not unusual on the left, but they can also be compared to thinking of neo-agrarian author Wendell Berry, who defies the categorization, or even to conservative standard-bearer Russell Kirk. Sale's contention, for example, that American Indian society was preferable to what followed after Christopher Columbus­Sale wrote an entire book on this­isn't dissimilar to Kirk's criticism of "mechanical Jacobins" (automobiles) or "Demon TV." In fact, Sale's writing about the downsides of modernity reminds me of the enthusiasm I experienced upon first discovering Russell Kirk in my early 20s.

Sale and I soon got in touch. At one of our early lunch meetings that began in 2009, I asked Kirk­as he likes to be called, and for me appropriately enough ­about how his Nation colleagues might feel about his secessionist views. Kirk was more interested in telling me how he felt about his Nation colleagues­noting that he asked to be removed from the magazine's masthead the moment they began to go gaga over Barack Obama. He preferred not to have anything to do with our president or his admirers.

Kirk also prefers not to have anything to do with Washington politics. At another meeting, I tried to get him to join me in signing a petition to encourage South Carolina's congressmen to cosponsor legislation to audit the Federal Reserve. Kirk looked at the petition carefully but decided not to sign it. "I don't do that," he said.

It wasn't that Kirk didn't believe in auditing the Fed; in fact, he would probably agree with Rep. Ron Paul that it should be abolished altogether. But petitioning Congress to do anything­even something Kirk approves of­would be to concede the federal government's authority and legitimacy. Kirkpatrick Sale doesn't "do that."

Even as a native New Yorker who now lives in South Carolina, Kirk is commonly associated with the secessionists of the "Second Vermont Republic," a group founded by Dr. Thomas Naylor, who was hailed along with Sale and Emory philosophy professor Donald Livingston as "intellectual godfathers of the secessionist movement" by TruthDig's Chris Hedges.

"The movement, at its core, is anti-authoritarian," Sale told Hedges last year. "It includes those who are libertarians and those who are on the anarchic community side. In traditional terms these people are left and right, but they have come very close together in their anti-authoritarianism. Left and right no longer have meaning."

Kirk is proof of that. His secessionist views stem from his rejection of the overarching "bigness" of political and social institutions. Sale's landmark 1980 book Human Scale argues that virtually every institution­political, religious, social, economic­has grown too large and must be scaled down to better meet basic material and metaphysical needs. Needless to say, he shares conservatives' opposition to big government, but he doesn't think reforming it or scaling it down is possible. No, Kirk believes salvation from the modern state lies only in a full and final separation from it.

"The tea party people have not yet understood how they are going to get their view across," he told TruthDig. "They still believe they can elect people, either Republicans or declared conservatives, to office in Washington and have an effect, as if you can escape the culture of Washington and the characteristics of government that has only gotten bigger and will only continue to get bigger."

As someone who has written extensively about the Tea Party, I disagree with some of Kirk's dismissals of what I consider a potentially fruitful grassroots movement. In our meetings, while Kirk and I agree on most political principles, there's no doubt that the 74-year-old is far more radical than his young "Southern Avenger" friend.

I note this because it's worth mentioning my very first impression of my lunch partner: Kirkpatrick Sale is cool. In the same way some young men admire a rock star's flash or an athlete's physical prowess, I was immediately taken with the intellectual swagger of my radical friend. The stylishly yet casually dressed Kirk always sits down with his customary glass of wine­something I think he always wishes I'd drink more of­eager to have a thoughtful discussion. But Kirk is usually the most thoughtful. When I pose a question to Kirk he pauses, digests the information, and then replies with something that always sounds more like a definitive statement than a mere counterpoint. And he's usually right. In his presence, Kirk's admittedly radical proposal of breaking free from the federal government seems eminently reasonable. In contrast, my conventional attachment to electoral politics often seems quite impractical­in that each time Kirk reminds me of what a monumental task I undertake in attempting to reform the bureaucratic monstrosity in Washington, D.C.

