Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2004 June
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
My Links
RATTLER RED's DEN - HOME
Rattler Red's PCBS Page
BbqChili's Chili Blog Off
Red Tigress' Lair
Jim Doney's - Are You High?
Rasta's - Behind Enemy Headlines
Lynnkramer's Blog
Nivek's - Institute of Capitalist Philosophy
Question's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Bouillabaisse - Dianne Maire's Blog
THIS WEEK'S: Fred On Everything
Closer To Truth
Truth Or Fiction
The Skeptic's Dictionary
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
Subscribe
to
Rattler Red's Den
| |
|
| |
_____________
'Bill of Rights' ENFORCEMENT ____________
Ron Paul's Weekly Column
This is a
UN-free Zone
United Nations Keep Out !
DISCLAIMER:
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I make such material available for educational purposes. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
|
| What Part Of "Illegal" Don't Americans Understand?
|
| 01.31.04 (9:25 pm) [edit] |
WHAT PART OF "ILLEGAL" DON'T THEY UNDERSTAND
By Tom DeWeese
January 29, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
Which side one takes in the great debate over illegal immigration policy is a matter of values.
Do you treasure a strong, independent United States of America as the beacon of freedom in the world? Are you proud to live in a nation where personal liberty and free choice led to the creation of the highest standard of living and the best medical care in history? Do you believe in the free enterprise system? Do you believe in the rule of law, based on the Constitution, as the only way to protect your natural rights? Do you believe that the United States is unique among any other nation or system on earth?
If you hold these ideals as truth, then there is only one solution to illegal immigration. It must be stopped. None of the factors that distinguish the United States from all others can be preserved if this nation erases its borders and ignores its founding principles, primary among which is the rule of law. Ignoring or sanctioning eight million or more illegal immigrants among us will destroy the fabric of the nation.
We are told this is "a nation of immigrants" to justify allowing illegals to stay here. That contention is wrong on two counts. First, the nation was created by settlers who forged it out of a wilderness. They were here for 200 years before the Declaration of Independence.
The American Revolution was fought to end the usurpation of their right to rule themselves. They chose a then-radical form of government that allowed each individual the freedom to seek his own way.
Because the American experiment was so successful others wanted to share in the fruits of these new liberties. A growing nation invited them to prosper among us.
These were the true immigrants. They accepted American language, culture, and values. The nation grew in size, wealth, and power. Above all, they came in through the front door, the famous Ellis Island and other ports of entry. They were welcomed, processed, naturalized, and made legal citizens.
This brings us to the second mistake in today's immigration debate. Policy makers are confusing the issue, mixing legals and illegals in the same argument. Let us celebrate those who make the decision to come here by asking permission and undergoing the difficult task of becoming a legal American. Truly, one has to want to be an American to go through the lengthy process. These honest, hard working, new Americans are rightfully proud of their achievement and are free to begin their own American journey with the full blessing of the American people.
There can be no comparison between these immigrants and those who sneak into the nation illegally. What incentive does anyone have to take the legal route when the nation just decides to give up and grant illegal immigrants amnesty?
The illegals work jobs with American incentives that include Social Security, free education, and medical care, all funded by American taxpayers. Unlike previous generations of immigrants, most do not care to learn our language or culture.
Those from Mexico continue to consider themselves Mexicans as, indeed, they are. {Ex-Patriats in the US can still vote in Mexican elections. -- Ed. Note}
Contrary to the argument that they contribute to our economy, they send billions of dollars back to Mexico, helping that nation's economy. At the same time, they undermine the U.S. standard of living by swamping our schools, hospitals and social services. They fill our jails for the crimes they commit.
A national disaster is brewing. In an effort designed more to appease Mexican President Vicente Fox and less to actually fix the problem, the Bush Administration proposes to grant a temporary three-year legal status to those who are already here, provided they have a job and pay a registration fee. They would be given worker documentation, presumably so the government could keep track of them and monitor their status.
Well it sounds good, but there are questions to be answered. If enacted, the 8 to10 million illegals would be forgiven and free to function as legal workers. In a nation that still has many citizens seeking employment, many of whom would have to compete with them, will there also be a policy to stop more illegals who continue to pour across the border? Having failed to stop the newly documented immigrant workers, will our nation now enforce our laws?
Second, if the Immigration Service can't keep track of millions of immigrants already documented, how will they keep track of 8 to10 million "temporary" workers? Can we trust those who broke the law and slipped into the nation illegally to now sign up for the new program and provide accurate information? What will their status be after the three year probation period ends?
Finally, consider what the new policy will do to the American businessman. Every time government comes up with a grand new plan, somehow the businessman gets stuck with the paperwork and the responsibility for implementing it. This new proposal requires businesses to first document that no U.S. citizen wants the job before hiring the illegal. That means government forms must be filled out on company time. Businesses will now be required to keep track of these workers, a task which the federal government has
never been able to do.
This massive, purposeful, determined invasion of this nation is being driven by the Mexican government whose president has made his position clear. He said all barriers between the United States, Canada, and Mexico should be removed to allow people to live and work in the country of their choosing. He wants a North American Union like its European counterpart. He wants no borders. He wants one economy. He wants the fruits of our system to bail out the rot of his. To that end, President Fox is deliberately encouraging his own citizens to leave Mexico and illegally pour over our borders to gain the benefits of our free enterprise system.
In this way, American enterprise and wealth is being tapped to bail out his Mexico's troubled economy. A tenth of Mexico's population now resides in the United States.
The United States signed on to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in large part to help the Mexican economy and, presumably, to stop the flow of illegal aliens. Neither has happened. Instead, Mexico continues to tax its business class to the point of suffocation, thereby killing job growth, while implementing socialist policies. In the ten years since signing on to NAFTA, the Mexican economy has grown by only 1.2%.
The United States is now faced with the disastrous results from the failure to enforce our immigration laws. We're stuck with eight to twelve million outlaws. What are we to do? Build walls? Send the Army to the border? Do we deport whole families, leaving many American companies wanting for workers? The answer is yes.
It is not bigotry or hate or lack of compassion to defend of our national sovereignty, our borders, our cultural values, and our way of life. The key word in the great debate is "ILLEGAL" immigrants. Failing to understand this, it will only take a single generation before the United States is unrecognizable, lost to the flood of those who refuse to understand, acknowledge or obey the rule of law that made the United States worth plundering in the first place.
These illegal aliens are the first wave of an assault to erase our national identity, to prepare the United States to accept a borderless North American Union. If our nation fails to meet the challenge and make the difficult decision to maintain ourselves as a sovereign nation, then prepare for our lives to change forever. An America without borders is an America that will cease to exist.
Our federal Government will become a mechanism for filtering the dictates of an unelected governing North American Union Council headed by bureaucrats from all three countries. Our Constitution will be replaced with a new Union Pact.
Our free market system will be regulated by the Council. Our tax dollars will be "fairly" divided among the three countries.
Our legal system, unmatched in the world, will be transformed. It will be a new order, indeed. The vivid example lies in Europe today where some of the world's oldest nations have abandoned their currencies, identities, and cultures to the European Union.
Do you want the United States to be a strong, independent, sovereign nation? Or do you want Vicente Fox's vision of an American Union where the riches of the United States lay open to the ravenous appetites of feeding socialists. This is the real issue the United States faces under the debate called "immigration reform."
We can't have both. The United States must either take on the difficult job of protecting its borders and national integrity by stopping the flood of illegal immigration or disappear.
Tom DeWeese -- What Part Of "Illegal" Don't Americans Understand?
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom.htm" title="http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom.htm" target="_blank"http://www.newswithviews.com/...
© 2004 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist, grassroots think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. The Center maintains an Internet site at www.americanpolicy.org.
|
|
|
| |
| Kennedy Touts Kerry in Chappaquiddick Flashback |
| 01.31.04 (4:56 pm) [edit] |
Kennedy Touts Kerry in Chappaquiddick Flashback
Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
In touting Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry's war heroics yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy swerved dangerously close to his own past when he bragged about how Kerry would never leave anyone behind to drown.
"You have a Jim Rassmann, who was a Special Forces officer that was blown off John Kerry's small boat," Kennedy told CNN.
Then, without a hint of irony, the man whose own presidential ambitions ended at Chappaquiddick added:
"When John Kerry turned that boat back and hauled Jim Rassmann out of the water, risking his own life, what he has said: We leave no one behind. He didn't leave Jim Rassmann behind. He won't leave veterans behind. He won't leave our national security behind."
Too bad Sen. Kerry wasn't driving the night Teddy left Mary Jo Kopechne behind.
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/29 /134230.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/1/29 /134230.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...
|
|
|
| |
| Students to Get Higher Grades -- Just for Showing Up
/ U.S. Treasury Department Betrays Citizens' |
| 01.31.04 (4:31 pm) [edit] |
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS, UNBELIEVABLE NEWS by James W. Harris
Students to Get Higher Grades -- Just for Showing Up
At Grand Rapids Union High School in Michigan, students who attend classes regularly -- or
at least 95 percent of the time -- will automatically be given higher
grades.
Students who attend 95 percent or more of their classes during each 10-week grading period will automatically receive higher grades under what administrators call, in classic bureaucratese, "grade enhancement."
Example: a student with a C-plus average who attends most of the time
will now get a B.
Students who feel this is too much of a burden needn't despair. The bar hasn't been set too high. Students can get the boosted-grade benefits and still have up to nine absences during each grading period -- that's about one miss per week.
Plus, excused absences because of school activities or hospitalization won't count as absences. And students will have a chance to make up some other types of absences by attending a special Saturday make-up class.
