Republicans and Taxes
by Andrew P. Napolitano
When President Obama won re-election last month by a larger margin than even his most fervent supporters had expected, though with fewer popular votes than he received in 2008, most commentators initially opined that not much had changed in Washington. The president would remain in the White House for another four years, the Democrats would keep control of the Senate, and the House would stay in Republican hands. Most Republicans re-elected to both houses of Congress had publicly pledged not to vote to raise taxes under any circumstances. And most of those Republicans have adhered to that promise – until now.
Over the Thanksgiving weekend, the false congressional fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party began to reveal their true selves. Led by the Republican presidential standard bearer in 2008, Arizona Sen. John McCain, at least a half-dozen Republican members of Congress have renounced their public promises never to vote to raise taxes. In the case of Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., Congressman and Senator-elect Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., they had re-stated their promises, directly or indirectly, as recently as last month during their successful campaigns. Did they blatantly dupe the voters? Did they genuinely change their minds? Did they ever sincerely accept the pro-freedom anti-tax logic?
The Founders certainly embraced the pro-freedom anti-tax logic, as they gave us a Constitution that barred the federal government from imposing any direct tax on any persons. That was part of the genius of the document. If the feds really needed cash, they’d need to tax the states. If the states were feeling over-taxed, they could block federal taxes in the Senate, where for 135 years senators were chosen by state governments as delegates to the Senate, rather than elected by voters. This procedure, too, was part of the Founders’ genius. It came about in order to assure a place at the federal table for the states, many of which were older than the federal government and all of which retained their sovereignty when they voluntarily joined the union. This procedure for choosing senators was also a check on the growth of the federal government.
Those constitutional provisions were cast aside during the progressive era about 100 years ago, when, during a period of just five years, the Constitution was amended so that the states lost their place at the federal table and Congress could tax incomes, and the feds got a new printing press for cash in the form of the Federal Reserve.
I have described this dreadful time in our history in my new book, "Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom." They did so by inverting the concept of limited government. With the exception of Abraham Lincoln, every president from George Washington to TR’s predecessor, William McKinley, accepted the truism that the federal government is one of limited powers, and it may only in engage in behavior that is specifically authorized by the Constitution or reasonably inferable therefrom.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, who ran against each other and who hated each other, turned this value on its head. They jointly argued that the Constitution does not mean what it says and is not the Supreme Law of the Land as it states. They held that the federal government can do whatever it wishes unless those wishes are expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
For 100 years, the Republican Party resisted the progressive onslaught. As recently as this past election just a few weeks ago, Republicans argued that increased tax revenue, whether from increased tax rates or from decreased tax deductions, effectively moves wealth from the productive sector and delivers it to the consuming sector – which would be the government.
This argument is really one of the basic laws of economics, so why are Republicans now rejecting it? I suspect that they are drunk with power and have concluded that they – just like Obama did – can assure their re-elections, their continued possession of governmental power, if they deliver bigger pieces of the federal pie to the folks back home. Stated differently, they are unwilling to address a system that soon will deliver more in entitlement payments and interest payments on government debt than it collects in revenue by reducing the entitlements, shrinking the government, cutting the debt, returning to the confines of the Constitution and letting hardworking Americans retain what is theirs. Instead, they now want to raise federal taxes.
They would be unwise to try to pull this off – and would be wise to recall recent history. The last Republican president to pledge "Read my lips. NO NEW TAXES" and then violate that promise was dispatched by the voters to a hotel suite in Houston, rather than to four more years in the White House. I bet George Herbert Walker Bush today would stick to his pledge.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano78.1.html
Thursday, November 29, 2012
More on Lincoln movie...
Why the Totalitarians Among Us Love Lincoln
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing [political] interests, and render them all subservient to the public good."
~ James Madison, Federalist #10
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge . . . is itself a frightful despotism."
~ George Washington’s Farewell Address
"That government is best which governs least."
~ Thomas Jefferson
One of the distinctive features of my book, The Real Lincoln, is that unlike almost all other books on the subject, I portray the sixteenth president as a real-life, flesh-and-blood politician. I quoted Murray Rothbard, who described Lincoln as a "master politician" which, to Rothbard, meant that he was a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator. I also quoted the Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer, David Donald, as saying that Lincoln was "the master string puller" of Illinois politics before he ran for president. He was just as motivated by a compulsive quest for money and power as any other successful politician, I wrote.
This drew an avalanche of condemnation and calumny from the Lincoln cult, especially the "Straussian" neocons, who never seem to be able to stop raising money to erect more statues of Lincoln on college campuses and elsewhere. Even if Lincoln was a wily politician, they condescendingly pontificated, one must first be a politician before become a "statesman."
All of this has changed. Various neocons are now celebrating the fact that Lincoln was exactly as I portrayed him as being: a lying, conniving, manipulating politician. In doing so they have finally removed their masks and revealed themselves to be totalitarian-minded fascists whose beliefs are patently un-American, if one compares their beliefs to those of Washington, Madison and Jefferson as quoted at the top of this article. The vehicle for the new neocon celebration of Lincolnian political chicanery is Steven Spielberg’s new Lincoln movie.
Exhibit A of this totalitarian mindset is a November 22 New York Times article by David Brooks entitled "Why We Love Politics." (Can you imagine Washington, Madison, or Jefferson ever saying such a childish thing?). Compared to the traditional American ideal of limited constitutional government as espoused by the founding fathers, Brooks continues to advocate virtually unlimited government by praising to the treetops the "nobility of politics" that is portrayed in Steven Spielberg’s new "Lincoln" movie. Rather than warning of "the violence of [political] faction," as James Madison did, Brooks declares that "you can do more good in politics than in any other sphere." Of course, "you" can also create great "enormities" through politics, as George Washington warned in his farewell address. The Holocaust and the South African Apartheid system were both government programs, after all, to name just two examples. Politics protected and even subsidized American slavery for generations, let us not forget. It has plunged us into myriad unnecessary wars, and all the death and destruction that goes with it.
"Politics is the best place to develop the highest virtues," Brooks argues, while denigrating "young people especially" who he sneers at for being concerned more with community service than national politics. And what are these "virtues" according to David Brooks? They are on display in the Spielberg movie, he says, with all of Lincoln’s political maneuverings. He heaps mountains of praise on Lincoln for being so willing to "bamboozle, trim, compromise and be slippery and hypocritical;" to "take morally hazardous action"; to "ignore court decisions, dole out patronage, play legalistic games," and "deceive . . . supporters." The "highest virtues" indeed, New York Times style.
In The Road to Serfdom F.A. Hayek pointed out that a characteristic of a totalitarian mindset, one that distinguishes it from individualism, is a belief in the notion that "the ends justify the means." All of the worst totalitarians of Hayek’s day espoused this view, from Stalin to Hitler and Mussolini. To Stalin, the end of a "communist paradise" was said to justify any means – even the murder of tens of millions of dissenters. Petty totalitarians like David Brooks, who would probably never personally harm a fly, also espouse this dangerous, anti-social ideology and urge the rest of us to do so as well. Getting the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, the main theme of the Spielberg movie, is said to have been "justified" by any means.
But the Spielberg Lincoln movie gets its history completely upside down. The main story line is how Lincoln supposedly utilized every bit of his political sleaziness to help get the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress. This is a fiction. It never happened according to the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time, Harvard University’s David Donald (See page 554 of his Pulitzer prize-winning biography of Lincoln). In fact, the opposite was true: The genuine abolitionists in Congress had to use their political powers to get Lincoln to voice his support for the Thirteenth Amendment. Spielberg’s movie, based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin, is an extraordinarily misleading work of fiction. (See my LRC review of Goodwin’s book entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
Lest the reader believe that I am exaggerating by using the word "fascism" to describe the political views of neocons like David Brooks, consider this: Among the defining characteristics of twentieth-century European fascism were militarism; a worshipful attitude toward the state and politics; the denigration of individual liberty, free enterprise, and the civil society; dictatorial executive branch powers; and a philosophy of "the common good before self interest." These are also the defining characteristics of self-described "national greatness conservatives" like David Brooks and William Kristol, and they explain why they are such Lincoln idolaters.
"Politics is noble because it involves personal compromise for the public good," Brooks writes in his New York Times column, echoing the sentiments of Mussolini himself. "The fascist conception of life, Benito Mussolini wrote in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (p. 10), "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State." German fascism was based on the identical philosophy of "the common good comes before the private good." In German, "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigenntz." Under fascism "the common good" was defined for the public by politicians and their advisors. The public never had any voice in defining what was supposedly good for it.
In a 1997 Weekly Standard cover article Brooks condemned genuine, limited-government conservatives as being "besotted with localism, local communities, and the devolution of power." He advocated an unlimited expansion of the powers of the federal government for any reason because, he said, "energetic government is good for its own sake." War – any war – would be the most desirable way to create this "good" according to neocons like David Brooks. All of this "greatness" is now on display in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
In a 1997 Wall Street Journal article co-authored with William Kristol Brooks advocated compulsory "national service" for all American youths; a "mission" to Mars, and endless foreign policy interventionism. "It almost doesn’t matter what great task government sets for itself," they wrote. For "ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington."
This is an incredibly totalitarian statement, implying that there is such a thing as one single "American voice." In reality, of course, there are millions of different "voices" in a democracy where there is never unanimous opinion on anything. That is why there is no such thing as "the public interest" in the context of democratic politics. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Liberalism, one can argue that such institutions as private property are in "the public interest" in that they benefit the entire society, but this is never true of government policy. The language of "American purpose" presumes the opposite – that there is such a thing as unanimous political opinion.
It is statements such as these that explain why all of the totalitarians in our midst, i.e., those who wish to control our every behavior through government, have such a wildly celebratory attitude toward the Spielberg Lincoln movie. Left-wing propagandists like Doris Kearns-Goodwin, author of hagiographies of Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln, and right-wing propagandists like David Brooks and his fellow neocons, are all part of a phony "team of rivals" who pose as political competitors. In reality, they all are part of an establishment cabal that views those of us who are "besotted" with ideas about liberty and freedom as their true enemies and roadblocks to their own personal wealth and glory disguised by the language of "national greatness" and mythical and false accounts of American history.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo244.html
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing [political] interests, and render them all subservient to the public good."
~ James Madison, Federalist #10
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge . . . is itself a frightful despotism."
~ George Washington’s Farewell Address
"That government is best which governs least."
~ Thomas Jefferson
One of the distinctive features of my book, The Real Lincoln, is that unlike almost all other books on the subject, I portray the sixteenth president as a real-life, flesh-and-blood politician. I quoted Murray Rothbard, who described Lincoln as a "master politician" which, to Rothbard, meant that he was a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator. I also quoted the Pulitzer prize-winning Lincoln biographer, David Donald, as saying that Lincoln was "the master string puller" of Illinois politics before he ran for president. He was just as motivated by a compulsive quest for money and power as any other successful politician, I wrote.
This drew an avalanche of condemnation and calumny from the Lincoln cult, especially the "Straussian" neocons, who never seem to be able to stop raising money to erect more statues of Lincoln on college campuses and elsewhere. Even if Lincoln was a wily politician, they condescendingly pontificated, one must first be a politician before become a "statesman."
All of this has changed. Various neocons are now celebrating the fact that Lincoln was exactly as I portrayed him as being: a lying, conniving, manipulating politician. In doing so they have finally removed their masks and revealed themselves to be totalitarian-minded fascists whose beliefs are patently un-American, if one compares their beliefs to those of Washington, Madison and Jefferson as quoted at the top of this article. The vehicle for the new neocon celebration of Lincolnian political chicanery is Steven Spielberg’s new Lincoln movie.
