Monday, November 7, 2011

a reasonable decision

By Eric Fleischauer

Decatur Utilities now prohibits illegal immigrants from obtaining
electric, gas, water or sewer service, an official said Friday.

Stephen Pirkle, DU business manager and chief financial officer, said
DU previously required residents seeking utilities to provide
identification, but their immigration status was not relevant.

"We did not document or confirm whether or not they were citizens or
aliens here legally," Pirkle said. "Because of the new law, we are now
going through the process to confirm that they are either a citizen or
an alien here legally.

"If not, we will deny them service."

In seeking a ruling that the immigration law was unconstitutional, the
U.S. Department of Justice claimed that Section 30 would prevent
illegal immigrants from obtaining power and water service.

State Attorney General Luther Strange argued in a legal brief he filed
in August that the Justice Department's claim was "misinterpreting, or
at least exaggerating" the requirements of the law.

"Its fear that Section 30 would prohibit such aliens from having
running water or sewer services, for example, has little basis,"
Strange wrote.

Section 30 makes it a felony for illegal immigrants to transact
business with the state or its subdivisions.

In the brief, Strange said many utilities are not subdivisions of the
state and not subject to Section 30.

Pirkle said DU began imposing the requirement in the last two weeks,
but he is not aware that anyone has been denied service based on
immigration status.

He said it is not always clear whether a person is an undocumented
immigrant or simply failed to bring necessary identification to apply
for service.

Pirkle said DU is only requiring documentation of legal immigrant
status for individuals and partnerships beginning new service, adding
an account to existing service or attempting to restore service after
it has been shut off for nonpayment.

"If you're already a customer and you already have service with us —
and there's no discontinuation of service — we don't have to do
anything," Pirkle said.

Section 30 of the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen
Protection Act requires the state and its political subdivisions to
confirm that individuals conducting "business transactions" — which
the law defines to mean "any transaction" — are legally present in the
United States.

The law makes it a felony for a legal resident to enter into a
transaction with the state or its subdivisions on behalf of an
undocumented immigrant.

State Rep. Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, the House sponsor of the law,
applauded DU for taking the step.

--
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.

Sistine Chapel




Subject: Sistine Chapel
  MOVE THE MOUSE AROUND AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. TO VIEW EVERY PART OF THE  MICHELANGELO'S MASTERPIECE, JUST CLICK AND DRAG YOUR ARROW IN THE DIRECTION YOU WISH TO SEE. In the lower left, click on the plus (+) to move closer, on the minus (-) to move away. Choir is thrown in free. MOVE THE ARROW AND YOU WILL SEE EVERY PART OF THE SISTINE CHAPEL. This virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel is incredible. Apparently done by Villanova at the request of the Vatican
 
 





 

Subject: Sistine Chapel
  MOVE THE MOUSE AROUND AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. TO VIEW EVERY PART OF THE
MICHELANGELO'S MASTERPIECE, JUST CLICK AND DRAG YOUR ARROW IN THE
DIRECTION YOU WISH TO SEE. In the lower left, click on the plus (+) to
move closer, on the minus (-) to move away. Choir is thrown in free.
MOVE THE ARROW AND YOU WILL SEE EVERY PART OF THE SISTINE CHAPEL. This
virtual tour of the Sistine Chapel is incredible. Apparently done by
Villanova at the request of the Vatican


Click here: Sistine Chapel
<http://www.vatican.va/various/cappelle/sistina_vr/index.html>


Barb and "Mattiehayes"
P.O. Box 22801
Hot Springs, AR,71903


--
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.

Every Breath You Take, Every Move You Make – 14 New Ways That the Government Is Watching You


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

Obama’s Latest Scheme and Our Choice Between Freedom and Tyranny


--
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: NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE DAY FOR AMERICANS KILLED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS

http://www.fncic-voiacm.org/


On Nov 7, 11:31 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By John Hill, November 6, 2011
> Stand With Arizona Against Illegal Immigrationhttp://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/11/06/today-is-national-remembr...
>
> More than 50,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens since
> 9/11.
>
> Think about that.
>
> More than 6,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan
> since that same date. But nearly ten times that number have been
> killed right here at home as a consequence of the Federal government's
> failure to secure our borders and protect its citizens, in direct
> violation of the Constitution's Article IV Section 4:
>
>     The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
> Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
> Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
> (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
>
> More than 50,000 dead as a direct result of this violation. Yet the
> media ignores the victims. And politicians don't recognize the loss of
> tens of thousands of families.
>
> But today We The People remember.
>
> Today is National Remembrance Day for Americans Killed By Illegal
> Aliens. A coalition of groups fighting against illegal immigration,
> including Stand With Arizona, the FIRE Coalition, and Congressmen
> Steve King (R-IA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have joined together to
> recognize this day in honor of the victims.
>
> Video:
> Crime Victims of Illegal Alienshttp://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/crime-victims-...
>
> The video above was made nearly 3 years ago. But every week we see
> brutal crimes committed by illegal aliens – savage rapes, often of
> children, assault, murder, and of course a national epidemic of DUI
> killings by illegal aliens.
>
>     In Albion, NY just 6 days ago, Kathleen I. Byham, 45, was stabbed
> to death in a WalMart parking lots by an Luis A Rodriguez-Flamenco,
> 24, an illegal alien from Honduras. Police called it a "random act of
> violence". He was later arrested along with two illegal Mexicans. God
> knows what other crimes they have committed while loose in this
> country.
>
>     In Carrollton, TX, just 5 days ago, 10-year-old Jasmen Gonzalez of
> Oklahoma was brutally stabbed and murdered and dumped in bushes a few
> blocks from the home of relatives she had been visiting with her
> family. The murderer is Jose Sifuentes, 23, of Mexico, who had been
> previously deported.
>
> The list of crimes is endless. There are superb online resources
> detailing these crimes kept up to date by FNCIC and OJJPAC.
>
> WHY TODAY? On this day 25 years ago the Immigration Reform and Control
> Act, IRCA became law.  Also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, it was
> an amnesty for illegal aliens, the disastrous effects of which we live
> with today. For details on the legacy of this disgraceful law, click
> here.
>
> WHAT CAN YOU DO?
>
> 1. Fly Your Flags Half-Mast Today in honor of the victims
>
> 2. Support H.R. 3168, "The Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act of 2011"
>
> Tell them to immediately support or co-sponsor H.R. 3168, introduced
> by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) which would force the U.S. Justice
> Department and FBI to track and report to the American people the
> crimes committed by illegal aliens. Tell your Rep. this is NOT an
> immigration law, but a law to ensure transparency in government.
>
> You can find your Representative at this link: CONTACTING THE
> CONGRESS.
>
> 3. Support the "National Day of Remembrance" U.S. House resolution
>
> Introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) this week, it would codify
> officially what we as Americans are honoring today.
>
> You can find your Representative at this link: CONTACTING THE
> CONGRESS.
>
> John Hill is the Executive Director of Stand With Arizona, one of the
> nation's largest organizations opposing illegal immigration and
> amnesty. SWA's members have been instrumental in passing legislation
> in states and counties around the U.S., and blocking the DREAM Act in
> 2010. Join us!
>
> Subscribe to Stand With Arizona