No wonder that, as journalist Tait Trussell notes, growing numbers of critics are charging that government schools are becoming "a vast exercise in babysitting."
Grand Rapids Union High School administrators hope other schools will pick up the idea. We have to agree that, given the sorry condition of America's government schools, this is just the kind of "reform" that might catch on.
Source: "Just Show Up, And We'll Give You Better Grades"
by Tait Trussel, Mackinac Center for Public Policy http://www.mackinac.org/artic...
************************* *****
U.S. Treasury Department Betrays Citizens' Privacy
In March 2003, the U.S. Treasury Department asked the general public for email comments about a proposal to regulate the taxes on some types of malt liquor.
The Treasury Department said that the comments would be posted on the Web, to stimulate informed public debate. The Department assured everyone their privacy would be absolutely protected:
"All comments posted on our Web site will show the name of the commenter, but will not show street addresses, telephone numbers, or e-mail addresses," the Department promised.
However, the proposal drew far more comments than expected. By October nearly 10,000 email statements had been received. Several thousand others arrived by fax or mail.
That's a lot of emails to edit. So rather than go to the trouble of keeping a solemn promise to Americans commenting on a sensitive government matter, the Treasury Department decided to simply post the comments on the Web in their entirety -- including all personal data.
"The unusually large number of comments received...has made it difficult to remove all street addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses from the comments for posting on our Internet Web site in a timely manner," the Treasury Department announced in a notice published in the Federal Register on December 2, page 67388.
"Therefore, to ensure that the public has Internet access to the thousands of comments received...at the earliest practicable time, we will post comments...on our Web site in full, including any street addresses, telephone numbers, or email addresses contained in the comments."
Yes, they will put almost 10,000 email addresses, along with other personal information, on the Web. In announcing this betrayal of the public trust, the Treasury Department did offer to remove personal information -- if those commentators contacted them within three weeks of that notice. (Of course, everyone reads the Federal Register page-by-page, right?) That deadline expired December 23.
Jim Harper of the Privacilla privacy Web site, put it nicely:
"Treasury's privacy promise included an important unwritten caveat: 'Unless keeping this promise is inconvenient.'...Now, [citizens who commented] may get phone calls, letters, or spam. Merchants who commented may be picketed or boycotted. It's precisely when an issue is controversial that privacy promises are most important."
This action could also have a powerful chilling effect on citizen participation in government. After this, how many of these 10,000-plus citizens are going to risk speaking out on another controversial issue? If the government wanted to deliberately stifle public input on its decision-making, it could hardly pick a better way.
Once again, a powerful government agency betrays the public trust, invades privacy, and exposes people to expense, inconvenience, and risk. Concerned citizens who trusted the agency are abused and treated like suckers. Just business as usual in Washington.
Source: CNET News.com article
by Declan McCullagh http://news.com.com/2100-1028...
|
|
|
| |
| Black Collar Crime Logbook
|
| 01.31.04 (4:02 pm) [edit] |
Black Collar Crime LogBook
"... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."
-- from the The Declaration of Independence.
We at J.A.I.L. believe that the above quote from the Declaration of Independence is completely and totally applicable to United States as it exists today. In fact, it describes the current condition of the United States so well that we have made the key elements of the above quote links to documentation that proves the existence of those key elements in the United States today.
Black Collar Crime Logbook
CONTINUE HERE http://www.jail4judges.org/Bl...
Judicial Accountability Initiative Law
J.A.I.L Home -Jail4Judges.org
http://www.jail4judges.org/" title="http://www.jail4judges.org/" target="_blank"http://www.jail4judges.org/
|
|
|
| |
| What a pain in the class!
|
| 01.31.04 (3:11 pm) [edit] |
What a pain in the class!
Neil Cavuto - townhall.com
January 31, 2004
They call it class warfare. For the life of me, I don't know why.
There's nothing classy about pitting one group of people against another.
There's nothing classy about telling the rich in this country that their gains are somehow ill-gotten.
There's nothing classy about saying the rich get back more money but never saying boo about the simple fact they pay more money -- a lot more money.
And there's nothing classy about lying. Because truth be told, this isn't about us and what we're paying. It's about the government and what it's keeping.
Some people really like the government, trust the government and want to give more money to the government. I am not in that camp. I am in the camp that says I'd much sooner trust you with your money than any bureaucrat with your money.
But it's more fundamental than that. The reason why I find myself throwing things at the television every time I hear Democratic candidates speak is that they all but say they hate rich people. Rich people are greedy. Rich people are selfish. Rich people don't deserve a break.
Well, give me a break! Look, I've known rich people who were fools and poorer people who were fools. Trust me on this one, charlatans know no pedigree, and decency knows no salary range. You can make a lot of money and have zero scruples or make no money and have no scruples.
But I'll tell you this: Most rich people I've known are good, hard-working, start-from-scratch people. Contrary to the impression that they've somehow come into this world with silver spoons in their mouths, government statistics show the vast majority of John Kerry's targeted $200,000-and-over crowd is self-made. If they have a silver spoon, they bought it with their own money and their own sweat.
You know, not once in my life has a poor person hired me. Rich guys, or at least richer guys, did. Trust me, they weren't all saints, but all the ones I've known were willing to give this Italian-Irish kid from working-class roots a chance . . . whether it be scooping ice cream in a shop or churning out perfume in a factory.
Poor people get their breaks from rich people. The government can hand out a check. But the rich guy makes an investment. There's a fundamental difference here that marks the very essence of capitalism. The best way out of the gutter isn't a payment from a bureaucrat but an opportunity from a businessman.
The class of our system of government is that it doesn't distinguish between classes at all. All can share in the American dream if they toil long enough and sacrifice enough. Some have neither the appetite nor work ethic to bother with this, but that doesn't mean we abuse those who do.
Only in America can we turn on those who made this country great and tear them down precisely because they are. Look, I'm not saying we have to all shout a big thank you, but they're due a hell of a lot more than a screw you!
There's nothing classy in that argument, just as there's nothing classy in saying that the rich don't already more than foot the bill. The top 1 percent of wage-earners in this country account for more than a third of the taxes collected in this country. The top 5 percent pay more than half. If that's getting off lightly, what's considered getting hosed?
You make more in this country. You pay more in this country. It was that way before the president's tax cuts. It's been that way since the president's tax cuts. It's amazing to me that bureaucrats who suck off the system are bashing the guys who give 'em the milk!
That's the real class story.
Pity there's not a politician with the class to report it.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Neil Cavuto: What a pain in the class!
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/neilcavuto /nc20040131.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/neilcavuto /nc20040131.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...
|
|
|
| |
| Judged By Twelve Rather Than Carried By Six |
| 01.30.04 (9:56 pm) [edit] |
Judged By Twelve Rather Than Carried By Six
FIJA Fans:
One old aphorism that displays how the concept of jury power was widely accepted throughout American culture is, "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."
The twelve, of course, are twelve jurors of your peers. The six are pallbearers. The saying was usually uttered by those who carry concealed firearms for self-defense in jurisdictions where such a natural right is prohibited by law. The sentiment is that one would rather be alive to make one's case to a jury after having illegally defended one's-self, rather than be a dead law-abiding victim of oppressive law.
See below where just such a case is likely to be presented to a jury. Hunter Jordan, a 42 year old New Hampshire man with a concealed carry permit was arrested for illegal carry in Ohio on the way home from visiting his Kansas-based family for Christmas.
Ironically, in the time since Hunter was arrested, the Governor of Ohio has signed a concealed carry bill into law.
You can find out more at:
http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter" title="http://www.libertyroundtable.org/projects/freehunter" target="_blank"http://www.libertyroundtable....
The note below is from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They sell a wonderful cartoon booklet introducing the concept of jury nullification, called "Can You Get a Fair Trial in America?"
Toward liberty and justice for all,
Tom Glass
President
Lone Star FIJA
www.juryduty.org
----- Original Message -----
January 21, 2004
JPFO Alert: VICTIM OF ANTI-GUN HYSTERIA NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT
Imagine yourself in this situation: You're returning from a holiday trip. The travel days are long and, like half the other drivers on the freeway, you're going faster than the speed limit. You're pulled over by state troopers.
Fair enough.
But you've forgotten something. You're also carrying concealed sidearms. In your home state, that's perfectly legal. It's also legal in most of the states you're passing through. You've got a permit. You've done everything "right."
But in the state you're in now, merely carrying those loaded sidearms -- without ever using them in any act of aggression -- is a felony. The trooper drags you out of your vehicle and throws you into jail.
And even that isn't the full catastrophe.
The state is Ohio. It not only has horrible anti-gun laws. Its police have been unsuccessfully trying to catch a freeway sniper. They haven't got a clue how to stop the evil-doer. So there you are -- a tourist from New Hampshire who wasn't even in the state when the shootings took place, concerned about your own protection -- and the troopers decide to make an example of you.
They parade you and your "arsenal" before the media. They let the media photograph the *perfectly legal* "assault-style" rifle and ammo you had locked in the back of your vehicle (yes, it was perfectly legal even under Ohio law).
They describe the collection of swords you were transporting -- never mentioning that one was a dull-edged souvernir Lord of the Rings sword you'd taken to show your young neices at Christmastime. They allow the media to take a photo of your tired, bewildered, uncombed self that makes you look like everybody's worst idea of a "lone nut with guns."
Most strangely, they mutter about the "possible detonator" they found in your possession. You don't even know what they're talking about until a friend figures it out. A couple of years ago, the case broke on the keyless entry remote that opens the doors of your vehicle. Rather than pay $80 for a new remote, you put the electronics inside a different case -- and the police tell the whole nation that this innocent object is a "possible detonator."