Exhibit A of this totalitarian mindset is a November 22 New York Times article by David Brooks entitled "Why We Love Politics." (Can you imagine Washington, Madison, or Jefferson ever saying such a childish thing?). Compared to the traditional American ideal of limited constitutional government as espoused by the founding fathers, Brooks continues to advocate virtually unlimited government by praising to the treetops the "nobility of politics" that is portrayed in Steven Spielberg’s new "Lincoln" movie. Rather than warning of "the violence of [political] faction," as James Madison did, Brooks declares that "you can do more good in politics than in any other sphere." Of course, "you" can also create great "enormities" through politics, as George Washington warned in his farewell address. The Holocaust and the South African Apartheid system were both government programs, after all, to name just two examples. Politics protected and even subsidized American slavery for generations, let us not forget. It has plunged us into myriad unnecessary wars, and all the death and destruction that goes with it.
"Politics is the best place to develop the highest virtues," Brooks argues, while denigrating "young people especially" who he sneers at for being concerned more with community service than national politics. And what are these "virtues" according to David Brooks? They are on display in the Spielberg movie, he says, with all of Lincoln’s political maneuverings. He heaps mountains of praise on Lincoln for being so willing to "bamboozle, trim, compromise and be slippery and hypocritical;" to "take morally hazardous action"; to "ignore court decisions, dole out patronage, play legalistic games," and "deceive . . . supporters." The "highest virtues" indeed, New York Times style.
In The Road to Serfdom F.A. Hayek pointed out that a characteristic of a totalitarian mindset, one that distinguishes it from individualism, is a belief in the notion that "the ends justify the means." All of the worst totalitarians of Hayek’s day espoused this view, from Stalin to Hitler and Mussolini. To Stalin, the end of a "communist paradise" was said to justify any means – even the murder of tens of millions of dissenters. Petty totalitarians like David Brooks, who would probably never personally harm a fly, also espouse this dangerous, anti-social ideology and urge the rest of us to do so as well. Getting the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress, the main theme of the Spielberg movie, is said to have been "justified" by any means.
But the Spielberg Lincoln movie gets its history completely upside down. The main story line is how Lincoln supposedly utilized every bit of his political sleaziness to help get the Thirteenth Amendment through Congress. This is a fiction. It never happened according to the preeminent Lincoln scholar of our time, Harvard University’s David Donald (See page 554 of his Pulitzer prize-winning biography of Lincoln). In fact, the opposite was true: The genuine abolitionists in Congress had to use their political powers to get Lincoln to voice his support for the Thirteenth Amendment. Spielberg’s movie, based on the book Team of Rivals by the confessed plagiarist Doris Kearns-Goodwin, is an extraordinarily misleading work of fiction. (See my LRC review of Goodwin’s book entitled "A Plagiarist’s Contribution to Lincoln Idolatry").
Lest the reader believe that I am exaggerating by using the word "fascism" to describe the political views of neocons like David Brooks, consider this: Among the defining characteristics of twentieth-century European fascism were militarism; a worshipful attitude toward the state and politics; the denigration of individual liberty, free enterprise, and the civil society; dictatorial executive branch powers; and a philosophy of "the common good before self interest." These are also the defining characteristics of self-described "national greatness conservatives" like David Brooks and William Kristol, and they explain why they are such Lincoln idolaters.
"Politics is noble because it involves personal compromise for the public good," Brooks writes in his New York Times column, echoing the sentiments of Mussolini himself. "The fascist conception of life, Benito Mussolini wrote in Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions (p. 10), "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State." German fascism was based on the identical philosophy of "the common good comes before the private good." In German, "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigenntz." Under fascism "the common good" was defined for the public by politicians and their advisors. The public never had any voice in defining what was supposedly good for it.
In a 1997 Weekly Standard cover article Brooks condemned genuine, limited-government conservatives as being "besotted with localism, local communities, and the devolution of power." He advocated an unlimited expansion of the powers of the federal government for any reason because, he said, "energetic government is good for its own sake." War – any war – would be the most desirable way to create this "good" according to neocons like David Brooks. All of this "greatness" is now on display in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.
In a 1997 Wall Street Journal article co-authored with William Kristol Brooks advocated compulsory "national service" for all American youths; a "mission" to Mars, and endless foreign policy interventionism. "It almost doesn’t matter what great task government sets for itself," they wrote. For "ultimately, American purpose can find its voice only in Washington."
This is an incredibly totalitarian statement, implying that there is such a thing as one single "American voice." In reality, of course, there are millions of different "voices" in a democracy where there is never unanimous opinion on anything. That is why there is no such thing as "the public interest" in the context of democratic politics. As Ludwig von Mises wrote in Liberalism, one can argue that such institutions as private property are in "the public interest" in that they benefit the entire society, but this is never true of government policy. The language of "American purpose" presumes the opposite – that there is such a thing as unanimous political opinion.
It is statements such as these that explain why all of the totalitarians in our midst, i.e., those who wish to control our every behavior through government, have such a wildly celebratory attitude toward the Spielberg Lincoln movie. Left-wing propagandists like Doris Kearns-Goodwin, author of hagiographies of Lyndon Johnson, the Kennedys, and Lincoln, and right-wing propagandists like David Brooks and his fellow neocons, are all part of a phony "team of rivals" who pose as political competitors. In reality, they all are part of an establishment cabal that views those of us who are "besotted" with ideas about liberty and freedom as their true enemies and roadblocks to their own personal wealth and glory disguised by the language of "national greatness" and mythical and false accounts of American history.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo244.html
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
" The Constitution, written on behalf of a sovereign people, laid out a government of limited and clearly-defined responsibilities. All other responsibilities were left to the States and to the people themselves to manage their own lives and affairs."
Three Studies of States Show That Freedom Works Best
Written by Bob Adelmann
Each year 24/7 Wall St. publishes the results of its survey of all 50 states and then ranks them from top to bottom — from “best run” to “worst run.” CNBC does the same, only with a more concentrated focus on the business environment in each state, and then ranks the states on their overall “measure of competitiveness.” The Mercatus Center at George Mason University looks at all 50 states from the perspective of individual freedom and then ranks the states based on its Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.
The parallels and correlations between economic and business performance and personal freedom are clear and persuasive: When state governments stay within their limits of protecting lives and enforcing contracts, the states thrive. And vice versa. North Dakota and California are examples sufficient to prove the point.
Admittedly, says 24/7 Wall St.,
the successful management of a state is difficult to measure. Factors that affect its finances and population may be the result of decisions made years ago. A state’s difficulties can be caused by poor governance or by external factors, such as extreme weather.
That’s a nice way of saying that each state is different in its natural resources and may suffer, or thrive, depending on how they are allowed to be developed and utilized. It also means that a state may suffer, or thrive, on the basis of past errors or simple stupidity imposed on its citizens by politicians long passed into history.
Nevertheless, the effort is worth the candle:
It is the responsibility of each state to deal with the resources at its disposal.…
A state should be able to raise enough revenue to ensure the safety of its citizens and minimize hardship without spending more than it can prudently afford. Some states have historically done this much better than others.…
The best-run states have certain characteristics in common, as do the worst-run. The high-ranking states all have well-managed budgets. Each of the top ten has a perfect, or near-perfect, credit rating from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, or both. Of the ten worst-ranked, only three received top scores from one agency, and none from both.
North Dakota, for the first time, ranks at the top of 24/7 Wall St.'s study, mostly due to the state government’s hands-off approach to the development of its Bakken shale formation by private interests:
North Dakota’s oil boom has transformed its economy. Last year, crude oil production rose 35%. As of August, 2012, it was the second largest oil producer in the country (behind Alaska).
The oil and gas boom brought jobs to North Dakota, which had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate in 2011 at 3.5%, and economic growth.
Between 2010 and 2011, North Dakota’s GDP jumped 7.6%, by far the largest increase in the nation. This growth has also increased home values, which rose a nation-leading 29% between 2006 and 2011. North Dakota and Montana are the only two states that have not reported a budget shortfall since fiscal 2009.
On the other hand, California is at the bottom of their list for the second year in a row:
Due to high levels of debt, the state’s S&P credit rating is the worst of all states, while its Moody’s credit rating is the second-worst.…
While median income is the 10th-highest in the country, the state also has one of the highest tax burdens on income. According to the Tax Foundation, the state also has the third-worst business tax climate in the country.
CNBC’s results are strikingly similar: North Dakota is ranked #5 overall, while California is #40. Said the authors: “We looked at basic indicators of economic activity, including growth, unemployment and the health of the real estate market. We measured each state’s fiscal health by looking at their credit ratings and outlook, as well as projected budget gaps (or surpluses) for the coming fiscal year … we graded the states on the 'friendliness' of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business.” They also looked at the cost of living in each state.
On the economy, North Dakota ranked #2, California ranked #43. On “business friendliness,” North Dakota ranked #4, California ranked #43. And on cost of living, North Dakota ranked #28 while California ranked #46.
Something is going on in North Dakota that isn't in California. It may be something as simple as letting the private market develop its natural resources while providing the essential infrastructure, both physical and legal, to assure entrepreneurs that if their efforts are rewarded, they will be free to keep the fruits of their labor.
Two scholars from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, William Ruger, and Jason Sorens, have collaborated to create its Index of Personal and Economic Freedom which ranks the states “on their public policies that affect individual freedoms.” They unabashedly state their bias: “We explicitly ground our conception of freedom on an individual-rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”
In its ranking of the 50 states, North Dakota is #10 while California is #48. Note the authors regarding North Dakota:
North Dakota is a stereotypical conservative state that performs quite well on economic freedom (#3) …
Like its neighbor to the south, North Dakota is exceptional on fiscal policy: it has very low government spending, debt, and taxes....
Health-insurance coverage mandates are much lower than average.…
The state’s liability system is among the best in the nation.…
Gun laws are fairly relaxed. Alcohol regulations are light while tax rates on beer and wine are average and spirits taxes are fairly low.…
But when it comes to California, the authors are nearly livid:
California not only taxes and regulates its economy more than most other states, it also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens.
California simply needs to cut government spending. The budgetary categories most out of line with the rest of the country are administration, social services, environment and housing.…
Health-insurance coverage mandates add about 49 percent to the cost of premiums in the state.…
It also has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, a highly restrictive policy regime for motorists, and smoking bans.
But their study goes much further by illustrating visually the relationship between liberal ideology as measured by the percentage of state voters voting in the 2008 presidential election for Democratic and Green candidates, and personal freedom. Wrote the authors:
Democratic/ Green presidential vote share is a rough measure of citizen-opinion liberalism, and these charts allow us to examine the relationship between left–right ideology at the voter level and state policy orientation toward individual freedom.
As their charts show, the more liberal the constituency of a state, the less free they are. And that has to do with the “cultural values” of liberals and conservatives:
The cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments. [Emphasis added.]
Not to beg the question, but just where do those “cultural values” come from? They are transferred from generation to generation, deliberately. As Diane Rufino wrote at the Tenth Amendment Center:
In an ideal situation, as our early freedom-loving Americans and Founding Fathers envisioned, under a proper government, a private citizen is legally free to do as he pleases (as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others), while government is bound by laws and government officials are bound both by law and their oaths.
In other words, a private citizen may do anything “except that which is legally forbidden and a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted”…
The Constitution, written on behalf of a sovereign people, laid out a government of limited and clearly-defined responsibilities. All other responsibilities were left to the States and to the people themselves to manage their own lives and affairs.
And it is the “working out” of those responsibilities, state by state, where the cultural influence of freedom can be seen. The essence of freedom is the limitation of government, and where government is limited, freedom reigns. These studies prove the point conclusively.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/13771-three-studies-of-states-show-that-freedom-works-best
Written by Bob Adelmann
Each year 24/7 Wall St. publishes the results of its survey of all 50 states and then ranks them from top to bottom — from “best run” to “worst run.” CNBC does the same, only with a more concentrated focus on the business environment in each state, and then ranks the states on their overall “measure of competitiveness.” The Mercatus Center at George Mason University looks at all 50 states from the perspective of individual freedom and then ranks the states based on its Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.