Kirk has made common cause with other secessionist-minded, yet markedly conservative, Southern intellectuals. But Kirk thinks wrapping the cause of secession in the flag of and symbolism of the Confederacy is simply bad PR. Seeing decentralist philosophy attached to a mid-19th century war, many Americans might assume that secession belongs to the dustbins of history, Kirk fears, forever settled by a triumphant President Lincoln and his Union armies. This is not the imagery Kirk and his friends in Vermont have embraced or would welcome. Even in his dedication what most might consider a far-fetched solution to big government, the secessionist Sale can be practically radical.

But if Kirk's political temperament is radical, his personal tastes can be markedly conservative. Taking a break from talking politics once, I asked him what kind of music he liked. His answer was charmingly reactionary. Kirk said that he didn't care much for popular music outside some of the Tin Pan Alley era tunes of the early 20th century.

Amused and curious, I pressed him further, assuming this man of the left must have had a degree of affection for some vintage antiwar rock or folk music. Kirk did mention that he once heard a "racket" in a nightclub during his left activist days in the 1960s from some "young man" everyone told him was a "big deal." That "young man" turned out to be Bob Dylan. Kirk told me he'd never heard anything so awful in his life.

As America begins to observe the 150th anniversary of the Civil War, some politicians and pundits have criticized the mainstreaming of what they consider outdated and "antebellum" concepts like states' rights and nullification. When Texas Governor Rick Perry conjured the specter of secession at a Tea Party rally last year, the mainstream media howled­but many on the grassroots right cheered.

If the Tea Party is any indication, a significant portion of Americans are today willing to entertain radical approaches to restricting the federal government's power. A decade ago, a politician like Rick Perry would not have brought up secession to excite a conservative audience. That he did so last year, if only opportunistically, is suggestive not just of a drastic increase in anti-government sentiment but of the dramatic possibilities inherent in that sentiment.

Given the rapid growth of the state under President Obama, it's no surprise that secessionism has become suddenly mainstream on the right. And that a man of the left who has argued for breaking away from big government and mass society his entire life should find new companions on the other side of the political spectrum makes the unconventionally conservative Kirkpatrick Sale feel right at home.

Jack Hunter's TAC-TV video commentaries can be seen at www.amconmag .com/tactv.

http://www.amconmag.com/blog/radical-kirk/

Why Limit Government?

Why Limit Government?
Published on June 21, 2004
by Lawrence Reed Lecture #843

The topic for our discussion this afternoon is "Why Limit Government?" I am tempted to give you the shortest speech you ever heard -- just two words: "Why not?!" Yet such a flippant comment would persuade no one of anything and win no battles for liberty. Indeed, our movement may be overdue for a refresher on this very important question.

As men and women who want to "limit" government, we sometimes come across to others as naysayers. As someone once said, we do a better job describing Hell than Heaven. Whenever we make the case for limiting government, we ought to use the opportunity to remind others that we are opposed to excessive government because we are in favor of some very positive, important things. We want to limit government -- ultimately -- because we support freedom and the free society.

We want to limit government because we want to maximize opportunity, enterprise and creativity.

We want to limit government because we want to permit individuals to go as far as their talents, ambitions, and industry can take them.

We want to limit government because we want people to dream and to have the room to bring those dreams to fruition -- for themselves and their families.

We want to limit government because we want to strengthen the institutions of civil society that tend to shrink as government grows -- institutions such as the family, church, synagogue, mosque, community, and the many voluntary associations that Alexis de Tocqueville recognized as the bedrock of American liberty and self-reliance.

We want to limit government because we have learned something from the thousands of years of experience with it; that it ought properly to be confined to certain minimal, but critical, functions and otherwise leave us alone.

Let's not forget that as a movement, we must remain committed to core principles. We can't be like that character, played by Groucho Marx, who declared, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others!"


The Core "Core" Principles

With regard to government, at the "core" of our core principles are these unassailable truths: Government has nothing to give anybody except what it first takes from somebody, and a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you've got.

The older I get, and the more I observe the political process, the more obvious it is that it's no way to run a business -- or almost anything else, for that matter. The deficiencies, absurdities, and perverse incentives inherent in the political process are powerful enough to frustrate anyone with the best and most altruistic of intentions. It frequently exalts ignorance and panders to it. A few notable exceptions aside, it tends to attract the most mediocre talent with motives that are questionable at best. Government runs on the political process; hence, all of the problems endemic to politics show up in what government does and doesn't do.