It takes you two days to get out of jail and more than a week to get your vehicle back -- at which point you find your vehicle trashed, your Christmas presents opened, many of your perfectly legal possessions still missing (including the heirloom knife your now-dead grandfather gave you). Dozens of innocent items are gone.
The police have "disappeared" your laptop computer without even giving you a receipt. You can't find out why.
The police have confiscated *every single piece* of political literature you were carrying. None of that literature advocated violence. It just advocated less government. You can't find out why they took that, either.
The police have also kept all your firearms, even the ones that were legally possessed under Ohio law. You have no way of knowing whether you'll ever get them back.
And you now face up to three years in prison. And the permanent loss of your right to keep and bear arms. For an act that didn't hurt anybody -- except yourself.
This didn't happen to you, thank heaven. But it did happen to a great friend of liberty and a JPFO supporter, Jeffrey "Hunter" Jordan, on December 29, 2003.
WHO, ME?
We had a reason for saying "you" throughout this story. Many people who hear about Hunter's plight immediately snap, "It's his own fault. He shouldn't have broken the law!"
Well, yes and no.
First of all, Ohio's law against concealed carry of firearms is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court itself has said that no one is obligated to obey a law if the law doesn't obey the Constitution.[1]
But second -- and more important in this world where we have so many laws that even police and legislators can't know what's legal and what's not -- what happened to Hunter truly could have happened to anybody. We like to think that only other people screw up, that we have better sense, that we wouldn't make such a stupid combination of mistakes. It makes us feel better to say, "It couldn't happen to me."
But think about the last time you drove hundreds of miles on the freeway. Your foot may have gotten heavy. Your mind got tired. You certainly didn't know the technicalities of the law in every state you passed through. And you believe the Second Amendment means what it says: your right to carry arms "shall not be infringed."
And the law ... well, the law itself is an ever-changeable thing. Between the time Hunter was released from jail and the day he was allowed to get his vehicle, Ohio's governor signed a bill making licensed concealed carry perfectly legal for Ohio residents. Once the law goes into effect a simple reciprocity agreement with his home state of New Hampshire could make today's "felony" a perfectly legal and acceptable act tomorrow.
Should a man spend three years in prison for such an absurd "crime"?
Of course not.
Maybe you or I would have been smarter than Hunter. We'd like to think so. But in moments when we're weak, tired, or preoccupied, we all make mistakes. We should pay for our mistakes, certainly.
But this is far, far too high a price.
Don't make excuses. If you want people to defend *your* freedoms, defend theirs.
Jeff "Hunter" Jordan will be arraigned in Ashland, Ohio, on February 2, and he could use your support, both moral and financial. If you're in or near Ashland, consider attending his arraignment, February 2, 11:30 a.m., at the Ashland County Common Pleas Court. (If you go, please remember that it will help Hunter's case for you to dress neatly and behave in a way that makes it clear gun owners are exemplary citizens.)
Wherever you are, please consider making a donation to Hunter's legal defense. Remember what Ben Franklin said: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
To learn more about Hunter and get updates on his case go to: http://www.libertyroundtable....
To contribute to his legal defense fund go to: http://www.libertyroundtable....
-----
[1] _Marbury vs Madison_ "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."
16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256: "No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
========================= =========
|
|
|
| |
| Democrats for Bush
|
| 01.30.04 (3:19 pm) [edit] |
Conservatives are pissed at him. Democrats are endorsing him. And Clark is really a Republican. What's going on? Parties switching places again?
Democrats for Bush
Oliver North - TownHall.com
January 30, 2004
*******************
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- All I heard from the analysts and pundits in the past two weeks after the Democrat caucuses in Iowa and primary in New Hampshire, was that Democrats across the board are "united" against President Bush and want to defeat Bush to the point that they will vote for the "most electable" candidate.
There is no doubt that there is a great deal of hatred for this president at all levels of the Democrat Party -- and that is more than a shame. It is seen in the wild-eyed followers of Howard Dean to the divisive rhetoric of the candidates like Wesley Clark, who refuses to denounce his friend Michael Moore who called President Bush a "deserter." Clark, who friends say would be a Republican had Karl Rove only returned his phone calls, called the Bush administration "the most closed, imperialistic, nastiest administration in living history" -- which just shows that hell hath no fury like a washed up general scorned.
From day one of this administration, many Democrats in the Congress and across the country were unable to put the Florida election behind them and work with a man who had a well-deserved reputation for reaching across the aisle.
But in fact, not all Democrats are "united." Already, nearly 10 months before the election, there are signs of defection among some top name Democrats who have announced their support for the president.
Georgia Sen. Zell Miller, the author of, "A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat" (read review), has already endorsed President Bush's re-election, saying that Bush is "the right man at the right time" to govern America. Miller added at the time that many of the Democrat contenders for the presidential nomination, particularly Howard Dean, were trying to use the war in Iraq for "political advantage," which to the Georgia senator is a "disgrace."
"The way I see it," Miller explained, "is that these next five years are going to be crucial in determining the kind of world my grandchildren and great-grandchildren live in, and I don't entrust that to any of these folks that are running out there on the Democratic side."
After Miller's endorsement of George W. Bush, former President Jimmy Carter, who called Howard Dean's antiwar rants "courageous," rushed to disown Miller, accusing him of "betraying all the basic principles that I thought he and I and others shared."
Perhaps that is because the Democrats only continue to carp and complain and flip-flop their positions regarding the war.
But even as New Hampshire Democrats were going to the polls to vote for their favorite antiwar antagonist, a plane was landing in Al Gore's home state of Tennessee with 55,000 pounds of material from Libya's nuclear weapons program to be tested. It turns out that all these months that Howard Dean and John Kerry and their pals were condemning George W. Bush's decision to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was getting the message that he had better say goodbye to his weapons programs, or he might be dragged from a hole as Saddam was.
And two weeks ago, another veteran Democrat publicly announced his intention to vote for President Bush, saying that though he has some disagreements on domestic issues, they "pale in importance beside the menace of international terrorism, which threatens our very survival as a nation." Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said that he will vote for George W. Bush because "he has shown the resolve and courage necessary to wage the war against terrorism."
Koch said the team of Democrat presidential contenders, with the exception of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, "inspires no such confidence."
Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas agrees with Koch and Miller. In January, Hall, a longtime Democrat, announced he was switching his party affiliation to the Republicans. In making the announcement, Hall said: "I support a Republican president who is constantly criticized by the Democrats who seek to unseat him. In the past year, some members of my party sought to politicize our efforts in the War on Terror and the liberation of Iraq to a point that the president's domestic agenda, which is overwhelmingly supported by my constituents, and the interests of my district were jeopardized."
On a recent trip to Georgia, 12 Democrat state senators threw their support behind the president due in large measure to the leadership he has displayed in the War on Terror. Former Attorney General Griffin Bell, former U.S. Sen. David Gambrell and former Rep. Doug Barnard, all Democrats, have also endorsed the president.
Wesley Clark, Howard Dean and John Kerry have been chasing the support of antiwar protestors like Madonna, Michael Moore, Ted Danson and others. Throughout their campaigns they have shown that they are willing to put their opposition to Bush's efforts in the War on Terror in the spotlight.
But what we are beginning to see is that some Democrats believe national security is no longer a priority for the Democrat Party, and they are echoing the words of John F. Kennedy who said, "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." Good for them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oliver North is host of Common Sense Radio with Oliver North and founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance. Both are Townhall.com member groups.
©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Oliver North: Democrats for Bush
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth /on20040130.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth /on20040130.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...
|
|
|
| |
| Socialist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism |
| 01.29.04 (11:02 pm) [edit] |
So, you want to be a Socialist?
The Socialist Roots of Modern
Anti-Semitism
Tyler Cowen
Auschwitz meant that six million Jews were killed, and thrown on the waste--heap of Europe, for what they were considere: money-Jews. Finance capital and the banks, the hard core of the system of imperialism and capitalism, had turned the hatred of men against money and exploitation, and against the Jews.... Antisemitism is really a hatred of capitalism.
-Ulrike Meinhof, left-wing German terrorist of the 1970s1
Capitalism and the market economy encourage racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance, while supporting a plurality of diverse lifestyles and customs. Heavily regulated or socialist economies, in contrast, tend to breed intolerance and ethnic persecution. Socialism leads to low rates of economic growth, disputes over resource use, and concentrated political power-all conditions which encourage conflict rather than cooperation. Ethnic and religious minorities usually do poorly when political coercion is prevalent.
Economic collapses - usually associated with interventionism-worsen the problem by unleashing the destructive psychological forces of envy and resentment, which feed prejudice and persecution.
While discrimination is present in societies of all kinds, discriminators must pay pecuniary costs for indulging their prejudices in a market setting. Even the prejudiced usually will trade with minorities; bigots attempt to oppress minorities by socializing the costs through government action, but bigots usually are less willing to bear these costs themselves. Repeated commercial interactions also increase the social familiarity of customs or lifestyles that otherwise might be found unusual or alien. Sustained economic growth alleviates political and social tensions by creating more for everybody.