The parallels and correlations between economic and business performance and personal freedom are clear and persuasive: When state governments stay within their limits of protecting lives and enforcing contracts, the states thrive. And vice versa. North Dakota and California are examples sufficient to prove the point.
Admittedly, says 24/7 Wall St.,
the successful management of a state is difficult to measure. Factors that affect its finances and population may be the result of decisions made years ago. A state’s difficulties can be caused by poor governance or by external factors, such as extreme weather.
That’s a nice way of saying that each state is different in its natural resources and may suffer, or thrive, depending on how they are allowed to be developed and utilized. It also means that a state may suffer, or thrive, on the basis of past errors or simple stupidity imposed on its citizens by politicians long passed into history.
Nevertheless, the effort is worth the candle:
It is the responsibility of each state to deal with the resources at its disposal.…
A state should be able to raise enough revenue to ensure the safety of its citizens and minimize hardship without spending more than it can prudently afford. Some states have historically done this much better than others.…
The best-run states have certain characteristics in common, as do the worst-run. The high-ranking states all have well-managed budgets. Each of the top ten has a perfect, or near-perfect, credit rating from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, or both. Of the ten worst-ranked, only three received top scores from one agency, and none from both.
North Dakota, for the first time, ranks at the top of 24/7 Wall St.'s study, mostly due to the state government’s hands-off approach to the development of its Bakken shale formation by private interests:
North Dakota’s oil boom has transformed its economy. Last year, crude oil production rose 35%. As of August, 2012, it was the second largest oil producer in the country (behind Alaska).
The oil and gas boom brought jobs to North Dakota, which had the nation’s lowest unemployment rate in 2011 at 3.5%, and economic growth.
Between 2010 and 2011, North Dakota’s GDP jumped 7.6%, by far the largest increase in the nation. This growth has also increased home values, which rose a nation-leading 29% between 2006 and 2011. North Dakota and Montana are the only two states that have not reported a budget shortfall since fiscal 2009.
On the other hand, California is at the bottom of their list for the second year in a row:
Due to high levels of debt, the state’s S&P credit rating is the worst of all states, while its Moody’s credit rating is the second-worst.…
While median income is the 10th-highest in the country, the state also has one of the highest tax burdens on income. According to the Tax Foundation, the state also has the third-worst business tax climate in the country.
CNBC’s results are strikingly similar: North Dakota is ranked #5 overall, while California is #40. Said the authors: “We looked at basic indicators of economic activity, including growth, unemployment and the health of the real estate market. We measured each state’s fiscal health by looking at their credit ratings and outlook, as well as projected budget gaps (or surpluses) for the coming fiscal year … we graded the states on the 'friendliness' of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business.” They also looked at the cost of living in each state.
On the economy, North Dakota ranked #2, California ranked #43. On “business friendliness,” North Dakota ranked #4, California ranked #43. And on cost of living, North Dakota ranked #28 while California ranked #46.
Something is going on in North Dakota that isn't in California. It may be something as simple as letting the private market develop its natural resources while providing the essential infrastructure, both physical and legal, to assure entrepreneurs that if their efforts are rewarded, they will be free to keep the fruits of their labor.
Two scholars from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, William Ruger, and Jason Sorens, have collaborated to create its Index of Personal and Economic Freedom which ranks the states “on their public policies that affect individual freedoms.” They unabashedly state their bias: “We explicitly ground our conception of freedom on an individual-rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”
In its ranking of the 50 states, North Dakota is #10 while California is #48. Note the authors regarding North Dakota:
North Dakota is a stereotypical conservative state that performs quite well on economic freedom (#3) …
Like its neighbor to the south, North Dakota is exceptional on fiscal policy: it has very low government spending, debt, and taxes....
Health-insurance coverage mandates are much lower than average.…
The state’s liability system is among the best in the nation.…
Gun laws are fairly relaxed. Alcohol regulations are light while tax rates on beer and wine are average and spirits taxes are fairly low.…
But when it comes to California, the authors are nearly livid:
California not only taxes and regulates its economy more than most other states, it also aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens.
California simply needs to cut government spending. The budgetary categories most out of line with the rest of the country are administration, social services, environment and housing.…
Health-insurance coverage mandates add about 49 percent to the cost of premiums in the state.…
It also has the most restrictive gun laws in the country, a highly restrictive policy regime for motorists, and smoking bans.
But their study goes much further by illustrating visually the relationship between liberal ideology as measured by the percentage of state voters voting in the 2008 presidential election for Democratic and Green candidates, and personal freedom. Wrote the authors:
Democratic/ Green presidential vote share is a rough measure of citizen-opinion liberalism, and these charts allow us to examine the relationship between left–right ideology at the voter level and state policy orientation toward individual freedom.
As their charts show, the more liberal the constituency of a state, the less free they are. And that has to do with the “cultural values” of liberals and conservatives:
The cultural values of liberal governments seem on balance to require more regulation of individual behavior than do the cultural values of conservative governments. [Emphasis added.]
Not to beg the question, but just where do those “cultural values” come from? They are transferred from generation to generation, deliberately. As Diane Rufino wrote at the Tenth Amendment Center:
In an ideal situation, as our early freedom-loving Americans and Founding Fathers envisioned, under a proper government, a private citizen is legally free to do as he pleases (as long as he doesn't violate the rights of others), while government is bound by laws and government officials are bound both by law and their oaths.
In other words, a private citizen may do anything “except that which is legally forbidden and a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted”…
The Constitution, written on behalf of a sovereign people, laid out a government of limited and clearly-defined responsibilities. All other responsibilities were left to the States and to the people themselves to manage their own lives and affairs.
And it is the “working out” of those responsibilities, state by state, where the cultural influence of freedom can be seen. The essence of freedom is the limitation of government, and where government is limited, freedom reigns. These studies prove the point conclusively.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary/item/13771-three-studies-of-states-show-that-freedom-works-best
TSA above congressional oversight??? It seems to think so...
Agency head refuses to appear at transportation hearing
Steve Watson
The TSA has refused to attend a House Transportation hearing this week, with agency head John Pistole personally refusing to appear and declaring that the Congressional Committee has “no jurisdiction over the TSA”.
The hearing, schedule for Thursday, will be held by the Subcommittee on Aviation, a part of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (TIC). It is titled HOW BEST TO IMPROVE OUR NATION’S AIRPORT PASSENGER SECURITY SYSTEM THROUGH COMMON SENSE SOLUTIONS.
Headed by Rep. Thomas Petri, it will “examine the impact that the regulations and policies of the Transportation Security Administration have on aviation passenger experience and the free flow of aviation commerce,” according to a brief on the subcommittee’s website (PDF).
The TIC’s website indicates that TSA head John Pistole has been asked to testify at the hearing. However, a statement issued on the TSA’s website made it clear that neither Pistole, nor any TSA official intends to attend the hearing.
The statement reads:
By U.S. House of Representatives rules which state that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has no jurisdiction over the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), no representative from TSA will be present at the Subcommittee on Aviation hearing scheduled for Nov. 29.
TSA will continue to work with its committees of jurisdiction to pursue effective and efficient security solutions. In the 112th Congress alone, TSA witnesses have testified at 38 hearings and provided 425 briefings for Members of Congress.
TSA also continues to work to enhance security screening measures and to improve the passenger experience including through the expansion of TSA Pre?™. As part of its risk-based security initiatives, TSA has modified screening procedures for passengers 12 and under and 75 and older while pursuing a multi-layered approach to security that includes behavior detection officers, explosives-detection systems and federal air marshals, among other measures both seen and unseen.
House Republicans on the TIC have made it clear that they believe the TSA is in dire need of reform. A section on the Committee’s website describes the TSA as “a massive, inflexible, backward-looking bureaucracy of more than 65,000.”
“TSA is a top-heavy agency in need of reform,” the site also states.
The TIC is currently headed by Rep. John Mica, a consistent critic of the TSA, who has pushed for airports to ditch the agency and replace it with private security screeners. Mica, who wrote the legislation that established the TSA, recently declared the agency to be a miserable failure.
In the next Congress, Mica will make way for Pennsylvania Rep. Bill Shuster. When asked by reporters for a reaction on the TSA’s refusal to testify at Thursday’s hearing, and the agency’s declaration that it is not beholden to the Committee, Shuster said “I don’t think we have direct jurisdiction but when they impede commerce, when they impede the traveling public, they need to answer to the committee.”
Speaking to Bloomberg News, Shuster said he “absolutely” expects TSA officials to appear at transportation committee hearings. Asked what will happen if they refuse to testify, Shuster said: “We’ll cross that bridge when we get there.”
With public backlash against the TSA at an all time high, and given the scrutiny that the TSA has faced at the hands of the TIC and its subcommittees, it is somewhat unsurprising that agency head Pistole is no longer willing to face the music as it were.
Link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-claims-it-is-above-congressional-oversight.html
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
Voting For Liberty...Forget It!
By, Chris Rossini
Last night Bob Wenzel wrote a fantastic open letter to libertarians about not being fooled by Rand Paul. On the back of that fine writing, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own, considering how important the topic is.
Very often I hear complaints that libertarians are just a bunch of complainers. And the worst, as a commenter pointed out to me last night, are those that don't vote and encourage others not to vote.
Sadly, I get that one a lot; and it just shows me that the whole concept of voting is still going over their heads. I explained why I don't vote here, but I'm going to elaborate some more.
Voting is tool of The State.
Voters go to a government-owned building to cast a vote for two government-approved candidates. Votes are cast on government controlled machines, and the government counts the votes.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
And let's not forget that the government spends BIG BUCKS on advertising campaigns to get you to vote. It can whip up a few movie stars in a heartbeat to convince you that "your voice" needs to be heard.
Voting serves The State. It's a non-violent way for them to shuffle around a few chairs, and give the illusion that "the People" are in control.
Let's say, for whatever reason, it didn't serve The State. Well, they would find a way to shut it down.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
History has plenty of examples of Kings shutting down Parliaments. Even modern-day "elected leaders" around the world give themselves extraordinary powers when they see fit.
Yes...Ron Paul slipped through the cracks.
He's the only one to do it in over 200 years.
But the government completely shut him down (politically)...changing the voting rules whenever it was necessary, and blacking him out on the state controlled media.
Ron Paul's triumph is not in what he accomplished politically, but that he used the government platform to spread the ideas of liberty to millions.
Now...as dumb as government is, when it comes to their own preservation, they're very very smart. You can be sure that they won't let another Ron Paul slip through the cracks again.
Many people want to see something tangible; a plan. For liberty to win, we have to do A, which will be followed by B & C, they say. We have to get this politician elected, or that law passed, etc.
No.
There can be no plan to get there. If there were one, the government and elitists would surely intercept the plan and squash it.
What Hayek called "the spontaneous order" is our greatest ally.
For liberty to succeed, voting and planning is not required. What's required is your mouth and another person's ear. Take the ball that Ron Paul got rolling, and push it forward.
Unless you live in North Korea, where the outside world is completely shut out, the opportunity to spread the ideas of liberty have never been better! Every time that you use Twitter, Facebook, a blog post, or even a personal conversation to promote liberty, you do more damage to The State than voting ever will.
The ability to spread libertarian ideas is the achilles heal of The State. Ron Paul miraculously gave us the numbers...now build on it!
It's time to drop the silly idea of using the government to defeat the government. It's ridiculous!
Link:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/voting-for-libertyforget-it.html
By, Chris Rossini
Last night Bob Wenzel wrote a fantastic open letter to libertarians about not being fooled by Rand Paul. On the back of that fine writing, I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own, considering how important the topic is.
