We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers

OPINION
We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers
More Americans work for the government than in manufacturing, farming, fishing, forestry, mining and utilities combined.
By STEPHEN MOORE
APRIL 1, 2011

If you want to understand better why so many states­from New York to Wisconsin to California­are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, consider this depressing statistic: Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.

It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

Every state in America today except for two­Indiana and Wisconsin­has more government workers on the payroll than people manufacturing industrial goods. Consider California, which has the highest budget deficit in the history of the states. The not-so Golden State now has an incredible 2.4 million government employees­twice as many as people at work in manufacturing. New Jersey has just under two-and-a-half as many government employees as manufacturers. Florida's ratio is more than 3 to 1. So is New York's.

Even Michigan, at one time the auto capital of the world, and Pennsylvania, once the steel capital, have more government bureaucrats than people making things. The leaders in government hiring are Wyoming and New Mexico, which have hired more than six government workers for every manufacturing worker.

Now it is certainly true that many states have not typically been home to traditional manufacturing operations. Iowa and Nebraska are farm states, for example. But in those states, there are at least five times more government workers than farmers. West Virginia is the mining capital of the world, yet it has at least three times more government workers than miners. New York is the financial capital of the world­at least for now. That sector employs roughly 670,000 New Yorkers. That's less than half of the state's 1.48 million government employees.

Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government? Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

But education is an industry where we measure performance backwards: We gauge school performance not by outputs, but by inputs. If quality falls, we say we didn't pay teachers enough or we need smaller class sizes or newer schools. If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.

The same is true of almost all other government services. Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades. One way that private companies spur productivity is by firing underperforming employees and rewarding excellence. In government employment, tenure for teachers and near lifetime employment for other civil servants shields workers from this basic system of reward and punishment. It is a system that breeds mediocrity, which is what we've gotten.

Most reasonable steps to restrain public-sector employment costs are smothered by the unions. Study after study has shown that states and cities could shave 20% to 40% off the cost of many services­fire fighting, public transportation, garbage collection, administrative functions, even prison operations­through competitive contracting to private providers. But unions have blocked many of those efforts. Public employees maintain that they are underpaid relative to equally qualified private-sector workers, yet they are deathly afraid of competitive bidding for government services.

President Obama says we have to retool our economy to "win the future." The only way to do that is to grow the economy that makes things, not the sector that takes things.

Mr. Moore is senior economics writer for The Wall Street Journal editorial page.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

Torture and Terrorism: In the Middle East It's 2011, In America It's Still 2001

Torture and Terrorism: In the Middle East It's 2011, In America It's Still 2001
by Andy Worthington, April 1, 2011

The gulf between what's happening on the ground in the Middle East and the way it is perceived by the U.S. intelligence services ­ as well as the gulf between how critics perceive America's counterterrorism policies in the Middle East, and how those policies are perceived by U.S. intelligence ­ were recently exposed in an article in the Wall Street Journal by Julian E. Barnes and Adam Entous, entitled " Upheaval in Mideast Sets Back Terror War."

"For nearly a decade," the article explained, "the U.S. has conducted a major cloak-and-missile campaign against al-Qaeda, teaming up with friendly Arab leaders to swap intelligence, interrogate suspects, train commandos or carry out military strikes from Morocco to Iraq.... Now popular movements sweeping the region have knocked some counterterrorism allies from power, and left others too distracted or politically vulnerable to risk open cooperation with the U.S. Intelligence-sharing has already slowed in some areas as the U.S. struggles to identify reliable counterparts in reshuffled governments."

One official said, "It's difficult to share information when you don't know who the players are."

The article also claimed, "The upheaval has upended U.S. foreign policy in the region, with old friends shaken or gone and the allegiance of emerging leaders uncertain. The effects on counterterrorism efforts are one of the aftershocks that worry the intelligence community the most."

Barnes and Embus also quoted government officials as telling them that they had "lost track of many former Guantánamo detainees who had been sent home to the Middle East and North Africa," and that losing track of these former prisoners was "a sign that unrest in the region is disrupting critical terror-fighting relationships America has built up since the Sept. 11 attacks."