--
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.

NATIONAL REMEMBRANCE DAY FOR AMERICANS KILLED BY ILLEGAL ALIENS

By John Hill, November 6, 2011
Stand With Arizona Against Illegal Immigration
http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/11/06/today-is-national-remembr...

More than 50,000 Americans have been killed by illegal aliens since
9/11.

Think about that.

More than 6,000 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan
since that same date. But nearly ten times that number have been
killed right here at home as a consequence of the Federal government's
failure to secure our borders and protect its citizens, in direct
violation of the Constitution's Article IV Section 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against
Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive
(when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

More than 50,000 dead as a direct result of this violation. Yet the
media ignores the victims. And politicians don't recognize the loss of
tens of thousands of families.

But today We The People remember.

Today is National Remembrance Day for Americans Killed By Illegal
Aliens. A coalition of groups fighting against illegal immigration,
including Stand With Arizona, the FIRE Coalition, and Congressmen
Steve King (R-IA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) have joined together to
recognize this day in honor of the victims.

Video:
Crime Victims of Illegal Aliens
http://www.examiner.com/immigration-reform-in-national/crime-victims-...

The video above was made nearly 3 years ago. But every week we see
brutal crimes committed by illegal aliens – savage rapes, often of
children, assault, murder, and of course a national epidemic of DUI
killings by illegal aliens.

In Albion, NY just 6 days ago, Kathleen I. Byham, 45, was stabbed
to death in a WalMart parking lots by an Luis A Rodriguez-Flamenco,
24, an illegal alien from Honduras. Police called it a "random act of
violence". He was later arrested along with two illegal Mexicans. God
knows what other crimes they have committed while loose in this
country.

In Carrollton, TX, just 5 days ago, 10-year-old Jasmen Gonzalez of
Oklahoma was brutally stabbed and murdered and dumped in bushes a few
blocks from the home of relatives she had been visiting with her
family. The murderer is Jose Sifuentes, 23, of Mexico, who had been
previously deported.

The list of crimes is endless. There are superb online resources
detailing these crimes kept up to date by FNCIC and OJJPAC.

WHY TODAY? On this day 25 years ago the Immigration Reform and Control
Act, IRCA became law. Also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, it was
an amnesty for illegal aliens, the disastrous effects of which we live
with today. For details on the legacy of this disgraceful law, click
here.

WHAT CAN YOU DO?

1. Fly Your Flags Half-Mast Today in honor of the victims

2. Support H.R. 3168, "The Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act of 2011"

Tell them to immediately support or co-sponsor H.R. 3168, introduced
by Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) which would force the U.S. Justice
Department and FBI to track and report to the American people the
crimes committed by illegal aliens. Tell your Rep. this is NOT an
immigration law, but a law to ensure transparency in government.

You can find your Representative at this link: CONTACTING THE
CONGRESS.

3. Support the "National Day of Remembrance" U.S. House resolution

Introduced by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) this week, it would codify
officially what we as Americans are honoring today.

You can find your Representative at this link: CONTACTING THE
CONGRESS.

John Hill is the Executive Director of Stand With Arizona, one of the
nation's largest organizations opposing illegal immigration and
amnesty. SWA's members have been instrumental in passing legislation
in states and counties around the U.S., and blocking the DREAM Act in
2010. Join us!

Subscribe to Stand With Arizona

--
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.

Israel back online

Official Israeli websites back online after apparent cyber attack

November 7, 2011

JERUSALEM (JTA) – Israeli government and military websites were back
on-line a day after an apparent cyber attack.

The official Israeli websites, including government ministries, the
Mossad and the military, crashed Sunday, two days after an
international group of hackers known as Anonymous had threatened to
attack Israeli government computers in response to the interception of
Gaza-bound ships carrying a symbolic amount of medical aid. The threat
was made in a video uploaded to YouTube.

Internal computer networks were not affected, security officials told
Haaretz.

Israel's e-Government, responsible for managing the state's websites,
told Haaretz Monday that the problem was caused by problems with an
IBM component.
The Israel Defense Forces North American spokesman's desk had told JTA
that it was experiencing "server issues."

Anonymous, which has brought down other country's computer systems,
threatened to launch repeated cyber attacks against Israeli computer
systems until Israel ends its maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.