The history of the Jewish people illustrates the relatively favorable position of minorities in a market setting. Hostility toward trade and commerce has often fueled hostility toward Jews, and vice versa. The societies most congenial to commercial life for their time - Renaissance Italy, the growing capitalist economies of England and the Netherlands in the seventeenth century, and the United States - typically have shown the most toleration for Jews. Ellis Rivkin, in his neglected masterpiece, The Shaping of Jewish History.- A Radical New Interpretation, wrote:
Since World War II Jews and Judaism have been liberated in every country and territory where capitalism has been restored to vigorous growth-and this includes Germany. By contrast, wherever anti-capitalism or pre-capitalism has prevailed the status of Jews and Judaism has either undergone deterioration or is highly precarious. Thus at this very moment the country where developing global capitalism is most advanced, the United States, accords Jews and Judaism a freedom that is known nowhere else in the world and that was never known in the past. It is a freedom that is not matched even in Israel... By contrast, in the Soviet Union, the citadel of anti-capitalism, the Jews are cowed by anti-Semitism, threatened by extinction, and barred from access to their God.2
The socialist origins of modern anti-Semitism illustrate the link between statism and the persecution of minorities. Anti-Semitism as a formal, intellectual movement arose in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Jewish conspiracy theories grew in popularity.
German writers picked up on earlier anti-Enlightenment theories of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to rule the world. During the French Revolution, the Jews, along with the Masons, were identified as forces for liberalism, secularism, and capitalism. German writers quickly found the Jews to be a more popular target than the Masons, perhaps because they were more visible or more different. The originally Judeo-Masonic theories eventually discarded the other conspirators, such as the Templars and the Illuminati, and focused on the Jews.
Anti-Semitism in Nineteenth- Century Germany and Austria
The anti-Jewish creed was formalized by Wilhelm Marr, the German writer who coined the term "anti-Semitic." In 1879 Marr published his book The Victory of Judaism over Germandom, which went through twelve editions in six years. He also founded the "Anti-semitic Journal," and started an "Anti-semitic League." Marr idolized Tsarist Russia, and earlier in his career he had been a radical socialist.
The new anti-Semites who followed Marr expanded the medieval attacks on Jewish traders and usurers and developed them into a full-scale economic critique. The Jews who provoked the most anger were those who embraced cosmopolitan, Enlightenment values, and who achieved economic success.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Germany became the first country to develop systematic anti-Semitic political and intellectual movements. In Germany, Adolf Stöcker's Christian Social Party (1878-1885) combined anti-Semitism with left-wing, reformist legislation. The party attacked laissez-faire economics and the Jews as part of the same liberal plague. Stöcker's movement synthesized medieval anti-Semitism, based in religion, and modern anti-Semitism, based in racism and socialist economics. He once wrote: "I see in unrestrained capitalism the evil of our epoch and am naturally also an opponent of modern Judaism on account of my socio-political views." Stöcker had revered the Prussian aristocracy since his youth.
Georg Ritter von Schönerer led the leftwing' anti--Semitic movement in Austria. Schönerer's German Liberal Party, developed a lower-middle-class, anti-Semitic, anti-capitalistic platform in the 1880s. Schönerer directed his anti-Semitism at the economic activity of the Rothschilds; he advocated nationalization of their railroad assets.
Later, he broadened his charges to attack Jewish merchants more generally. Hitler was an avid admirer of Schönerer, and as a young man even hung Schönerer's slogans over his bed.
The growing nineteenth-century socialist movements did little to stem the anti-Semitic tide and often explicitly promoted anti-Semitism. The initial link between socialism and anti-Semitism arose through intellectual affinity.
Throughout the nineteenth century, the socialist critique of capitalism and the anti-Semitic critique used the same arguments. Many socialists considered anti-Semitism to be a way station on the path toward a more consistent socialist viewpoint. The very first systematic socialist philosophers, the French Utopians of the early nineteenth century, had implicated the Jews in their critique of capitalism. French Jewry was highly commercial, financial, and capitalistic. Proudhon and Fourier, who stressed the abolition of usury, saved their most vitriolic anti-Semitic tirades for Jewish moneylenders.
Karl Marx continued the anti-Jewish polemics of the socialists. The historical association between Jews, private property, and commerce led to his well-known anti-Semitic diatribes. Marx, who sought to reconstruct society according to his master plan, detested the particularistic nature of Jewish religion and custom. Some of Marx's followers, such as Dühring and Lassalle, used anti-Semitism as a means of introducing anti-capitalist doctrine. They believed that if the public could be convinced to hate Jewish capitalists, the public would eventually come to hate non-Jewish capitalists as well.
A widely circulated nineteenth-century witticism described anti-Semitism as "the socialism of fools" [der Sozialismus des blöden Mannes]. It was widely recognized that the anti-Semites shared the same gripes as the socialists; the anti-Semites simply chose too narrow a target. The socialists happily accepted the spirit of anti-Semitism, provided the target was widened to the entire capitalist class.
More recently, the historian Paul Johnson has noted with irony that socialism has served as the "anti-Semitism of the intellectuals."3
Even when socialists opposed anti-Semitism, as later came to pass for tactical reasons, European socialist parties failed to provide effective opposition to anti-Semitic trends. Most socialists, with their dislike of capitalism, were unwilling to defend the economic activities of Jews. Socialism pretended to be a revolutionary, liberal movement but in fact embraced the conservative doctrine of concentrated state power. Most socialists supported World War I, which provided a tremendous boost to anti-Semitism, without hesitation. Later, the Nazi party, the most dedicated enemy of the Jews, was a national socialist party from the beginning.4
Soviet Anti-Semitism
The actual practice of socialism has not been kind to its religious and ethnic minorities, including Jews. The Soviet government adopted consistently anti-Semitic policies. Lenin was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism, but Soviet policy reversed shortly after his death.
Totalitarian states, with their inevitable economic failures, eventually need scapegoats. Economic performance rarely matches the official promises, and the subsequent privations feed social resentment; one person gains only at the expense of another. The necessities of totalitarian government, in time, override whatever non-racist feelings might be held by the leaders, and create strong pressures for political support of racism. Control over the press and rights of speech makes racist feeling relatively easy to whip up.
Soviet anti-Semitism flourished after the Second World War, as the Communist leaders were unable to resist the target that had proven so successful for Hitler. In 1953 Stalin alleged the existence of a "Doctors' Plot," masterminded by Jews, to poison the top Soviet leadership. Stalin died before a trial was called, but he had been planning to forcibly deport two million Jews to Siberia. The "economic crimes" executions of the early 1960s were directed largely against Jews.
Textbooks were rewritten either to remove the Jewish role in history, or to provide negative stereotypes of Jews.
Government texts dealing with Germany and World War II mentioned neither the Jews nor the Holocaust. The Russian pogroms were reinterpreted as justified retribution for the capitalistic excesses of the Jews. The Soviet government attacked all forms of religion, but Judaism most of all.
Eastern Germany continued the earlier Nazi polemics against Jews, substituting the words "Zionist" or "Israel" for Jew, and referring to the salutary effects of "progressive socialist forces," a scant difference from the earlier Nazi terminology of "national socialism." Many former Nazi journalists were hired to write these "anti-Zionist" polemics. Similar trends came to pass throughout eastern Europe. In the early 1950s, thirteen leaders in the Czech Communist party (ten were Jewish), were accused of being "Zionists," and were hanged. In 1968 the Polish media spent months debating the "unmasking of Zionists in Poland," although Jews comprised less than one-fifteenth of one percent of the population. The anti-Zionist campaign was accompanied by demonstrations, arrests, surveillance, police persecution, and other typical methods of totalitarian oppression.
The contrast with the more capitalistic United States is striking. The United States started off with few Jews but attracted many Jewish immigrants with its relatively free economy and atmosphere of relative tolerance. By the 1920s, three of the four cities with the most Jews were located in the United States. New York had the largest number of Jews, and Chicago and Philadelphia were third and fourth (Budapest was second). Today Jews account for only two percent of the American population, but they account for half of the billionaires. The history of the Jews provides a stark illustration of the differences between capitalism and socialism.
At the time of the original publication, Dr. Cowen taught economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
1. My translation draws upon that of Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany: From Kant to Wagner (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 304.
2. Ellis Rivkin, The Shaping of Jewish History: A Radical New Interpretation (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 239-240.
3. Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (New York: Harper-Collins, 1987), p. 353.
4. European socialist attitudes toward anti-Semitism shifted in the last decade of the nineteenth century. At this time the socialists realized several truths. First, anti-Semitism was a way station to state control, but the right-wing and fascist parties were likely to capture the benefits. Second, the socialists realized that the anti-Semites (like Judaism itself, in socialist eyes) had become precisely the kind of particularist sympathy that held back the more universalist socialist ideal.
These points became clearest in Germany, where most leftists had abandoned anti-Semitism by the early twentieth century. The French left, in contrast, was much slower to repudiate the ideology of racism, perhaps because French politics never polarized the way German politics did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Socialist Roots of Modern Anti-Semitism
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteve nts/discrimination/social ist.shtml" title="http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrenteve nts/discrimination/social ist.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.libertyhaven.com/p...
|
|
|
| |
| Let Africa Sink! |
| 01.29.04 (4:51 pm) [edit] |
No "Bleeding-Heart Liberalism" here. Kim du Toit does not mince words when it comes to "Reality" vs. age-old lofty ideals.
Let Africa Sink
Kim du Toit
May 26, 2002
When it comes to any analysis of the problems facing Africa, Western society, and particularly people from the United States, encounter a logical disconnect that makes clear analysis impossible. That disconnect is the way life is regarded in the West (it's precious, must be protected at all costs etc.), compared to the way life, and death, are regarded in Africa. Let me try to quantify this statement.
In Africa, life is cheap. There are so many ways to die in Africa that death is far more commonplace than in the West.
You can die from so many things--snakebite, insect bite, wild animal attack, disease, starvation, food poisoning... the list goes on and on. At one time, crocodiles accounted for more deaths in sub-Saharan Africa than gunfire, for example. Now add the usual human tragedy (murder, assault, warfare and the rest), and you can begin to understand why the life expectancy for an African is low--in fact, horrifyingly low, if you remove White Africans from the statistics (they tend to be more urbanized, and more Western in behavior and outlook).
