Monday, July 4, 2011

**JP** آج کاانتخاب

آج کاانتخاب

-------------------------------------------------------------------

شاعر  : احتشام علی

قفس کے زنگ لگے بام و در میں زندہ تھا
میں اپنے ٹوٹے ہوئے بال و پر میں زندہ تھا

وہ سرد سرد رویے تو جان لیوا تھے
میں برف برف رتوں کے نگر میں زندہ تھا

وہ ایک شخص جو مجھ کو اکیلے چھوڑ گیا
بچھڑ کے مجھ سے مری چشمِ تر میں زندہ تھا

یہ انتقام بھی لینا تھا زیست کو مجھ سے
تجھے گنوا کے بھی تیرے نگر میں زندہ تھا

**JP** CIA Agent Dr. Shakeel who help the CIA

 

Re: When you check this out it is sorta scary - do these people really not know?

Dick,

They really don't know.

On Jul 3, 6:29 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> http://www.parkwayreststop.com/archives/10006459

--
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: Military Discount at Lowes

This would make the USA a real special place for thieves and
fourflushers. You're a genuine veteran and could qualify for the
discount, but what if the guy behind you heard you getting a big
discount just by saying you served. What's to stop him from claiming
the discount just by claiming to be a veteran even though he wasn't--
and the guy behind him and the guy behind the guy behind him. Lowe's
isn't that stupid. Obviously they have a policy to grant the discount
only to those with documentary proof of military status. If your
cashier had been caught letting you claim the discount without proof,
he would--and should--have been fired on the spot. And what does his
place of birth have to do with it??!!! The same would apply to a
native born American. Would you expect it to be otherwise? The guy was
obviously doing his job well under difficult circumstances [the
difficult circumstance in this case being you] and is a credit to both
his new country and to his ancestry.

On Jul 3, 8:33 am, ray <jr3...@aol.com> wrote:
> Stopped by Lowes the other day to pick up and few odds and ends. Total
> bill came to about twenty bucks. At register, requested the military
> discount. I am a sixty year old Vietnam Vet of pure Irish heritage
> naturally born in this country. The cashier asked to see my military
> ID. I do not have a military ID and to be honest would not want to go
> through the trouble and effort of securing one. I relayed this
> information to cashier and he denied my discount. Now discount was
> only a couple of bucks and that is certainly no big deal. But here is
> the best part. The cashier was obviously born in India, Pakistan or
> regional country. He was difficult to understand. No problem with
> that, he will get better. But, for a gentleman who obviously came to
> this country using the very freedoms I helped secure for him, and then
> have the audacity to deny me?
>
> Just one more indication leading to the eventual erosion of all that
> was accomplished to make the USA such a special place.

--
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: Happy 4th of July




 

FINALLY A TRUE STORY - NOW JUST BELIEVE IT....

 

 

Posted by an anonymous person who reads newspapers every day.

 

The conclusion: The Arabs are not happy!!!

 

·        They are not happy  in Gaza.

·        They are not happy  in the West Bank.

·        They are not happy  in Jerusalem.

·        They are not happy  in Israel.

·        They are not happy  in Egypt.

·        They are not happy  in Libya.

·        They are not happy  in Algeria.

·        They are not happy  in Tunis.

·        They are not happy  in Morocco.

·        They are not happy  in Yemen.

·        They are not happy  in Iraq.

·        They are not happy  in Afghanistan. 

·        They are not happy  in Syria.

·        They are not happy  in Lebanon.

·        They are not happy  in Sudan.

·        They are not happy  in Jordan.

·        They are not happy  in Iran.

 

Where are the Arabs happy?

 

·        They are happy  in Britain.

·        They are happy  in France.

·        They are happy  in Italy.

·        They are happy  in Germany.

·        They are happy  in Sweden.

·        They are happy  in Holland.

·        They are happy  in Belgium.

·        They are happy  in Norway.

·        They are happy  in the U.S.A.

·        They are happy  in Romania.

·        They are happy  in Hungary.

 

They are happy in any other country in the world that is not under Muslim rule.

 

And whom do they blame?

 

·      Not Islam.

·      Not their leadership.

·      Not themselves.

 

But the same countries in which they are happy to live. Democracy is really good for them :

 

In a democracy  they can live comfortably at the taxpayers' expense, enjoy the high quality of life which they did not build and work for, they don't have to be productive and earn a living, they can be wild, pray in the streets, openly plot and preach against the "West", exploit social services  and bite  the hand that feeds them.

 

And by the time the free world wakes up, it will be too late ....

 

 


 

 

 


--
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.

JIHAD TRAINING FOR MUSLIM WOMEN at terrorist training camp in Hancock, NY




JIHAD TRAINING FOR MUSLIM WOMEN at terrorist training camp in Hancock, NY

barenakedislam | July 4, 2011 at 3:55 AM | Categories: EnemyWithin-American | URL: http://wp.me/peHnV-wks

HOMEGROWN TERRORISM: Located just 140 miles northwest of New York City, Hancock is the location of a secluded camp where Muslim women are trained on how to kill us and slit our throats. Lock & Load, people!

Read more of this post

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Reach out to your own subscribers with WordPress.com.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com


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

Re: Go figure

Luis,

In all your mentioned conflicts there was already Moslem on Moslem
conflict.... try a new fact based tact.

