Tuesday, March 22, 2011

New Worker ID System on Drawing Board


New Worker ID System on Drawing Board
"The federal government is exploring the possibility of using a credit rating giant like Equifax to verify the identity of American workers, a move that could make it far more difficult for undocumented immigrants to get work using stolen Social Security numbers." ( Washington Post)

Got to watch out for those unauthorized workers. They produce unauthorized wealth!

Thoughts on Freedom
Absorbing Immigrants
Does America Have the Space and Resources to Allow Open Borders?
Donald J. Boudreaux
June 2002 • Volume: 52 • Issue: 6 • Print This Post 14 comments

America should re-open its borders to immigrants.

Not until 1924 did the government generally limit the number of people who could come to America and make it their home. If America's borders had been closed, say, a century earlier, the civilization that we now call "American" would not exist. The Irish, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, central and eastern Europeans, and many Asians arrived here in bulk during the nineteenth century. Most would have been turned away under the restrictive regime followed since 1924.

When I talk with people about immigration, everyone agrees that the open-borders policy of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries was a great boon to America. Without it, we would today be unimaginably poorer and less vibrant. So I then ask: If open borders in the past generated enormous benefits, why not open our borders today? I always get the same answer: "Times change. America had more room and resources then. We could then absorb immigrants better than we can today."

I disagree.


Room for Immigrants

Since 1820 the years that witnessed the greatest influx of immigrants as a proportion of America's population were the early and mid-1850s, when annual immigration was about 1.6 percent of the resident population. This figure was approached again in the 1880s and during the first decade of the twentieth century. Today, annual immigration is about 0.25 percent of the resident population­less than one-sixth its level during the first half of the 1850s, and about one-sixth its level during much of the 1880s and the first decade of the twentieth century. (Some people argue that illegal immigrants are undercounted today. Taking the largest estimate I've seen of uncounted illegal immigrants, total annual immigrants as a proportion of the U.S. population today would be 1.25 percent of the resident population. While likely overblown, accepting this figure as accurate means that, as a percent of the resident population, immigration today remains well below that of any of the peak years of the past.)

What about our ability to "absorb" these­and even more­immigrants?

An important element of the ability to absorb is living space. Americans today enjoy record levels of residential living space. For example, in 1915, the typical dwelling in America housed 5.63 people; today it houses fewer than half of that number -- 2.37 people. Combined with the fact that the square-footage of today's typical dwelling is, on the most conservative estimate, 20 percent greater than it was a century ago, our ability to "absorb" immigrants into our residential living spaces is today more than twice what it was during the era of open borders.

What about land? Contrary to a widely mistaken belief, the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses is a tiny percentage of America's land (even excluding largely unsettled Alaska). While such land use has grown significantly during the past century, today it is at most about 3 percent of the land area of the lower 48 states. (The 3 percent figure is an overestimate because, since about 1960, cities have increasingly incorporated lands that remain largely rural in character but that are classified as "urban.")

And since at least 1950, the amount of land devoted to public recreation uses and to wildlife refuges has increased faster than has the amount of land devoted to urban and suburban uses. Today, the land area devoted to national and state parks, and to wildlife refuges, is more than seven times greater than it was in 1900. America is nowhere close to being crowded.

Also, we're much better able to feed ourselves today, even though the amount of land used to grow crops and to pasture animals is no larger now than in 1900. Extraordinary increases in agricultural productivity enable American farmers and ranchers to produce vastly more output on the same amount of land. For example, each acre planted with wheat today produces three times more output than it did a century ago. Similar, and even greater, productivity increases have occurred for nearly all other agricultural products. This productivity explosion is reflected in a much more abundant food supply and lower food prices.


Absorbing Workers

Immigrants, of course, come to America not only to consume but also to work. A measure of our ability to "absorb" workers is capital invested per worker­the amount of machinery and other tools in place for workers to use. Today, the amount of capital invested per worker is more than nine times greater than in 1880 and about 8.5 times greater than in 1924. Because a worker's productivity rises when he has more capital to work with and his pay is tied closely to his productivity, workers entering the American economy today produce and earn more than workers entering during the open-borders era.

Don't lose sight of our labor market's great flexibility. It easily absorbed the massive increase of women workers during the second half of the twentieth century. Over this time, 46 million jobs were created for women, which is more than half of the 80 million jobs created during that same time.

In many other ways, America today is far better able than in the past to absorb more immigrants. For example, compared to 1920, per person today we:
  • have greater than ten times more miles of paved roads;
  • have more than twice as many physicians;
  • have 50 percent more dentists;
  • have almost three times as many teachers;
  • have 540 percent more police officers;
  • have twice as many firefighters;
  • produce 2.4 times more oil­as known reserves of oil grow;
  • produce 2.67 times more cubic feet of lumber­as America's supply of lumber stands grows;
  • have conquered most of the infectious diseases that were major killers in the past.*

The fact is America today is much wealthier, healthier, spacious, and resource-rich than it was a century ago. And we owe many of these advances to the creativity and effort of immigrants. If open immigration worked until 1924 to enrich America, it can do so now with even greater certainty. Let's welcome more immigrants so that they can help themselves, and us, build even better lives.