Finally, if you add the horrifying spread of AIDS into the equation, anyone born in sub-Saharan Africa this century will be lucky to reach age forty.
I lived in Africa for over thirty years.
Growing up there, I was infused with several African traits--traits which are not common in Western civilization. The almost-casual attitude towards death was one. (Another is a morbid fear of snakes.)
So because of my African background, I am seldom moved at the sight of death, unless it's accidental, or it affects someone close to me. (Death which strikes at strangers, of course, is mostly ignored.) Of my circle of about eighteen or so friends with whom I grew up, and whom I would consider "close", only about ten survive today--and not one of the survivors is over the age of fifty.
Two friends died from stepping on landmines while on Army duty in Namibia. Three died in horrific car accidents (and lest one thinks that this is not confined to Africa, one was caused by a kudu flying through a windshield and impaling the guy through the chest with its hoof--not your everyday traffic accident in, say, Florida). One was bitten by a snake, and died from heart failure. Another also died of heart failure, but he was a hopeless drunkard. Two were shot by muggers. The last went out on his surfboard one day and was never seen again (did I mention that sharks are plentiful off the African coasts and in the major rivers?). My situation is not uncommon in South Africa--and north of the Limpopo River (the border with Zimbabwe), I suspect that others would show worse statistics.
The death toll wasn't just confined to my friends. When I was still living in Johannesburg, the newspaper carried daily stories of people mauled by lions, or attacked by rival tribesmen, or dying from some unspeakable disease (and this was pre-AIDS Africa too) and in general, succumbing to some of Africa's many answers to the population explosion. Add to that the normal death toll from rampant crime, illness, poverty, flood, famine, traffic, and the police, and you'll begin to get the idea.
My favorite African story actually happened after I left the country. An American executive took a job over there, and on his very first day, the newspaper headlines read: "Three Headless Bodies Found".
The next day: "Three Heads Found".
The third day: "Heads Don't Match Bodies".
You can't make this stuff up.
As a result, death is treated more casually by Africans than by Westerners. I, and I suspect most Africans, am completely inured to reports of African suffering, for whatever cause. Drought causes crops to fail, thousands face starvation? Yup, that happened many times while I was growing up. Inter-tribal rivalry and warfare causes wholesale slaughter? Yep, been happening there for millennia, long before Whitey got there.
Governments becoming rich and corrupt while their populations starved? Not more than nine or ten of those. In my lifetime, the following tragedies have occurred, causing untold millions of deaths: famine in Biafra, genocide in Rwanda, civil war in Angola, floods in South Africa, famine in Somalia, civil war in Sudan, famine in Ethiopia, floods in Mozambique, wholesale slaughter in Uganda, and tribal warfare in every single country. There are others, but you get the point.
Yes, all this was also true in Europe--maybe a thousand years ago. But not any more. And Europe doesn't teem with crocodiles, ultra-venomous snakes and so on.
The Dutch controlled the floods. All of Europe controls famine--it's non-existent now. Apart from a couple of examples of massive, state-sponsored slaughter (Nazi Germany, Communist Russia), Europe since 1700 doesn't even begin to compare to Africa today. Casual slaughter is another thing altogether--rare in Europe, common in Africa.
More to the point, the West has evolved into a society with a stable system of government, which follows the rule of law, and has respect for the rights and life of the individual--none of which is true in Africa.
Among old Africa hands, we have a saying, usually accompanied by a shrug: "Africa wins again." This is usually said after an incident such as:
a beloved missionary is butchered by his congregation, for no apparent reason
a tribal chief prefers to let his tribe starve to death rather than accepting food from the Red Cross (would mean he wasn't all-powerful, you see)
an entire nation starves to death, while its ruler accumulates wealth in foreign banks
a new government comes into power, promising democracy, free elections etc., provided that the freedom doesn't extend to the other tribe
the other tribe comes to power in a bloody coup, then promptly sets about slaughtering the first tribe
etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
The prognosis is bleak, because none of this mayhem shows any sign of ending.
The conclusions are equally bleak, because, quite frankly, there is no answer to Africa's problems, no solution that hasn't been tried before, and failed.
Just go to the CIA World Fact Book, pick any of the African countries (Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi etc.), and compare the statistics to any Western country (eg. Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ireland). The disparities are appalling--and it's going to get worse, not better. It has certainly got worse since 1960, when most African countries achieved independence. We, and by this I mean the West, have tried many ways to help Africa. All such attempts have failed.
1. Charity is no answer. Money simply gets appropriated by the first, or second, or third person to touch it (17 countries saw a decline in real per capita GNP between 1970 and 1999, despite receiving well over $100 billion in World Bank assistance).
2. Food isn't distributed. This happens either because there is no transportation infrastructure (bad), or the local leader deliberately withholds the supplies to starve people into submission (worse).
3. Materiel is broken, stolen or sold off for a fraction of its worth. The result of decades of "foreign aid" has resulted in a continental infrastructure which, if one excludes South Africa, couldn't support Pittsburgh.
Add to this, as I mentioned above, the endless cycle of Nature's little bag of tricks--persistent drought followed by violent flooding, a plethora of animals, reptiles and insects so dangerous that life is already cheap before Man starts playing his little reindeer games with his fellow Man--and what you are left with is: catastrophe.
The inescapable conclusion is simply one of resignation. This goes against the grain of our humanity--we are accustomed to ridding the world of this or that problem (smallpox, polio, whatever), and accepting failure is anathema to us. But, to give a classic African scenario, a polio vaccine won't work if the kids are prevented from getting the vaccine by a venal overlord, or a frightened chieftain, or a lack of roads, or by criminals who steal the vaccine and sell it to someone else. If a cure for AIDS was found tomorrow, and offered to every African nation free of charge, the growth of the disease would scarcely be checked, let alone reversed. Basically, you'd have to try to inoculate as many two-year old children as possible, and write off the two older generations.
So that is the only one response, and it's a brutal one: accept that we are powerless to change Africa, and leave them to sink or swim, by themselves.
It sounds dreadful to say it, but if the entire African continent dissolves into a seething maelstrom of disease, famine and brutality, that's just too damn bad. We have better things to do--sometimes, you just have to say, "Can't do anything about it."
The viciousness, the cruelty, the corruption, the duplicity, the savagery, and the incompetence is endemic to the entire continent, and is so much of an anathema to any right-thinking person that the civilized imagination simply stalls when faced with its ubiquity, and with the enormity of trying to fix it. The Western media shouldn't even bother reporting on it. All that does is arouse our feelings of horror, and the instinctive need to do something, anything--but everything has been tried before, and failed. Everything, of course, except self-reliance.
All we should do is make sure that none of Africa gets transplanted over to the U.S., because the danger to our society is dire if it does. I note that several U.S. churches are attempting to bring groups of African refugees over to the United States, European churches the same for Europe. Mistake. Mark my words, this misplaced charity will turn around and bite us, big time.
Even worse would be to think that the simplicity of Africa holds some kind of answers for Western society: remember "It Takes A Village"? Trust me on this: there is not one thing that Africa can give the West which hasn't been tried before and failed, not one thing that isn't a step backwards, and not one thing which is worse than, or that contradicts, what we have already.
So here's my solution for the African fiasco: a high wall around the whole continent, all the guns and bombs in the world for everyone inside, and at the end, the last one alive should do us all a favor and kill himself.
Inevitably, some Kissingerian realpolitiker is going to argue in favor of intervention, because in the vacuum of Western aid, perhaps the Communist Chinese would step in and increase their influence in the area. There are two reasons why this isn't going to happen.
Firstly, the PRC doesn't have that kind of money to throw around; and secondly, the result of any communist assistance will be precisely the same as if it were Western assistance. For the record, Mozambique and Angola are both communist countries--and both are economic disaster areas. The prognosis for both countries is disastrous--and would be the same for any other African country.
Africa has to heal itself. The West can't help it. Nor should we. The record speaks for itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Let Africa Sink - Kim du Toit
http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/essays/essays.php?id=P82" title="http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/essays/essays.php?id=P82" target="_blank"http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/e...
|
|
|
| |
| DC's Gang of Thugs
|
| 01.29.04 (3:59 pm) [edit] |
DC's Gang of Thugs
Michael Peirce - daveblackonline.com
The fact that many true conservatives are outraged by the consistent betrayals by George Bush has led many of us to renounce any allegiance to the Republican Party. This has outraged the more simplistic among us and infuriated the neo-conservatives who assumed our vote was theirs by default. Sorry fellows, you called it wrong!
An individual typical of those folks wrote to Chuck Demastus's online newsletter recently complaining that if the
Republicans lose the upcoming presidential election then those of us who don't vote for him are to blame for socialism, high taxes, the atheist ACLU, and drugs. He also noted that that we should thank a soldier for the privilege of even reading his comments.
This is so far off base I hardly know where to begin.
On each count he is incorrect. Last to first – yes, I respect the fighting man – but fighting in Iraq has exactly nothing to do with my right to speak out. That was vouchsafed for me by better men than even exist in this current tawdry age. My own gun guarantees it now.
We should remember that the fine men who founded this Republic of ours held to the belief that freedom was the responsibility of the individual, not the government. They rejected standing armies, foreign entanglements, and income taxes. Their documents survive and are codified as law in this country.
High taxes? George Bush has red lined the budget and yet some poor suckers still believe he cut our taxes. Who do you think will pay for those deficits?