--
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 establishment on 9-9-9

--
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: Second Amendment Under Continued Threat

Well, I'm going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the
second
Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of
the
rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean,
owning a
gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other
Constitutional rights.
----
self-defense should always be held as the most important right ...
without it your ability to speak and assemble can be eliminated

On Nov 7, 10:11 am, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>            New post on *Scotty Starnes's Blog*
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>  Second
> Amendment Under Continued
> Threat<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-amendment-under-...>by
> Scotty Starnes <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>
>
> bySnidely Whiplash<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9123093/second_amendment_und...>
>
> Despite the recent rulings of the Supreme Court the Second Amendment to the
> US Constitution is still a target.
>
> On Bill Maher's HBO show Alex Wagner, a Huffington Post contributor, had
> this to say when asked "What would you change in the Constitution?" Here's
> her answer<http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/11/07/msnbc_analyst_we...>
> :
>
> *"Well, I'm going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second
> Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the
> rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a
> gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other
> Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a
> firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would
> be in our national interest to revisit that."*
>
> What does such a position portend when we add in Obama's own admission that
> he is working on gun
> control<http://www.associatedcontent.com/topic/8261/gun_control.html>
> "under
> the radar" as I
> reported<http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8090519/hot_air_reports_obam...>
> on
> May 26, 2011? Obama himself once admitted that he favored a 500% tax on
> guns and ammunition purchases. That surely sounds like working "under the
> radar," no?
>
> What about when we add in the UN and their "International Gun Ban Treaty?"
> Of course any "treaty" a president signs on to must be confirmed and
> ratified by the US Senate, and when it comes to guns and the citizens, that
> ain't happening. But still, such sentiments do go a long way in telling us
> what radical leftists would do if they could get away with it.
>
> Continue reading>>><http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9123093/second_amendment_und...>
>  *Scotty Starnes
> <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/author/scottystarnes/>*| November
> 7, 2011 at 10:30 AM | Tags: 2nd
> Amendment <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=2nd-amendment>, Alex
> Wagner <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=alex-wagner>, Bill
> Maher<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=bill-maher>,
> gun control <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=gun-control>, Huffington
> Post <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=huffington-post>, International
> Gun Ban Treaty<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=international-gun-ban-treaty>,
> President Obama <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=president-obama>,
> UN <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=un>, US
> Constitution<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?tag=us-constitution>|
> Categories: Political
> Issues <http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/?cat=35145> | URL:http://wp.me/pvnFC-65U
>
>   Comment<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-amendment-under-...>
>    See all comments<http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-amendment-under-...>
>
>   Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage
> Subscriptions<http://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=49883164090367a8ae3126d288a16eee&...>.
>
> *Trouble clicking?* Copy and paste this URL into your browser:http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-amendment-under-...
>     Thanks for flying with WordPress.com <http://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: opinions requested

Do you think the following should be a requirement of all US
politicians:

"I acknowledge I have read, understand and will faithfully support the
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I
entirely renounce and abjure all oaths and allegiances other than to
the United States of America. I will faithfully read, and comprehend
ALL legislation before I cast my vote or sign any bill or legislation.
I will not sign, pass or vote for any legislation that violates the
Constitution of the United States of America."

On Nov 7, 10:27 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think the following should be a requirement of all US
> politicians:
>
> "I acknowledge I have read, understand and will faithfully support the
> Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I
> entirely renounce and abjure all oaths and allegiances other than to
> the United States of America. I will faithfully read, and comprehend
> ALL legislation before I cast my vote or sign any bill or legislation.
> I will not sign, pass or vote for any legislation that violates the
> Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

--
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.

opinions requested

Do you think the following should be a requirement of all US
politicians:

"I acknowledge I have read, understand and will faithfully support the
Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. I
entirely renounce and abjure all oaths and allegiances other than to
the United States of America. I will faithfully read, and comprehend
ALL legislation before I cast my vote or sign any bill or legislation.
I will not sign, pass or vote for any legislation that violates the
Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God."

--
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.

Second Amendment Under Continued Threat




New post on Scotty Starnes's Blog

Second Amendment Under Continued Threat

by Scotty Starnes

bySnidely Whiplash

Despite the recent rulings of the Supreme Court the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is still a target.

On Bill Maher's HBO show Alex Wagner, a Huffington Post contributor, had this to say when asked "What would you change in the Constitution?" Here's her answer:

"Well, I'm going to be pilloried for this. I think get rid of the second Amendment, the right to bear arms. I just think in the grand scheme of the rights that we have; the right of assembly, free speech, I mean, owning a gun does not, it does not tally on the same level as those other Constitutional rights. And being more discreet about who gets to have a firearm and right to kill with a firearm, I think is something that would be in our national interest to revisit that."

What does such a position portend when we add in Obama's own admission that he is working on gun control "under the radar" as I reported on May 26, 2011? Obama himself once admitted that he favored a 500% tax on guns and ammunition purchases. That surely sounds like working "under the radar," no?

What about when we add in the UN and their "International Gun Ban Treaty?" Of course any "treaty" a president signs on to must be confirmed and ratified by the US Senate, and when it comes to guns and the citizens, that ain't happening. But still, such sentiments do go a long way in telling us what radical leftists would do if they could get away with it.

Continue reading>>>

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/second-amendment-under-continued-threat/

Thanks for flying with 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.

Monday funny…



New post on Fellowship of the Minds

Monday funny…

by DCG

A message for OWS protestors:

DCG

DCG | November 7, 2011 at 8:00 am | Categories: Humor, Occupy Wall Street | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-arA

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/monday-funny-3/

Thanks for flying with 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.

Obama

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the
United States Government

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican
Drug Cartels

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally
Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease
Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law

• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From
a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs
-- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of
Companies to His Union Supporters

• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act
Through Executive Fiat

• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly
Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly
Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the
Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those
With Criminal Convictions"

• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of
His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into
Space.

• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation
at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being
"Present"

• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law
Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State
They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee
subpoena.