A disturbing perspective

There were problems with these claims that neither journalist picked up on, namely that the claim about "losing track" of former prisoners is, to put it bluntly, a lie, and also that the revolutionary "unrest" that has toppled the regimes of Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt can legitimately be viewed not as "disrupting" what U.S. intelligence agencies regard as "critical terror-fighting relationships" but as hugely popular revolutionary movements that have removed from power two hated dictators whose oppression of their people was only possible because they were backed by the United States and other Western countries.

For these home-grown revolutionary movements, the description of their hated dictators as "friendly Arab leaders," with whom the United States was cosily involved in "swap[ping] intelligence" and "interrogat[ing] suspects," will, if widely disseminated in the region, only reinforce the notion that America cannot be trusted, because one of the drivers of the revolutionary movement in Egypt was a thorough disgust at how the government's "emergency powers," enforced continually throughout Mubarak's 30 years in power, underpinned an essentially unaccountable regime of torture prisons run by the state security services and secretive courts handing down punitive sentences and laundering information derived through the use of torture, without anything resembling due process. Similar complaints also drove the Tunisian uprising, which lit the spark of revolution throughout the Middle East in the first place.

The tension between America's perceived security needs and the desires of the people of the Middle East was clearly recognized in the Wall Street Journal article, which noted, "Publicly, the Obama administration has embraced the democratic tide, arguing that political freedoms will diminish the standing of al-Qaeda in the Middle East and beyond," and quoting Defence Secretary Robert Gates stating that "the pro-democracy protests 'give the lie' to al-Qaeda's message that change is possible only through violence," and that they "are an extraordinary setback for al-Qaeda."

This ought to be the key message that America takes from the upheavals sweeping the Middle East, although the Wall Street Journal also noted, "Privately, counterterrorism officials in the U.S. and Europe are watching the sweeping changes with a mixture of alarm and dread," worried about Yemen, long regarded as a dangerously unstable nation, and also "worried that the level of cooperation from security services in Tunisia and Egypt, longtime partners, will decline as new leaders distance themselves from past abuses."

It should also be noted that, when Robert Gates referred to the pro-democracy movements giving the lie to al-Qaeda's message that "change is only possible through violence," he ought to have reflected that the same message should apply equally to the United States. Such an epiphany seems unlikely, but although this places America in an unusual position with regard to the bigger picture of the upheavals in the region -- largely confined to watching as people's movements take the initiative themselves -- on other details, such as claims about the value of America's relationship with regimes notorious for their use of torture, and the significance of prisoners released from Guantánamo, it is more than possible to refute claims that seek to suggest that the crimes, mistakes and distortions of the Bush administration's "war on terror" are in any way justified.


No threat from former Guantánamo prisoners in Egypt or Tunisia

In the first instance, to thoroughly undermine the claim that the U.S. government is "losing track" of former prisoners -- and to demonstrate that this encounter between the Wall Street Journal and U.S. intelligence was therefore something of a propaganda construct -- it is only necessary to consider that, in the only countries where "unrest" has toppled dictators -- Tunisia and Egypt -- only four former Guantánamo prisoners have been released, and none of them are even remotely involved in anything to do with terrorism.

In Egypt, one of the two men is Sami El-Laithi (aka El-Leithi, and spelled Allaithy by the U.S. authorities). Now 55 years old, he had been teaching at the University of Kabul when the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan began in October 2001, and, like many hundreds of others, he was seized and sent to Guantánamo after escaping to Pakistan. Unlike any other Guantánamo prisoner, however, El-Laithi was so brutally set upon by guards in Guantánamo one evening that they broke his spine, and he has been confined to a wheelchair ever since. Returned to Egypt on October 1, 2005, he was then held by Egypt's state security agency at a special prison section in Cairo's El-Qasr Al-Eini Hospital, and has stated his belief that, had he not been physically handicapped, he would not have been released. Now largely confined to his home village, outside Cairo, he is neither a threat nor an unknown quantity.