Sadly, we have allowed our leaders to become scofflaws, from the courts to the executive and legislative branches; they routinely violate both the spirit and the letter of the law. We forget sometimes, in our greed for more government goodies, that government has no legal justification for stealing from one to buy votes from another. Our freedoms are not only not protected; we are throwing them at the feet of this gang of thugs in Washington in exchange for crumbs.
It wasn't Saddam Hussein who wrote that appalling patriot act or who is suppressing our rights here at home. No soldier is protecting us from the abuses of government nor, as they should be, from cross border incursions from Mexico.
Bush is using our comrades in the military for his grudge match – it has nothing to do with my freedom or yours.
Socialism? We already have that. Bush has done nothing to turn around the regime laid upon us by Clinton: babies are still murdered, our borders are not protected, and our airports are a joke. Government has become more and more intrusive – the amount of armed thugs in the various government police forces has risen dramatically!
How is George Bush anything but a socialist? How many Clinton appointees has Bush removed? How many Clinton executive orders has he overturned? How many pork laden bills has he vetoed?
Atheist ACLU? How could those fools be worse than the Republicans? Was God mentioned last Christmas or was He constantly attacked and His followers mocked? We know that Bush spoke not one word against the disgusting creatures that together with the president's good buddy, Ted Kennedy, mocked our Lord.
Sure, Bush pays lip service to God in his speeches – but he has the power to get rid of the communist judges who are leading the attack on religion and hasn't.
The whole weight of government is turned against Christianity and last time I looked it was George Bush in control of the executive branch of the government! The fact is, Bush could but won't use that so-called "bully pulpit" to put the brakes on the persecution of Christianity but he has not and will not. Why don't folks stop dancing for Massa and take a long hard look at the traitor they are supporting? Judge him by his deeds folks, not by the lies that come out of his mouth.
Yes, I said traitor. This is a term I don't use lightly. If we are truly at war, as President Bush claims we are, then his tolerance of our wide open Southern border constitutes an act of treason. If the President will not protect our borders then he is a traitor period. That the Democrats are no better is hardly reason to like Bush.
I agree that no Democrat is any better.
There is, however, something particularly annoying about being betrayed by one who claims to be your friend – the democrats openly condemn me as a heterosexual Southern white man so at least they are not my enemies under false pretences.
Why on earth should I care if the traitor in chief is a Republican or a Democrat? I only care if he is a patriot and will abide by his oath to protect and preserve the Constitution of the United States. Bush won't. So no, I won't vote for him. As of now I plan to write in either Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul.
What makes these times so very frightening is the unmistakable fact that the good Lord is giving us the leaders we deserve – it's that simple. If and when we acknowledge Him He will give us better – while we act like trash, He will give us trashy leaders.
It is well past time to stop pretending that our problems are the fault of one party or another – they are both hopelessly corrupt but they both represent us, the American people, accurately. The American people can stop this slide into perversion any time we want. We simply don't care enough to do it. Why waste time pretending there is a difference between the two parties of treason. The alternative is to start acting like folks who deserve a decent leader. Perhaps then God will give us one!
January 29, 2004
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael Peirce is an American veteran of the Rhodesian war, pro-Southern, and solidly into the values our ancestors tried so hard to pass on to us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DC's Gang of Thugs
http://www.daveblackonline.com/dc.htm" title="http://www.daveblackonline.com/dc.htm" target="_blank"http://www.daveblackonline.co...
/b
|
|
|
| |
| Hizballah and Mexico
|
| 01.28.04 (10:11 pm) [edit] |
A Question About Hizballah and Mexico
Terence Jeffrey - TownHall.com
January 28, 2004
Politicians serious about preventing another Sept. 11 should listen to the leader of Hizballah, and then read an indictment unsealed this month in Detroit.
"Let the entire world hear me," said Sheik Hassan Nasrallah on Sept. 27, 2002. "Our hostility to the Great Satan is absolute."
There's good reason to take this sheik seriously. In 1983, his Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group attacked the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Americans. According to the opinion of U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth in the case of Peterson v. the Islamic Republic of Iran, Nasrallah attended the meeting in Baalbek, Lebanon, where the 1983 attack was planned. Until Sept. 11, it remained the deadliest terrorist strike ever against the United States.
The sheik's Sept. 27, 2002, rally in Beirut celebrated the Palestinian intifadah. It was broadcast live on Lebanese TV and
monitored by the BBC.
"Regardless of how the world has changed after 11 September," Nasrallah said that day, "Death to America will remain our reverberating and powerful slogan: Death to America!"
Six months later, according to the BBC, Nasrallah warned Americans that if the U.S. invaded Iraq, "The region's people will receive you with rifles, blood, arms, martyrdom and martyrdom operations."
Now, turn to May 3, 2003. That's when FBI agents searched the Dearborn, Mich., residence of Mahmoud Kourani, a 32-year-old illegal alien from Lebanon.
In a statement submitted last week in federal court, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Chadwell revealed words the FBI found on audiotapes there: "You alone are the sun of my lands, Nasrallah! Nasrallah!/. . . your voice is nothing less than my jihad."
"We offer to you Hizballah, a pledge of loyalty," said a tape. ". . . Rise for Jihad! . . . I offer you, Hizballah, my blood in my hand."
Kourani pleaded guilty to harboring an illegal alien. A judge sentenced him to six months. On Jan. 15, a second indictment was unsealed, charging Kourani with conspiracy to provide material support to Hizballah.
"Kourani was a member, fighter, recruiter and fundraiser for Hizballah," said the indictment. "Operating at first from Lebanon and later in the United States, Kourani was a dedicated member of Hizballah who received specialized training in radical Shiite fundamentalism, weaponry, spy craft, and counterintelligence in Lebanon and Iran."
"Kourani," Chadwell added in his statement, "is charged with conspiring with individuals at the highest levels of the terrorist organization, including one of his brothers who is the Hizballah chief of military security for southern Lebanon."
Kourani got to America, the prosecutors allege, with the help of a Mexican official.
"On approximately Feb. 4, 2001, Kourani surreptitiously entered the United States by sneaking across the U.S./Mexico border in the trunk of a car," wrote Chadwell. "He reached Mexico by paying $3,000 used to bribe an official in the Mexican Consulate in Beirut, Lebanon, to give him a Mexican visa."
Do prosecutors believe that official was Imelda Ortiz Abdala, the one-time Mexican consul in Beirut who was arrested by Mexico in November, according to the Associated Press, "on charges of helping a smuggling ring move Arab migrants into the United States from Mexico"? "They are not sure if that is the person that received the money," said Sandy Palazzolo, a spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Jeffrey G. Collins of Detroit.
"They have information that she worked there during this time frame, but they don't know if that is in fact the person that he did bribe."
In a sentencing memorandum in Kourani's alien-harboring case, Chadwell told the court Kourani's "offense of conviction was part of a continuing scheme to bring illegal aliens to the United States from Lebanon through Mexico."
Kourani has pleaded not guilty to providing material support to Hizballah. I asked his attorney, Nabih Ayad, about the claim in the indictment that Kourani was a member, fighter, recruiter and fundraiser for Hizballah. "He denies all that," said Ayad. Kourani also contests the government's assertion that he bought a Mexican visa for $3,000 in Beirut. "My client told me specifically," said Ayad, "that he got it legitimately through the Mexican consulate."
Why did Kourani come to America? "I think why millions of Americans, the immigrants, come to the United States," said Ayad. "Basically, to make some money. . . . According to his statements to the FBI agents, he was here to make some money to go back with $10,000 for his wife and children."
Whatever the eventual outcome in this case, simple prudence demands that a question be asked of our political leaders: If they don't secure our borders against illegal immigration, how can they secure our country against Hizballah?
And Hizballah, as Sheik Nasrallah says, seeks "Death to America!"
©2003 Creators Syndicate
Terence Jeffrey: A question about Hizballah and Mexico
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejef frey/printtj20040128.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejef frey/printtj20040128.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...
|
|
|
| |
| Nothing Racist About It - Immigration & Over-Population |
| 01.28.04 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
Nothing racist about it
Like it or not, over-immigration is destroying our environment, says Sierra Club board member BEN ZUCKERMAN
{ posted on SierraClub- Rocky Mtn. - Population - Discussion Board }
By BEN ZUCKERMAN
UPDATED AT 1:53 PM EST Wednesday, Jan. 28, 2004
Globe & Mail
fhttp://www.theglobeandmail.co...
Mark Twain said, "A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." It's astonishing how the North American press has been stampeded into a feeding frenzy by mostly one-sided stories charging that an army of racist, anti-immigrant, animal-loving vegetarians is about to take over the venerable Sierra Club. As a 35-year member of the club, I am pained to see such distortion, all because some members of our environmental movement have dared to suggest that over-immigration contributes to environmental decay.
The U.S. environmental movement has not managed to elect a good environmental president since Jimmy Carter nearly 30 years ago. To achieve political success, our movement must adopt an agenda that truly reflects the world situation. Sadly, our organization's current approach is to avoid the one issue that should matter most to us: namely, the endless population growth in our own country that is ravishing our lands.
Because of our high levels of consumption, such growth is plundering environments elsewhere on Earth as well. We are stealing the resources of the world from other species and other peoples, and from future generations.
As a teenager in the 1950s, I recognized that the high fertility of American women, if continued, would lead to a catastrophic U.S. population explosion. Fast forward a half-century to the present -- the U.S. population has doubled to about 300 million and continues to explode with absolutely no end in sight. Another doubling or tripling is projected in the lifetime of people being born today. What has changed is the underlying cause of the rapid population growth -- from high fertility to massive immigration.