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath
to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been
Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for
Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies
Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement
activities on American soil

• First President to Golf 80 or More Times in His First Two-and-a-Half
Years in Office

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

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

Re: Fwd: [LA-F] Eight out of ten think the country is 'overcrowded' as public support Government's plans to stop population hitting 70million

http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth&usg=AFQjCNHLtzuPQ9bZkIex__LkIoHzHrA_zg

On Nov 7, 6:56 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ---------
>
> Eight out of ten think the country is 'overcrowded' as public support
> Government's plans to stop population hitting 70million
>
> By Daily Mail Reporter
>
> Last updated at 9:01 AM on 7th November 2011
>
> Eight out of ten English people think the country is 'crowded', a survey
> showed last night.
>
> The poll comes amid huge public support for a Downing Street petition
> calling for drastic action to stop the population of Britain hitting
> 70million.
>
> According to the latest official projections, the UK will reach the
> 70million 'tipping point' within 16 years.
>
> </mail/u/0/s/?view=att&th=1337dbb057640772&attid=0.1.1&disp=emb&zw>
>
> Packed: According to the latest official projections, the UK will reach the
> 70million 'tipping point' within 16 years.
>
> The YouGov opinion poll for the campaign group MigrationWatch found that 79
> per cent of adults consider England to be crowded – with 37 per cent saying
> it is 'very crowded'.
>
> Only 3 per cent believe that it is not crowded, while 15  per cent think
> that the number of people in England is 'about right'.
>
> The figures for those believing the country is crowded were highest for
> London – 85 per cent – and the rest of the South (81 per cent).
>
> More than three quarters were concerned about the 70million population
> projection – with more than a third 'very concerned'.
>
> Only a fifth said they were not worried by the prospect, according to the
> poll.
>
> MigrationWatch UK chairman Sir Andrew Green said: 'This poll explains the
> huge public support for our e-petition and demonstrates quite clearly that
> most people think England is already overcrowded.
>
> Only three per cent want net immigration higher than the most recent level
> of 240,000.'
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058456/UK-public-support-Gov...
>
> --
> Mario Huet
> Libertarian Alliance Forum
> List Administrator
>
> **********************************************
> Words cannot picture her; but all men know
> That solemn sketch the pure sad artist wrought
> **********************************************
> James Thomson, The City of Dreadful Night

--
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: Herman Cain Supports U.S. War with Iran

there are plenty of politicians who support an attack on Iran
there are also plenty of countries that hate the US
those is our government who think that pre-emptive attacks is a good
policy need to be replaced ... in Cain's case, keeping him out of our
government is for the best

On Nov 7, 8:07 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Herman Cain Supports U.S. War with IranWritten by Raven Clabough
> Thursday, 03 November 2011 16:23
> As GOP presidential contender Herman Cain is contending with allegations of sexual harassment, some critics assert there are more pressing items for which Cain should answer, most notably, his foreign policy and his views on the engagement of war.Appearingon Fox News' most popular program,The O'Reilly Factor(left), Cain indicated that he sees no issue with entering into a military confrontation with Iran.
> During the interview, O'Reilly pushed for Cain to provide specifics on his foreign policy. The exchange seemed to underscore Cain's discomfort in addressing foreign policy, and his lack of knowledge when it comes to American foreign policy and how it relates to the Constitution.O'Reilly:What is the most important foreign policy problem the United States has to deal with today?Cain:Lack of clarity.O'Reilly:No, specifically. What area of the world concerns you the most?Cain:The Middle East, obviously … At the time I become president, I will have to evaluate the situation in Iraq, and Iran, and everyone of these countries.
> Cain told O'Reilly that he would have to "maximize the use of our Ballistic missile Defense capabilities."
> "I would double the use of ballistic missile capable ships," Cain explained, adding "Iran understands only two things, economic pressure and military might."
> O'Reilly responded, "So you're going to put warships in the Gulf, because they'll attack them, you know?"
> "That would be perfectly alright, because I believe that we have superior capability," Cain asserted.
> The interview continued:
>            O'Reilly: "But then we'd be in a shooting war with Iran. Do you really want that?"Cain: "I don't want that, Bill. But if they fire first we have to defend ourselves."O'Reilly: "But isn't that a provocation if you put warships off their coast?"Cain:"No. They've already announced that they are going to put their ships off our coast in international waters."
> Meanwhile, Cain is still attempting to backtrack after he embarrassingly revealed a lack of knowledge regarding China's possession of nuclear weapons.
> Appearing on PBS' NewsHour, Cain was asked whether he believed China to be a military threat, to which he replied, "They've indicated that they're trying to develop nuclear capability."
> Of course, China's explosion of a nuclear bomb in 1964 is also a good indicator that China already possesses nuclear capability.
> One journalistarticulatedfierce concerns at the notion of a Cain presidency based on Cain's foreign policies alone:
> It is clear that should Cain become President, by some tragic miracle, his complete lack of knowledge concerning simple geopolitics and straight forward international relations would leave the Executive once again at the mercy of the gaggle of already circlingwarmongering neocon advisors.
> Cain isn't worried about such an eventuality, however, given thathe has no clue what the term "neoconservative" even means.
> Watson's remark is in reference to Cain's interview on NBC'sMeet the Press,when hetoldhost David Gregory:
> "I'm not familiar with the neoconservative movement.... I don't think the war in Iraq was a mistake, because there were a lot of other reasons we needed to go to Iraq and there have been a lot of benefits that have come out of Iraq. Now that being said, I don't agree with the President's approach to draw down 40,000 troops and basically leave that country open to attacks by Iran. Iran has already said that they want to wait until America leaves.... I would want to leave American troops there if that was what the commanders on the ground suggested, and I believe that that's what they are saying."
> On that same interview, Cain admitted that his policies are influenced by such neoconservatives as Ambassador John Bolton, Henry Kissinger, and K.T. McFarland, all of whom have been members on the Council on Foreign Relations.*http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/foreign-policy/9634-herman-cain-supports-us-war-with-iran

--
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 Immorality of Democratic Voting

"Voting wealth out of the pockets of those who have it is socialism."