Indeed, the more that the political process steers government into areas beyond its principal mission, the less well it does those few things (like public safety) that we all expect it to do for us.


"Whatever It Has To Be"

Back in 2001, the ninth son of Robert and Ethel Kennedy, Max Kennedy, flirted with the idea of running for political office. A story in the New York Times Magazine recounted his ill-fated attempt at a stump speech riddled with trite one-liners like these: "I want to fight for all of you. I'll commit myself heart and soul to be the kind of congressman who cares about you. I'll dedicate myself to fighting for working families to have a fair chance. I make you this one pledge: I will always be there for you."

Kennedy's handler pressed him repeatedly for a "take-away message," something of substance that his audience would remember. "What do you want people to take away from it?" he asked several different ways. The would-be candidate stammered and couldn't think of much other than "I'm a nice guy," until finally he admitted, "I don't know. Whatever it has to be."

Is this man eligible for public office? Certainly, though in this case the subject fizzled out before his campaign was ever lit and he has presumably found useful work elsewhere. Hundreds just like Max Kennedy get elected every year. Yet, would it ever occur to you to put someone who talks this way in charge of your business? Outside of politics, is there any other endeavor in which such nonsense is as epidemic?


The Silly Side of Politics

Welcome to the silly side of politics. It's characterized by no-speak, doublespeak, and stupid-speak: the use of one's tongue, lips, and other speechmaking body parts to sway minds without ever educating them--and to deceive them, if necessary. The serious side of politics comes afterwards when the elected actually do something, even if -- as is often the case -- it bears little resemblance to what they promised. It's serious business in any case because it's the part where coercion puts flesh on the rhetorical bones. What makes a politician a politician and differentiates politics from all other walks of life is that the politician's words are backed up by his ability to deploy legal force on their behalf.

This is not a trivial point. After all, in the grand scheme of life there are ultimately only two ways to get what you want or to get others that have hired you (or who depend on you) what they want: You can rely on voluntary action (work, production, trade, persuasion, and charity) or you can take it by force.


A Dangerous Servant

No generation ever grasped the meaning of this better than that of America's Founders. It was one of our Founders who declared that "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, it can be a dangerous servant or a fearful master." In other words, even when government is no larger than what our Founders wanted, if it does its job so well as to be a true "servant," it's still "dangerous."

Indeed, it is on this point that all the difference in the world is made. Things that rely upon the regular affirmation of voluntary consent don't look at all like those that rest upon force. Whereas mutual consent encourages actual results and accountability, the political process puts a higher premium on the mere promise or claim of results and the shifting of blame to other parties.

To win or keep your patronage and support, a provider of goods or services must manufacture something of real value. A business that doesn't produce or a charity that doesn't meet a need will quickly disappear. To get your vote, a politician only has to look or sound better than the next one -- even if both of them would renege on more pledges than they would keep. In the free marketplace, you almost always get what you pay for and pay for what you get. As a potential customer, you can say "No, thanks" and take a walk. In politics, the connection between what you pay for and what you actually get is problematic at best.


What Is a Vote Worth?

This is another way of asserting that your vote in the marketplace counts for so much more than your vote in the polling booth. Cast your dollars for the washing machine of your choice and that is what you get--nothing more and nothing less. Pull the lever for the politician of your choice and, most of the time (if you're lucky), you will get some of what you do want and much of what you don't. The votes of a special interest lobby may ultimately cancel out yours. As someone much wiser than me once said, "[P]olitics may not be the oldest profession, but the results are often the same."

These important distinctions between voluntary, civil society and coercion-based government explain why political Max Kennedy-types are the rule rather than the exception. Say little or nothing, or say silly things, or say one thing and do another -- and your prospects of success may only be enhanced. When the customers are captives, the seller may just as easily be the one who whispers seductive nonsense in their ears as the one who puts something real on their plates.

Like it or not, people judge private, voluntary activities by a higher standard than they do public political acts. That is all the more reason to keep politics in a small and isolated corner of our lives. We have many more productive things to tend to.