Very often I hear complaints that libertarians are just a bunch of complainers. And the worst, as a commenter pointed out to me last night, are those that don't vote and encourage others not to vote.
Sadly, I get that one a lot; and it just shows me that the whole concept of voting is still going over their heads. I explained why I don't vote here, but I'm going to elaborate some more.
Voting is tool of The State.
Voters go to a government-owned building to cast a vote for two government-approved candidates. Votes are cast on government controlled machines, and the government counts the votes.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Joseph Stalin
And let's not forget that the government spends BIG BUCKS on advertising campaigns to get you to vote. It can whip up a few movie stars in a heartbeat to convince you that "your voice" needs to be heard.
Voting serves The State. It's a non-violent way for them to shuffle around a few chairs, and give the illusion that "the People" are in control.
Let's say, for whatever reason, it didn't serve The State. Well, they would find a way to shut it down.
"If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal." - Emma Goldman
History has plenty of examples of Kings shutting down Parliaments. Even modern-day "elected leaders" around the world give themselves extraordinary powers when they see fit.
Yes...Ron Paul slipped through the cracks.
He's the only one to do it in over 200 years.
But the government completely shut him down (politically)...changing the voting rules whenever it was necessary, and blacking him out on the state controlled media.
Ron Paul's triumph is not in what he accomplished politically, but that he used the government platform to spread the ideas of liberty to millions.
Now...as dumb as government is, when it comes to their own preservation, they're very very smart. You can be sure that they won't let another Ron Paul slip through the cracks again.
Many people want to see something tangible; a plan. For liberty to win, we have to do A, which will be followed by B & C, they say. We have to get this politician elected, or that law passed, etc.
No.
There can be no plan to get there. If there were one, the government and elitists would surely intercept the plan and squash it.
What Hayek called "the spontaneous order" is our greatest ally.
For liberty to succeed, voting and planning is not required. What's required is your mouth and another person's ear. Take the ball that Ron Paul got rolling, and push it forward.
Unless you live in North Korea, where the outside world is completely shut out, the opportunity to spread the ideas of liberty have never been better! Every time that you use Twitter, Facebook, a blog post, or even a personal conversation to promote liberty, you do more damage to The State than voting ever will.
The ability to spread libertarian ideas is the achilles heal of The State. Ron Paul miraculously gave us the numbers...now build on it!
It's time to drop the silly idea of using the government to defeat the government. It's ridiculous!
Link:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/voting-for-libertyforget-it.html
"When will progressives wake up and smell the Wilsonian coffee?"
Forget Lincoln and FDR – it's worse than that
by Justin Raimondo
A drone war that takes out old ladies in the name of “fighting terrorism” – a “regime change” campaign that plays with the fate of millions – a President supposedly committed to “transparency” who has topped the unprecedented secrecy and authoritarianism of his predecessor – a foreign policy that subsidizes and blindly supports a racist apartheid-style ally who brazenly spies on us, periodically invades its neighbors, and then demands more subsidies – and a brain-dead “left” that cheers it all as “progressive.”
This is America in the year 2012, Anno Domini. Sickening, isn’t it?
A more pertinent question, however, is how did we come to this pass? In as few words as possible: the Obama cult.
With the President’s near-landslide victory, and the triumphalist mood of the progressive elements of his coalition, the old-fashioned liberal attachment to a foreign policy of peace has been thrown overboard, while liberal Democrats exult in projecting American military power abroad.
Such is the power of the Obama cult, which mystifies its Maximum Leader as some kind of “transformational” figure in American politics, the grandiosity of which has no precedent except in the old-style Stalinist regimes of the former USSR and Eastern Europe. Indeed, the paeans of the President’s most fervent supporters bear an uncanny – and unseemly – resemblance to the rhetorical style of North Korean regime propagandists, who regularly infuse their praise of the ruler with historical and even mystical allusions.
Ignore the media hype likening Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln, a propaganda campaign that includes a major motion picture and countless Lincolnian allusions in the “mainstream” media: the only resemblance is height, fealty to big corporate interests, and a certain saturnine look. In our facile society, where politics and celebrity are virtually indistinguishable, this is enough to conjure a typically vapid historical analogy.
Of course, the Lincoln meme was preceded, you’ll recall, by a similarly ridiculous identification with Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It is useless to remind these people that Lincoln and Roosevelt had to deal, respectively, with a civil war and a great depression coupled with a world war: fawning pundits rarely deal in facts.
When will progressives wake up and smell the Wilsonian coffee?
If President Obama goes down in history as the incarnation of one of his distinguished predecessors, it will likely turn out to be the 28th president of these United States, whose name has become a byword for preening self-righteous interventionism on a global scale. I refer, of course, to Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a towering icon of “progressive” liberalism who dragged us into a war that was the downfall of European civilization.
There is already a suspicion of this in some progressive circles. Stephen Walt, writing on his Foreign Policy blog, complains the ascension of Susan Rice to lord it over Foggy Bottom will lead to a lack of “diversity” within our foreign policy councils. To the average progressive, who thinks almost exclusively in terms of identity politics, this seems like a strangely inverted way of looking at things. That Walt means intellectual diversity is beyond their comprehension.
Walt is nervous because most of the “realists” have left: he fears the Obama administration is “narrowing” its policy horizons in its second term. He also makes what I consider an ancillary argument: that, unlike Hillary Clinton, Rice lacks an “independent power base,” which is supposedly the main reason this “narrowing” is likely to occur. The problem, avers Walt, is Rice will tell the President what he wants to hear – but what is that, exactly? Walt never tells us, perhaps because he is unclear on the matter.
In any case, Walt misconstrues Rice as a mere campaign apparatchik, ignores her ties to the Clinton administration, and never mentions her history as a protégé of Madeleine Albright. Furthermore, he is silent on her prominent role in the Libyan intervention as one of the Three Horsewomen of the Humanitarian Apocalypse: it was Rice, along with Clinton and Samantha Power, who nagged the President to let loose the dogs of war. None of this is particularly surprising: after all, Rice rose up through the ranks of the foreign policy establishment as a star student of what Walter Russell Meade characterizes as the Wilsonian school of American foreign policy, and it is Meade who, in noting Walt’s discomfort, actually names what Walt spends an entire blog post evading:
“As the President and his staff gear up for a second term, American foreign policy seems to be making a shift. The Obama administration is moving from a realist, in some ways Jeffersonian approach to foreign policy – limiting commitments, looking for compromise solutions with opponents regardless of ideology – to something more Wilsonian: giving democracy promotion and human rights a higher profile in the national security portfolio.”
Whatever “Jeffersonian” tendencies once existed in this administration have long since been expunged or driven underground. While the President had some use for them when extricating himself from his predecessor’s follies, in Iraq and Afghanistan, that usefulness has since expired. By the way, the Afghan issue is by no means settled, especially with the news that the occupation will continue well after 2014.
Libya was the turning point, and from here on in the liberal internationalists are in charge. Their “multicultural” approach will broaden the scope of US military and political intervention, extending the Empire into Africa and escalating the drive to achieve American hegemony in the Gulf. The “Pacific pivot” is a key component of this hegemonic military and diplomatic strategy, a risky and provocative course that requires the reinvention of Japanese militarism and – shades of the Vietnam era! – a revived Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) as an anti-Chinese bulwark in the South Pacific.
This time, however, the focus has moved north – and the stakes are much higher. Nuclear-armed and dangerously unstable North Korea is the powder-keg of East Asia, just as the Balkans played that fateful role in the run up to World War I.
The Chinese leadership no doubt is looking on with growing nervousness as the US executes its “Pacific pivot” and American politicians in both parties take turns bashing China as the all-purpose international villain and number one cause of American decline. Riven by internal tensions and an increasingly restive population, China is surrounded on all sides by claimants to its historic borders. The Japanese in the north, the Philippines to the west, and the Vietnamese in the South, all with conflicting claims to the South China Sea, threatening Beijing with encirclement. The flashpoint of these seething regional tensions is North Korea, the wild card in Washington’s emerging cold war with Beijing.
Rice’s confirmation would present a non-white face to Africa and East Asia, the next targets of an ambitious expansionist project originated in the Bush years and in many respects escalated in the age of Obama. If Meade is right, and Walt’s worst suspicions are confirmed, then what we are in for in Obama’s second term is Wilsonianism-plus, executed with “multicultural” flair.
Are we ready for another war to “make the world safe for democracy” — or perhaps more than one such war?
As far as the liberal punditocracy and the corporate-run media outlets that employ them are concerned, the answer is indubitably yes. Their taste for “humanitarian” militarism was confirmed long ago, during the Kosovo war. That the KLA was little more than a gang of US taxpayer-funded Albanian mafia dons mattered as little then as the al-Qaeda-ish sympathies of those Libyan “freedom fighters” we funded, trained, and installed in power count for much today. It’s the same gang pursuing the same morally corrupt and tragically counterproductive course, a policy trajectory which has led to a whole series of unjustified and costly wars.
On the other hand, the spirit of the old anti-imperialist left is not entirely dead. As that Villaraigosa Moment at the Democratic party convention vividly dramatized, the anti-interventionist spirit of Eugene McCarthy lingers on, as does the older tradition of left-wing “Jeffersonian” opposition to our bipartisan policy of global meddling.
Antiwar.com is one of the last bastions of that strand of left-Jeffersonian thought. Although I fear my tone is too elegiac — I hope and work for a revival of that movement — I’m very much afraid it is seriously on the wane. With the death of our former columnist Alexander Cockburn, my biggest fear is that we shall not see its — or his — like again.
Given what we have to work with, Antiwar.com is doing its level best to keep that tradition alive and kicking — but we can’t do it without your help. The near-demise of the old anti-imperialist left has left a great yawning vacuum in what used to be called the antiwar movement.
Seduced by identity politics, and blinded by partisan fealty, the left has fused with the Obama cult — although we hope to see small fissures expand in the President’s second term. And we’re doing our best to widen those fissures, in the Cockburnian tradition, by which I mean with a complete disregard for the traditional “left-right” baloney. Aside from registering his uproarious dissent from leftist orthodoxy in other matters, Cockburn was eager to cross ideological lines in a common struggle against the Empire. Against Trotskyite builders of sects, and white-wine-and-brie limousine liberals who hate conservatives more than they hate war, Cockburn fought for a united left-right front against the War Party.
We are working to build just such an alliance — of liberals temperamentally opposed to war, and of conservatives increasingly skeptical of the interventionist project in general — but we can’t continue our work if we can’t pay the bills. And that is just what it has come to.
The desertion of the “progressives,” and their defection to the Obama cult, is no doubt a major factor in the so far disappointing results of our winter fundraising drive. We don’t have eccentric billionaires of the left or right funding our operation — and yet we manage to reach millions every year, around the globe, with our message of peace. We’ve been able to do it because of people like you, our readers and supporters, who have generously contributed to Antiwar.com over the years.
This year, however, we appear to have run over a speed bump, in large part I believe due to the reelection of Obama and the Grand Bargain the once-anti-interventionist liberals made with the Democratic party.
The terms of that deal, in short: deliver on the liberal domestic agenda, and we’ll shut up when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties. The President’s successful campaign was entirely dependent on the progressives keeping their part of the bargain, and no doubt their complicity will continue well into his second term.
In any bargain, each party thinks they’re getting something for relatively nothing: that’s why they call it selling out. The sell-out of the limousine liberals on the vital question of war and peace is hitting Antiwar.com where it hurts — but it doesn’t have to hurt quite so much.
Link:
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/11/25/obama-as-wilson-playing-the-historical-analogy-game/
It's begun...
During one period not so long ago, the U.S. dollar was considered the only reserve currency. Over time that has changed. The euro, yen, pound sterling and Swiss franc are all considered reserve currencies by the IMF. Now, two more currencies are being added to the official reserve list.