However, no one in the United States (and especially not in the Sierra Club, it seems) is allowed to talk about immigration without being labelled a racist. The deafening silence that results is especially devastating in a place like my home state of California, which has been recognized as one of the world's 25 biodiversity hot spots, and which is being relentlessly paved over -- wild lands, farmlands, wetlands, you name it.
As California goes, I hardly need add, so goes the United States.
Just this past Sunday, in the usually pro-immigration Los Angeles Times, the lead story in its magazine told it as it really is, as the Sierra Club never tells it: "A human wave is breaking over California. It's flooding the freeways and schools. It's bloating the cost of housing. It's disrupting power and water supplies. Ignoring reality has not worked."
The author refers to a recent study from an organization I am involved with, called Californians for Population Stabilization.
The study shows that most of California's population growth since 1990 is attributable to migration from other countries, plus U.S.-born children of immigrants. Our state is heading for a train wreck and no one in charge has the foggiest notion of what to do.
If our present U.S. population doubles, the additional 300 million people will be the ecological equivalent of adding billions of persons in the developing countries. The last thing the world needs is more high-consuming Americans. But, as a consequence of some of us being labelled racist, the entire U.S. environmental movement has been cowed into silence.
True leaders are unafraid to speak the truth. In 2000, Sierra Club hero, the late David Brower, who was nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize, said: "Overpopulation is perhaps the biggest problem facing us, and immigration is part of that problem. It has to be addressed."
Some people, including Sierra Club Canada, argue that rather than opposing migration to Canada and the United States, the "ecological footprint" of people here should be reduced. Yes, we all should strive to reduce our consumption, but this is not an either/or situation; population and consumption should be addressed in a comprehensive program.
Support for current immigration policies seems to come from the well-to-do in our society. Such support may sound noble in principle, but it's too easy to be pious when one does not suffer the consequences; those are borne by society's weakest members. It is ironic that the organization that has launched the most strident attack on those of us sounding the population alarm is the Southern Poverty Law Center, which purports to act for the benefit of the poor. Studies by the National Academy of Sciences, the Center for Immigration Studies and the Rand Corporation all show that current U.S. immigration policies have a negative impact on the economic well-being of the poorest Americans.
Present trends will produce a society that no environmentally sensitive person should accept. My own calculations show that rates of population growth in some places, including California, are so rapid that even optimistic projected increases in the rate we are using renewable resources, such as wind and solar energy, can't keep pace, and increasing amounts of fossil or nuclear energy will be needed to fuel our society. More than that, indicators of quality of life are a function of population size and not of consumption -- for example, streets will be just as crowded whether each person drives a high-mileage hybrid car (as I do) or an SUV.
Present Sierra Club policy forbids all members from making any official public remarks about immigration policies and levels, using their official Club titles. So, let me be clear, these are my own opinions, not the Sierra Club's. I hope, however, that in the not-too-distant future, my fellow Sierra Club members will recognize the need to put our genuine environmental concerns ahead of misguided political correctness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ben Zuckerman, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Los Angeles, is vice-president of Californians for Population Stabilization and a member of the Sierra Club's national board of directors.
|
|
|
| |
| Superintendent Brother is watching you
|
| 01.28.04 (1:35 am) [edit] |
I lifted this from
The Trenchcoat Chronicles. Good piece on 'PC', state-run youth indoctrination centers.
"Superintendent Brother is watching you"
Talking the Edutalk:
Just when you thought the public education system couldn't be anymore ridiculous the Washington comPost proves me wrong. Check out some of the jargon that's being thrown around in our public schools...
6-year-olds don't compare books anymore -- they make "text-to-text connections."
Misbehaving students face not detention but the "alternative instruction room," or "reinforcement room," or "reflection room."
And in Maryland, high schoolers write "extended constructed responses" -- the essay, in a simpler time.
A second-grade teacher announces "modeling efficient subtraction strategies" as the task of the day, while "selected response" has taken the place of "multiple choice."
At Laytonsville Elementary School in Gaithersburg, a bulletin board that might have once announced "Our Students' Work" instead says, "Evidence of Student Learning."
One recent morning, first-graders were told after a math exercise, "That was a good warm-up for showing our enduring understanding that a number represents a quantity."
A teacher told fifth-graders doing a social studies activity, "You will have a formative assessment when this is over."
Who the hell comes up with this stuff. How about talking to kids in a language they can understand. Here's the words kids know in school. Test, essays, homework, detention, etc. A second grader doesn't know what "modeling efficient subtraction strategies". First graders don't know what a quantity is.
They're first graders for cryin' out loud.
What's the point of inundating them with all this PC doublespeak? What are we trying to shield them from? The only thing that they're doing is making life more difficult for them. When they go home and use this language at home their parents aren't going to have any idea what they're talking about. And if you think this PC newspeak is exaggerated you are very wrong my friend. I have witnessed it firsthand. How long will it be before we have a nation of Orwellian pre-teens spouting about their "formative assessments".
The best quote from the article goes to a 17 year old high school student...
Robert Maeder, 17, a senior at Springbrook High School in Silver Spring, finds the terms demeaning -- especially "learning cottage," instead of "classroom trailer," and "assessment" for test. "It's like renaming a prison 'The Happy Fun Place,' "
Unfortunately the faculties of these PC schools don't care what anyone thinks but them. Education has given way to indoctrination.
TheTrenchcoat Chronicles: Superintendent Brother is watching you
http://www.thetrenchcoat.com/archives/000772.html" title="http://www.thetrenchcoat.com/archives/000772.html" target="_blank"http://www.thetrenchcoat.com/...
|
|
|
| |
| The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society |
| 01.27.04 (11:56 pm) [edit] |
The Legitimate Role of Government in a Free Society
by Dr. Walter E. Williams
What did the founders of the United States see as the legitimate role of government? To answer that question we should turn to the rule book they gave us: the United States Constitution. Most of what they considered legitimate functions of the federal government are found in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, which says, in part: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States . . . To borrow Money on the credit of the United States . . . To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes . . . To coin money . . . To establish Post Offices and post Roads . . . To raise and support Armies." The framers granted Congress taxing and spending powers for a few other activities, but nowhere in the Constitution do we find authority for up to three-quarters of what Congress taxes and spends for today.
There is no constitutional authorization for farm subsidies, bank bailouts, or food stamps-not to mention midnight basketball. We have made a significant departure from the constitutional principles of individual freedom and limited government that made us a rich nation in the first place. These principles of freedom were embodied in our nation through the combined institutions of private ownership of property and free enterprise, both of which have suffered devastating attacks and are mere skeletons of what they were in the past.
The Social Value of Private Property and Free Enterprise
PRIVATE PROPERTY performs at least two important social functions: it encourages people to do voluntarily what is in the social interest, and it minimizes the coercive power that one man or the state can have over another. And it performs these functions without appeals to beneficence.
I do not care much about future generations. After all, what has a child born in 2050 A.D. ever done for me? My actions, however, do not reflect this personal sentiment. Several years ago I planted young trees on my property and made other improvements. I will be dead by the time the trees mature. A child born in 2050 A.D. will enjoy the fruits of my sacrifices. I could just as easily have spent the money for steaks and fine Bordeaux wine, which I would have fully enjoyed all to myself. Why did I make these improvements to my property? At least part of the reason is that I will get a higher price when I sell the property if its quality is higher and it can be expected to provide housing services for a longer period of time. By pursuing my own interest, I made it possible for future generations to have a nice house. Would I have had the same strong incentive if the government owned my house? Obviously not. Look around the world: you will see that what receives the least care tends to be commonly owned; that which receives the best care tends to be privately owned. In free markets one's personal wealth is held hostage to socially responsible behavior. To take another example, the citizens of New York derive their daily meals not from the benevolence of the Missouri farmer (who may in fact hate New Yorkers) but because it is in his own private self-interest to supply them. Most things get done because of self interest and private property rights.
The Founders understood that relatively free markets are the most effective form of social organization for promoting individual freedom. Indeed, capitalism is defined as a system wherein individuals are free to pursue their own interests, make voluntary exchanges, and hold private property rights in goods and services. Much of the original intent of the United States Constitution, as seen in the document itself and in the Federalist Papers that advocated its ratification, was to bring about a climate in which this kind of social organization could occur.
In a free society, most relationships should be voluntary, and involuntary exchange should be minimized.
Widespread private control and ownership of property is consistent with this objective. Despite the size and alleged power of industrial giants like IBM, AT&T, and General Motors, in a free market they cannot get a dollar from me unless I volunteer to give it to them. Widespread government ownership and/or control of property is the antithesis of voluntary exchange. Government is the major source of forced exchanges, the most prominent of which is taxation.
A Totalitarian Future?
ANYTHING THAT weakens the institution of private property interferes with the attainment of the socially desirable outcomes just described. Taxes represent government claims on private property. As taxes rise, you own less and less of what you earn. If the tax rate were ever to reach 100 percent, the government would have destroyed private property, and you would own none of what you had earned. Keep in mind that a working definition of slavery is that you work but do not have any rights to the fruit of your labor. Taxation and regulation constitute the confiscation of some or all of the freedom to own and use property. This confiscation has reached unprecedented proportions.
In 1902 expenditures at all levels of government totaled $1.7 billion, and the average taxpayer paid only $60 a year in taxes. In fact, from 1787 to 1920, federal expenditures never exceeded 4 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP), except in wartime. Today federal expenditures alone are $1.8 trillion-almost 30 percent of GNP-and state and local governments spend over a trillion more. The average taxpayer now pays more than $8,000 a year, working from January 1 to May 8 to pay federal, state, and local taxes. In addition to the out-of-pocket cost, Americans spend 5.4 billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code-roughly the equivalent of 3 million people working full time. If it were employed in productive activity, the labor now devoted to tax compliance would be worth $232 billion annually. The federal cost of hiring 93,000 IRS employees is $6 billion. If these Americans weren't fooling around with the tax code, they could produce the entire annual output of the aircraft, trucking, auto, and food-processing industries combined.