Had El-Laithi not been crippled, his thoughts about how he would not have been released from Egyptian custody reflect what happened to Reda Fadel El-Weleli (identified in Guantánamo as Fael Roda Al-Waleeli), the first Egyptian transferred from Guantánamo to Egypt, who arrived in Cairo on July 1, 2003, and subsequently disappeared. In October 2009, Martin Scheinin, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, complained that, after a visit to Egypt in April 2009, he "regrets that the Government of Egypt did not reply to his questions on the fate of ... El-Weleli," although I was later told that U.N. representatives finally succeeded in tracking him down, and that he was a broken figure, and very obviously a threat to nobody, who explained that, after his return from Guantánamo, he had been held and tortured in a secret prison in Egypt for three and a half years.

In Tunisia, the U.S. government also knows the whereabouts of the two men it transferred to Tunisian custody in June 2007, who, it should be noted, had been cleared for release by a military review board convened under President Bush. Until very recently, both were in prison, having been imprisoned after show trials on their return, despite the signing of a "diplomatic assurance" between the U.S. government and President Ben Ali, which purported to guarantee that they would be treated fairly when repatriated.

One of the two, Lotfi Lagha, was freed after his three-year sentence came to an end last year, and the other, Abdallah Hajji, was freed in February this year after the flight of Ben Ali. The eight-year sentence he had been given in 2007 was overturned, amidst the recognition that he had never been involved in any kind of terrorism, and was, instead, a member of Ennahdha, the Islamic opposition group, banned by Ben Ali, whose members were conveniently labeled as terrorists during the "war on terror." Both men can easily be found in Tunisia, as a former exiled political opponent of the regime, Fathi Messaoudi, explained to me when I met him a few days ago.

Having recently returned to Tunisia for the first time in 20 years, Messaoudi, who was blinded by Ben Ali's torturers, told me that he met Abdallah Hajji and that, although he relished his freedom, he too was a broken man, and had been haunted, since his imprisonment on his return to Tunisia, by threats that his wife and daughters would be brought before him by the secret police and raped.


Why America's intelligence services still love arbitrary detention and torture

In addition, another intention regarding the U.S. claims about former prisoners in Tunisia and Egypt appears to be to cast doubts on the security of both countries following their popular revolutions and the flight of their dictators. This, too, is groundless, and is nothing more than scaremongering, because, although there are policing problems in Tunisia, the country is ruled by an interim government that consists primarily of Ben Ali's former colleagues (in other words, America's long-standing allies in the region). Similarly, in Egypt, the interim government -- the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces -- consists of Mubarak's former colleagues, even though, in the end, the army's senior generals chose to seize power themselves rather than entrusting it to Hosni Mubarak's chosen successor, Omar Suleiman.

As was noted before Mubarak's fall, if there was to be meaningful change in Egypt, it could not involve Suleiman, the former spy chief who not only symbolized the brutality of Egypt's police state to its own citizens, but was also central to the key role played by Egypt as a partner in the Bush administration's "war on terror," personally overseeing the brutal torture of terror suspects seized by the CIA, including the Australian Mamdouh Habib, the Pakistani scholar Mohammed Saad Iqbal Madni, and the Libyan Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the emir of a training camp in Afghanistan. Under torture -- almost certainly at Suleiman's hands ­ al-Libi falsely confessed that Saddam Hussein had met two al-Qaeda operatives to discuss obtaining chemical and biological weapons, a tortured lie that, although retracted by al-Libi (who was later returned to Libya and a suspicious death by "suicide" in 2009), was used by the Bush administration to justify its illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003, when Secretary of State Colin Powell was persuaded to use it in a key presentation to the United Nations the month before.

Even so, positive perceptions of Omar Suleiman and Hosni Mubarak are at the heart of the U.S. intelligence officials' complaints about the changing political landscape in the Middle East. "Obviously, our most important relationship over the last decade has been Egypt," a senior U.S. intelligence official told the Wall Street Journal. "And clearly that is in line for significant change. We won't re-create the relationship we had with Mubarak."

Examining the importance of that relationship, the article proceeded to mention how, "Before this year's revolts, the secret police in authoritarian countries like Egypt and Tunisia had far more leeway than the U.S. and its European allies to hold detainees indefinitely and use interrogation methods widely regarded by human-rights groups as torture to try to extract information," and that the Egyptian government also "secretly held and interrogated Islamist militants who had been captured by the CIA and the U.S. military under a practice known as rendition, widely condemned by human-rights groups."