MarketWatch reports:
The Australian and Canadian dollars, the world’s leading commodity-rich currencies, are being formally classified as official reserve assets by the International Monetary Fund, marking the onset of a multi-currency reserve system and a new era in world money.
In a seemingly innocuous yet highly portentous move, the IMF is asking member countries from next year to include the Australian and Canadian dollars in statistics supplied by reserve-holding nations on the make-up of their central banks’ foreign exchange reserves. The technical-sounding measure, reflecting growing diversification of the world’s $10.5 trillion of reserves, is likely over time to exert wide-ranging impact on world bond and equity markets.
Expanding by two the list of officially recognized reserve assets from the present five — the dollar, euro, sterling, yen and Swiss franc — signals a new phase in the development of reserve money. For most of the past 150 years, the world has had just two reserve currencies, with sterling in the lead until the First World War, and the dollar taking over as the prime asset during the past 100 years.
What's with the US-controlled IMF adding new currencies to the official reserve list? They are trying to stay ahead of the flight out of the US dollar and are attempting to direct the flight toward other paper currencies, in hopes of keeping it away from a move into gold and silver.
Link:
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/the-us-dollar-gets-serious-new.html
"At some point this con game is going to collapse and the rest of the world is going to say a big, fat, resounding "NO" to the U.S. dollar."
The Giant Currency Superstorm That Is Coming To The Shores Of America When The Dollar Dies
Mike Snyder
By recklessly printing, borrowing and spending money, our authorities are absolutely shredding confidence in the U.S. dollar. The rest of the world is watching this nonsense, and at some point they are going to give up on the U.S. dollar and throw their hands up in the air. When that happens, it is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the U.S. economy. Right now, we export a lot of our inflation. Each year, we buy far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us, and so the rest of the world ends up with giant piles of U.S. dollars. This works out pretty well for them, because the U.S. dollar is the primary reserve currency of the world and is used in international trade far more than any other currency is. Back in 1999, the percentage of foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars peaked at 71 percent, and since then it has slid back to 62.2 percent. But that is still an overwhelming amount. We can print, borrow and spend like crazy because the rest of the world is there to soak up our excess dollars because they need them to trade with one another. But what will happen someday if the rest of the world decides to reject the U.S. dollar? At that point we would see a tsunami of U.S. dollars come flooding back to this country. Just take a moment and think of the worst superstorm that you can possibly imagine, and then replace every drop of rain with a dollar bill. The giant currency superstorm that will eventually hit this nation will be far worse than that.
Most Americans don't realize that there are far more dollars in use in the rest of the world than in the United States itself. The following is from a scholarly article by Linda Goldberg...
The dollar is a major form of cash currency around the world. The majority of dollar banknotes are estimated to be held outside the US. More than 70% of hundred-dollar notes and nearly 60% of twenty- and fifty-dollar notes are held abroad, while two-thirds of all US banknotes have been in circulation outside the country since 1990
For decades we have been exporting gigantic quantities of our currency.
So what would happen if that process suddenly reversed and massive piles of dollars started coming back into the country?
It is frightening to think about.
Well, I guess the key is to get the rest of the world to continue to have confidence in the U.S. dollar so that will never happen, right?
Unfortunately, there are lots of signs that the rest of the world is accelerating their move away from the U.S. dollar.
For example, it was recently announced that the BRICS countries are developing their own version of the World Bank...
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bloc has begun planning its own development bank and a new bailout fund which would be created by pooling together an estimated $240 billion in foreign exchange reserves, according to diplomatic sources. To get a sense of how significant the proposed fund would be, the fund would be larger than the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 150 countries, according to Russia and India Report.
And as I noted in a previous article, over the past few years there have been a whole host of new international currency agreements that encourage the use of national currencies over the U.S. dollar. The following are just a few examples...
1. China and Germany (See Here)
2. China and Russia (See Here)
3. China and Brazil (See Here)
4. China and Australia (See Here)
5. China and Japan (See Here)
6. India and Japan (See Here)
7. Iran and Russia (See Here)
8. China and Chile (See Here)
9. China and the United Arab Emirates (See Here)
10. China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa (See Here)
Will this movement soon become a stampede away from the U.S. dollar?
That is a very important question.
But you don't hear anything about this in the U.S. media and our politicians are not talking about this at all.
Meanwhile, our "leaders" seem to be doing everything that they can to destroy confidence in the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and the federal government continues to run up trillion dollar deficits year after year.
They do not seem to understand that they are systematically destroying the U.S. financial system.
Other world leaders get it. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin once said the following...
"Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”Wow.
Why can't most of our politicians see how destructive debt is?
What the federal government continues to do is absolutely insane. The national debt increased by more than 24 billion dollars on the day after Thanksgiving this year. But utter disaster has not struck yet, and most Americans are not really that concerned about the debt. So things just keep rolling along.
And of course our national debt of $16,309,738,056,362.44 is nothing when compared to the future liabilities that our federal government is facing. Just check out what a recent article in the Wall Street Journal had to say about all this...
The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.
Other economists paint an even gloomier picture. According to economist Niall Ferguson, the U.S. government is facing future unfunded liabilities of 238 trillion dollars.
So where are we going to get all that money?
Well, why don't we just print more money than ever before so that the U.S. government can borrow and spend more money than ever before?
Don't laugh. That is actually what some of the top economists in the country are actually recommending.
The most famous economic journalist in the entire country, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, is boldly proclaiming that the solution to all of our problems is to print, borrow and spend a lot more money. He insists that there is no reason to fear that the giant mountain of debt that we are accumulating will someday collapse the system...
For we have our own currency — and almost all of our debt, both private and public, is denominated in dollars. So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can’t run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff. So there’s almost no risk that America will default on its debt — I’d say no risk at all if it weren’t for the possibility that Republicans would once again try to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling.
But if the U.S. government prints money to pay its bills, won’t that lead to inflation? No, not if the economy is still depressed.
Now, it’s true that investors might start to expect higher inflation some years down the road. They might also push down the value of the dollar. Both of these things, however, would actually help rather than hurt the U.S. economy right now: expected inflation would discourage corporations and families from sitting on cash, while a weaker dollar would make our exports more competitive.
Of course what he is prescribing is complete and utter madness.
At some point this con game is going to collapse and the rest of the world is going to say a big, fat, resounding "NO" to the U.S. dollar.
Why should they continue to use a currency that is becoming extremely unstable and that is constantly being manipulated?
And when the rest of the world rejects the U.S. dollar, the value of the dollar will drop like a rock because there will be far less global demand for it.
In addition, if the rest of the world is not using the U.S. dollar for trade any longer, other nations will cease to soak up our excess currency and huge mountains of our currency that are floating around out there will start flooding back to our shores.
At that point we will be looking at inflation unlike anything we have ever seen before. The era of cheap imports will be over and we will pay far more for everything from oil to the foreign-made plastic trinkets that we buy at Wal-Mart.
Most Americans don't even know what a "reserve currency" is, but when the U.S. dollar loses reserve currency status it is going to unleash a nightmare that most economists cannot even imagine.
So enjoy this holiday season while you can. There are still lots and lots of cheap imports filling the shelves of our stores.
Once the coming giant currency superstorm strikes, we will dearly wish for the good old days of 2012.
Yes, the U.S. dollar is alive and ticking for now. But at the pace that our authorities are abusing it, I would not say that things are looking good for a long and healthy lifespan.
Link to article and hyperlinks:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-giant-currency-superstorm-that-is-coming-to-the-shores-of-america-when-the-dollar-dies
Mike Snyder
By recklessly printing, borrowing and spending money, our authorities are absolutely shredding confidence in the U.S. dollar. The rest of the world is watching this nonsense, and at some point they are going to give up on the U.S. dollar and throw their hands up in the air. When that happens, it is going to be absolutely catastrophic for the U.S. economy. Right now, we export a lot of our inflation. Each year, we buy far more from the rest of the world than they buy from us, and so the rest of the world ends up with giant piles of U.S. dollars. This works out pretty well for them, because the U.S. dollar is the primary reserve currency of the world and is used in international trade far more than any other currency is. Back in 1999, the percentage of foreign exchange reserves in U.S. dollars peaked at 71 percent, and since then it has slid back to 62.2 percent. But that is still an overwhelming amount. We can print, borrow and spend like crazy because the rest of the world is there to soak up our excess dollars because they need them to trade with one another. But what will happen someday if the rest of the world decides to reject the U.S. dollar? At that point we would see a tsunami of U.S. dollars come flooding back to this country. Just take a moment and think of the worst superstorm that you can possibly imagine, and then replace every drop of rain with a dollar bill. The giant currency superstorm that will eventually hit this nation will be far worse than that.
Most Americans don't realize that there are far more dollars in use in the rest of the world than in the United States itself. The following is from a scholarly article by Linda Goldberg...
The dollar is a major form of cash currency around the world. The majority of dollar banknotes are estimated to be held outside the US. More than 70% of hundred-dollar notes and nearly 60% of twenty- and fifty-dollar notes are held abroad, while two-thirds of all US banknotes have been in circulation outside the country since 1990
For decades we have been exporting gigantic quantities of our currency.
So what would happen if that process suddenly reversed and massive piles of dollars started coming back into the country?
It is frightening to think about.
Well, I guess the key is to get the rest of the world to continue to have confidence in the U.S. dollar so that will never happen, right?
Unfortunately, there are lots of signs that the rest of the world is accelerating their move away from the U.S. dollar.
For example, it was recently announced that the BRICS countries are developing their own version of the World Bank...
The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) bloc has begun planning its own development bank and a new bailout fund which would be created by pooling together an estimated $240 billion in foreign exchange reserves, according to diplomatic sources. To get a sense of how significant the proposed fund would be, the fund would be larger than the combined Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of about 150 countries, according to Russia and India Report.
And as I noted in a previous article, over the past few years there have been a whole host of new international currency agreements that encourage the use of national currencies over the U.S. dollar. The following are just a few examples...
1. China and Germany (See Here)
2. China and Russia (See Here)
3. China and Brazil (See Here)
4. China and Australia (See Here)
5. China and Japan (See Here)
6. India and Japan (See Here)
7. Iran and Russia (See Here)
8. China and Chile (See Here)
9. China and the United Arab Emirates (See Here)
10. China, Brazil, Russia, India and South Africa (See Here)
Will this movement soon become a stampede away from the U.S. dollar?
That is a very important question.
But you don't hear anything about this in the U.S. media and our politicians are not talking about this at all.
Meanwhile, our "leaders" seem to be doing everything that they can to destroy confidence in the U.S. dollar. The Federal Reserve is printing money like there is no tomorrow, and the federal government continues to run up trillion dollar deficits year after year.
They do not seem to understand that they are systematically destroying the U.S. financial system.
Other world leaders get it. For example, Russian President Vladimir Putin once said the following...
"Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.
During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.”Wow.
Why can't most of our politicians see how destructive debt is?
What the federal government continues to do is absolutely insane. The national debt increased by more than 24 billion dollars on the day after Thanksgiving this year. But utter disaster has not struck yet, and most Americans are not really that concerned about the debt. So things just keep rolling along.
And of course our national debt of $16,309,738,056,362.44 is nothing when compared to the future liabilities that our federal government is facing. Just check out what a recent article in the Wall Street Journal had to say about all this...
The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.
Other economists paint an even gloomier picture. According to economist Niall Ferguson, the U.S. government is facing future unfunded liabilities of 238 trillion dollars.
So where are we going to get all that money?
Well, why don't we just print more money than ever before so that the U.S. government can borrow and spend more money than ever before?
Don't laugh. That is actually what some of the top economists in the country are actually recommending.
The most famous economic journalist in the entire country, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, is boldly proclaiming that the solution to all of our problems is to print, borrow and spend a lot more money. He insists that there is no reason to fear that the giant mountain of debt that we are accumulating will someday collapse the system...