*My principal data sources for this article are Julian L. Simon, ed., The State of Humanity (Blackwell, 1995), and Julian L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2 (Princeton University Press, 1996), as well as various U.S. Census Bureau reports

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/thoughts-on-freedom-absorbing-immigrants/

Attack On Libya: The Barbarism Of Buffoons

Attack On Libya: The Barbarism Of Buffoons
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10309/

"The grotesque competition between Britain, France and America to see who can fire the most missiles at Libya confirms the emergence of a new form of Western militarism. This is not the return of the politics of Empire or a re-flourishing of Western colonialism in north Africa, as some have claimed. Rather it is the barbarism of buffoons. This is an act of violence driven not by clear geopolitical interests, but by the utter failure of modern Western governments to work out what their geopolitical interests are and to act accordingly. In the rubble of various compounds and airfields in Libya, we can spy the incoherence of the Western political elites, and their elevation of the reckless, narcissistic politics of short-term gain over anything resembling a strategy or aim."




Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Confiscating Liberty, Who Are The Real Criminals?

Confiscating Liberty, Who Are The Real Criminals?
http://fr33agents.net/2011/03/20/confiscating-liberty-who-are-the-real-criminals/

"There is also the crime perpetrated by the federal government against thousands of people who had bought precious metals from American Liberty Dollar. These metals were 'confiscated' by federal 'authorities' when the American Liberty Dollar offices and the mint they do business with were raided. These people still have not yet received their product. They have the receipts and the metal really did not belong to Bernard von NotHaus or his company, it belonged to the people who paid for it. They deserve their product. At the very least, they deserve to be compensated for their product at today’s value, not at the price they paid for it."




Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You
aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably
doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
and I the converse. 

It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.

Regard$,
--MJ

 "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.