In spite of the tax burden, capitalism has been so successful in eliminating disease, pestilence, hunger, and gross poverty that other human problems now appear both unbearable and inexcusable. Free enterprise thus is threatened today not because of its failure but, somewhat ironically, because of its success.
Although the rise of capitalism brought better treatment to women, racial minorities, the handicapped, criminals, and the insane, social reformers assert that "it doesn't work" and "is dehumanizing." In the name of ideals such as income equality, sex and race balance, affordable housing and medical care, orderly markets, consumer protection, and energy conservation, to name just a few, we have imposed widespread government controls that have subordinated us to a point at which considerations of personal freedom are but secondary or tertiary matters. If you take tiny steps toward a goal, one day you will get there, and the ultimate end of this process is totalitarianism, which is no more than a reduced form of servitude. As David Hume said, "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once."
In the vanguard of this totalitarian movement are defenders of the "new human rights," the chief advocates of curtailing rights to property and profits.
They are anti-competition and pro-monopoly. They support control and coercion by the state. They believe that they have more intelligence and wisdom than the masses and that they are ordained to impose that wisdom forcibly on the rest of us. They want to replace the market with economic planning, which is nothing more than the forcible superseding of other people's plans by a powerful elite. Of course they have what they call good reasons, but every tyrant has what he calls a good reason for restricting the freedom of others.
The elites' assault on the principles of freedom would have been less devastating had not Americans from all walks of life, whether they realized it or not, demonstrated a deep and abiding contempt for private property rights and economic freedom that stemmed primarily from their desire for government to do good. They decided that government should care for the poor, the disadvantaged, the elderly, failing businesses, college students, and many other "deserving" segments of our society.
It's nice to do those things, but we have to recognize that government has no resources of its own. Congressmen and senators are not spending their own money for these programs. Furthermore, there is no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus who gives them the resources. The only way the government can give one American one dollar is to confiscate it first, under intimidation, threats, and coercion, from another American. In other words, for government to do good, it must first do evil. If a private person were to do the things that government does, he would be condemned as a common thief. The only difference is legality, and legality alone is no talisman for moral people.
This reasoning explains why socialism is evil. It uses bad means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people).
From Good Intentions to Corruption
GOVERNMENT WAS not long in the business of doing good before Americans found they could use government to live at the expense of other Americans, both through the tax code and through "privilege granting," a government activity that dates back to medieval times in Europe, where guilds and mercantile associations controlled trade in their particular areas. With a payment to the king or a reigning lord they were granted monopoly privileges. In modern times, we have the equivalent; we just call them political contributions. Almost every group in the nation has come to feel that the government owes it a special privilege or favor. Manufacturers feel that the government owes them protective tariffs. Farmers feel that the government owes them crop subsidies. Unions feel that the government should keep their jobs protected from non-union competition. Residents of coastal areas feel that the government should give them funds for rivers and harbors. Intellectuals feel that the government should give them funds for research. The unemployed and the unemployable feel that the government owes them a living. Big business feels that the government should protect them from the rigors of market competition. Members of almost every occupation, profession, or trade feel that the government should use licensing requirements and other forms of regulation to protect their incomes from competition that would be caused by others entering the trade.
Conservatives are by no means exempt from this practice. They rail against food stamps, legal aid, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, but they come out in favor of aid to dependent farmers, aid to dependent banks, and aid to dependent motorcycle companies. They don't have a moral leg to stand on. They merely prove to the nation that it is just a matter of whose ox is being gored. Conservatives as well as liberals validate H. L. Mencken's definition of an election: " . . . government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." To the extent he was right, we must acknowledge that we, not the politicians, are the problem.
The Way Back
OUR GOVERNMENT has become destructive of the ends it was created to serve. John Stuart Mill, who wrote the classic text On Liberty, said, in discussing the limits of government power, "(T)he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized society, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." Mill added, "He cannot rightfully be compelled because it would be better for him to do so . . . because it will make him happier" or because, in the opinion of others, "to do so would be wise, or even right." Finally, Mill said, "These are good reasons for remonstrating him, or persuading him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with an evil in the case he do otherwise." We have gone much further than what Mill and John Locke argued are the limits to coercion in a free society. Part of the problem is that the Constitution contains little language explicitly protecting economic rights. We must find a way to set a limit on what Congress can take from us. It should take the form of a constitutional amendment limiting peacetime federal spending to a specific, lower percentage of the Gross Domestic Product. If we can't get Congress to pass such an amendment, we should reconvene the constitutional convention for the narrow purpose of a spending-limitation amendment. I know that a lot of people fear the dangers of a runaway convention, but I take a position similar to that of Mae West, who said, "When choosing between two evils, I like to try the one that I've never tried before."
If the Founders were to come back to today's America, I think they would be very disappointed in our choice to accept what we see as safety in exchange for liberty. But I would also say that it is not too late for us to wake up and respond to the erosion of our liberties. Americans have never done wrong things for a long while. But we must get about the task of putting government back where our Founders intended while we have the liberty to do so.
|
|
|
| |
| Perpetual Debt:
From the British Empire to the American Hegemon |
| 01.27.04 (2:25 pm) [edit] |
Perpetual Debt:
From the British Empire to the American Hegemon
By H.A. Scott Trask
[Posted January 27, 2004]
Bush officials have suggested that their "war on terror" will last many decades. Less than a month after 9-11, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld compared it to the "50-years, plus or minus" of Cold War with the Soviet Union. In March 2002, Secretary of State Powell warned that the war "may never be finished, not in our lifetime." A month later, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge warned that the threat of terrorism "is a permanent condition to which this country must permanently adapt."
Thus, if the ruling elite has its way, and it shall, as the American people have no opinion on the matter, or can even be bothered to think about it, we are faced with at least half a century of intermittent war and a further augmentation of the national security state that has been draining our wealth like a voracious vampire since 1950. There is no secret as to how they will finance it—by borrowing and inflating. If the Democrats are the party of "tax and spend," the Republicans are the party of "borrow and spend."
Since Prime Minister Sir Robert Walpole's introduction of the funding system in England during the 1720s, the secret was out that government debt need never be repaid. Just create a regular and dependable source of revenue and use it to pay the annual interest and the principal of maturing bonds. Then for every retired bond, sell a new one. In this way, a national debt could be made perpetual. Walpole's system proved its worth in financing British overseas expansion and imperial wars in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The government could now maintain a huge peacetime naval and military establishment, readily fund new wars, and need not retrench afterward. The British Empire was built on more than the blood of its soldiers and sailors; it was built on debt. The ever-growing debt had the ancillary benefit of attaching the interests of wealthy creditors to the government.
This example was not lost on some leaders of the infant American Republic, Alexander Hamilton for one.
The triumph of the funding system and its corollary of perpetual debt is undeniable. It rules the world. While there is some expressed concern about the size of the Bush deficits, almost no member of either the intelligentsia or the ruling elite has suggested, or even considered, paying the debt down. Just consider the likelihood of congressmen agreeing to set aside $400 billion a year in a sinking fund instead of spending it on programs, projects, and overseas adventures designed to get him, or her, reelected. The possibility of it happening is as remote as that of an American mountaineer summitting the highest peak on Mars.
"The Jeffersonian Opposition to Government Debt"
From 1800 to 1860, the glorious Jeffersonian epoch of American history, the country's political elite viewed government debt as a temporary expedient, to be contracted only for pressing national purposes and then discharged within the lifetime of the generation who contracted it. Amassing debt to fund grandiose national projects and then funding it to perpetuity was regarded as monarchical, English, and corrupting.
In the 1790s, Hamilton, Morris, and other arch Federalists had sought to graft this statist model upon the infant republic, but they were overthrown by the Jeffersonian Republicans in "the Revolution of 1800." Hamilton's rationale for a perpetual public debt included his belief that it would help keep up taxes and preserve the collection apparatus. He believed Americans inclined toward laziness and needed to be taxed to prod them to work harder. There is no surprise why voters opted for Jefferson and liberty.
"Jefferson on the Injustice of Binding the Generations"
In a 1789 letter to his friend James Madison, Thomas Jefferson raised the philosophical and moral question of whether "one generation of men has a right to bind another." He believed the answer was no, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living." He believed it a principle of "very extensive application and consequence, in every country." Applying it to government borrowing, he argued that it was unjust and unrepublican for one generation of a nation to encumber the next with the obligation to discharge the debts of the first. After all, the following generation cannot have given their consent to decisions made by their fathers, nor will have they have necessarily benefited from the deficit expenditures.
For Jefferson, every generation has the same right to enjoy the bounty of nature and the fruits of their labor as the preceding ones, without being bound or encumbered by the profligacy or ambition of those who went before. "No generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence," and if they do so, the following generation is under no obligation to pay it. "They and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors."
As the French were just then in the throes of revolution, Jefferson suggested that they would be wise "to declare, in the constitution they are forming, than neither the legislature, nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19 years," and whatever portion of the debt that should remain unpaid after that time should be cancelled. Jefferson thought such a provision would check the natural profligacy of governments and reduce wars by raising the risk premium on bonds, thus raising the expense of borrowing. It "would put the lenders and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within its natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money-lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding."
James Madison, ever the practical statesman, replied that the present generation benefited from the productive labor, discoveries, capital improvements, and defensive wars of previous ones. Do they have no obligations toward those who | |
