Very good report by Bizzy Blog about Reuters Article

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2011/01/22/cnbcs-lets-pretend-headline-accounting-tweak-could-save-fed-from-losses/

--
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: My Crystal Ball

If anyone is interested in reading, "New Views of the Constitution of the United States," it is available as a Portable Document Format File (PDF) at:
http://amgona.com/books/New%20Views%20of%20the%20Constitution%20of%20the%20United%20States.pdf

On 1/22/2011 12:44 PM, MJ wrote:

My Crystal Ball
Posted by Thomas Woods on January 22, 2011 09:21 AM

It's eerie, isn't it, how I manage to predict the future. From Nullification: "Nothing is more certain than the demonization of this worthy cause and those who support it.  Even though they are following in the footsteps of eminent Americans, they will be portrayed as cranks with sinister motives. Note that our wise public servants are not portrayed as having sinister motives. From time to time they may make 'mistakes,' but their intentions are good and they seek only to serve us. Those who resist them, on the other hand, are wicked and perverse. They must be crushed. They must be smeared and made into objects of hatred. Government is supposed to grow, our wise public servants and their favored constituencies are supposed to enrich themselves, and the rest of us are supposed to sit back and take it. The natural right of Ivy Leaguers to try out their theories on the American public shall not be infringed."

Now that nullification is gaining a bit of traction, the left-nationalists who monitor the country for forbidden opinions are launching zombie attacks against me; I dealt with one last night. On Monday, the AP's follow-up story will join in.  They assume, correctly I suppose, that since most Americans know nothing about this idea, and since it has not been approved for them by the official channels of opinion, it will be an easy thing to portray anyone who supports it as a sinister figure.  What other kind of person would oppose both Joe Biden and Newt Gingrich? But the people in Idaho and elsewhere who are employing this mechanism have the arguments on their side, and we can hope they won't be dissuaded by attacks from people who will despise them no matter what they do.

re: My Crystal Ball
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on January 22, 2011 09:48 AM

Tom, you are of course right about the "Supremacy Clause" of the  Constitution. Contrary to what some of your dumber critics say, the founders did not totally destroy federalism and states' rights by making the central government "supreme" in all matters when they wrote the Constitution. (I've been lectured to by dozens of similarly uneducated Lincoln cultists on this topic, who seem to think the "supremacy clause" permits the government in Washington to even murder its own citizens by the hundreds of thousands if they resist its dictates).

In 1823 John Taylor wrote an excellent book on the Constitution entitled New Views of the Constitution of the United States ( reprinted by The Lawbook Exchange, Union, NJ, in 2002).  Referring to the published notes on the constitutional convention taken by New York Chief Justice Robert Yates, Taylor wrote (p. 78) that:  "the expression in the constitution, 'shall be the supreme law of the land,' is restricted by its limitations and reservation, and did not convey any species of supremacy to the governments, going beyond the powers delegated or those reserved." He refers, of course, to the delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8.  The central government was "supreme" in that regard, but the Tenth Amendment, which Jefferson considered to be the keystone of the entire document, reserved all other powers to the people and the states. This would include nullification and secession since, as Article 7 proves, the people of the states were sovereign.
--
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.

Find: Web Site. Review & Compare!
http://click.lavabit.com/iogkot9oxmk3qqi17aejgtec3xx4macmu7ytd4z8c6u8deusb73y/

--
When dealing with legal issues, far too many people rely on stupid ideas offered by amateurs who send out emails or hold weekend seminars! Learn how to control judges and lawyers from a lawyer with a quarter-century of experience winning lawsuits!

Re: The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Do tell.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Usurpation, the exercise of power not granted, is not legitimized by
repetition" -- Raoul Berger.

At 07:05 PM 1/21/2011, you wrote:
>DADT could have3 been repealed by executive order by Clinton or by
>Obama years ago

--
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 Big Kingdom

Tuesday, January 18, 2010
The Big Kingdom
by Jacob G. Hornberger

If you want to get a sense of why foreigners hate the U.S. Empire for its arrogance, elitism, and pomposity, just take a look at the following two editorials by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Yes, I know that these two newspapers are not owned and operated by the U.S. government but the mindset expressed by the editorial writers easily mirrors that of Empire officials. The two editorials address China and, specifically, the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., by China's president, Hu Jintao.

According to the Times, one of the reasons that Jintao is coming to the United States is to seek respect. The Times says that "what will earn China respect as a major power is if it behaves responsibly." The thought is also expressed by the Journal: "A China that understands that to be treated as an equal it must behave like one is a country whose progress will not be obstructed."

This is the idea: The world is ruled and presided over by a grand, glorious, and exceptional Big Kingdom, one that is committed to spreading freedom and democracy around the world, through force of arms if necessary ­ e.g., coups, assassinations, kidnapping, torture, invasions, embargoes, sanctions, foreign aid, and occupations.

All other kingdoms are small kingdoms that are subordinate to the Big Kingdom. When the kings who rule over the small kingdoms begin rising in prosperity and power, it is incumbent on them to travel to the Big Kingdom seeking respect and requesting permission to continue rising in stature and influence. The respect and permission will be granted only if the small kingdom acknowledges its subservience and obedience to the Big Kingdom.