On Jul 4, 8:17 am, luis zuverza <luis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear hashem rules
> If Obama is still a Muslim at heart and In reality then, why does he
> continue to
> Wage the previous Christian administrations wars in muslim Iraq and
> Afghanistan?
> Not only there, but expanding into other muslim lands like Libya, syria,
> and beyond?
> Now, what were u saying about terrorism?
> On Jul 4, 2011 6:46 AM, "HaShem Rules" <01910infin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Obama is/was a Muslim. He converted to Christianity.
> > Should't the terrorists behead him or something for
> > being a traitor to his Muslim faith? They won't because
> > they know he is Muslim still. Rules like one, and he
> > hates Israel. Like all brethren of Ishmael do....
>
> > That's because they are genetic mutants through
> > Hagar and Ishmael...
>
> > OOFA...
> > Their is a hierachy in play upon the Earth....
> > Islam, Judaism, and Crop Markings are a part of it.
> > Crop Markings by legions of angels, of HaShem.
> > In fields impossible to hoax at the mature stage.
> > Fields of mature "Oil Seed Rape".
>
> > All the rest went, "under foot" in 1991, paid for, by
> > Rupert Murdoch....
>
> > Hoaxers win the psyche of man, with their stinking
> > feet...
>
> > Legions lose the psyche of man, with their baffling
> > technology....
>
> > --
> > 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/
> > * 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: The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July

Gee MJ,

This little treatise completely ignores the explanation and conditions
for all men to be equal ie:

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 to 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.


On Jul 4, 10:15 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> "The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights."The Real Meaning of the Fourth of JulybyJacob G. Hornberger, July 4, 2008
> Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It s easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.
> So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn t consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys -- traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.
> Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.
> Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government s forces at Yorktown does.
> Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man s rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.
> Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven t objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn t government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?
> The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.
> What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people s rights and freedoms.
> The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government s powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.
> Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government -- as a means to protect their rights -- they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.
> Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.
> On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history -- that man s rights come from God and nature, not from government.http://www.fff.org/comment/com0807b.asp

--
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 Phony Argument Against ‘Isolationism’


The Phony Argument Against 'Isolationism'
War Party twists history to suit its evil ends
by Justin Raimondo, July 04, 2011

The war continues – the war against "isolationism," that is. This time the latest blows are being struck on the op ed page of the New York Times, where Rutgers historian David Greenberg takes up the cudgels against these hated troglodytes. Bemoaning the sudden Republican turnabout on foreign policy, Professor Greenberg notes his surprise that the all-too-"predictable" response of GOP presidential candidates to President Obama's Afghanistan speech wasn't all that predictable after all: several declared his withdrawal announcement "too little, too late." In the Republican-controlled House, too, some have the nerve to question the President's legal authority to take us to war without congressional authorization – and, as if all that wasn't enough, GOP'ers afflicted with "balanced budget mania" have gone on a veritable rampage, and are actually talking about "scaling back defense spending of a sort that Republicans would once have never dared broach."

So, what does all this add up to, in Greenberg's view? Well, this:

"Suddenly, after the aggressive, militaristic foreign policy of the Bush years, isolationism ­ a stance that rejects America's leadership role in the world ­ is on the rise among Republicans."

If you think Congress, rather than the President, has the constitutionally-granted power to declare war, then what are you – a constitutionalist? An anti-monarchist? A believer in the rule of law? Well, no – you're an "isolationist."

If you don't sign on to the idea that America must exercise a " leadership role in the world" – i.e. if you don't' think we should be invading countries left and right and footing the bill for all kinds of international welfare schemes – you're somebody who wants to "isolate" America from the rest of the universe, no doubt by building a crocodile-filled moat on the border and posting a "Keep Out!" sign (in English only) just in case potential interlopers fail to take the hint.

By posing a false choice between a hyperactive foreign policy and an "isolationist" one, the War Party gets to argue as if they are the reasonable ones, and everyone else – in this case, most of the country – are marginal cranks. At this point, they get out their canned history lesson, and lecture us on the evils of our "isolationist" past, as does Professor Greenberg:

"But if this comes as an abrupt break, it is also a return to form: the impulse to retreat from the world stage has a long and hardy pedigree within Republican ranks. And while a dose of caution among conservatives can be refreshing, a Tea Party-led reversion to a dogmatic America First stance could damage both the party and the country.

"Modern Republican isolationism began with the 1919 battle over joining the League of Nations, when Senate Republicans, led by so-called Irreconcilables like William Borah of Idaho, killed the deal ­ even though without American guidance, European affairs were doomed to explode again. A pattern emerged, as liberal Democrats, along with Northeastern Republicans, wanted America to actively manage world affairs, while the Republicans' powerful Midwestern and Western factions viewed cooperative international ventures as dangerously entangling alliances."


Greenberg's historical overview is pretty much the Establishment party line: always there have been those "forward-looking" "progressive" leaders, like Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned tirelessly to get the US entangled in Europe's intrigues and her endless wars: and always, opposing these noble souls, there have been those nasty "Irreconcilables" – even the name sounds unreasonable, fanatic – who somehow doubted mortal men could "actively manage world affairs." What could possibly motivate these Irreconcilables, other than pure malicious contrarianism?

"The isolationists had complex motives: Congressional vigilance against presidential encroachments on their constitutional powers; a small-town obsession with balanced budgets; and conspiratorial suspicions of foreigners, financiers and ­ in the case of anti-Semites like Charles A. Lindbergh ­ Jews. Naturally, isolationism thrived among Congressional Republicans when a Democrat held the White House ­ as it does again today ­ but it continued through the Coolidge and Hoover years, too."

Those mean-minded members of Congress who think the Constitution must be obeyed – they're just selfish reactionaries, obsessed with maintaining their own power. And as for those who think we need to live within our means and balance the federal budget – they're just small-town "obsessives," and probably anti-Semites to boot.

Left out of Greenberg's pocket version of American history is World War I – and its legacy, which embittered an entire generation of American liberals who really did believe it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy." That is, until they saw the "peace" it created, which planted the seeds for yet another – and far bloodier – world conflagration. That was the warning of the "Irreconcilables," who saw the United States becoming an empire molded on the British model and – quite rightly – wanted no part of it.