Recommendations

With an eye toward strengthening our efforts to limit government, let me offer these brief tidbits, each of which is worthy of much greater discussion and many more specific examples than I have time for here:

1. Our side must work harder to relate to real people. No green eyeshades, dollars-and-cents-only stuff. We have to show how limiting government actually improves lives. We must put a human face on the issue by not only showing how runaway government inflicts real harm on real people, but also how the free society can produce a more abundant life for all.
2. Our side must get smarter with our rhetoric. We should not allow ourselves to get bogged down in debating the fine points of every proposed government expansion. We need to remind people that government, as a share of our personal income, is consuming five or six times what it did a century ago. We should be demanding to know from our Big Government friends why that is not yet enough. We should embarrass them by asking them to publicly reveal how much more they really want, and at what point they will finally acknowledge that what a person earns belongs fundamentally to him, and not to the government.
3. Our side must be strategic, investing more in the issues in which small victories can mean a lot. Issues that come to mind are school choice, private retirement accounts, and state government budgets. When we win those battles, we will start to win across a broad front of issues.
4. Our side must be convinced that it can win. We must be optimists. Pessimism is not only unwarranted, it is also a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think the cause is lost, it will be. No one works hard for a cause they think will lose. We need to convince the world that if anything in human affairs is inevitable, it is that humans will be the free beings their Maker intended. It is not inevitable that they will be ruled by know-it-alls. History is on the side of liberty, not statism.

In other words, limiting government is a lofty endeavor. It's good, honest work. It's a powerful message when presented well.

So let's get out there and get it done.

Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. These remarks were delivered in Chicago, Illinois, at the 27th annual meeting of The Heritage Foundation's Resource Bank.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Why-Limit-Government

**JP** Imam - ul - Anbia ( Sallal Lahu Alaihe Wa'alehi Wasallam)

--

Thanks & Best regards,
 
Imran Ilyas
Dubai
Cell: 00971509483403

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

Re: American Slavery

The Articles would certainly be an improvement ....
Until the Government can be separated from schools, it is likely that *any* fix will fall short.

Regard$,
--MJ

"What's the difference between a bright, inquisitive five-year-old, and a dull, stupid nineteen-year-old? Fourteen years of the British educational system" -- Bertrand Russell



At 08:39 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:

MJ.....I read this piece.  What are your thoughts about it and if the "US" was to do away with the constitution, then what should it be substituted with?
 
S

On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

American Slavery

By Chris Dates

by Bill | June 20th, 2011

"My subject, then, fellow citizens, is American slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with the American bondman, making his wrongs mine. I do not hesitate to declare with all my soul that the character and conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me than on this Fourth of July!" -- Frederick Douglass

I always hear folks saying, "if we could only get back to the Constitution". Well, in the spirit of the 4th of July coming up in a couple of weeks, I would like to examine the founding documents of this country with the hopes of pinpointing just where we went off track. Did we actually get away from the Constitution?

I would like to start with the Declaration of Independence. In my opinion, the Declaration is pure American poetry, and the first couple of paragraphs are beautiful. It's enough to make you proud to be an American again. Here we go-

The Declaration of Independence

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I would like to examine this sentence very closely --

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.

Do you see that word -- Just -- in there? I would like to define that word, as it was put there for a reason. It does not say "deriving their powers from the consent of the governed".

Just -- Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.

Armed with the logic of the Declaration, let's dive into the Constitution, and see if we really got away from this sacred piece of parchment. The Constitution claims The Congress has many powers, but the Constitution never really claims where The Congress got them from in the first place. Remember, the Declaration only claimed that Governments derive their "just" powers from the consent of the governed. I would like to dissect the Constitution here and see how just these powers the Constitution claims "The Congress" retains really are.