The discomforting reality is that the United States and at least some of its Western allies enjoyed the fact that, under Hosni Mubarak, prisoners could be kidnapped anywhere in the world and rendered to Egypt, where they could be detained indefinitely and tortured ­ and it is, to be honest, rather disturbing to be hearing U.S. officials stating so openly, in 2011, how they wish that torture was still something they could use.


Why there is no threat from former Guantánamo prisoners in Libya or Yemen

With the U.S. intelligence services' love of torture exposed, and the misinformation about former prisoners in Tunisia and Egypt debunked, it is clear that the central premises of the Wall Street Journal article -- that former Guantánamo prisoners, unmonitored, are on the loose in the Middle East, and that the governments responsible for monitoring them have either been toppled or are too distracted by their own revolutionary movements -- do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

Moreover, looking at countries other than Tunisia and Egypt, similar problems can be perceived. The article, for example, also specifically mentioned Libya and Yemen. "The flow of information from Libya, Yemen and other governments in the region about the whereabouts and activities of the former Guantánamo detainees, along with other Islamists released from local prisons, has slowed or even stopped," officials told the Wall Street Journal, adding that "they fear that former detainees will re-join al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups."

Again, on close inspection, what is portrayed as a problem engendered by the revolutionary movements spreading across the Middle East, and also as one on a significant scale, is easily dismissed when the facts are introduced. In Libya, for example, where, rather terrifyingly, the counterterrorism relationship between the United States and Gaddafi, another blatant torturer, was described by a senior U.S. official as "especially productive," only two former Guantánamo prisoners have been released, and as I explained in a recent article, " Deranged Gaddafi Blames Ex-Guantánamo Prisoners for Unrest in Libya, Even Though Only One Ex-Prisoner Has Been Released," one of these men is still imprisoned in Tripoli, and the other, freed last summer, is verifiably not involved in any al-Qaeda activities. Nor, outside of wild claims by Colonel Gaddafi, has there been any serious suggestion that al-Qaeda, as such, is involved in the Libyan people's uprising against their hated dictator, which, as elsewhere, is led primarily by young people rather than religious organizations, and supported by trade unionists and intellectuals.

With this in mind, it is noticeable that the Wall Street Journal's commentary on the Guantánamo prisoners repatriated to Libya was nothing more than a succession of errors. "In Libya, the U.S. has been completely cut off," the article claimed, citing an Obama administration official stating, "It's dead with Gaddafi. We don't know the status of the people [the returned prisoners]." The article then falsely claimed that both men had been returned in 2006, when one was returned in October 2007, and although it was correctly stated that, since their return, "U.S. officials have paid multiple visits to the men in Libyan prisons," it was, again, mistaken to suggest that, "once the uprising in Libya boiled over into a full-blown rebellion and the U.S. called for Col. Moammar Gaddafi to step down, American officials lost track of the two men," because, as indicated above, one remains in prison, and the other can easily be traced, and is very clearly no threat to anyone ­ as the Americans realized when they released him in 2007.

Similarly, in Yemen, the explicit claims made in the article that "U.S. and European officials are increasingly concerned that former Guantánamo detainees are no longer under much, if any, government surveillance" is, fundamentally, nothing more than unjustifiable scaremongering. The authorities may well be concerned because they have, according to the article, "detected an uptick in activity by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," with a senior counterterrorism official claiming that "the group is 'very actively' plotting new strikes against the U.S. during the lull in American and Yemeni counterterrorism operations" caused by the revolutionary upheavals in Yemen in the last two months.

However, this has nothing to do with the prisoners released from Guantánamo. According to U.S. intelligence, a handful of Saudi ex-prisoners released by President Bush have been involved in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, but only one Yemeni ex-prisoner ­ Hani Abdo Shaalan, released in June 2007 and apparently killed by Yemeni security forces in December 2009.

To get the Yemeni story in perspective, only 23 Yemeni prisoners have ever been released from Guantánamo, and in the last 15 months, just one Yemeni -- Mohammed Hassan Odaini, a student seized by mistake while visiting other students in a university dormitory in Pakistan, who won his habeas corpus petition -- has been freed.