Also left out of Greenberg's historical overview: the opponents of the "isolationists," who, in the post-WWI era, were an ominous-sounding group known as the "League to Enforce Peace." The Enforcers wanted to set up a world government, with the US and Britain at its head: anyone who looked cross-eyed at these Global Governors would be promptly invaded, subdued, and occupied. That was their idea of "peace" – pretty much the same vision upheld by today's internationalists, except they hadn't yet thought of proposing a World Central Bank.

A whole range of figures come up for Greenberg's opprobrium: Robert A. Taft, Phyliss Schlafly, radio host Paul Harvey, as well as Lindbergh: Taft for opposing NATO and the sacred idea of "collective security" (i.e. setting tripwires for war), Schlafly and Harvey for questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam war (Abbie Hoffman and the New York Times editorial page are exempted from the "isolationist" label, although they too opposed that foolish war.)

"Right-wing isolationism" was thought to have died out when Eisenhower stole the GOP presidential nomination from Taft, but no: the monster lives! It reemerged in the 1990s, on account of the fall of the Soviet Union, and "the perception that Mr. [George Herbert Walker] Bush's foreign affairs focus blinded him to economic suffering at home" (how unreasonable!). This led Republicans to wonder what we were doing in the Balkans – that maelstrom of unresolvable conflicts – siding with Osama bin Laden. Those isolationist cranks! Will they never learn?

And now, when the world "needs the US" to lead it to "stability" more than ever, there they are again – the isolationists are once more on the scene, doing their mischief. Who will rid us of these troublesome troglodytes? Professor Greenberg to the rescue!

"And this time, the G.O.P.'s old Eastern wing, which used to provide internationalist ballast, is almost nonexistent. A healthy democracy needs critics, particularly when it engages in risky overseas adventures. But the doctrinaire call to drastically scale back our global leadership role has usually led us into error, making the world a more chaotic and dangerous place. Following the path of isolationism today won't serve America well. Nor will it help the Republicans."

Let us take a moment, before getting into the meat of the matter, to rejoice that the Eastern Establishment of the Republican party – the old Rockefeller wing – is dead and buried. From the Lodge clan to the Rockefeller faction, these Big Government-friendly patricians have manipulated both their party and the federal government into enriching the investment bankers they have always served so faithfully. This has been their modus operandi throughout our history, from the invasion and occupation of Panama to secure the Canal right up to modern times, when the Rockefeller wing schemed ( successfully) to get us into World War II in the Pacific (the rubber trade of Southeast Asia and the vast China market were in their sights).

One has to ask Professor Greenberg: who is being "doctrinaire," here – the interventionists (like himself) who adhere to a failed policy of global meddling, which has gotten us into nothing but trouble and costs us trillions, or the "isolationists" who are saying it's time for a new course?

Greenberg's point is that non-intervention is not a new course, but rather an old pattern that was broken by his heroes Wilson and FDR – but what he leaves out is that the "isolationists" lost. Their advice – stay out of both world wars, mind our own business, abjure the temptations of empire – wasn't followed: instead, we chose a path to "world leadership," and now that the American Imperium is crumbling on every frontier some are beginning to call its alleged necessity into question.

It is Greenberg and his fellow interventionists who are the doctrinaires. Not since the end of World War II have we tried any policy other than asserting our alleged right to "world leadership." But what if the world doesn't want to be led – especially by us?

Well, then, these latter-day adherents of the League to Enforce Peace will just go in there and start enforcing, whether the world likes it or not.

Except that well-worn policy isn't working out very well for us, as any objective observer of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia will testify. We are coming to the end of our ability – and Americans' willingness – to police the world. Call that "small town" if you will, but an empire is a luxury we can no longer afford. If Greenberg and the War Party's academic detachment can't or won't reconcile themselves to the economic and political facts of reality, then it is they who are the true Irreconcilables.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/07/03/the-phony-argument-against-isolationism/

Re: There is No First Amendment Without a Second Amendment.

Remember.... the Second amendment is in place not so we can repel
invaders whether home or national border... it is there so we can
protect ourselves from our own government.