For we have our own currency — and almost all of our debt, both private and public, is denominated in dollars. So our government, unlike the Greek government, literally can’t run out of money. After all, it can print the stuff. So there’s almost no risk that America will default on its debt — I’d say no risk at all if it weren’t for the possibility that Republicans would once again try to hold the nation hostage over the debt ceiling.
But if the U.S. government prints money to pay its bills, won’t that lead to inflation? No, not if the economy is still depressed.
Now, it’s true that investors might start to expect higher inflation some years down the road. They might also push down the value of the dollar. Both of these things, however, would actually help rather than hurt the U.S. economy right now: expected inflation would discourage corporations and families from sitting on cash, while a weaker dollar would make our exports more competitive.
Of course what he is prescribing is complete and utter madness.
At some point this con game is going to collapse and the rest of the world is going to say a big, fat, resounding "NO" to the U.S. dollar.
Why should they continue to use a currency that is becoming extremely unstable and that is constantly being manipulated?
And when the rest of the world rejects the U.S. dollar, the value of the dollar will drop like a rock because there will be far less global demand for it.
In addition, if the rest of the world is not using the U.S. dollar for trade any longer, other nations will cease to soak up our excess currency and huge mountains of our currency that are floating around out there will start flooding back to our shores.
At that point we will be looking at inflation unlike anything we have ever seen before. The era of cheap imports will be over and we will pay far more for everything from oil to the foreign-made plastic trinkets that we buy at Wal-Mart.
Most Americans don't even know what a "reserve currency" is, but when the U.S. dollar loses reserve currency status it is going to unleash a nightmare that most economists cannot even imagine.
So enjoy this holiday season while you can. There are still lots and lots of cheap imports filling the shelves of our stores.
Once the coming giant currency superstorm strikes, we will dearly wish for the good old days of 2012.
Yes, the U.S. dollar is alive and ticking for now. But at the pace that our authorities are abusing it, I would not say that things are looking good for a long and healthy lifespan.
Link to article and hyperlinks:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/the-giant-currency-superstorm-that-is-coming-to-the-shores-of-america-when-the-dollar-dies
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
"But what’s amusing about the mainstreamers is how they can so quickly identify and condemn dictatorial conduct on the part of foreign rulers but maintain an absolutely obsequious blind spot when it comes to the dictatorial actions by their own ruler."
by Jacob G. Hornberger
It is so amusing to see mainstream commentators condemning Egypt’s president, Mohamed Morsi, for assuming dictatorial powers. Their critiques are well-taken, as I observed in my blog post of yesterday, “Morsi’s Democratic Dictatorship.” But what’s amusing about the mainstreamers is how they can so quickly identify and condemn dictatorial conduct on the part of foreign rulers but maintain an absolutely obsequious blind spot when it comes to the dictatorial actions by their own ruler.
Recall President Bush’s assumption of dictatorial powers after the 9/11 attacks. Those powers included the authority to arrest Americans without warrants, cart them away to concentration camps or military dungeons as suspected terrorists, torture them, keep them incarcerated for life without trial, and even execute them, perhaps after some sort of kangaroo military tribunal.
Of course, in post-9/11 America the president himself wouldn’t personally be doing those things. That’s what the U.S. military and the CIA are for — to enforce the post-9/11 order in the United States.
Americans were able to gain a glimpse into how things now operated with the Pentagon’s treatment of American citizen Jose Padilla. The military took control of Padilla, tortured him, and claimed the authority to hold him for life without trial. What they did to Padilla, they could now do to all Americans.
Of course, Bush’s extraordinary powers were not limited to Americans. They also extended to foreigners. In post-9/11 America, the military and the CIA now had the authority to kidnap anyone anywhere in the world as a suspected terrorist, rendition him to a friendly dictatorial foreign regime for torture and incarceration, or incarcerate the suspect in some overseas concentration camp or prison facility, such as Bagram, Guantanamo, or the secret one in Poland.
What did the mainstream editorial writers and commentators say about Bush’s extraordinary power grab? Unlike their immediate condemnation of Morsi’s unilateral assumption of dictatorial powers, the American mainstream press bought into Bush’s justifications for the assumption of dictatorial powers without one iota of hesitation. Without a hint of criticism or critique, they submissively accepted Bush’s rationale that America was now at “war” with the terrorists and that he, as commander in chief of the nation, now automatically wielded those extraordinary emergency powers.
In fact, the dictatorial powers assumed by Bush were precisely the same as the dictatorial powers that had been wielded by pro-U.S. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, whom the U.S. government had long supported and partnered with.
More revealing, it is precisely those powers — the powers to take citizens into custody as suspected terrorists, incarcerate and torture them, and even execute them — that went to the heart of the Mubarak dictatorship. It is those powers — the same types of powers wielded by Bush (and, later Obama), the military, and the CIA — that the Egyptian citizenry were demanding that Mubarak and his military and intelligence forces relinquish.
But while Mubarak was ousted from power, the Egyptian military has steadfastly refused to relinquish those extraordinary, temporary, 30-year-old dictatorial powers, just as Bush, Obama, the U.S. military and the CIA have refused to relinquish their powers despite the passage of 11 years since 9/11. Their common rationale? The “war on terrorism” and “national security.”
Both Bush and Mubarak used an “emergency” to justify their assumption of dictatorial powers. Mubarak’s “emergency” was the terrorist assassination of his predecessor, Anwar Sadat. Bush’s “emergency” was the 9/11 terrorist attacks. There was one big difference, however, between how they acquired their dictatorial powers. Mubarak acquired his powers through legislative action. Bush acquired his powers simply through decree, as Morsi just did.
As the war on terrorism evolved, Bush expanded his dictatorial powers to include assassination of foreigners and Americans, a power that Obama has enthusiastically endorsed and expanded. Here we find the ultimate in dictatorial powers — the power of a ruler to kill anyone he wants, including his own citizens, for whatever reason he wants and never ever have to account for it.
Consider, for example, Obama’s killing of the American teenage son of American Anwar al-Awlaki, whom Obama and his forces also assassinated. Forget the presumption of innocence, due process of law, and trial by jury. Presumably they took out the boy simply because he was the son of an accused terrorist whom they had killed and, therefore, a person who might later try to see revenge for the killing of his father.
But what’s important to note is that Obama, the Pentagon, and the CIA don’t have to answer to anyone for the boy’s killing or explain their reasons to anyone for why they did it. Why, they don’t even have to acknowledge that they took out the boy. Keep in mind that what they did to that teenager, they can now do to any American anywhere in the world.
How can powers be more dictatorial than that? Yet, the mainstream press, while expressing shock and outrage over Morsi’s assumption of dictatorial powers, just nonchalantly and subserviently accepts the assumption and exercise of dictatorial powers by the U.S. president, the Pentagon, and the CIA.
What’s the solution to the dictatorial system under which we now live? How about an amendment to the Constitution that reads as follows:
The federal government shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and every person accused of a crime shall be accorded the rights of trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, and the right to confront witnesses, and no cruel and unusual punishments shall be inflicted on anyone, and this time we, the American people, really do mean it.
Link:
http://fff.org/2012/11/27/outrage-over-morsi-but-not-over-our-dictator/
UN continues to attack our constitutional rights...
UN Global Gun Ban Flimflam
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0(with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.
China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.
As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.
Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.
Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.
As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.
Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.
Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.
The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.
In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”
The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.
Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:
After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.
The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.
With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.
After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.
Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”
That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.
A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?
The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.
Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.
How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?
Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”
Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.
In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.
This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.
The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard ’round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.
Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/13741-un-global-gun-ban-flimflam
Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
On November 7, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted 157-0(with 18 abstentions) in favor of Resolution L.11 that will finalize the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in March 2013.
China, the United Kingdom, and Germany all voted to move the historic measure toward passage.
As we have reported, when the treaty was being deliberated in July, the United States was the only obstacle preventing the global arms control regulations from being imposed on the world.
Miraculously, however, all the points of the agreement Secretary Clinton found so distasteful in the summer were made so much more palatable after President Obama’s reelection, and every single attack on the right to bear arms remains in the version of the treaty approved on November 7.
Within hours of his securing his reelection, President Obama placed a late night call to the U.S. United Nations delegation ordering them to vote in favor of a passage of L.11.
As soon as news of the U.S. policy 180 was confirmed, a new round of negotiations on the treaty was scheduled for March 18-28 at the UN headquarters in New York City.
That was immediately followed by a press release sent out early the next morning from the United Nations General Assembly’s First Committee proclaiming the good news of President Obama’s go-ahead for the gun grab and setting the agenda for the next gun control conference.
Also kindling discussion among delegations was a draft resolution aimed at building on the progress made toward the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective arms trade treaty. That text would decide to convene the “Final United Nations Conference” for the creation of such a treaty in March 2013.
Also by that resolution, the draft text of the treaty submitted by the conference’s president on July 26 would be the basis for future work, without prejudice to the right of delegations to put forward additional proposals on that text.
The U.S. government was now placing its full weight behind convening a “Final United Nations Conference” for the proposal of a treaty imposing worldwide gun control regulations.
In July, 51 senators sent a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encouraging them to “not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure — if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference — that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense.”
The failure to pass an acceptable version of the treaty in July is in the president’s rearview mirror, however, as Reuters reports that “adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty” could be imminent.
Reuters quotes Brian Wood of Amnesty International:
After today’s resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we’re only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights.
The definition of an “abuse” of “human rights” will be left up to a coterie of internationalist bureaucrats who will be neither accountable to nor elected by citizens of the United States.
With good reason, then, gun rights advocates oppose approval of this treaty.
After all, it does seem more than a little incongruous that a nation that places such a high value on gun ownership that it enshrined it in its Bill of Rights participates in an organization that opposes gun ownership so staunchly that it has an Office for Disarmament Affairs. An office, by the way, that the U.S. Deputy Director, Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement, Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Steven Costner, proudly announced would be moving from Geneva to New York City.
Lest anyone believe the U.S. delegation official’s promise to Reuters that “we will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms,” consider the fact that a report issued after the conclusion of the last Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) conference in July listed the goal of the agreement to be UN control of the “manufacture, control, trafficking, circulation, brokering and trade, as well as tracing, finance, collection and destruction of small arms and light weapons.”
That is a very comprehensive attack on “all aspects” of gun trade and ownership. Notably, the phrase “in all aspects” occurs 38 times in the draft of the ATT. The United Nations will control the purchase of guns and ammo, the possession of guns and ammo, and any guns and ammo not willingly surrendered to the UN will be tracked, seized, and destroyed.
A question that must be considered is what the UN will consider “adequate laws.” Will the globalists at the UN consider the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms without infringement to be a sufficient control on gun ownership?
The effort at eradication of private gun ownership is more insidious than it appears, however. On page 25 of the 1997 UN Secretary General’s Report on Criminal Justice Reform and Strengthening Legal Institutions Measure to Regulate Firearms (of which the United States was a signatory), a part of the regulations agreed to by the United States is the administering of a psychological test before a person is cleared to buy ammunition.
Apparently, the UN recognizes that without ammunition a gun is no more than a club, so in order to effectively disarm a population, the UN does not need to seize all the weapons; it merely has to prevent purchase of ammunition.
How does the ATT (and the Programme of Action that undergirds it) propose to enforce this anti-gun agenda?
Section III, Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Programme of Action mandate that if a member state cannot get rid of privately owned small arms legislatively, then the control of “customs, police, intelligence, and arms control” will be placed under the power of a board of UN bureaucrats operating out of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.
This provision includes the deployment of UN peacekeeping forces in a member state to seize and destroy “weapons stockpiles.”
Again, no definition of stockpile, but by that time it will be too late to make that argument.