Of the other 89 Yemenis still held in Guantánamo, 58 were cleared for release by President Obama's interagency Guantánamo Review Task Force, which reviewed all the Guantánamo cases throughout 2009, but they are still held because of an ongoing and open-ended moratorium on releasing any Yemenis, which was announced by President Obama in January 2010, after it was claimed that the failed plane bomber on Christmas Day 2009, the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had been recruited in Yemen.

Of the prisoners returned to Yemen, it is not actually difficult to establish that the overwhelming majority of them can be located easily, and are trying, with varying degrees of success, to rebuild their shattered lives. I recently, for example, spoke to David Remes, the attorney for several of the released prisoners, who told me about his recent meetings with them on a visit to Yemen, and updated me about their working lives, their hopes and aspirations, and their families.

Behind the headline-grabbing fears, this is the norm for Yemenis returned from Guantánamo, and the biggest problem Yemen causes to the United States, when it comes to Guantánamo, is not those who have been released, but those who have not, because clearing men for release, and then not releasing them because of the perceived threat of terrorism from Yemen in general, tars the entire Yemeni population as terrorist sympathizers, and is, essentially, "guilt by nationality," which is a deep insult to the Yemeni people, and a guaranteed basis for ill-feeling. In addition, as I have been explaining all year, it makes those held into political prisoners, no longer held because of any just or judicial process, but because of the whims of an unaccountable government.

If the United States should draw one obvious lesson from what is happening throughout the Middle East, it ought to be that it is time for the paranoia and state-sanctioned violence of the "war on terror" to be brought to an end. After all, Islamist militants have been conspicuously absent during the upheavals, which have been led primarily by young people, and the Islamic groups who have appeared have shown themselves willing to take part in the democratic process.

Nearly ten years after the 9/11 attacks, there is now an historic opportunity for the United States to recognize that it is time to move on from a decade dominated by the lawlessness and brutality of al-Qaeda, and the lawlessness and brutality with which America responded, and to learn a lesson from the revolutionaries of the Middle East ­ that living in hope is far better than living in fear.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1104a.asp

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

If you truly believe I have "no virtues worthy of... being allowed to continue to live on this Earth," why don't you stop by sometime and we can discuss this in person.

As for my being "an outlaw to humanity," how do you believe that is possible?

OUTLAW, n. A person excluded from the benefit of the law, or deprived of its protection.

HUMANITY, n. The peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings.

How did you determine that humanity is law?

On 04/01/2011 11:38 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

I can't be put on the defensive regarding the most highly-motivated, for-the-people document ever written.  Jonathan, the socialist- communist, is bent on destroying the USA.  He has no virtues worthy of his being allowed to continue to live on this Earth.  He is an outlaw to humanity, along with Mark and MJ.  I'm amazed that Keith can't see what rascals he purports to understand and tolerate!  — J. A. Armistead —   Patriot 

On Mar 29, 1:05 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  The problem is you don't defend your document. If you were to defend it, you would have to engage in dialogue. Instead, you resort to personal attacks against those who pose questions - failing in every instance thus far to answer any posed questions. You are nothing more than a hypocrite.  On 03/29/2011 09:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote:        

Jonathan:  You, like so many in the groups, seek to elevate your non- existent status by attacking the work of your intellectual and creative superiors.  As required by the original Constitution, I only... "preserve, protect, and defend" my document from the attacks of lame brains like you, MJ and Mark.  My time would be better spent writing more essays.  ï¿½  J. A. A. � On Mar 28, 11:59 am, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, 

Why won't you face the fact that you just don't like YOUR New Constitution being criticized. 

On 03/28/2011 08:00 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  For your information, no socialist-communist will ever get a chance to serve in, or be employed by government.  The "input" that you seek to destroy the USA isn't available to tyrants like you.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 26, 7:36 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