On Jul 3, 8:33 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>     <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/stungunsandmace/> There
> is No First Amendment Without a Second
> Amendment.<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/there-is-no-first-a...>
> *Steve <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/author/stungunsandmace/>* |
> July 3, 2011 at 4:27 am | Tags: Alan
> Caruba<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=alan-caruba>,
> Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and
> Explosives<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=bureau-of-alcohol-tobacco...>,
> Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
> Arms<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=citizens-committee-for-th...>,
> Michael Bloomberg<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=michael-bloomberg>,
> Obama administration<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=obama-administration>,
> Second Amendment
> Foundation<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=second-amendment-foundation>,
> Second Amendment to the United States
> Constitution<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=second-amendment-to-the-u...>,
> United States <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?tag=united-states> |
> Categories: Constitution <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=29050>,
> crime <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34945349>, Idiot Law
> Makers <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=57323845>, Second
> Amendment <http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=102988>, Tea
> Party<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/?cat=34918731>| URL:http://wp.me/pKuKY-7VU
>
>  <http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/gunflash.gif>
>
> Like AMEX, Don 't Leave Home Without It.
>
> *A very timely reminder of just how and where we came from. And the
> Consequences of ever giving up your second amendment right. Happy 4th Of
> July, It's up to us to have many more.  ~Steve~*
>
> *Reposted From Tea Party Nation.*
>
> http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873%3ABlogPos...
>
> Posted by Alan Caruba<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/profile/AlanCaruba>on
> July 2, 2011 at 5:00pm
>
> Send Message <http://l/> View Alan Caruba's
> blog<http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/list?user=wo5vy0y6lr5s>
>
> By Alan Caruba
>
> When we celebrate the Fourth of July<http://www.history.com/topics/july-4th>,
> let's keep in mind that the first
> Americans<http://www.history.com/topics/states>won their independence
> from England with the force of arms. It was, in fact,
> a British effort in 1775 to confiscate military arms they believed were
> stored in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts that sparked the war.
>
> The Founding Fathers were so aware of the need for an armed citizenry that,
> after ensuring freedom of religion, speech, press and the right to
> peacefully assemble in the First Amendment, the Second guaranteed their
> right to bear arms.
>
> Wherever authoritarian regimes were established in the last century, they
> took away this right and then proceeded to kill those deemed enemies of the
> state.
>
> At this point in American history, the Obama
> administration<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/obama-administration>constitutes
> a threat to the Constitution in general and the Second
> Amendment<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Co...>in
> particular.
> *More than 80,000,000 Americans are gun owners.*
>
> Two of the organizations that have been fighting to protect these rights are
> the Second Amendment
> Foundation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_Foundation>(SAF)
> and the Citizens
> Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear
> Arms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Committee_for_the_Right_to_Keep...>(CCRKBA),
> both led by Alan M. Gottlieb. Three quarters of the SAF budget is
> devoted to defending rights pertaining to the ownership of guns and to carry
> them for self-defense.
>
> In March, the Huffington Post had an article titled "Obama Looking for Ways
> Around Congress on Gun
> Policy"<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_83...>by
> Sam Stein. "Faced with a Congress hostile to even slight restrictions
> of
> Second Amendment rights, the Obama administration is exploring potential
> changes to gun laws that can be secured strictly through executive action,
> administration officials, say."
>
> *Since then we have learned of a U.S. Alcohol, Tobacco and
> Firearms<http://www.atf.gov/>program, Fast and Furious, that actually
> facilitated the sale and transfer
> of guns to Mexico. How demented is that?*
>
> In May in my home state of New Jersey the SAF won a decision against
> officials for the deprivation of civil rights under the color of law when
> they had ruled that an applicant for a concealed carry permit had not
> demonstrated a "justifiable need" for it. In point of fact, the applicant,
> Philip Muller, had been kidnapped by members of a motorcycle gang who
> threatened to kill him. They had, however, grabbed the wrong man.
>
> Despite support by local and state police, action on his application was
> delayed for six months. Morris County Superior Court Judge David Ironson
> issued a directive that a permit should be granted. The case is still
> on-going with other plaintiffs that include a part-time sheriff's deputy, an
> applicant who carries large amounts of cash in his private business, and a
> civilian employee of the FBI with legitimate concerns of an attack from a
> radical Islamic group.
>
> Currently nearly thirty such cases have either been brought or joined by SAF
> to stop abuses of this most fundamental right of American citizens ranging
> from bans on interstate handgun sales, New York Mayor Michael
> Bloomberg<http://www.biography.com/articles/Michael-Bloomberg-16466704>'s
> imposition of a $340 fee for a permit to keep a handgun in one's home, and a
> Chicago ban on gun ranges open to the public. These cases cost between
> $60,000 and $80,000 each!
>
> *The greatest single threat to gun ownership right now is a United Nations
> "Small Arms Treaty" falsely identified as an "international arms control
> treaty" allegedly to fight terrorism."*
>
> "In reality," says Gottlieb, it is "a massive, global gun control scheme.
> It's a sham. It's a fraud." If the U.S., under the Obama administration and
> with the consent of the Senate, were to sign on to this treaty, it would
> nullify the Second Amendment.
>
> Suffice to say that the Obama administration wants to have the power to
> increase federal fees on guns and ammunition, to ban guns that are imported,
> to extend the waiting periods for permits, to ban the use of guns on all
> government property, and even to make it illegal if you own a gun and smoke!
>
> Americans do not have to "justify" gun ownership. It is guaranteed by the
> Second Amendment. The reality is that enemies of this fundamental rights
> continue to wage an assault on it.
>
> For information about SAF visithttp://www.saf.org/and CCRKBA athttp://www.ccrkba.org/.
>
> © Alan Caruba, 2011
>
> Add a comment to this
> post<http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/there-is-no-first-a...>
>
>   [image: WordPress]
>
> WordPress.com <http://wordpress.com/> | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
> Manage Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Unsubscribe<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=5d39acfd19218362d540a3fc3dc3315d&...>|
> Express
> yourself. Start a blog. <http://wordpress.com/signup/?ref=email>
>
> *Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:*http://subscribe.wordpress.com

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

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

The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July

"The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights."

The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July
by Jacob G. Hornberger, July 4, 2008

Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It's easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.

So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn't consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys -- traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.

Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.

Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government's forces at Yorktown does.

Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man's rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.

Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven't objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn't government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?

The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men -- not just Americans -- have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people -- and exist at their pleasure -- for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people's rights and freedoms.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government's powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.

Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government -- as a means to protect their rights -- they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.

Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.

On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history -- that man's rights come from God and nature, not from government.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0807b.asp

A Declaration of Independence Against Big Government


Friday, July 2, 2010
A Declaration of Independence Against Big Government
by Richard M. Ebeling
Posted by Northwood University at 4:50 AM

The Declaration of Independence, signed by members of the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, is the founding document of the American experiment in free government. What is too often forgotten is that what the Founding Fathers argued against in the Declaration was the heavy and intrusive hand of big government.

Most Americans easily recall those eloquent words with which the Founding Fathers expressed the basis of their claim for independence from Great Britain in 1776:

"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 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."

But what is usually not recalled is the long list of enumerated grievances that make up most of the text of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers explained how intolerable an absolutist and highly centralized government in faraway London had become. This distant government violated the personal and civil liberties of the people living in the 13 colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America.

In addition, the king's ministers imposed rigid and oppressive economic regulations and controls on the colonists that was part of the 18th-century system of government central planning known as mercantilism.