Article 1 Section 8

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Is the power to tax a just power? I honestly do not believe it is. I think it is completely immoral, and I don't believe any mere mortal has possession of the power to tax.  Well, they might believe they have that power, but if any individual tried to exercise that power, it might get them severely hurt, or killed. What I mean by that is if you claim you have the power to tax, you also claim you have the power to steal. Simply changing the name of the action does not relieve a person of the morality of it. If murder is called by a different name, is it still wrong?  You do not possess the "power" to go over to your neighbor's house to lay and collect taxes on him; therefore you CANNOT give that power away. So, where does The Congress derive this power from? It's is not from the people, it is impossible. I would really like to focus on the morality issue here for just a second. Without The Congress claiming this power, none, and I mean none of this tyranny we have now would be possible. I'm sure some of you might think it would be worse without this power to steal; it might be (gasp) Anarchy! Although that is a lovely conversation, I do not want to get into that in this essay. Besides, my colleagues here at zerogov.com have done a very good job slaying that dragon.

The Constitution specifically says The Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, but it never says what the limit on this taxation is. I think I know the reason that no limit was put on taxation. It is impossible to put a limit on theft. Theft is either wrong, or it's not. It's an either/or proposition. Please, don't think I'm pulling and intellectual slight-of-hand here, taxation is theft. Beneath all of the bureaucracy, tax bills, and paperwork, lies is a gun. I have had many conversations with people who say "it won't come to violence if you just pay", this is where I ask them to give me their wallet. Of course, it doesn't have to come to violence if they just give it to me, they usually get the point, although I'm sure they got the point already, the red pill is a tough one to choke down. OK, back to taxation. How much would you, the "citizen", or "the tax payer", prefer is stolen from yourself? How much would you prefer is stolen from me? You see, if you do not stand on the principle that theft is morally wrong, then you have no principle to point to when the Government takes it all. You have nothing to point to in order to justify your outrage. Are you good with 10% theft? 20% theft? 50% theft!? If the issue of taxation always rests on a preference, it will ALWAYS differ between people. You either stand on principle, or you agree with theft. Period. People say, "But you are being provided a service!" I am an auto mechanic. I do not provide my services at the business end of my pistol, although it would be so much easier, but that is immoral, that is wrong. Wouldn't it be wrong of me to come to your house, repair your car, and then stick you up to pay for it? Of course that would be wrong. The Government is no different than me, if it's wrong for me, it's wrong for them.

The problem here is when you consent to theft; you turn your neighbor into a slave. If you consent to governmental theft, you also consent to governmental slavery. I feel no moral obligation to pay taxes; I pay them so men with guns don't come to my house. I pay them strictly out of self- preservation. Much the same way slaves kept working in order to avoid death. Since I have to pay taxes, I have to work longer to pay for the things that I need for my own life. This is slavery, and it is wrong on so many levels. Slaves work all day for someone else, only to have a couple of hours left in the day to try and take care of themselves and their families. Slave masters have always understood that you cannot work the slave and take it all, which would kill him. The only difference now, instead of having one slave master, we now have millions of slave masters, who, with a vote, can take more and more from us, making us work longer, and harder for our own needs. Theft and slavery are morally wrong, it does not matter if the money is being stolen to provide for the common defense, or the general welfare, or to feed starving puppies, it is still wrong. We are all on the plantation, and Democracy is the slave master. Of course, the intellectual elites of this world are all laughing at us, because we have bought into this huge scam hook, line, and sinker. It gives the quote, "the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, was convincing the world he didn't exist", a whole new ring doesn't it? It takes a special kind of evil to make a man act immoral when he normally wouldn't.

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

What does this even mean? To borrow money on the credit of the "United States". I'm not the "United States"; you're not the "United States", so just who is borrowing this money? Why is the "United States" borrowing money? And the more important question, who is liable to pay it back? If the scumbags on Capitol Hill can borrow money on the credit of the United States, and pawn the debt off on me, I should be able to do it to them. I reckon it would go something like this, "I Chris Dates hereby borrow money on the credit on The Congress". This should relieve me of all responsibility of having to repay money that was borrowed. Of course, I have now just made all of the members of The Congress my slaves. Borrowing money in someone else's name and charging them to pay it back is so immoral it's sick, but hey, it's right there in this sacred document we love so much. We need to understand the severity of this line in the Constitution. This, in essence, is the power to not only enslave me, buy every generation of my family to come. There was no stipulation of when this money had to be paid back. There was no generational clause in there; it was left very bland for a purpose. This one line, along with the power to lay and collect taxes, gives The Congress the power to enslave every generation of Americans, perpetually. The Constitution is the blueprint for a perpetual slave machine. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but it's the truth. I do not possess the power to borrow money on the credit of my neighbor, so I could not possibly give this power to some entity calling itself "The Congress". Do you have the power to enslave your neighbor? No? Then how in the hell did "The Congress" get that power?