The Immorality of Democratic Voting
Monday, November 07, 2011 by Kel Kelly

[ The Case for Legalizing Capitalism]

Businesspeople, if they are successfully "greedy," become rich by providing their fellow citizens (i.e., consumers) with things that make them better off. In other words, they have to earn it. But many who espouse that people don't need more than a basic level of existence, in their own greed, constantly vote for politicians who will take money from others and give it to them. They, just like the businessman, want more than they currently have. But instead of earning it as the businessman or capitalist does, the socialists steal it from those who have more. The businesspeople's actions are moral (unless they earned their money by theft or by being given privileges by government), while theirs are not.

The sad fact is that this is exactly what our political system ­ democracy ­ is all about. It is a system where the masses, those with less money than the minority group that has great wealth, vote for politicians who offer to take money from the wealthy minority and redistribute it to them in return for giving the politician their votes.

Voting wealth out of the pockets of those who have it is socialism, because it is done for the "common good," for the benefit of helping that part of society that earns less. This is why democracy has been likened to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. This is also what is known as "social justice." Politicians are simply people who learn to be good actors in order to win your vote. They ultimately care little about real progress for the country or the lives of individuals; they care about their political careers.

Wealth redistribution, therefore, is theft. It is the taking by force from one group in order to give to another. Force is involved because anyone who fails to pay assessed taxes -- confiscatory taxes that mostly go directly into someone else's pockets -- will be put in prison. People from whom money is taken have not usually voted for this action,[1] but those who wanted to receive others' money usually have voted to take it from them. Many socialists will dispute this and argue that most people want to pay the amount of taxes they pay. This implies, for example, that when the government doubled the tax rate during the Great Depression, people, coincidentally, simultaneously wanted to voluntarily pay double the amount of income tax. It implies that when marginal tax rates reached 90 percent, people truly wanted to work and hand over 90 percent of their marginal earnings. The argument is too weak to take seriously. Besides, if most people want to pay all the taxes they pay, socialists will have no problem switching the payment of taxes from being required by law to being voluntary.[2]

Wealth redistribution does not involve only social programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and Medicare. It involves any occurrence of one party receiving money, physical goods, or services, that they did not pay the full cost of, but that another party did, on their behalf. For example, public transportation involves wealth redistribution because most who use it did not pay for the bulk of the cost. Even though they contribute by purchasing their tickets, the ticket is highly subsidized because wealthier taxpayers fund most of the cost.

Similarly, National Public Radio (NPR) is a wealth-redistribution program (mostly from the rich to the middle class). Many who listen to it paid taxes toward it, but many of those who do not listen also pay for it ­ and often pay more. If NPR is a viable business that would have enough people wanting to use it, it would be profitable on its own without government funding. If NPR could not survive without the government, it is a loss-making enterprise that is consuming wealth. That wealth could instead be used for profitable ventures, which would better serve society. We can see from this last example that only by having profit-and-loss statements can we determine whether a product or service is something consumers really want to have. There are never any profit-and-loss statements associated with anything the government operates, so we do not know which services are really beneficial in economic terms.[3]

Most of the taxes paid in the United States (and most countries) are paid by a small group of people: the rich. In 2005, 53.7 percent of all income taxes in the United States were paid by those earning over $200,000. Those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 28.3 percent of all taxes. This means that 82 percent of all taxes were paid by those earning over $100,000.[4] Those with incomes below $40,000, in total, paid no income tax: their tax liability was more than offset by the tax rebates from the Earned Income Tax Credit. In other words, many receive money (from the rich) "returned" to them for taxes that were never paid.

Further, most taxes do not go towards essential government services such as road infrastructure, parks, education, the legal system, or police and fire departments ­ they go directly into other people's pockets. No more than 10 percent of the 2009 federal-government budget goes towards these essential government services (and most of these services are taken care of with separate state and local taxes). More than 65 percent of the budget goes towards social programs or some other type of income support or assistance. (Most of the remaining portion goes to fund our wars, or, "national defense" as it's called.)

Many claim, without an understanding of what's really happening, that somehow the rich take money from the poor. The facts show it is quite the other way around, considering the following numbers. According to a detailed report[5] by the Tax Foundation,[6] in 2004, the bottom 20 percent of all income earners received $8.21 in government spending for every $1.00 in total[7] taxes they paid (and $14.76 for every dollar of federal taxes paid). The middle 20 percent received $1.30 for every $1 in taxes paid. But the top 20 percent of income earners received only $0.41 for every dollar of taxes paid. (Though they don't give the figures for the top 5 percent of taxpayers, who pay almost 60 percent of all taxes,[8] their receipt of government spending, by logical deduction, must be below $0.05 or less for every dollar they pay.)

In dollar amounts, households in the lowest-earning quintile in 2004 received about $31,185 more in government spending than they paid in taxes, while the middle quintile received $6,424 more than they paid. The top quintiles, however, paid $48,449 more in taxes than they received in government spending. In the aggregate, the top 40 percent of income-earning households paid roughly $1.03 trillion more in total taxes than they received in government spending, while the bottom 60 percent received $1.53 trillion more in government spending than they paid in taxes (the difference being the amount spent by government in excess of what it brought in ­ an excess mostly financed by the future top income earners). This is wealth redistribution.

We can see from these statistics how absurd is the phrase "tax breaks for the rich." The rich do indeed benefit most from tax breaks because of the fact that they pay most taxes. Tax breaks are the giving back to the rich some of the money that was previously taken from them. Yet socialists call this redistribution from the poor to the wealthy! In other words, if the poor aren't allowed to receive as much of others' incomes as before, and the rich are allowed to keep more of their income, then, in the eyes of socialists, the rich are taking from the poor. This is like saying that a thief who must return a woman's purse after getting caught stealing it is redistributing money from himself to her.

When the government imposes taxes on the rich or less rich for the purposes of giving the money to another it is no different from taking his car, house, farm, or individual possessions. It is often the case that people who inherit property from deceased family members, even property that has been in their family for generations, have to sell the property just to pay the taxes. They really do lose their physical property. Even when taxes are taken straight out of people's salary, the monetary income taken could instead have been spent to buy physical goods or assets. It is family property that will never exist but would have otherwise.