"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," the signers declared.

At every turn, the British Crown had concentrated political power and decision-making in its own hands, leaving the American colonists with little ability to manage their own affairs through local and state governments. Laws and rules were imposed without the consent of the governed; local laws and procedures meant to limit abusive or arbitrary government were abrogated or ignored.

The king also had attempted to manipulate the legal system by arbitrarily appointing judges that shared his power-lusting purposes or were open to being influenced to serve the monarch's policy goals. The king's officials unjustly placed colonists under arrest in violation of writ of habeas corpus, and sentenced them to prison without trial by jury. Colonists often were violently conscripted to serve in the king's armed forces and made to fight in foreign wars.

A financially burdensome standing army was imposed on the colonists without the consent of the local legislatures. Soldiers often were quartered among the homes of the colonists without their approval or permission.

In addition, the authors of the Declaration stated, the king fostered civil unrest by creating tensions and conflicts among the different ethnic groups in his colonial domain. (The English settlers and the Native American Indian tribes.)

But what was at the heart of many of their complaints and grievances against King George III were the economic controls that limited their freedom and the taxes imposed that confiscated their wealth and honestly earned income.

The fundamental premise behind the mercantilist planning system was the idea that it was the duty and responsibility of the government to manage and direct the economic affairs of society. The British Crown shackled the commercial activities of the colonists with a spider's web of regulations and restrictions. The British government told them what they could produce, and dictated the resources and the technologies that could be employed. The government prevented the free market from setting prices and wages, and manipulated what goods would be available to the colonial consumers. It dictated what goods might be imported or exported between the 13 colonies and the rest of the world, thus preventing the colonists from benefiting from the gains that could have been theirs under free trade.

Everywhere, the king appointed various "czars" who were to control and command much of the people's daily affairs of earning a living. Layer after layer of new bureaucracies were imposed over every facet of life. "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance," the Founding Fathers explain.

In addition, the king and his government imposed taxes upon the colonists without their consent. Their income was taxed to finance expensive and growing projects that the king wanted and that he thought was good for the people, whether the people themselves wanted them or not.

The 1760s and early 1770s saw a series of royal taxes that burdened the American colonists and aroused their ire: the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, the Townsend Acts of 1767, the Tea Act of 1773 (which resulted in the Boston Tea Party), and a wide variety of other fiscal impositions.

The American colonists often were extremely creative at avoiding and evading the Crown's regulations and taxes through smuggling and bribery (Paul Revere smuggled Boston pewter into the West Indies in exchange for contraband molasses.)

The British government's response to the American colonists' "civil disobedience" against their regulations and taxes was harsh. The king's army and navy killed civilians and wantonly ruined people's private property. "He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people," the Declaration laments.

After enumerating these and other complaints, the Founding Fathers said in the Declaration:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Thus, the momentous step was taken to declare their independence from the British Crown. The signers of the Declaration then did "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor," in their common cause of establishing a free government and the individual liberty of the, then, three million occupants of those original 13 colonies.

Never before in history had a people declared and then established a government based on the principles of the individual's right to his life, liberty, and property. Never before was a society founded on the ideal of economic freedom, under which free men may peacefully produce and exchange with each other on the terms they find mutually beneficial without the stranglehold of regulating and planning government.

Never before had a people made clear that self-government meant not only the right of electing those who would hold political office and pass the laws of the land, but also meant that each human being had the right to be self-governing over his own life. Indeed, in those inspiring words in the Declaration, the Founding Fathers were insisting that each man should be considered as owning himself, and not be viewed as the property of the state to be manipulated by either king or Parliament.

It is worth remembering, therefore, that what we are celebrating every July 4 is the idea and the ideal of each human being's right to his life and liberty, and his freedom to pursue happiness in his own way, without paternalistic and plundering government getting in his way.

http://defenseofcapitalism.blogspot.com/2010/07/declaration-of-independence-against-big.html

The Warmonger’s Lexicon


The Warmonger's Lexicon
by Laurence M. Vance

Defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions look like the majority of Americans. They also dress like them, eat like them, work like them, play like them, and talk like them. However, it is sometimes impossible to communicate with or make sense of them because some things they say have their own peculiar definition.

This differs from military doublespeak.

To really understand these defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, one needs a warmonger's lexicon. To get started, I propose the following entries:

Just war: any war the United States engages in.
Good war: any war in which the United States is on the winning side.
Defensive war: any war the United States starts.

George Bush: the Messiah, but especially when he was fighting against Muslims.
Barack Obama: Satan, but not when he is fighting against Muslims.

Insurgent: anyone who dares to fight against U.S. troops occupying his country.
Militant: see insurgent.
Enemy combatant: see militant.
Freedom fighter: an insurgent, militant, or enemy combatant supported by the United States when he fights against some other country.

Weapons of mass destruction: weapons that foreigners can use to attack Americans.
Advanced weapons systems: weapons that Americans can use to attack foreigners.

Allies: countries that support U.S. foreign policy.
Enemies: countries that don't support U.S. foreign policy.

Patriot: any American who supports U.S. foreign wars.
Traitor: any American who opposes U.S. foreign wars.

Hero: any American solider who fought in any war against any country for any reason.
Coward: any American who doesn't support U.S. soldiers fighting in senseless foreign wars.

American: supporting large defense budgets.
UnAmerican: opposing large defense budgets.

Threat to American security: see unAmerican, coward, and traitor.

Veteran: God's chosen people.
Non-veterans: second-class citizens.

Muslim: terrorist.
Terrorist: Muslim.

Soldier: public servant.
Civilian: freeloader.

Isolationist: any American who opposes U.S. wars, empire, and/or foreign policy.

Zionist: someone who favors U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.
Anti-Semite: someone who opposes U.S. military intervention in the Middle East.