In order to assist these blue-helmets and their disarmament overlords in their search and seizure of this ammunition, Section III, Paragraph 10 mandates that member states develop technology to improve the UN’s ability to detect stockpiles of ammo and arms.
This will be made much easier when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gets its hands on the portable invisible lasers developed by Genia Laboratories (a company created by CIA offshoot In-Q-Tel) that can detect even trace amounts of gun powder from over 50 yards away. The laser reportedly can penetrate walls, glass, and metal. DHS is scheduled to take possession of the devices before the end of the year, according to testimony presented on Capitol Hill late last year.
The UN’s effort to collect ammo from those they wish to oppress (a disarmed society is a slave society) is nothing new. The “shot heard ’round the world” on Lexington Green in 1775 was fired because British troops planned to seize the ammunition stockpile stored outside of Lexington.
Perhaps our reporting on the president’s late-night call putting the wheels of global gun control in motion will awaken modern Americans to the threat to our sacred Second Amendment rights. After all, it was a late night call that roused sleepy colonists in defense of their right to bear arms, as well. This time, however, it is not the British who are coming for our guns and ammunition, but it is the United Nations and agents of our own federal government.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/13741-un-global-gun-ban-flimflam
While you were shopping the government took another $211 from each household...
By Terence P. Jeffrey
The U.S. Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.
At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85. On Thanksgiving, the Treasury took the day off and did no borrowing. But on Friday, the Treasury increased the debt of the United States to $16,307,488,943,564.23. That was a one-day increase of $24,327,048,384.38.
The Census Bureau estimated that as of September there were approximately 114,916,000 households in the United States. So, the $24,327,048,384.38 that the Treasury borrowed on Friday equaled about $211.69 per household.
Friday was also the first time in the history of the United States that the debt has topped $16.3 trillion.
When President Barack Obama first took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased by $5,680,611,894,651.15.
That means that since Obama has been president, the national debt has increased by about $49,432.73 per household.
Link:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/black-friday-treasury-borrowed-21169-us-household-day-after-thanksgiving
This is what the hoax of man-made climate change is really all about....
Written by Alex Newman
Thousands of delegates representing almost 200 governments and dictatorships are gathering in Doha, Qatar, in a desperate bid to keep climate change alarmism alive long enough to create a United Nations-run planetary carbon regime. However, as the climate hysteria continues its march toward irrelevance following the spectacular implosion of UN global warming theories and multiple scandals in recent years, delegates at this year’s Conference of the Parties (COP18) know they are in a race against time.
Among the highest priorities of climate alarmists and UN types is the extension of a deeply controversial 1997 treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of the year. The dubious agreement — it calls on governments ruling wealthier countries to limit carbon emissions by imposing restrictions on citizens and businesses — does not apply to the United States, in large part because the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it.
So far, the Brussels-based European Union and several governments have agreed to renew Kyoto, with autocratic regimes around the world seeking funds lining up to support the effort as well. Multiple others, however, including more than a few powerhouses like Russia, Japan, and Canada, cited various reasons for their refusal to extend the emissions protocol past the 2012 expiration date.
"I think we cover at most 14 percent of global emissions," complained EU “chief negotiator” Artur Runge-Metzger, referring to the governments and self-styled “authorities” that have agreed to approve a successor to the international treaty. Despite the economic tsunami swamping Europe, Runge-Metzger said the emerging EU super-state was willing to continue bribing third world regimes with taxpayer money if they agreed to assorted demands.
Another goal of the conference is to finalize the creation of an international mechanism for mass wealth redistribution — essentially transferring vast sums of money from taxpayers in more prosperous and liberty-minded countries to the generally dictatorial regimes ruling poorer nations. Almost $30 billion has already been transferred in recent years following an agreement reached at the 2009 UN global warming summit in Copenhagen.
However, proponents of the controversial redistribution scheme, dubbed the Green Climate Fund, hope to increase the sums involved to at least $100 billion annually once the “Fund” becomes operational. Eventually, advocates of the plot — mostly international bureaucrats, tax-funded alarmist organizations, and socialist regimes ruling over nations impoverished by socialism — are seeking astronomical amounts of taxpayer cash from the West amounting to trillions of dollars.
“We have a precious opportunity over the coming days, and we must make full use of it,” declared the president of the COP 18, Deputy Prime Minister of Qatar Abdullah bin Hamad Al-Attiyah. As the conference began on November 26, Al-Attiyah, whose government presides over one of the highest per-capita emissions rates in the world, urged attendees to obey previous climate agreements and “speedily implement already-agreed decisions,” the UN’s “news service” reported.
UN “Climate Change Secretariat” Christiana Figueres, meanwhile, sounded a similarly alarmist tone, demanding that governments accelerate the effort to impose economy-destroying global rules while increasing the size and scope of international wealth redistribution schemes. According to the UN climate boss, member governments can reverse alleged warming trends, but “time is running out,” so they must act now.
“Expert analysis consistently says that we do have the possibility to keep on track and that to act now is safer and much less costly than to delay,” she claimed in a statement, apparently oblivious to the latest global temperature data. “In the last three years, policy and action towards a sustainable, clean energy future has been growing faster than ever. But the door is closing fast because the pace and scale of action is simply not yet enough. So, Doha must deliver its part in the longer-term solution.”
In a separate statement outlining the wishes of alarmists and UN bureaucrats, Figueres also claimed that a “faster response” to alleged global warming was not only possible, but “necessary.” Even before the conference, though, a motley parade of UN bureaucrats with bloated tax-funded salaries was demanding ever-greater sums of taxpayer funds with increasingly alarmist rhetoric.
“The international community must be prepared to give much more than money,” decreed UN “Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity” Virginia Dandan. “We need world leaders with the courage to rise above narrow political and economic self-interest, towards fulfilling the promise of sustainable development made in Rio+20, and the eradication of poverty that is both the cause and effect of deeply entrenched inequalities and human rights deprivations, particularly of the most marginalized and vulnerable.”
As The New American reported from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio earlier this year, with climate hysteria quickly becoming a joke, advocates of increasingly centralized powers of coercion have now started to focus more on dealing with poverty — at least in terms of their rhetoric. However, as countless experts explained, the goals are still the same: a more powerful and expensive planetary regime under the UN that would control virtually every facet of human existence.
Countless so-called “non-governmental organizations,” known as NGOs for short and often financed by taxpayers, dispatched legions of spokesmen and officials to warn humanity about the dangers of refusing to accept UN control to supposedly “save” the environment. Supposed news agencies were more than happy to reprint them without question. Despite the increasingly shrill hysteria, however, opposition to the international scheming continues to grow by leaps and bounds — especially in the United States, where some state governments have even passed laws banning anti-liberty UN “sustainability” plots like Agenda 21.
Numerous establishment analysts are already predicting that this year’s “climate change” summit will probably end in “failure” on December 7. A piece by Reuters that sounded more like a press release from government-funded warming alarmists than a news article, for example, claimed that so-called “climate negotiators” were likely to do little more than pay “lip service” to the “need to rein in” carbon emissions due to alleged planetary warming — all supposedly caused by human activities.
“A likely failure to agree a [sic] meaningful extension of the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding plan for cutting emissions by developed nations, would also undercut work on a new deal meant to unite rich and poor in fighting global warming from 2020,” the Reuters “journalists” wrote in the dubious article. “And countries [governments] are showing little sign of raising ambition.”
At least one expert who spoke with TNA in Rio de Janeiro at the UN sustainability summit said the climate conference in Doha could well be the final COP with the global body’s theories continuing to crumble under scrutiny. As The New American reported last month, global temperature data from the U.K. Met Office and the now-discredited Climatic Research Unit at the center of ClimateGate shows that there has been no observable warming for some 16 years. That means the climate models and UN theories predicting massive temperature increases over that time period were deeply flawed at best.
However, even if the threat of UN “sustainability” and “climate change” schemes is averted, which at this point is far from certain, the dangers to freedom and national sovereignty are far from over. Also this December, for example, an obscure UN agency known as the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) will meet in Dubai in an effort to impose a global regulatory regime over the Internet complete with censorship and even a “kill switch.”
In fact, virtually no realm of human life has escaped the UN’s increasingly brazen attempted power grabs in recent years. And analysts say that without a continued massive wave of opposition, the trend will accelerate as the planetary entity seeks to usurp ever greater amounts of money and power from national governments and humanity.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13749-un-seeking-global-carbon-regime-at-climate-summit-in-doha
"Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Perhaps we should worry all the more when "helpful" agents of the federal government are here to make us safer."
TSA Makes Travel More Dangerous
Written by Jack Kenny
The average American is more likely to die in his bathtub than be killed by an Islamic terrorist. That is but one of many fascinating statistics presented by Charles Kenny (no relations to this writer) in his article on Businessweek.com, "Airport Security Is Making Americans Less Safe." And if that little datum makes you feel a little less secure about your next bath or shower, consider the bright side. At least there are no Transportation Security Administration agents between you and your bathtub.
The TSA, an agency that ranks in popularity somewhere between the Internal Revenue Service and your state Department of Motor Vehicles, gets no mercy from Kenny, who chronicles its foibles and absurdities in embarrassing detail. Yes, TSA officials did confiscate 1,200 firearms last year, Kenny concedes. And it did discover one batch of C4 explosives, though only on the return flight. But the agency's list of "Top Good Catches of 2011" does not mention its capture of the GI Joe actions doll's 4-inch plastic rifle or all the "face cream, breast milk and live fish that vigilant screeners collected in airport security lines last year," notes Kenny, adding that in all of last year, "the TSA didn't spot a single terrorist trying to board an airline in the U.S."
Chances are you haven't spotted any terrorists around your bathtub either, which would enable TSA officials, were they in charge of bathtub security, to say, "See what a good job we're doing!"
No one denies the need for security at airports. But the Transportation Security Agency, created by Congress after the terrorist skyjackings of 9/11, has grown into an $8 billion a year monster, whose 50,000 employees have given passengers at nearly every American airport reason to recall anew Thomas Jefferson's complaint, enshrined in Declaration of Independence, that a distant authority has "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." The harassment has been well documented in reports of excessively groping "pat downs" in search of contraband or the indignity of being required to stand spread-eagled, hands on head, while an agent armed with a body scanner electronically undresses a passenger to discover what might be hidden under a traveler's clothing.
"Everything's changed since 9/11" is a common explanation, but is it all necessary? In Israel, where there has been no small amount of experience with terrorist attacks, there is intense scrutiny of a relatively small number of suspects. But passengers are not, as a matter of routine, frisked or subjected to search by body scanner. As an Israeli security consultant explained to the Washington Post in 2010, "Taking the bottle of water from the 87-year-old woman at JFK, you will never find an explosive material that is coming from bin Laden." Kenny reports that Canada allows passengers not flying to the United States to keep their shoes on and their iPads in their bags. "The U.K. will allow you to carry small decorative snow globes onto a flight, deeming tolerable the risk of onboard snowpocalypse," he notes. Those intrusive body scanners have been banned in the European Union.
The TSA, is of course, but one component of the monumental effort since 9/11 to make America and much of the rest of the world safe from terrorism. There is no way to put a monetary value on human life, of course, but the numbers would suggest that a cost-benefit analysis would not be encouraging to all this effort at terrorism prevention. The Business Week article cites a study by John Mueller of Ohio State and Mark Stewart of the University of Newcastle showing that, counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increased homeland security and counterterrorism spending since 9/11 has totaled more than $3.1 trillion. It would take a whole lot of terrorist attacks to do that much damage to the American economy.
The TSA procedures are costly, overly intrusive, and highly inconvenient to the millions of passengers subjected to them. But how have they managed to make us less safe? Well, by persuading a great many of us to avoid the inconvenience and indignities at the airports by doing our holiday and other traveling in the most dangerous places in the world — the American highways.