What is the morality of forcing wealth from those who have it to those who have less? How is it that people are outraged when a CEO steals from his company, or a street thug steals a car, but they are not upset with themselves and their poorer neighbors for stealing from those who rightfully earned more money than they? Indeed they actively support such theft and vote for more of it!

I conclude that society does not really care about morals. They care about what's best for them, defining terms in different ways in different situations, to fit their own personal or ideological agenda. Socialists condemn the businessman who becomes rich by pleasing others and providing jobs for workers and who harmed no one else in the process. But socialists claim that workers (and nonworkers) who were paid the full value of their work by the businessman but still choose government force to make him pay more, are innocent, righteous, and deserve "social justice."

As a reminder of why businesspeople take nothing from others but simply benefit from creating wealth for them, consider the fishing net example from chapter 1 of The Case for Legalizing Capitalism: If an island businessman creates a fishing net, he is able to reap the reward of more fish (more wealth). If he sells the net to others, he becomes wealthy by exchanging fishing nets for money (which exchanges for wealth). With others having a net, too, they can have more fish at lower prices (fewer hours of labor). Plus, those who help the fisherman make nets get paid wages in the process. The businessman creates wealth for everyone without taking from anyone in the process. Everyone benefits!

When people elect politicians who make campaign promises to interfere with the marketplace, they implicitly instruct government to take control of private companies. Businesses of all sizes, whose owners voluntarily went into business to bring us goods and services in order to make a profit then become slaves to society because the government, representing the people, dictates to companies how much to produce, what it must produce, what is not allowed to do, what prices it must sell above or below, what materials it is allowed or forced to use in production, and how much of its income must be sent to other people or companies.

Suppose your family decided to start a business. You invest time, sweat, money, and opportunity costs in creating a new product or service. Your company's product did not previously exist, but you made it available for others, without harming or forcing anyone to exchange their income for the product. After some years, your product becomes so popular that your family has now become wealthy through voluntary exchange. Others, who engage in forceful, not voluntary, exchange, in their jealousy, use the government to regulate you. They force you to sell part of your company to your competitors (antitrust legislation) who are not able to compete as efficiently and effectively; they force you to pay your workers more than you can afford (union legislation); they force you to sell your product for a lower price than the market demands and for a lower price than you would like (price controls); they force you to produce in a way that pollutes less but raises your costs and reduces your output (EPA legislation); they then impose a "windfall-profits tax" because they think you're earning too much money this year. Your company started out being your private property that benefited society, but then society -- through government regulation -- took control of it and sucked it dry. Now your family earns less, your workers earn less, and less of your product is available to consumers, and at a higher price. The consumers got what they voted for. Voting for the government to improve one's life almost always results in the opposite.

In 2008, congresswoman Maxine Waters threatened, on behalf of "society," to nationalize (i.e., to steal) the privately owned companies in the oil industry[9] due to the "large" profits they were making, since oil was at the highest price in years. But Congress itself brought about the high profits by
  1. sanctioning the printing of money by the Fed (increased demand) and
  2. preventing new oil drilling and refining (reduced supply).

One hundred fifty years ago, oil was a worthless substance. Companies voluntarily extracted and refined it, and made it useful, significantly improving our lives in the process. But by threatening nationalization, the government now threatens to take away the property of the millions of individuals who own these companies, by force, against their will. Americans should have been shocked and aghast that this government threat could happen in their own "free" country; instead, most agreed with her sentiments. If this is moral, then virtually anything could be argued as being moral.




Kel Kelly has spent over 15 years as a Wall Street trader, a corporate finance analyst, and a research director for a Fortune 500 management consulting firm. Results of his financial analyses have been presented on CNBC Europe and in the online editions of CNN, Forbes, BusinessWeek, and the Wall Street Journal. He is the author of The Case for Legalizing Capitalism. Kel holds a degree in economics from the University of Tennessee, an MBA from the University of Hartford, and an MS in economics from Florida State University. He lives in Atlanta.

This article is excerpted from The Case for Legalizing Capitalism, chapter 7, "The Immorality of Democratic Voting."



Notes

[1] Many of the rich, misguidedly, do vote for their money to be redistributed, but most people do not, and do not want it taken from them. If you think I"m wrong, then you would surely not oppose making taxation voluntary, or letting the rich choose their own marginal tax rate, since if people want to give their money away, they in fact will. The mere existence of tax havens and tax evasion, both of which are highly moral, proves that rich people do not always want to willingly give up their money.

[2] As occurred under Queen Elizabeth I, resulting in a more prosperous economy. Also, it is precisely because most people will not voluntarily pay the amount of tax they are currently paying that socialists have to use force in order to make people hand their money over.

[3] A budget is not a profit and loss statement, and the revenues on a government budget are revenues expropriated from taxpayers, not voluntary purchases of the product or service being provided.

[4] Bruce Bartlett, "Tax Facts."

[5] Andrew Chamberlain, "Who Pays Taxes and Who Receives Government Spending? An Analysis of Federal, State and Local Tax and Spending Distributions, 1991–2004."

[6] The Tax Foundation.

[7] The Tax Foundation, "Who Pays America's Tax Burden, and Who Gets the Most Government Spending?"

[8] Will Wilkinson, "All Tax Plans Are Wealth Redistribution."

[9] Fox News, "Maxine Waters threatens to nationalize US oil industries" (YouTube excerpt).


http://mises.org/daily/5723/The-Immorality-of-Democratic-Voting

Another perplexing Ron Paul oversight from the Times


Another perplexing Ron Paul oversight from the Times
Published: Saturday, November 05, 2011, 11:24 AM     Updated: Saturday, November 05, 2011, 3:10 PM
By Paul Mulshine/The Star Ledger

 If the advocates of Ron Paul often seem like they're paranoid about the way he's overlooked in the mainstream media, there's good reason for it.