Pacifist: enemy of the United States.
Draft dodger: see pacifist.

Dead U.S. soldier: fallen hero.
Dead foreign civilian: collateral damage.

Torture: torture of Americans by foreigners.
Enhanced interrogation techniques: torture of foreigners by Americans.
Extraordinary rendition: U.S. supported torture of foreigners by foreigners.

U.S. interests: anything the United States wants to be interested in.

When it comes to defenders of U.S. wars and military interventions, learn their language so you won't be intimidated or deceived by them, but don't waste too much of your time with them. There is nothing more frustrating than discussing the finer points of something like just war theory and then finding out thirty minutes later that the warmonger you thought you were having a meaningful conversation with and in basic agreement with believes that all the wars the United States has engaged in are just wars.

http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance249.html

The Proliferation of Illegal Wars Erodes American Values

Opinions
The Proliferation of Illegal Wars Erodes American Values
Jun. 26 2011 - 11:35 am

A genuinely pro-capitalist U.S. foreign policy would advance both the national and rational self-interest of Americans, which is: to live and flourish under authentic freedom, true justice, and the rule of law, with individual rights to life, liberty, and property protected by government against the initiation of force or fraud by hostile foreigners. To be clear, this does not mean fighting unjustified wars in Viet Nam, Iraq or Libya.

Both President Obama and the GOP-led Congress failed yet again this week to abide by these principles as they apply to U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Libya. Not only do these operations remain undeclared wars – hence lawless and unconstitutional acts – but decisions this week by Obama and his GOP allies will likely only prolong the lawlessness, and in the process further undermine our freedom and fiscal health.

On Afghanistan this week, about which Mr. Obama once told ABC News (in July 2009) he was "always worried about using the word victory," the U.S. has declared defeat. Recall that Obama increased troop levels there from 34,000 when he took office to 103,000 a year ago; now he says he'll reduce those levels to 68,000 by next summer, which would still leave troops at double the level they were when he took office. Yet there are few signs of actual U.S. success in this decade-long "war." Much like his predecessor, Mr. Obama seems to be blithely exploiting U.S. troops in Afghanistan, using them as nation-builders, thus sitting ducks, not enemy-killers. But Obama's schemes are no better in Libya – and resemble yet another U.S. foreign policy disaster-in-waiting

Part of the problem is that U.S. foreign-policy makers are no longer guided by the principles of the Founders. The U.S. Constitution rightly makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military (Article One, Section 2), but in order that he properly and effectively deploy the military it also requires him first to persuade Congress to vote upon and declare war (Article Two, Section 8), which means the President must cite the provocation, name the enemy, and project a plausible path to victory. In this way, unjustified wars are more easily avoided, and crucially, when Congress approves war it implicitly pledges to support the military. In a less-cited provision, the Constitution also requires that while Congress funds the military, "no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" (Article 2, Section 8).

Clearly, the Constitution's framers sought to divide and restrict the U.S. power to declare, finance, and wage war.  Also, they hoped it would be rare, undertaken only with utmost necessity for the protection of America's security and liberty, and never "open-ended" in time. In short, U.S. wars were to be few and winnable, not common and interminable. The Framers also knew that domestic liberty and property are most at risk during war, a principle that's been documented in subsequent U.S. history by Robert Higgs in Crisis and Leviathan (1987).

If instead of America seeking victory in a delimited war against a specific enemy it eschews victory amid an endless war against ubiquitous and elusive assailants – as is so in today's so-called "war" on a mere tactic ("terrorism") – then threats and assaults on domestic civil-economic liberties also will become ubiquitous and interminable. Instead of a "return to normalcy" (and sustained prosperity), as it was called after World War I, we'd be left in a state of perpetual abnormalcy, with prolonged mistreatment of the troops, outlandish deficit-spending, vast money-printing, increased regimentation, and intensified assaults on privacy and other rights.

This tragic principle should make clear why those who push so loudly and incessantly for endless, more-expansive, but fundamentally unjustified U.S. wars – such as the Krauthammer neo-conservatives and U.S. Senators John Kerry, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham – most undermine American liberty and security. Posing as patriotic "hawks," in fact they're transforming a republic of liberty into an empire of tyranny.

Since the Constitution's adoption in 1789 the U.S. Congress has declared war only five times: the War of 1812, Mexican War (1848), Spanish-American War (1898), World War I (1916), and World War II (1941). Yet presidents have committed U.S. forces hundreds of times without such approval, starting with Jefferson's deployment of the navy to Libya in 1801. The most carnage inflicted on U.S. military personnel in lawless deployments occurred during the Korean "conflict" (1951-53), Viet Nam (1966-75), and Afghanistan-Iraq (2001-present). The last quarter century has seen the U.S. military used without Congressional approval in Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Somalia (1992), Bosnia (1995), Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011). Congress isn't blameless in these cases, either, for it has refused to withhold the funding necessary for such ventures.

Perhaps it's no coincidence that war hasn't been declared officially (i.e., constitutionally) by the U.S. since 1945, compared to the prior 150 years (1791-1941), because in our "modern" era left-wing "progressives" have preached that the Constitution is old-fashioned and essentially irrelevant to the protection of economic liberties. Why then not also evade the document when it comes to waging war or treating civil liberties? We all know the U.S. has acted beyond all constitutional constraint in the other areas of life – see confiscatory taxation and the regulation of business and personal matters – so why not also in matters military? This is the natural progression of any autocratic police state – which it seems American government is becoming.

On his Libyan invasion Obama hasn't complied with the Constitution because the goal has nothing to do with America's self-interest (i.e., self-defense), as I first explained last March. Now that the invasion is older than three months, Obama also has violated the War Powers Act (1973). Enacted by two-thirds of a Democrat-controlled Congress over the veto of President Nixon, with the aim of restricting his actions in the Viet Nam "conflict," the Act allows the President to use delimited military force without a formal war declaration, but only if it's "a national emergency created by attack upon the U.S., its territories or possessions, or its armed forces" and only if he obtains ex-post authorization from Congress.