I could go on and on here, but I think I have laid out a pretty good case.  The Constitution is an immoral document, and, to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, it is unfit to exist. If it is to exist, a Government should never be based on it. It is a maker of tyrants, and a maker of slaves. If it is to exist, it should be held up for all generations to come as what not to do when deciding on government. It should be left in its pretty guarded glass case only as a reminder that it is wrong to enslave our neighbors, even if we use nice phrases and words like We the People, liberty, and security. The Constitution cannot change what is right and wrong. There is no getting back to the Constitution, we are here folks, and this is it. Nothing right could ever come from a wrong. Immorality only begets more immorality. The reason the government is wrong now, is because it was wrong at its inception. If men of virtue are only allowed to play by immoral rules, it is irrational to expect moral results. Which begs the question as to why men of virtue would play such a game? They wouldn't.

Happy 4th of July, slaves.

"No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle ­ but only in degree ­ between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and [*iv] asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

http://zerogov.com/?p=1957

--

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: Obama is a Socialist! Sure he is....

At 12:40 PM 6/19/2011, you wrote:

Saturday, June 18, 2011
The Real Obama is a Little Left of Center

Unfortunately, the cunt hair difference between Rs and Ds is well left of center at the outset.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Just in Case You Are Taking the Republicans Seriously . . . like, when they say we need to repeal Obamacare because it is socialism. Remember that Social Security, Medicare, and public education are three of the greatest socialist schemes on the planet. When Republicans say that they too need to be eliminated because they are socialism then we can begin to take them seriously." -- Laurence Vance

Re: Mexico Reforms Its Immigration Laws

ROTFLMAO!
You can, of course (and do), continue to pretend, but reality always fails you.
You have provided no such article, section and clause or amendment as such is non-existent.

Be certain to maintain that pleasing vision of yours.

Regard$,
--MJ

"As for the welfare state, they ["illegals"] are welcome to milk it dry, as far as I'm concerned. The sooner the damn thing is on the brink of collapse, the better. Besides which, receipt of government benefits is not ipso facto a violation of anyone's rights -- it's the funding that's the problem, but illegal immigrants aren't complicit in the existence of taxation -- and insofar as they are able to receive some minimal pay-outs from the State, that may as well count as partial restitution for the daily threats, terror, and
violence that the state and federal governments routinely inflict against the property and liberty of all undocumented immigrants." -- Charles Johnson




At 01:49 AM 6/19/2011, you wrote:

LOL!
 
Again,  we can agree to disagree.  I have pointed out the very sections of the Constitution that does exactly that, several times.
 
This is where you are just being oblivious,  and ignoring what the Constitution says. 
 
And you ask why I don't respond all that frequently to your cut and paste articles anymore.
 
 


 
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:38 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Except that it does no such thing ... as there is no article, section and clause or amendment which supports your insistence.

Regard$,

--MJ

Modern nationalism and collectivism have, by the restriction of migration, perhaps come nearest to the "servile state." …Man can hardly be reduced more to a mere wheel in the clockwork of the national collectivist state that being deprived of his freedom to move.... Feeling that he belongs now to his nation, body and soul, he will be more easily subdued to the obedient state serf which nationalist and collectivist governments demand. -- Wilhelm Röpke

At 05:35 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote:

We've been down this road, and we obviously disagree.  The United States Constitution most definitely authorizes the Congress to controll immigration into our Nation.

 

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:01 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Unconstitutional ones? Not at all familiar with the Mexican Constitution (if one exists).