Check this piece in the Sunday New York Times Magazine on how potential Republican presidential nominees line up against President Obama. 

The text claims that "Nate Silver models the likelihood of each candidate winning the popular vote based on 2012 G.D.P. growth, President Obama's current approval rating and the ideology of the candidate."
Each candidate? The candidate who has been running third in many polls is conspicuously absent from the article.

Included instead are Michele Bachmann and Jon Huntsman, who are running at the very bottom of the polls at 3.5 and 1.5 percent respectively.

You might be able to make an argument that Huntsman could eventually emerge as the pick of the mainstream party leaders if Mitt Romney crashes. And it is indeed interesting to see how he lines up against Obama in Silver's analysis.

But Bachmann? She just a ditz who can't get utter a paragraph without the second sentence contradicting the first.

I suspect that the sole reason the Times and other liberal media outlets love to cite her as some sort of accepted leader among conservatives is to make fun of conservatives.

In fact few conservatives ever took Bachmann seriously even when she was doing well. She had a bit of a run as a populist, but that's over. So why is she among the five candidates arrayed against Obama?  

And why isn't Paul?

I imagine this writer would say he left Paul out because Paul would have no chance against Obama in the general election because "his ideas are too extreme" or some such liberal mantra.

The polling data say otherwise. Go to this page at RealClear Politics and you will see that only Romney polls better against Obama than Paul.

This is not just biased journalism; it's bad journalism. The five candidates cited by Silver vary little in their beliefs. The reader learns nothing from assessing the prospects of five virtual clones.

Put Paul in there and some real differences might emerge. I'd expect he polls much better among the young, for example, and that's a key demographic the Republicans have to penetrate if they expect to have a future as a national party.

In the article that accompanies the poll, we learn more about Silver's reasons for picking those five.

Amazingly, when you get to Page 3 of the online version, you'll see he links to the exact same RealClear politics page to which I linked above. That's the one that shows Paul running second to only Romney in a potential race against Obama.

He notes how Romney fares but completely ignores the fact that Paul is running ahead of all of the candidates on which he focuses his piece.

On the following page, Silver then says something I agree with. Paul is the most conservative candidate in the race by a long shot. Silver's analysis of voting records and other data show Paul scoring an amazing 96 points on a 100-point scale of conservative values. Romney scores 49 and Hunstman is the most liberal at 40.

So Silver got that right. Paul is indeed the most conservative by any measure of conservative values.

But again that's even more evidence Paul should be  among the five candidates considered. He included Huntsman, who barely registered in the polls,  because he wanted to show how the most liberal candidate would fare against Obama. Yet he excludes the most conservative candidate in the field, even though he runs high in the polls. It's as if he wants to avoid dealing with the question of how a true conservative would fare against Obama.

And the answer is: Quite well compared to any of the more liberal candidates except Romney.

To sum it up, this is just further evidence of why liberals should not be analyzing races among conservatives.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/11/more_anti-ron_paul_and_anti-re.html

Re: The Problem With Seeing Government as God

"I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the
State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would
incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of
subordination and obedience to Government." - George Washington