Under the Act the President must "notify" Congress within 2 days of committing armed forces, and those forces can't be deployed for more than 60 days, plus a 30-day withdrawal period, for a total of 90 days. The legal clock has already run out on Obama's Libyan invasion – yet no one in Washington is bothering to stop him.

Similarly, since 1973 the War Powers Act has been ignored by most presidents (and Congresses) and today is derided by both sides as "unconstitutional," even though the Supreme Court hasn't ruled as such, and even though the Act serves as perfectly reasonable attempt to restrict U.S. war powers without unduly weakening the executive. The intellectual context of the Act suggests its overall intent: it was adopted in the same year famed historian Arthur Schlesinger published his classic, The Imperial Presidency. But cavalier views of war powers generally and of the Act specifically makes the U.S. no less imperial now than in the 1970s.

As a candidate in 2007 Obama openly defended the War Powers Act and derided then-President George W. Bush for ignoring it: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," Obama said. Yet he now claims that he has such power, and wields it properly. By now thousands of U.S. military personnel have toiled on his idiosyncratic Libyan invasion, while billions of dollars have been spent and hundreds of expensive U.S. cruise missiles have been fired. Mr. Obama initially said it would take mere "days and weeks, not months" to finish what he denies is a "war," as the Libya campaign "does not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor does it involve U.S. ground troops."

So the new foreign policy of allegedly "dovish" Democrats is that a U.S. President can unilaterally bomb another nation, so long as that nation doesn't "actively" exchange fire or observe U.S. ground troops. More than absurd, Obama's approach is abjectly arbitrary, for he characterizes the new U.S. military approach as "leading from behind" – in this case, "hiding" under the veil of NATO, which everyone knows is a mere U.S. proxy. The blatant contradiction of "leading from behind" is the Obama Doctrine: the U.S. may unilaterally bomb another nation, yet never to secure a victory, and it can unilaterally demand the ouster of any foreign leader, yet also leave him securely in place – which makes the U.S. both a liar and a paper tiger.

To their credit, earlier this month ten Congressmen (seven Republicans and three Democrats) sued Mr. Obama for violating the War Powers Act, naming "the executive branch's circumvention of Congress and its use of international organizations such as the U.N. and NATO to authorize the use of military force abroad, in violation of the Constitution." Yet the GOP-led Congress has failed pathetically to check Obama. Last week it voted against authorizing his Libyan campaign (by 295-123), yet hours later voted for funding it (by 230-180). Most Republicans (93%) voted against the authorization, while most Democrats (56%) voted for it, but then 57% of Republicans (and 48% of Democrats) endorsed the funding.

Some Congressmen consistently voted against both the authorization and the funding, but those who opposed authorization and supported funding constitute the kind of contemptible, unprincipled hypocrites who ruin any nation. More accurately perhaps, hypocrisy is embedded in the electorate, which chooses such "leaders" in the first place. Regardless, neither liberty nor security is served by the sheer travesty that U.S. foreign policy has become.

http://blogs.forbes.com/richardsalsman/2011/06/26/the-proliferation-of-illegal-wars-erodes-american-values/

It is an understatement to say taxation is theft.


Saturday, July 2, 2011
It is an understatement to say taxation is theft.
by Paul Zimmerman

It is a truism in libertarian circles that taxation is theft and while that is very much true, it understates the matter to a great extent.

Let me back up a bit for anyone who has stumbled upon this blog and has never been exposed to this notion, i.e. that taxation is theft. 

What is theft?  It is the taking of someone's property by force, deception and/or coercion.  If you were confronted on the street by a thug with a gun who demanded your wallet you would quickly realize that if you resist you risk injury or death.  What is taxation? The taking of someone's property by the government, with the threat of the use of force.  If you were to resist you are liable to have your property taken from you by force through seizure or liens.  If you resist enough you risk fines (more theft), imprisonment or death.  Theft is theft, whether committed by a mugger in an alley or a government employee.

But wait, you pay your taxes voluntarily.  You're happy to pay your 'fair share' and nobody forces you to pay.  So taxation, at least in your case, isn't theft.  Right?  Wrong.  The reality is that the best theives can take what you have without you ever knowing that you've been robbed.  The con artist can steal your money and make you feel good about it and the government can do the same to those who don't see through their scam.  Of course the difference between con artists and the government is that if you get wise to a con they'll just move on to another victim, but if you decide you will not pay those 'voluntary' taxes anymore you are liable to have government agents with guns show up to seize you and your property.  Tell them that you gladly and voluntarily paid your taxes in the past, but now you have rethought the matter and have decided that you no longer want to pay taxes.  The response you get won't be substantially different than what you would expect would happen if you told a gang of muggers 'no, I think I'll keep my wallet.'

As George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Government is not like force.  It is force.  The same force that is used by armed robbers and rapists. 

But to get back to my original thesis that it is an understatement to say taxation is theft, why would I say that?  Because taxation is a special kind of theft,  taxation is slavery. 

The 19th century abolitionists knew that slavery was theft;  they called slave owners and traders 'man stealers'. 

"The great fundamental principle of Abolitionists is that man cannot rightfully hold his fellow man as property. Therefore, we affirm that every slaveholder is a man stealer; a man, is a man, and as a man he has inalienable rights he cannot rightfully be reduced to slavery. Our principle is that no circumstances can ever justify a man in holding his fellow man as property." -- Catharine E. Beecher

So how do we get from the theft of property to the theft of a human being?  How is taxation slavery?  Because the money you earn is payment for selling your time, talents and labor to your employer or customer.  If you can sell 40 hours of your time, your labor to someone for $600 (or $15 an hour), then if the government steals a third of your earnings, or $200, they have really taken 13 hours and 20 minutes of your life for that week or 665 hours a year or nearly 28 twenty-four hour days, every year.  Of course in the U.S. most people have more than a third of their earnings stolen from them. 