Needless to say, the Big Kingdom can do no wrong. It's only the small kingdoms that can do wrong, especially by operating independently of the Big Kingdom. That sort of conduct subjects the small kingdom to harsh treatment. If the small kingdom has a weak military, it will be disciplined with such things as coups, assassinations, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, kidnapping, and torture. If, on the other hand, the small kingdom has a strong military, the penalty will be the denial of respect to the small kingdom.

The Times says that President Obama needs to raise the issue of human rights with China. No doubt that China's communist regime is one of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet. But what would the Times say if Jintao were to ask Obama about the kidnapping, torture, indefinite detentions, denial of due process, denial of trial by jury, and denial of speedy trial for prisoners at Gitmo, Bagram, and secret U.S. prisons around the world, including in former Soviet-bloc countries? What if he were to ask Obama about the U.S. military's treatment of Afghans and Iraqis during the past 10 years of brutal military occupation? What if he were to ask why Obama refuses to extradite convicted CIA felons to Italy, where they have been convicted of kidnaping and conspiracy to torture? What if Jintao were to ask Obama why he refuses to extradite CIA operative Jose Posada Carriles to Venezuela to face charges relating to the terrorist bombing of a Cuban airliner?

I'll tell you how the Times and Journal would respond. They'd both go ballistic, screaming that no small kingdom within the realm has the right to speak to the Big Kingdom in such a manner. They both would say, "Punish China for such disrespectful and insubordinate conduct. Deny China the respect it seeks."

According the Times, "Mr. Obama has made clear that he won't stand by while China tries to bully its neighbors."

While on the subject of bullying neighbors, did the Times mention the 50-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba? Well, of course not. You see, that's not bullying. That's punishing the people of a small kingdom whose ruler does not show sufficient deference to the Big Kingdom. Thus, when Fidel Castro refused to kneel before the officials of the Big Kingdom and kiss their rings, he was denied respect and his country was placed under a cruel and brutal embargo ­ unlike, say, communist Vietnam or communist China, which are not suffering embargoes and whose rulers apparently have shown the necessary deference to the Big Kingdom.

Or consider what happened to the small kingdom of Yemen, when it went independent on the eve of the Iraq War by declining to vote to authorize President Bush's war on the small kingdom of Iraq arising from the insubordinate actions of Saddam Hussein, who previously had been in the good graces of the Big Kingdom. As a result of its insubordination, Yemen lost $70 million in foreign aid from the Big Kingdom. As the U.S. ambassador to Yemen told Yemeni officials at the time, "That will be the most expensive vote you would ever cast."

Hey, that's not bullying! That's simply disciplining small kingdoms who fail to do what they're told.

The Times also takes China to task for "its recent challenge to American naval supremacy in the western Pacific." Did you catch that? Not "in the Gulf of Mexico" and not "in waters near the U.S. coastlines." Since the job of the Big Kingdom is to monitor, supervise, and police the world, all of the small kingdoms are expected to maintain a limited and deferential military buildup in their respective areas. If the subordinate kingdoms begin building up their militaries without permission of the Big Kingdom, that is a sure sign that they are getting uppity, assertive, and aggressive and, therefore, need to be put in their place, perhaps even by denying them respect.

Of course, all this insubordination on the part of China means that that the budget for the Pentagon and the CIA must continue to soar forever. What better excuse for ever-increasing military budgets than insubordination by the small kingdoms within the realm?

No wonder foreigners despise the U.S. Empire. No wonder our American ancestors despised the British Empire and instituted a republic rather than an empire. As people in different parts of the world begin challenging the authoritarian regimes under which they have been born and raised, it's time for modern-day Americans to begin challenging the paradigm of empire and militarism under we have been born and raised in favor of restoring a limited-government, constitutional republic to our land.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-01-18.asp

And the Dumbest Guy in the World Is…

And the Dumbest Guy in the World Is…
Posted by Tom Woods on January 21st, 2011

…Ian Millhiser of the hilariously misnamed ThinkProgress, who says, "The Constitution expressly states that Acts of Congress 'shall be the supreme law of the land…anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding,' so our founding document specifically denies the states a veto power over federal laws."

This guy has a law degree, people.  A law degree.  And he thinks he has defeated Thomas Jefferson with this third-grade analysis.

What the Supremacy Clause actually says is: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land."

In other words, Millhiser deletes the most significant words of the whole clause!  Jefferson (whose name Millhiser cannot bring himself to mention, so let's just say it for fun a few times ­ Jefferson, Jefferson, Jefferson) did not deny the Supremacy Clause.  He would not have needed any lectures from law school graduate (and otherwise uncredentialed) Ian Millhiser.  His point was that only the Constitution and laws which shall be made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land.  Well, that's the whole matter at issue!  Is the law in question "in pursuance thereof" or not?

Here is Ian Millhiser's version of the Supremacy Clause; ask yourself how many states would have ratified this: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, plus any old laws we may choose to pass, whether constitutional or not, shall be the supreme law of the land."  Oh, but the courts will tell us when a law is unconstitutional, comes Millhiser's law-school reply.  Millhiser hasn't read James Madison.  I'm shocked.

For a quick primer on state nullification, a primer we might call "What Law School Graduate Ian Millhiser Didn't Learn in Law School," see my State Nullification page.

One last thing: I've smacked down this genius before.  (Also, Millhiser uses the Orwellian agitprop term "neo-Confederate," making him a zombie.)  For the rest of the smearbund: I've written out the rules to follow when smearing me.  Don't diverge from the tried and true.  And never, ever link here.

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/and-the-dumbest-guy-in-the-world-is/