Regard$,

--MJ

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal aliens. ... Sadly, lawmakers have repeatedly interpreted this silence as license for ill-conceived legislation. Congress began barring entry to the nation in 1875 with prostitutes and convicts. Soon, all sorts of people fell short of congressional glory: ex-convicts in 1882, along with Chinese citizens, lunatics, and idiots. Paupers, polygamists, and people suffering from infectious diseases or insanity made the list in 1891, while the illiterate were banned in 1917. -- Becky Akers

At 04:58 PM 6/18/2011, you wrote:

Sounds to me as if Mexico has adopted the United States' immigration laws as they stand today.

 

 

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Mexico Reforms Its Immigration Laws

by Mark Nestmann

The Nestmann Group, Ltd.

Perhaps attempting to persuade its powerful neighbor to the North to do the same, last month, major revisions to Mexico's immigration laws came into effect.

The law has now become more "humane" and immigrant friendly. Among the changes announced are:

1) Illegal entry into Mexican territory is de-criminalized. This means that it is no longer a criminal offense to enter Mexico illegally, and violators will merely be sent back to where they last came from. Previously, illegal immigration was a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who were deported and attempted to re-enter Mexico could be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators could be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who helped illegal immigrants were also subject to criminal prosecution.

2) Illegal migrants will no longer be jailed. They will be taken to a facility run by the Instituto Nacional de Migracion (INM) where they will be fed, clothed, given medical care and the ability to contact their families in their country of origin.

3) Illegal migrants will have the right to seek political asylum or refuge in Mexico and will have a right to a hearing before a judge.

4) Local police, the military, customs and even the Policia Federal will no longer have the authority to question any foreigner's migratory status. They no longer have any authority to arrest or detain any person suspected of being in the country illegally. Only officials from the INM can do this.

5) Illegal migrants can be given the opportunity to regularize their status and obtain a work/residence permit.

6) Controls are loosened for citizens/nationals of Belize who find an employment in certain Mexican states (i.e. Quintana Roo) to ease the process of a work/residence permit.

The official line from a Mexican government spokesman that my friend and business partner P.T. Freeman listened to on the radio was that Mexico has amended its immigration law to take into account human rights and refugee rights. However, I don't believe this is the full story.

I think the real reason that Mexico changed its law was to send a message to the United States. Under federal law, any non-U.S. national who enters or attempts to enter U.S. territory in a manner other than through ordinary channels has committed a crime. Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison.

Numerous states, most notably my home state of Arizona, have attempted to enforce their own immigration laws. The most controversial aspect of the Arizona law – which never came fully into effect due to a successful court challenge – is that state and local police can ask anyone for proof of legal status in the United States. In other words, "your papers, please."

In this environment, it's a welcome change to see Mexico implementing more humane immigration laws. And, I hope that U.S. policymakers get the message – although I'm not holding my breath.

Reprinted with permission from The Nestmann Group, Ltd.

--

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.

--

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** Fw: ایک سادہ سی حقیقت DR MOHAMMED HASNAIN SIDDIQUI AMRSH-LONDON UK

REMEMBER ALMIGHTY ALLAH AND HOLY PROPHET. SERVEV THE NEEDY AND POOR PEOPLES. ALMIGHTY ALLAH HELP YOU. REMEMBER HOLY QURAN AND ITS  TEACHINGS SINCERELY. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Muhammad Ali Khan <khanalim363@gmail.com> To: khanalim363@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:16 AM Subject: ایک سادہ سی حقیقت کب ہم اس سادہ سی حقیقت پر پورا یقین کریں گے اور پھر معاشرے کے سدھار کے لئے اپنا منظم ، منضبط، مربوط اور مسلسل کردار ادا کرنے کے لئے تیار ہوں گے۔۔۔۔۔ کب ؟     This Worldly Golden Life Full of Opportunities .......To Put Efforts And To Utilize Optimum Resources (Rizq) is Only ONCE ....... For Sure There Is No Second Chance ......   يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلْإِنسَـٰنُ إِنَّكَ كَادِحٌ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكَ كَدْحًۭا فَمُلَـٰقِيهِ سورہ الانشقاق : آیت نمبر6   (O' Human Being ...... Your every step is bringing you closer to your Rubb and Surely You are to meet HIM ....)   Time is Running Out .......

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197