Once again John has resorted to cut and paste name calling rather than engage in meaningful dialog. On 03/26/2011 03:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan Ashley, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of a reply. � J. A. A. � On Mar 25, 2:41 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, I am shocked. I am in agreement with your statement, "In the case of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the contract are happy with the deal." That is voluntary interaction. That is how things should be. However, you lose me with, "If a person thinks they have been treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and let the jury decide." Would not a better (and less expensive) solution be to enter into a private contract with an arbitration firm that has no vested interest in the outcome of the arbitration? No one would need, as you have phrased it, "to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say!" Yet, if we follow your remedy when "treated unfairly by government," we must seek redress from an arm of the government that has treated us unfairly. How can government be the problem and the solution at the same time? Existing tax courts are a prime example of how this does not work. How does one get remedy from the IRS when both the judge sitting on the bench of a tax court and the prosecutor are biased toward the collection of taxes for their very existence? A private arbitration firm would have no vested interest either way. Even if we accept that "sue in civil court and let the jury decide" is the way to proceed, it is incompatible with your want of "democracy." Will the population collectively sit on every jury?        *DEMOCRACY*, n. [Gr. People, and to possess, to govern.] Government        by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is        lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the        people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government        of Athens. On 03/25/2011 10:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Jonathan:  You are a hopeless case.  No one is needed to explain the 'Golden Rule': "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And no prudent person has trouble knowing what is fair.  In the case of contract law, a FAIR contract is one in which both parties to the contract are happy with the deal.  If a person thinks they have been treated unfairly by government or by business they can sue in civil court and let the jury decide.  Those with a conscience (but not you) know, instinctively, when they are being fair to others.  No one needs to go to any czar to see what the God-damned government has to say! Give up your hobby of replying on Political Forum.  You don't have the reasoning ability of a (blind) mole.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 24, 2:40 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John, Are you serious? "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!" Who decides what is "fair play"? You? Mob rule? "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what's for lunch." On 03/24/2011 09:36 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Jonathan:  If you had spent 14 years of your life writing a New Constitution for the benefit of most Americans, you'd realize that "ego" just wouldn't be a suitable enough motive.  Apparently, I pegged you right that you are simply jealous that I have already accomplished things you've only talked about.  Conservatives such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh like to talk about this country's problems, but can't be taken seriously that they actually want those problems to be solved. Judge Andrew Napolitano has close to the right assessments of the unconstitutionality of much that the WH is doing.  But he always grins and stops short of calling for the immediate arrest of Barack Obama for TREASON.  My New Constitution will hang any public official not upholding this simple sworn statement: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"  Since socialism and communism are the anti-theses of fair play and of democracy, I highly recommend that no socialist-communist-minded air-heads ever seek public office.  If they do, there could become a shortage of hangman's nooses!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 23, 12:50 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

It always comes back to John's ego: "I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have." On 03/23/2011 09:05 AM, NoEinstein wrote: 

Dear Mark:  Should I be flattered that you remember what I say from one day to the next?  If indeed you can read and comprehend, you wouldn't need to put those words in capitals.  Unlike you and MJ, I don't depend on YELLING to make my points.  If you find what I'm writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and thus opposed.  The "tone" of my document is pro control of government by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have.  If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution. If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  ï¿½ John A. Armistead � Patriot On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>            wrote: 

The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND. The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next what he says. On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ<micha...@america.net>            wrote: 

Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: 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!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � And now HERE in THIS thread the same person: 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.        The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see his EMBRACE of socialism. There is ALSO this from the same person: Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction, nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type. Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing 

 ..  read more » 

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

Mark,

If you are in the military and have access to classified info, one of
the first things they tell you is that the individual is responsible for
his own security, no excuses. I recall a col when I was in the service
who was a bit of a wise-a@@. He specifically walked into the comm room
where he was not permitted, picked up a piece of classified messages and
then walked into the office of the col in charge and told him what he
had done and that the col had to shape up the staff. The col just
pulled the manual, read him the pertinent section as I mentioned above
and the next thing we knew the offending col was removed from duty at
the Pentagon, had his security clearance pulled and was transferred to
the Aleutian Islands. He also was kicked out of the service when his
next review came up.

What Manning did is far beyond that so yes, Manning is going to jail for
this. No more needed at all. And all within the UCMJ. This also
applies even if you have a clearance for the info but don't need access
to the info. If someone tries to give you the info you are required to
stop them and do not access the info. That is military regulations.
It is your responsibility to do so and if you do not then you are
subject to arrest on that basis. They can get very sticky about things
of this nature. That is why I think we need to know how this info got
released and under what circumstances anyone feels Manning is entitled
not to go to jail. He is flagrantly guilty here and should go for life
for what he did. He is not in a position to determine whether something
is rightfully classified or should be unclassified and he is also not in
a position to determine who should have access to it and under what
circumstances. Under no condition is he in a position to decide it is
just hunky dory to hand this over to foreign nationals because he is
having a hissy fit.