If you agree with me say something like this:  "I
applaud your New Constitution!  We need less, more efficient
government and the return of lost civil liberties.  Outlawing career
politicians from Congress seems like a great place to start.  Good
luck in everything you are seeking to do for the good of the country!
— J. A. Armistead  —
>
On Mar 21, 11:54 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> eBay is a perfect example of capitalism at work. Over 2,000 transactions
> are performed every minute throughout the world with no need for
> government. Both parties involved in those transactions report they are
> happy with the transaction 96% of the time.
>
> There is no need for government involvement in commerce.
>
> On 03/21/2011 07:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative
> > republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties
> > to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who
> > support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution
> > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro capitalism
> > and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!  �
> > J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 19, 10:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Civil liberties require government permission. As I choose to be a free
> >> sovereign, I do not consent.
>
> >> As for free enterprise, I sell on eBay. No government interference, 96%
> >> successful transactions worldwide. That is as pro free enterprise as it
> >> gets.
>
> >> On 03/19/2011 07:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise.
> >>> So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on tearing
> >>> down this country rather than saving it.  He should be railroaded out
> >>> of the USA!  � J. A. A. �
> >>> On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again!
> >>>> He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political parties.
> >>>> He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the smarts
> >>>> and the temperament to be President."
> >>>> On 03/18/2011 02:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace get hot-under-the-collar if a "guest",
> >>>>> like Sarah Palin, avoids answering questions that tie her hands on
> >>>>> issues that are in flux.  Those two Fox jerks suppose that since they
> >>>>> are high paid and elitist, that people must do exactly like they say
> >>>>> or face ridicule.  Within one week after my New Constitution is
> >>>>> ratified, the entire Fox News Network will likely be closed down for
> >>>>> not being in the best interest of the country.  But not to worry!  The
> >>>>> other News Networks will be shuttered as well.  The "problem" is that
> >>>>> NEWS, and commentary on that news, cannot occur on the same network.
> >>>>> Of course that is only for news relating to elections or "politics".
> >>>>> I put that word in quotes, because political parties will be
> >>>>> outlawed!  Socialism will become a non issue, because any "politician"
> >>>>> proposing anything like socialism will be hanged for TREASON!  Believe
> >>>>> me, people, I can straighten out this country faster than any yellow-
> >>>>> livered politician.  Newt Gingrich has the smarts and the temperament
> >>>>> to be President. But he is too much in love with our FAILED system of
> >>>>> government to save the country from economic doom.  The Donald has a
> >>>>> good idea to make IRAQ pay for all we have done for those people.  We
> >>>>> should do those things AND tell China they will get back ONLY the
> >>>>> principle on their loans to the USA.  �Walk tall and carry a big
> >>>>> stick!�  Only tough-love can save this country... NOT more God-damned
> >>>>> politics and wasted campaign money... as usual.  After Barack Obama
> >>>>> has been hanged and has rotted to the ground for TREASON, this country
> >>>>> will be on the path to economic recovery!  � John A. Armistead �
> >>>>> Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 16, 3:38 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> As usual, "no specifics are open for discussion." What an ego this guy
> >>>>>> has. Mustn't let anyone ask any questions. His head might explode.
> >>>>>> On 03/16/2011 11:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Folks:  The vast majority of the still apt portions of our original
> >>>>>>> Constitution remains within my New Constitution.  Issues relating to
> >>>>>>> having government be deferential to the people, and placing reasonable
> >>>>>>> limits of the type and scope of the laws that may be passed, is the
> >>>>>>> subject of much that I have expanded on in my New Constitution.  I've
> >>>>>>> placed great importance on seeing to it that the corruption in
> >>>>>>> government�state, local and federal�which I have observed first hand,
> >>>>>>> shall never again negatively impact any law-abiding citizen.
> >>>>>>> There are dozens of well-defined, unconstitutional acts by government
> >>>>>>> employees or elected officials that will either get the persons fired
> >>>>>>> or sent to prison.  Working for government, even for the President, is
> >>>>>>> not a license to violate laws, or to have privileges that good
> >>>>>>> citizens don't have.  Other than my eliminating the unconstitutional
> >>>>>>> (in the SPIRIT) US Senate, and excluding 'career politicians',
> >>>>>>> lobbyists and elitist media from ever setting foot in the Capital, the
> >>>>>>> changes in the daily operation of government won�t be too obvious to
> >>>>>>> most Americans.
> >>>>>>> Not specifically written into the New Constitution, I am personally
> >>>>>>> recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Unemployment
> >>>>>>> Insurance ALL be privatized�while continuing to "cover" only those
> >>>>>>> older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> >>>>>>> getting first rate care.  When most taxes and restrictions on the FAIR
> >>>>>>> operation of businesses in this country have been removed, the US
> >>>>>>> economy will experience a BOOM so large, that most people will be
> >>>>>>> making enough money (Prosperity!) to provide for their own futures
> >>>>>>> without needing to look to government for any handouts.
> >>>>>>> The next sentence will assure that socialism�now closely associated
> >>>>>>> with the Democratic Party�will never again influence any future action
> >>>>>>> taken by government: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in
> >>>>>>> the USA!"  Those in government employment must swear, on penalty of
> >>>>>>> death, to agree with that one sentence and to act accordingly.
> >>>>>>> Democrats, who consistently want better things without requiring any
> >>>>>>> work on their part, must learn that they will get no more free lunches
> >>>>>>> or free medical care.  It is my sincere hope that the hard-core 40% of
> >>>>>>> socialist democrats in this country will realize that they will be far
> >>>>>>> better off working in an efficient capitalist economy than from
> >>>>>>> continuing to seek government-doled, socialist mediocrity.
> >>>>>>> I invite the readers to comment on the general people-oriented-tone of
> >>>>>>> my document.  *** However, no specifics are open for discussion. ***
> >>>>>>> � John A. Armistead �  Patriot
> >>>>>>> On Mar 15, 9:36 pm, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Folks:  I've now presented over 50% of my New Constitution.  That,
> >>>>>>>> plus the following, should give you a good idea of the love and
> >>>>>>>> devotion I've put into this long project.  My efforts, aided by
> >>>>>>>> computer, exceed the combined total time spent by the actual
> >>>>>>>> contributers to writing the original Constitution by a factor of ten.
> >>>>>>>> At each step, I asked myself what the Founding Fathers would say.  I'd
> >>>>>>>> bet they are happy people!
> >>>>>>>> "Article VI:
> >>>>>>>> Section 1, 2, 3, 4&        5:  Laws in effect at the time of the adoption of
> >>>>>>>> this New Constitution shall remain in effect while such are
> >>>>>>>> systematically reviewed, debated and revoted in the House.  Whether
> >>>>>>>> for the revoting of existing laws and regulations or for new bills,
> >>>>>>>> early and conspicuous public notice in the media shall invite Public
> >>>>>>>> input.  Bills passing without broad and substantiated Public input,
> >>>>>>>> especially by those law-abiding Citizens most affected by the
> >>>>>>>> legislation, shall not become laws.  The House shall make new laws and
> >>>>>>>> define procedures for implementing this New Constitution.  Federal
> >>>>>>>> functions to be returned to local or state governments shall be phased
> >>>>>>>> out gradually and considerately for those to be displaced or relo-
> >>>>>>>> cated.  Under this New Constitution the future state taxes of Citizens
> >>>>>>>> or businesses, typically, shall not exceed their com-bined former
> >>>>>>>> total of state and federal taxes.  At any level of services provided,
> >>>>>>>> streamlining government and minimizing bureaucracy via wise laws shall
> >>>>>>>> always be primary goals.
> >>>>>>>>          Local, state and federal law enforcement, the courts, or any
> >>>>>>>> branch or branches of the military or their respective parts shall at
> >>>>>>>> no time be used in support of corruption in government by any public
> >>>>>>>> official(s) at any level.  Legal authority of law enforcement or the
> >>>>>>>> courts over the Citizens is voided if used in support of corruption.
> >>>>>>>> Local, state and federal law en-forcement agencies shall not be
> >>>>>>>> organizationally affiliated, and persons or groups, therein, shall not
> >>>>>>>> be presumed by law enforcement to be acting lawfully solely because of
> >>>>>>>> such auspices.
> >>>>>>>>          All local, state and federal officer holders and employees�upon
> >>>>>>>> taking office or assuming employment�shall take the following oath:
> >>>>>>>> �I, (Name), promise to serve and be deferential to the People, and to
> >>>>>>>> be unbiased toward any group with a pro democracy, pro fairness
> >>>>>>>> ideology.  I swear to honor and uphold the full civil rights of the
> >>>>>>>> citizens, as guaranteed by the Constitution, and I shall expect my
> >>>>>>>> coworkers and superiors to do the same.   I understand that my
> >>>>>>>> employment in or by government is conditional upon my adherence to
>
> ...
>
> read 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.