During the dark days of American slavery if someone had proposed letting all the slaves go, but with the understanding that in exchange for their 'freedom' from slavery they were required by law to show up at the plantations of their former owners once a year and labor and toil for them for 28 days straight or go to prison, no one would have claimed that this arrangement was the end of slavery, but only a modification of the terms of their bondage. 

Americans were forced to work on Uncle Sam's plantation from January 1, 2011 to April 12, 2011.  If that ain't slavery, I don't know what is.

http://bit.ly/lRPLEg

Re: Tea Party!

And your point is---what? That the President and the White House staff
are overpaid? Is the Tea Party nothing more than a bunch of folks who
are mad that somebody else makes more than they do? I hope not. The
Tea Party is spearheading a wonderful change in the political
atmosphere. For the first time in my [long] life it is possible to
honestly speak for reduction of the role of the Federal Government and
to honestly hope that it might happen. If it's actually going to
happen, we're going to need to attract intelligent, competent people
to do the job right--people who can make a hell of a lot more than a
measly hundred thousand in the private sector. Grousing about salaries
that are far below comparable pay elsewhere is a less-than-intelligent
way of furthering the cause. It's penny wise and pound foolish. The
real scandal is that the President makes ONLY $400,000.

On Jul 2, 8:11 pm, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 141 White House staffers make six figures
>
>    - 551<http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A//money.cnn.com/2011/07/0...>
>    -
>    - 8<http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&source=CNNMoney&url=ht...>
>
>    - Print<http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/01/news/economy/white_house_salaries/>
>    - Comment<http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/01/news/economy/white_house_salaries/>
>
> By Charles Riley @CNNMoney <http://twitter.com/CNNmoney> July 1, 2011: 6:22
> PM ET
> [image: white-house-money.gi.top.jpg]
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- One out of every three White House employees makes at
> least $100,000 a year, according to data released by the White House on
> Friday.
>
> Top earners pull down a salary of $172,200 a year, while three employees
> have a salary of $0. Most staffers fall somewhere in the middle.
>
> The average salary is $81,765 a year, while the median employee salary is
> $70,000. The lowest full time salary is $41,000 a year.
>
> The list<http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2011>
> is
> a little top heavy, with 21 sharing the title of top earner. But the names
> at the top are among the most recognizable the White House has to offer.
>
> White House Press Secretary Jay Carney makes $172,200, as does
> counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, speechwriter Jon Favreau, adviser
> David Plouffe and Chief of Staff Bill Daley.
>
> While that's well above the national average, White House staffers often
> command far more lucrative salaries in the private sector -- and some gave
> them up to work for Obama.
> Congressional loot: What's Nancy Pelosi
> worth?<http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/news/1106/gallery.congress_member...>
>
> Plouffe, for example, walked
> away<http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/22/millionaires-in-the-white-...>
> from
> a $1.5 million salary as a consultant at Plouffe Strategies when he joined
> the administration.
>
> Records also show that Daley, former Midwest chairman and head of corporate
> responsibility at JPMorgan
> (JPM<http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=JPM&source=story_quote_link>
> , Fortune 500<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/snapshots/2608...>),
> raked in $8.7 million from the bank in 2010, including a $675,000 salary and
> $4.8 million bonus.
>
> Obama himself earns $400,000, double the $200,000 President Clinton earned
> annually during his eight years in office. The president's pay hike went
> into effect during the presidency of George W. Bush.
>
> In total, the 454 White House staffers earn a payroll of $37,121,463. [image:
> To top of page]<http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/01/news/economy/white_house_salaries/#TO...>
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/01/news/economy/white_house_salaries/

--
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.

Two New Firearms Issued







Political News


Ruger issues two new semi-auto models for the times we are in

Posted: 03 Jul 2011 09:47 AM PDT


The first new issue is called the Congressman, in honor of our Representatives and Senators.

 

The second new issues is dedicated to the dwindling ranks of Americans and is called the Union Worker.

These fantastic new semi-autos well represent the groups they honor.

They don't work and you can't fire them.

 

(Thanks, Fred)

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


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

A TRIP TO COSTCO.




A TRIP TO COSTCO.

Umm Yum. Boy These people think of everything.

Yesterday I was at my local COSTCO buying a large bag of Purina dog chow for my loyal pet, Biscuit, the Wonder Dog and was in the checkout line when a woman behind me asked if I had a dog.

What did she think I had, an elephant? So since I'm retired and have little to do, on impulse I told her that no, I didn't have a dog, I was starting the Purina Diet again.. I added that I probably shouldn't, because I ended up in the hospital last time, but that I'd lost 50 pounds before I awakened in an intensive care ward with tubes coming out of most of my orifices and IVs in both arms.

I told her that it was essentially a perfect diet and that the way that it works is to load your pants pockets with Purina nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The food is nutritionally complete so it works well and I was going to try it again. (I have to mention here that practically everyone in line was now enthralled with my story.) Horrified, she asked if I ended up in intensive care because the dog food poisoned me. I told her no, I stepped off a curb to sniff an Irish Setter's Arse, and a car hit us both.

I thought the guy behind her was going to have a heart attack he was laughing so hard.

Costco won't let me shop there anymore.

Better watch what you ask retired people. They have all the time in the world to think of crazy things to say. Forward this (especially) to all your retired friends......it will be their Laugh for the day

Add a comment to this post



WordPress

WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress!
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe | Publish text, photos, music, and videos by email using our Post by Email feature.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com



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