On Nov 7, 8:09 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> The Problem With Seeing Government as Godby David Galland
> November 4, 2011 2:48pm GMT
> While I haven't made a scientific study of the topic, I suspect the leading genre for popular entertainment – and for popular delusions of crowds, for that matter – revolves around magical worlds. As illustration, the Harry Potter series will serve.
> The problem is that there is no such thing as magic, at least not in the mystical sense (versus sleight-of-hand variety). Rather, the physical world, and even the metaphysical world constructed by humans in their ancient and long-running quest for protection from the physical world, operates within the boundaries of certain irrefutable truths.
> In the first instance, the laws of physics are only rarely found wanting; in the second, basic principles of economies are inviolate, or should be if you actually want an economy to succeed for any length of time.
> This unblinking faith in an all-caring, omnipotent "Godvernment" is terrifyingly misplaced: it not only runs contrary to many of those truths but runs contrary to nearly every important lesson history has to teach. Look no further than the debts and deficits of Godvernments around the world to see the consequences of trying to keep this myth alive.
> That this faith is on the increase, versus the opposite, should be very concerning… both to those who believe in the rights of individuals and to those trying to build and maintain a reasonable standard of living in this age of deep uncertainty.
> Especially in that most, if not all, of that uncertainty, as well as active threats to the general well-being, emanates from the very Godvernments people look to for salvation and sustenance. The graphic shown here demonstrates this pointvis à visUS security policies soberingly well.
> Now, I am sure that some of you view these remarks as just another libertarian tirade, and I guess to some degree, they are.
> Yet, I think there is an important underlying point that requires serious reflection. Namely, with people the world over trapped in a delusional and self-destructive cycle of believing that the Godvernments can solve all that ails – even though almost all that ails is caused or made worse by those very same institutions – then things can only get worse from here.
> It's like all but the tiniest minority of the world's population have been brainwashed into joining a dangerous cult. A cult whose leaders are unscrupulous about stripping their followers of their wealth, their dignity (see cartoon above) and their sense of individuality, while rewarding their most ardent supporters with pensions, tax breaks, a leg up over competitors and, if push comes to shove, hard cash in the form of bailouts.
> Viewed through this lens, the thinking individual – you, for instance – should see the need to take certain self-protective measures. And since few things are as useful as a high net worth when it comes to protecting your independence, there are opportunities to chase down as well.
> Some suggestions, a number of which you may have heard before.Expect the latest eurozone patch-up job to come unglued.When you have the heads of the eurozone's largest countries talking about levering up bailout funds or ringing up the Chinese to ask for money, you know the latest "solution" to the eurozone's intractable problems is little more than a hastily concocted plan to kick the wine bottle just a bit further down the road. The problem is that nothing suggested begins to resolve the structural problems of the eurozone – because nothingcanbe done to resolve those problems. Thus, a heads-up speculator will look for ways of betting on failure and place those bets during brief flare-ups of euro-optimism. Likewise, expect the US government's new Super Committee to fail.Sure, they may come up with some optics in an attempt to mask the dire nature of the situation (for instance, by pushing the impact of any proposed measures out for five or more years – time enough to ignore them), but the fundamental truth in this case is that the Godvernment is hopelessly broke, at the same time the population expects it to do ever more.On the prospects for the Super Committee, and how the bond markets are likely to react if it fails, Casey Research Chief Economist Bud Conrad sent me an email:David,
> What do you think will happen when the Super Committee fails with deficit reduction and S&P follows through with its promise for another debt downgrade? Probably not that much, as the last time it didn't wreck the markets, but if rates rise, it would not be a good call to be long stocks.
> We have had good auctions from the Treasury until a very bad acceptance today that drove the 10-year Treasury to 2.4%. When I wrote my recommendation at the end of September confirming that rates were too low (for the October edition ofThe Casey Report), the rate was only 1.8%. This kind of move up would normally take months, not days. Here is the pretty dramatic chart:
>
> Rising US interest rates will be a stake through the heart of the US economy. Even just a return to more normal historical averages will skyrocket the costs of servicing the US Godvernment's mountain of debt, wreak havoc in the bond markets, and simultaneously smash any prospect of recovery in the hugely important housing sector. The key point is that this is big, important stuff youhaveto be preparing for.Reassess the risks to you or your business.Given the sense of extreme empowerment felt by the high priests of the Godvernment, you need to keep a very close eye on your personal vulnerabilities.A cautionary example are the Alabama farmers who failed to anticipate the tough new anti-immigrant legislation their meddling state government passed, and who now face sure ruin due to the lack of trained workers willing to do the back-breaking work of bringing in the crops or planting new crops for next spring.Is there personal or business risk that you can take steps to mitigate now, while you still can? Especially if you are on the wrong side of the populist mantras now being heard in the temples of Washington, you can't afford to be complacent.For example, if you or your business are involved in or reliant upon the financial services, you might want to consider developing some new lines of business. On that front, we haven't even begun to understand the implications and effects of the Dodd-Frank Act, other than that it was written by career politicians with zero business experience in a period of hysteria following the 2008 crash, and that it isveryambitious.Think Patriot Act for financial services – there will be consequences, and I doubt many of them will be good. Investors should consider doing some short-selling or using options strategies in betting on another big leg down for the banks and the financial-services sector. (InThe Casey Report, we're using a simple options strategy to bet on the failure of a massively overindebted regional bank.) Don't expect anyone to help you.Actually, with the growing meme to soak the "rich," namely anyone who pays more than a modest amount of taxes, you need to wake up to the reality that you are on your own.Put another way, if you have assets, you have a target on your back. Laugh at the OWS folks if you want (and it's hard not to), but it is their world we'll be living in going forward, not the ones our parents or we made (and, truth be told, screwed up pretty badly). If you think you're going to be able to afford to retire on your Social Security, think again. If you're lucky, it will buy you a hot cup of coffee to enjoy while you and your buddies stand around the burning oil drum on a cold winter's night.If you don't have a respectable net worth at this point, then learn useful skills – such as how to speculate in investment markets. Or how to program computers. Apparently, the youth of today like to use the stuff but aren't so hot on actually learning how to program – they prefer liberal arts educations. Given that many of the iconic successes in the computing industries (Gates, Jobs, Ellison) never graduated college, it would be a mistake to consider that a prerequisite. There are many more directions you might go in, including internationally, the important point being that it's time to get going. Internationalize.With the biggest threat to your wealth and maybe even well-being coming from your own government, it's essential that you spread your wealth into other political jurisdictions. Don't do it hastily, but do it nonetheless.InternationalMan.com, a new site that picks up where Doug Casey's best-selling bookInternational Manleft off, may be of some help. Remember, once exchange controls are implemented (almost a certainty), your wealth is trapped and the government will be able to have its way with your assets. Front-run the mob.For example, with the mob against all currently viable forms of baseload energy production – and they are – careful bets on rising energy prices are, over a period of time, a sure thing.Let me say that again because it seems self-destructive madness to me, but a large chunk of the mob as well as the priesthood of Godvernment are actually dead set against all currently viable forms of baseload energy. You know, the stuff that keeps the lights on at night. Coal, oil, nuclear and now, thanks to the trumped-up fracking controversy, even natural gas! While the mob hasn't yet overrun the barriers of sanity and pulled the energy plug – though many would do so in a heartbeat – they have been very effective at slowing exploration and development of energy resources to a crawl. Actions have consequences, in this case, higher energy prices. That's what I call an opportunity… don't miss it.Likewise, the mob is not going to stop demanding that the Godvernment provide succor and sustenance, and so deficit spending and debt has to continue to rise, leading to currency debasement. Buy tangibles, but especially gold and silver, on any setbacks.Those are just a couple of ideas for front-running the mob, but if you put on your thinking cap, I'm sure you'll come up with many more.
> Wrapping up, I'll repeat my basic position on all of this… in the form of an excerpt from a lightly edited response to a reader who took offense at a recent article of mine.The left and the right both have it wrong, as far as I am concerned. Both share equal responsibility for the big dislocations that have proven so damaging to the economy and society.
> Thus, I can only conclude that who is in charge is far less important than what those who are charge are actually allowed to do. The size and scope of government, in my view, has to be very specifically spelled out and very limited so that the next gang to take control can't just willy-nilly play to the prevailing mob sentiments.
> That's how we got here in the first place. Put another way, are many of Obama's policies counterproductive and damaging to the economy? Of course. But so were those of Baby Bush. And, before him, Clinton (who allowed the government to grab Social Security funds so that he could claim a balanced budget). And before him, Bush senior... and before him... and so forth and so on.Unless and until we stop the madness – stop the meddling – the path the world takes will remain perilous and, fortunately for us speculators, somewhat predictable.http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/problem-seeing-government-god

--
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.