This Is Insane. You Are Either At War, Or You Are Not.

I have never understood how anyone can justify the mass murder of civilians in order to "save" them.


Sovereign Man
Notes from the Field

Date: March 22, 2011
Reporting From: Denver, Colorado, USA
 
Have you ever seen the devastation from a BGM-109 Tomahawk cruise missile? It's beyond description. Standing in the impact area, it's as if nothing has ever existed there before.

It's naive to think that something with so much destructive power is unlikely to cause 'collateral damage.' I can only imagine the consequences of 159 and counting, the amount of force that has been unleashed in Libya as yet by western governments.

This morning, US Defense Secretary Robert Gates shrugged off any implication that military strikes are responsible for significant civilian casualties in Libya... while at the same time playing down America's role and the time line for continued action.

This is insane. You are either at war, or you are not. Warfare requires clearly defined objectives, competent generals, and well-resourced fighting forces... it cannot be waged with half-measures and stammering equivocation.

Yet, here we are again, watching bureaucrats tap dance in front of voters, playing down the long-term ramifications of engagement and outright rejecting the idea of regime change as an intended objective.

They feel 100% justified in their decision to wage a half war without getting their hands dirty, rejecting any consequences to civilians, all under the auspices of protecting civilians... but only Libyan civilians.

Much praise has been heaped on Barack Obama, Nicolas Sarkozy, and the UN Security Council for their 'political courage,' taking action in the face of popular backlash to defend Libyans.

"Political courage" is an oxymoron. Everything these people do is for their professional gain, to be reelected, and the fallout of these decisions costs lives and economic misfortune. The cost of the munitions alone so far is over a quarter billion dollars, let alone the human cost.

Barack Obama himself said in 2002, "What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks... to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income?--?to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics."

Sounds great. Spoken like a true Nobel Laureate.

The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy involved is phenomenal.  The UN Security Council resolution (#1973) which 'authorized' this invasion, expresses condemnation for Qadaffi's deleterious actions against his own people...

... never mind that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain (which produces only 10% of Libya's oil) where the US Navy's 5th Fleet is headquartered with front row seats to the show;

... never mind that governments have hardly uttered a word about the situation in Bahrain or Saudi Arabia;

... never mind that the western world has proven itself incompetent at regime change after the occupations of both Iraq and Afghanistan;

... never mind that 10-years of warfare have worn out the spirit and morale of fighting forces to the point that they are twisted into taking trophy photos of dead civilians like a 16-point buck;

... never mind that you can't just step in, bomb some targets, step out, and expect a peaceful, stable, democratic, pro-Western society to materialize out of thin air;

... never mind that the coalition forces lack the moral authority to cherry pick which countries to invade and which civilian populations to ignore.

When they lack moral authority, they simply create it out of thin air. Politicians and bureaucrats equate morality with legality. If something is legal, it must be just... and if it's not legal, they'll pass a law or resolution making it legal... and hence just.

This is the way they operate-- using regulatory technicalities to wrap themselves in a blanket of righteousness in order to execute their agenda. As Tacitus said, "the more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."

Simon Black
Senior Editor, SovereignMan.com




Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.