"To make flying as dangerous as using a car," Kenny wrote, "a four-plane disaster on the scale of 9/11 would have to occur every month, according to analysis published in the American Scientist. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that people switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month — which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day."
Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Perhaps we should worry all the more when "helpful" agents of the federal government are here to make us safer.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13750-tsa-makes-travel-more-dangerous
Written by Jack Kenny
The average American is more likely to die in his bathtub than be killed by an Islamic terrorist. That is but one of many fascinating statistics presented by Charles Kenny (no relations to this writer) in his article on Businessweek.com, "Airport Security Is Making Americans Less Safe." And if that little datum makes you feel a little less secure about your next bath or shower, consider the bright side. At least there are no Transportation Security Administration agents between you and your bathtub.
The TSA, an agency that ranks in popularity somewhere between the Internal Revenue Service and your state Department of Motor Vehicles, gets no mercy from Kenny, who chronicles its foibles and absurdities in embarrassing detail. Yes, TSA officials did confiscate 1,200 firearms last year, Kenny concedes. And it did discover one batch of C4 explosives, though only on the return flight. But the agency's list of "Top Good Catches of 2011" does not mention its capture of the GI Joe actions doll's 4-inch plastic rifle or all the "face cream, breast milk and live fish that vigilant screeners collected in airport security lines last year," notes Kenny, adding that in all of last year, "the TSA didn't spot a single terrorist trying to board an airline in the U.S."
Chances are you haven't spotted any terrorists around your bathtub either, which would enable TSA officials, were they in charge of bathtub security, to say, "See what a good job we're doing!"
No one denies the need for security at airports. But the Transportation Security Agency, created by Congress after the terrorist skyjackings of 9/11, has grown into an $8 billion a year monster, whose 50,000 employees have given passengers at nearly every American airport reason to recall anew Thomas Jefferson's complaint, enshrined in Declaration of Independence, that a distant authority has "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance." The harassment has been well documented in reports of excessively groping "pat downs" in search of contraband or the indignity of being required to stand spread-eagled, hands on head, while an agent armed with a body scanner electronically undresses a passenger to discover what might be hidden under a traveler's clothing.
"Everything's changed since 9/11" is a common explanation, but is it all necessary? In Israel, where there has been no small amount of experience with terrorist attacks, there is intense scrutiny of a relatively small number of suspects. But passengers are not, as a matter of routine, frisked or subjected to search by body scanner. As an Israeli security consultant explained to the Washington Post in 2010, "Taking the bottle of water from the 87-year-old woman at JFK, you will never find an explosive material that is coming from bin Laden." Kenny reports that Canada allows passengers not flying to the United States to keep their shoes on and their iPads in their bags. "The U.K. will allow you to carry small decorative snow globes onto a flight, deeming tolerable the risk of onboard snowpocalypse," he notes. Those intrusive body scanners have been banned in the European Union.
The TSA, is of course, but one component of the monumental effort since 9/11 to make America and much of the rest of the world safe from terrorism. There is no way to put a monetary value on human life, of course, but the numbers would suggest that a cost-benefit analysis would not be encouraging to all this effort at terrorism prevention. The Business Week article cites a study by John Mueller of Ohio State and Mark Stewart of the University of Newcastle showing that, counting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, increased homeland security and counterterrorism spending since 9/11 has totaled more than $3.1 trillion. It would take a whole lot of terrorist attacks to do that much damage to the American economy.
The TSA procedures are costly, overly intrusive, and highly inconvenient to the millions of passengers subjected to them. But how have they managed to make us less safe? Well, by persuading a great many of us to avoid the inconvenience and indignities at the airports by doing our holiday and other traveling in the most dangerous places in the world — the American highways.
"To make flying as dangerous as using a car," Kenny wrote, "a four-plane disaster on the scale of 9/11 would have to occur every month, according to analysis published in the American Scientist. Researchers at Cornell University estimate that people switching from air to road transportation in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks led to an increase of 242 driving fatalities per month — which means that a lot more people died on the roads as an indirect result of 9/11 than died from being on the planes that terrible day."
Ronald Reagan said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Perhaps we should worry all the more when "helpful" agents of the federal government are here to make us safer.
Link:
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/13750-tsa-makes-travel-more-dangerous
"Just how bad are things in America, really? Consider this: If God suddenly struck down all the people in America who hold hatred, oppression, destruction and greed as their core values, the population of bureaucrats and politicians in Washington D.C. would plummet to nearly zero. Sacramento would be reduced to a desolate ghost town. And the TSA would flat-out cease to exist."
by Mike Adams
In reviewing all the breaking news over the last few months and looking for the "big picture" of where America is headed, one pattern has emerged with striking regularity: America has quietly become less free in many ways than nations like Cuba, China and even Venezuela.
This is especially true in California, where "justice" has become a joke, and the power of the state is unleashed in personal vendettas against innocent citizens who have done absolutely nothing wrong other than refuse to bow down to state-run tyranny.
In California, the most freedom-crushing region of America, a man was recently thrown in jail for four days for photographing police. Photographing or video recording police is not a crime if done in a manner that does not directly impede their actions. But California police simply don't "like" being photographed, so they throw people in jail, without charge, and let them rot in California's third-world prisons for a few days as a form of retaliation.
In another case, California's raw milk man James Stewart has just been released from jail after being forced to sign a plea deal with L.A. County which accused him of the heinous crime of distributing unpasteurized milk. His punishment? Nearly four months in jail, being treated as a terrorist and denied nutrition to the point where he emerged looking like a Nazi war camp prisoner. The state then slapped on two felony charges, five years of probation, and a $300,000+ fine that the man has no way to pay because California raided his business at gunpoint, stole all his cash and then destroyed all the inventory of his business, including over $50,000 in fresh food.
This was all done, remember, for the "crime" of running a members-only club where people could pick up farm-fresh milk, eggs, cheese, melons and other better-than-organic foods. This is the new California, where the government literally destroys your business, your inventory, your livelihood, your freedom and even your health. It's all done on a whim by truly evil prosecutors like Kelly Sakir, one of the many prosecutors who went after James Stewart using infiltration agents, hidden cameras and other Stasi-style tactics borrowed straight out of the Communist Party.
Consider this for a moment: There is greater food freedom in Russian, Cuba and even China than in California. The idea of arresting people for selling raw milk is unthinkable everywhere else in the world except the United States of America (the new global communist state of oppression). Throughout Mexico, Central America and South America, the idea of arresting people for selling fresh milk is considered total lunacy. But it's now the status quo in America, the land of the previously free.
Obama's destruction of the Bill of Rights
On the human rights front, the United States of America has now plummeted to a level approaching that of North Korea.
Thanks to President Obama, who increasingly appears to be a devout communist bent on destroying America culture and economy, the White House now creates secret kill lists of American citizens to be assassinated by government agents. This is not denied in Washington. It is, in fact, celebrated as an "important tool" for the completely fabricated "war on terror."
With his signing of the NDAA in late 2011, Obama also nullified due process and the right to a fair trial. Now, American citizens who are merely "named" by the White House as being possibly involved in anything they call "terrorism" can be kidnapped and taken away to secret government interrogation centers where they can be held indefinitely, without charge, without a trial and without any civil rights or human rights.
This was all put in place by a president re-elected by over 50% of the American people, cementing an obvious communist into the top position of what one Russian columnist calls an "illiterate society."
That columnist goes on to say:
President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama. They read history in America don't they? Alas, the schools in the U.S. were conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents. Obama has bailed out those businesses that voted for him and increased the debt to over 16 trillion with an ever increasing unemployment rate especially among blacks and other minorities. All the while promoting his agenda.
And he's right. America is an illiterate society, where the ability to read, write or think critically has all but vanished. It has been replaced by a mass of zombified, brain-dead, obedient boot lickers who actually lined up and beg to be fitted with TSA shock bracelets and even full-body cavity searches before they fly.
Importantly, America has become the land of the enslaved, illiterate masses because the American people WANT to be enslaved. They beg to be told what to do, how to eat, how much water to flush in their toilets and what to believe about 9/11, the war on drugs, the war on terror, vaccines, public water fluoridation and every other grand delusion you can imagine.
No wonder states like Texas are looking at seceding from the union and forming their own nation states.
TSA's criminal tyranny
The TSA, meanwhile, has destroyed U.S. tourism by humiliating and molesting air travelers from all over the world who now refuse to come to America.
Not even in North Korea are air travelers sexually molested by overpaid perverts and grown-up morons dressed up in a costume with a fake badge and the fabricated title of "officer." For the record, TSA employees are not in any way "officers." They are drooling pedophiles, thieves, child porn distributors, power-hungry bullies and, by any standard, the scum of the Earth who were recruited by ads on pizza delivery boxes. Many of these TSA "officers," if they weren't feeling up the genitals of wives, grandmas and little boys and girls, would still be at home in their parents' basements masturbating to internet porn or humping inflatable dolls.
What Jerry Sandusky did to young boys at Penn State, the TSA does to America every hour of the day.
But as employees of Obama's ever-expanding federal government and "infrastructure of tyranny," they receive ridiculously high federal salaries, health care, false authority and of course the power to yell "freeze" at the airport, demanding that all travelers FREEZE IN PLACE for absolutely no reason other than pure, idiotic obedience training.
This happens nowhere in the world except America. Not in North Korea, not in China, not even in the darkest times of Nazi Germany did Hitler's soldiers sexually molest old ladies and rip apart their colostomy bags. Every other nation in the world holds its war veterans sacred, but in America, returning veterans are cast aside by the failed VA hospital system and even labeled "terrorists" by their own government.
This kind of cruel dehumanizing tyranny is uniquely American, and it is a symbol of not just the Obama administration's unraveling communist manifesto, but also the tyranny and false flag ideology of the Bush administration before him.
Even in Singapore, where they literally beat criminals with canes in full view of the public, they do not sexually molest their own citizens as a requirement for travel. Only in America is this security theater insanity tolerated by the public.
The microchipping of public school students has begun
As InfoWars.com reports, a high school in San Antonio now requires students to wear RFID tracking chips or be expelled from the school.
Read the letter here, signed by the scum-of-the-Earth principal named Robert Harris and his co-conspirator-scum-of-the-Earth Jay Sumpter. Their phone numbers are listed on this letter. Please call them and let them know just how much patriotic Americans feel that these two individuals should be arrested and tried for their crimes against children, forcing little boys and girls to become electronically-enslaved subjects of a tyrannical system that's now in the business of indoctrinating little children into the police state society.
The school's public website has now been hacked by a 16-year-old student working in conjunction with other hactivists who decry the school's outrageous electronic enslavement of our children.
How bad is it?
Just how bad are things in America, really? Consider this: If God suddenly struck down all the people in America who hold hatred, oppression, destruction and greed as their core values, the population of bureaucrats and politicians in Washington D.C. would plummet to nearly zero. Sacramento would be reduced to a desolate ghost town. And the TSA would flat-out cease to exist.
Some say God is already judging America, and that she is reaping the consequences of generations of fabricated wars, imperialistic military occupation of world nations, the widespread abuse of animals and ecosystems, and even an increasing number of mindless abortions performed each year.
I'm not sure it's God, however, who is destroying America. Far more likely it is the lazy cognitive convenience of modern-day liberalism, where the convalescent, illiterate masses strive only to achieve a lingering state of feeling comfortably numb as tyranny multiplies all around them. From such vacuous philosophy comes the slow, steady slide from freedom to enslavement, from peace to war, and from truth to delusion. Presiding over this drop into the dark abyss is the perfect man for the job: Obama the Deceiver, the populist wizard of emotional voter voodoo... the man who can transform abundance into enslavement while being worshipped by the stupefied, indolent masses who remain clueless that their Land of the Free has been meticulously replaced, piece by piece, with an oppressive matrix of total enslavement to the state.
Link:
http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m25.1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)