On 04/01/2011 03:25 PM, GregfromBoston wrote:
> You need more than if you're in the military, release classified data,
> and get caught, you're going to jail?
>
> Really?
>
> On Apr 1, 1:39 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You still have not answered the questions Tommy....er Einstein .... er Greg.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:38 AM, GregfromBoston<greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> CLASSIFIED means under the table. Way under. Welcome to Earth.
>>> He had the authority to download them. He did NOT have the authority
>>> to hand them out. He broke the law. Lots of them. Thats frowned
>>> upon here. Even moreso by the military. That means jail. A whole
>>> lotta jail.
>>> On Apr 1, 1:26 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I see that just as Einstein does not answer questions, neither do you.
>>>> If the US were doing business above the table instead of below it there
>>>> would be no need.
>>>> Now answer the questions.
>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:08 AM, GregfromBoston<greg.vinc...@yahoo.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> You want all Americans privvy to drone footage and classified
>>>>> documents?
>>>>> Thats nice, but its a court martial offence(s), and Manning not only
>>>>> knew that, but bragged about it. That makes him both dumb and a
>>>>> criminal. The UCMJ is most unforgiving on this shit. He's toast, and
>>>>> Julian can laugh all the way to the bank.
>>>>> Good deal there Brad.
>>>>> On Apr 1, 12:31 pm, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>> Other than the intangible pride and feelings of a few politicians and
>>>>>> professional scoundrels explain to me just who and what was damaged
>>> by
>>>>>> Mannings act of moral conscious.
>>>>>> Then explain why an act of moral consciousness that falls well within
>>> the
>>>>>> scope of truth, honesty and openness that ALL Americans expect from
>>> their
>>>>>> Government and its actions is truly wrong.
>>>>>> Was there an intent to damage or to simply throw light on the wrongs
>>>>> being
>>>>>> done ??
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, GregfromBoston<
>>> greg.vinc...@yahoo.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> It *may* certainly *have* been the property of the US Government at
>>>>>>> some time ...
>>>>>>> Regard$,
>>>>>>> --MJ
>>>>>>> Still is. Manning is gonna die in jail as an old man.
>>>>>>> All hail WikiLeaks.
>>>>>>> On Apr 1, 8:58 am, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It *may* certainly *have* been the property of the US Government
>>> at
>>>>> some
>>>>>>> time ...
>>>>>>>> Regard$,
>>>>>>>> --MJ"The Nazi party was elected to office by the freely cast
>>> ballots
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> millions of German voters . . . . In the national election of July
>>>>> 1932, the
>>>>>>> Nazis obtained 37 percent of the vote and a plurality of seats in
>>> the
>>>>>>> Reichstag. On January 30, 1933, in full accordance with the
>>> country's
>>>>> legal
>>>>>>> and constitutional principles, Hitler was appointed Chancellor.
>>> Five
>>>>> weeks
>>>>>>> later, in the last (and semi-free) election of the pre-totalitarian
>>>>> period,
>>>>>>> the Nazis obtained 17 million votes, 44 percent of the total.The
>>> voters
>>>>> were
>>>>>>> aware of the Nazi ideology.
>>>>>>>> "Nazi literature, including statements of the Nazi plans for the
>>>>> future,
>>>>>>> papered the country during the last years of the Weimar Republic.
>>> Mein
>>>>> Kampf
>>>>>>> alone sold more than 200,000 copies between 1925 and 1932. The
>>> essence
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the political system which Hitler intended to establish in Germany
>>> was
>>>>>>> clear. -- Leonard PeikoffAt 08:54 AM 4/1/2011, you wrote:What
>>> makes
>>>>>>> camera footage from US drones, and documents from military
>>>>>>>> databases, US Property?
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>> On Mar 31, 1:11 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Assange had no right to disseminate ANYTHING that belonged to
>>> the
>>>>>>> United States, (e.g.;you and I) and I don't give a crap where he
>>> was
>>>>>>> propped up at. In this case, "MIght Makes Right"; and Assange was
>>>>> warned a
>>>>>>> number of times NOT to publish information that didn't belong to
>>> him,
>>>>> but
>>>>>>> rather, belonged to us.What made this 'US Property'?
>>>>>>>>> Regard$,
>>>>>>>>> --MJ... where corruption and public crimes are not carefully
>>>>> opposed,
>>>>>>> and severely punished, neither liberty nor security can possibly
>>>>> subsist. --
>>>>>>> Cato's Letters (1721)
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>>> For options& help seehttp://
>>> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>>>> For options& help seehttp://
>>> groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> *Presidente, Piroliticos del Sur*
>>>>>> *440 Mtrs Este del Cementerio*
>>>>>> *Uvita de Osa, Puntarenas *
>>>>>> *2743-8142, 8607-7648*
>>>>>> *markmka...@gmail.com*- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> --
>>>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>>>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>>>> --
>>>> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> --
>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>>> For options& help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>>> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>> --
>> *Mark M. Kahle H.*
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -

--
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: Traitor Bradley Manning threatened stepmother w/ a knife

Keith,

1) I expected better of you. Declaring something exists is not factual evidence of its existence. If I tell you that little gray men abducted me yesterday while I was at the local Piggly Wiggly does that prove the existence of little gray men?

I once had a traffic ticket dismissed because the judge declared the prosecution's witness (the "law enforcement officer" who claimed I was speeding on a road in the State of Texas) incompetent to testify when I asked the officer the following questions:

• Is it your contention that I was within the State of Texas on September 21, 1999?
• Yes!

• Is it your contention that I was driving a vehicle within the State of Texas on September 21, 1999?
• Yes!

• Is it your contention that I was speeding within the State of Texas on September 21, 1999?
• Yes!

• Officer, what is a state?
  

Both the judge (who we are indoctrinated to believe is supposed to be an impartial juror) and the prosecutor both went hysterical. They did not want the officer answering that question.

2) While you are entitled to believe that "Manning betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history," there are those who believe an act of moral conscious makes for a far better patriot than one who would blindly follow the "my country, right or wrong" mentality that perpetuates ongoing warmongering by an elite few for their own benefit.



On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Keith In Köln <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:

Hello Greg, Mark MJ & Jonathan!

 

Without going in and researching this, I don't think that there is any question that the United States, as a corporation (e.g; a corporate body, or corporate politic) does in fact exist. As a Nation-State; and as Mark pointed out yesterday, the United States is sovereign, in and of itself.

 

Assange has arrogantly admitted to disseminating classified information through his entity, "Wiki-Leaks". Bradley Manning, According to his online chats, stated that he was in "an awkward place" both "emotionally and psychologically." So in a snit, Manning betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

 

It is in violation of our laws to retain, disseminate, or disclose classified information of the United States. Assange and his attorneys were warned of this before Assange chose to violate 18 U.S.C. § 793 et.seq. (See §§ 793, 794 and 798 in particular). Isn't that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!"

 

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought "moral support" from his "self-described drag queen" boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

 

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled "Lady Gaga." Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song "Telephone" while frantically downloading classified documents.

 

Where is Lil'TommyTomTomForNews? Surely he can remind us once again why it was so important to shit-can "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

 

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:

 

Keith,

 

I am making this challenge precisely because you are a lawyer. Can you factually prove that the United States of America actually exists?

 

You cannot hear it, see it, smell it, touch it, or taste it. Its alleged boundaries are not visible from any un-doctored image from space I have ever seen.

 

Sure the statists who pretend they represent the interests of the United States of America (members of Congress, the President, and the far too many bozos appointed to government positions by the bozo-in-chief) can be heard incessantly, seen far too often, smelled (if you should venture too close to them), touched (not sure why anyone would desire to do so), and (for those with no discernment and who are so inclined) tasted. The United States of America fails every sensory test.

 

So how can you prove anything "belonged to the United States"?

 

Even if one were to assume anything published by Wikileaks originally belonged to the United States government, you - being a lawyer - should know that U.S. federal government works are not eligible for copyright protection (17 USC 105). So, how can anyone be found guilty of publishing that which upon its creation is in the public domain?

 

"Might Makes Right":

"the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

 

--

The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what freedom and liberty are.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft