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 Is Man? - ReNew America Forum Question of the Week |
| 02.23.04 (6:21 am) [edit] |
Friends of Alan Keyes,
This week's RenewAmerica Forum asks,
"WHAT IS MAN?"
Our premise is that--in order to address the most troubling social and moral problems of our time--we must first understand the nature of the "human condition."
What does it mean to be "fallen"? How do we personally overcome "human nature" in our own lives? How do we teach our children to do the same? And how do we revive a nation that seems intent of self-destruction, due to the weaknesses inherent in mankind.
It's a challenging issue, especially in view of its implications for society's most basic unit, the family--which tends to magnify the best and worst tendencies of human nature. We'd like to know your thoughts on our . . .
Question of the Week
February 22, 2004
WHAT IS MAN?
"The prospect that the traditional family may now become unraveled by the 'legalization' of same-gender marriages at the hands of dictatorial judges is chilling. Meanwhile, the 50-year-old rise of the feminist movement-- typified by Gloria Steinem's claim that 'a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle'--has increasingly hit the family from the opposite side, setting the sexes at odds and further undermining the foundational unit of society. In the middle of all this is our children--our future--who are constantly bombarded with antisocial notions at school, on television, in books, and in music.
"In the face of such troubling and dangerous social trends, take a moment and reflect on the eternal patterns that God has instituted for all human beings--male and female, old and young, high and low. Realizing that the Founders knew that our country would survive only if we as a people remained moral and God-fearing, what has happened to the American psyche? And to what extent is this decline attributable simply to fallen human nature? If so, how would you propose to institute a national REVIVAL that would bring Americans (who are willing) back to God, so that He might change human hearts and thereby avert our nation's growing moral disaster? What is it in the human heart that needs most to be changed, if our nation is to survive its accelerating downward spiral, and how can this be done? Or are we doomed, due to the weaknesses of fallen man? What are you personally doing to convert those around you to God, and to his immutable laws, assuming that such activity by believers is essential to saving our country? To bring the discussion back to family issues, how would you solve the 'war between the sexes' that feminists seek constantly to exacerbate? Are men and women 'equal'--and if so, how? What about God's instruction to Eve that she was to be 'ruled' by Adam? What does that mean in principle, as well as in practice? What about God's instruction to Adam that he was to eat bread 'in the sweat of his face'? Should the sole breadwinner in a family be the man--or should husband and wife share this duty?
How rigid are gender roles, and what exceptions should be made? What about this question: how do you explain the growing popularity of the gay lifestyle--and is homosexuality inborn, or can gays change? If so, how? Finally, how would you propose to prevent our children from being corrupted by disturbing trends that permeate our society? Just as important, how would you propose to help our children overcome their own 'human condition' and come unto God, so that they might be independently strong and morally influential?"
You can post your response at http://www.renewamerica.us/fo...
Keep faith,
Stefani Stone
National Grassroots Director, RenewAmerica stefani@renewamerica.us
========= ================
Do you know a friend who would like to participate in our weekly RenewAmerica Forum? Please forward this message on, with an invitation to join us.
========= ================
To SUBSCRIBE to RenewAmerica updates:
Go to http://www.renewamerica.us/up...
|
|
|
| |
| Fertile women rate other women as uglier |
| 02.21.04 (4:38 pm) [edit] |
Fertile women rate other women as uglier
00:01 18 February 04
NewScientist.com news service
Women judge the attractiveness other women more harshly when at their most fertile, suggests a new study. The phenomenon could be a strategy to devalue potential rivals, says the psychologist behind the work - being bitchy about others could help a woman win the attention of a desirable man.
Theories of sexual selection in most species usually concentrate on how males compete for females. But recent theories for humans suggest there is intrasexual competition among females as well, as males can vary markedly in their abilities as providers and protectors.
Maryanne Fisher, a psychologist at York University in Toronto, Canada, decided to try to find evidence for female competition by presenting heterosexual students with photos of faces. She found that when women were in the most fertile phase of their menstrual cycles, they rated the attractiveness of other women lower than when they were not.
"Often women are characterised as being very co-operative, very kind-hearted and not competing directly," Fisher told New Scientist. "But there's been a fair bit of work on how women are indirectly aggressive."
For example, she says: "Rather than saying 'I'm going to beat that woman up because she looked at you', it's 'Oh my goodness, look how fat her ankles are'!"
Caring or rugged
Being more combative during a fertile period backs the idea that women are competing for the best mate. "When you're in a high fertility phase, you have to be more able to judge other women as potential rivals," says Fisher.
David Perrett, an expert on facial perception at St Andrew's University, UK, says: "It's a very interesting finding. This is the first study I know of to find attitudes to female faces changing [with the menstrual cycle]."
Perrett's group previously found that women preferred more feminine, caring looking men for most of the month, but preferred more rugged, dominant looking types during the most fertile phase of their cycle.
In contrast, the women's attitudes towards male faces did not appear to vary with the menstrual cycle in this new study.
Neutral expression
The 57 female students tested, along with male controls, were asked to look at colour photos of 35 female and 30 male faces. The models for the photos were asked to display a neutral facial expression, wear a black smock and remove any accessories to help standardise the experiment.
Women with high estrogen levels, in days 12 to 21 of their menstrual cycle, rated other women's attractiveness significantly lower than women in a less fertile, low estrogen period of their cycle.
Fisher does not know exactly how women's heightened sense of competition during ovulation may help them win a mate. "Does putting someone down make you feel better about yourself? Or does saying it to a male make her less attractive to him?" she asks.
She adds that this kind of intrasexual competition could also carry risks - being too bitchy could make a woman look " mean-spirited" to a man. To answer these questions, Fisher is now investigating how men's attitudes are affected by women using such derogatory tactics.
Ben Jones, a psychologist working with Perrett at St Andrew's, points out that Fisher's results may not necessarily reflect simple derogatory tactics. Previous research has shown that women also rate their own attractiveness as higher when their fertility is high.
"Indeed, the fluctuations in women's perception of their own attractiveness may reflect real physical changes caused by estrogen, for example lip colouration and fullness," he says. "So the women may be objectively correct in seeing others as less attractive."
************************* ********
New Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994691" title="http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994691" target="_blank"http://www.newscientist.com/n...
Journal reference: Biology Letters (DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2004.0160)
Shaoni Bhattacharya
|
|
|
| |
| What is Education??? |
| 02.21.04 (1:30 pm) [edit] |
What is Education???
By Karen Pennebaker
SierraTimes.com
Whether it is "No Child Left Behind" or any other buzz-word, do people really understand what education is? I don't think they do! Many people think if you have a high school diploma or a GED, you are somehow "educated". Others consider a Bachelor's Degree necessary for completing an education. Actually, you can be very well educated without any of those things, if you know what education means!
The first time I ever thought about this was in an Art History class, when the professor told us that all education amounts to is knowing how to find out what you need to know. It is the only definition of education I have ever heard that made sense! The professor, Dr. Robert Engass, had a Ph. D. in Art History, but he knew that was not the
reason he was an educated man.
The more you read, the more you find out about things. Reading, in itself, is a way to improve your education. It has nothing to do with school and everything to do with learning what you need to know.
Travel is another way to learn about new things. Some people learn from watching videos or TV; others learn by watching and asking questions. Getting an education involves a lot more than sitting quietly at a desk, listening to someone telling you what to think! In fact, sitting quietly at a desk, listening, is often indoctrination rather than education.
CONTINUE ARTICLE HERE
*************
What is Education??? - Sierra Times.com
.sierratimes.com/homeschool.htm
|
|
|
| |
| More aliens try to enter for amnesty - The Washington Times |
| 02.20.04 (10:25 pm) [edit] |
More aliens try to enter for amnesty
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 20, 2004
The number of illegal aliens caught crossing into the United States increased dramatically just days after President Bush proposed a guest-worker program that would give legal status to millions of illegal immigrants now in this country, according to the union that represents the Border Patrol's 9,000 field agents.
The National Border Patrol Council said apprehension totals increased threefold in the San Diego area alone, adding that the vast majority of aliens detained along the border told arresting agents that they had come to the United States seeking amnesty.
Most of those arrested and, eventually, deported had no history of immigration violations, the council said.
Law-enforcement authorities, immigration specialists and others -- including the council -- had predicted that the Bush proposal, outlined Jan. 7, would lead to increased illegal immigration by those seeking to take advantage of what many perceived to be an offer of limited amnesty.
The White House painstakingly has denied that the president's guest-worker proposal offers amnesty, saying instead that illegal aliens who hold jobs in the United States would be given only temporary work permits, not placed on the path to citizenship, and that they eventually would have to go home.
Outlined as a set of principles and not as specific legislation, the Bush proposal does not prescribe any penalties for those who entered the country illegally and would allow them to remain in the United States for renewable three-year periods.
Meanwhile, the Border Patrol has canceled a survey of illegal aliens detained at the U.S.-Mexico border that had sought to establish whether "rumors of amnesty" after Mr. Bush proposed his guest-worker program influenced their decision to cross into the United States.
Described as routine information gathering "critical to the better enforcement of immigration laws," the confidential survey -- developed by Border Patrol officials in Washington -- was scrubbed Jan. 27 after its public disclosure. Agency executives determined that the survey, which had begun two weeks earlier, had become compromised.
"The questions are no longer being asked, but the Border Patrol will continue to gather and analyze operational intelligence as necessary," said Mario Villarreal, spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the Border Patrol's parent agency.
The Border Patrol survey has not been made public nor have any preliminary results, but agents said it contained 13 questions, including one specifically concerning the guest-worker proposal. The agents referred to the survey as the "amnesty questionnaire," although the Border Patrol denied that it was politically motivated or that it was intended to imply that Mr. Bush was calling for a general amnesty.
The government has estimated that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens, mostly Mexican nationals, are in the United States.
Since the Bush proposal was announced, the administration has rolled out its top immigration officials and several senior Republican senators to endorse it, saying it would fix a broken immigration system, allow U.S. businesses to hire needed workers, bring illegal aliens into the mainstream economy and assure greater homeland security.
Several leading Republicans have questioned the proposal and others have suggested that Mr. Bush needs to do a better job of explaining the proposal to a public overwhelmingly opposed to the legalization of millions of illegal aliens.
Sen. Jon Kyl -- Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security, and a member of the subcommittee on immigration, border security and citizenship -- said the Bush plan was "subject to misinterpretation" and, as a result, "needed further clarification."
Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims, said that the proposal, by definition, is an amnesty program and that past amnesty programs "have not reduced illegal immigration; rather, they have increased illegal immigration."
"Amnesty rewards those who broke our laws, and thus encourages others to do the same," Mr. Smith said. "Our immigration policies should do the opposite -- discourage lawbreakers by sending the message that illegal entry into the United States will not be rewarded."
Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Republican and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has asked Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to explain whether "rumors of amnesty" concerning the Bush proposal had played any role in attempts by illegal aliens to cross the border.
Mr. Grassley told Mr. Ridge in a letter this week he is concerned that illegal aliens are risking their lives and putting their futures in the hands of corrupt alien smugglers in an attempt to gain entry to the United States to cash in on pending immigration reform that could offer them limited amnesty.
He said the "notion of legalization has been erroneously conveyed around the country and even abroad," adding that the Border Patrol questionnaire "raises some questions as to the consequence of the president's reform initiative."
In his letter, Mr. Grassley asked Mr. Ridge to determine who authorized the questionnaire, who tallied the responses, what the preliminary report suggested, how aliens were hearing about "amnesty proposals" and whether those "rumors" were influencing their decision to enter the United States.
The National Border Patrol Council has told its members to challenge the guest-worker proposal, calling it a "slap in the face to anyone who has ever tried to enforce the immigration laws of the United States."
More aliens try to enter for amnesty - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics
Address:http://www.washtimes.com/nati...
|
|
|
| |
| How Tyranny Came to America |
| 02.19.04 (6:23 pm) [edit] |
How Tyranny Came to America
by Joe Sobran
One of the great goals of education is to initiate the young into the conversation of their ancestors; to enable them to understand the language of that conversation, in all its subtlety, and maybe even, in their maturity, to add to it some wisdom of their own.
The modern American educational system no longer teaches us the political language of our ancestors. In fact our schooling helps widen the gulf of time between our ancestors and ourselves, because much of what we are taught in the name of civics, political science, or American history is really modern liberal propaganda. Sometimes this is deliberate. Worse yet, sometimes it isn't. Our ancestral voices have come to sound alien to us, and therefore our own moral and political language is impoverished. It's as if the people of England could no longer understand Shakespeare, or Germans couldn't comprehend Mozart and Beethoven.
So to most Americans, even those who feel oppressed by what they call big government, it must sound strange to hear it said, in the past tense, that tyranny "came" to America. After all, we have a constitution, don't we? We've abolished slavery and segregation. We won two world wars and the Cold War. We still congratulate ourselves before every ballgame on being the Land of the Free. And we aren't ruled by some fanatic with a funny mustache who likes big parades with thousands of soldiers goose-stepping past huge pictures of himself.
For all that, we no longer fully have what our ancestors, who framed and ratified our Constitution, thought of as freedom — a careful division of power that prevents power from becoming concentrated and unlimited. The word they usually used for concentrated power was consolidated — a rough synonym for fascist. And the words they used for any excessive powers claimed or exercised by the state were usurped and tyrannical. They would consider the modern "liberal" state tyrannical in principle; they would see in it not the opposite of the fascist, communist, and socialist states, but their sister.
If Washington and Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton could come back, the first thing they'd notice would be that the federal government now routinely assumes thousands of powers never assigned to it — powers never granted, never delegated, never enumerated. These were the words they used, and it's a good idea for us to learn their language. They would say that we no longer live under the Constitution they wrote. And the Americans of a much later era — the period from Cleveland to Coolidge, for example — would say we no longer live even under the Constitution they inherited and amended.
I call the present system "Post–Constitutional America." As I sometimes put it, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.
CONTINUE ARTICLE HERE
|
|
|
| |
| Gunfire pins down cops at border
|
| 02.19.04 (3:06 pm) [edit] |
Gunfire pins down cops at border
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
02-19-2004
Police and federal agents were trapped Tuesday morning five miles east of the Naco port of entry by gunfire from men believed to be Mexican drug dealers, officials said.
The incident started when a Bisbee police officer spotted a Chevrolet Tahoe carrying bundles of marijuana traveling with a Ford F-250 west on Arizona 92, said Kevin Hoskins, a detective with the Bisbee Police Department.
The officer chased the trucks onto a border road and the Tahoe escaped into Mexico about six miles east of Naco, he said. The Ford broke down near the border, where the passenger and driver ran into Mexico, said Andy Adame, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson sector.
Within minutes a vehicle pulled up to the border from Mexico and opened fire with automatic weapons, pinning down four officers nearest the Ford.
One of the gunmen ran to the Ford, grabbed a suitcase from inside and ran away as others opened fire on the truck again, Hoskins said.
"It looked like it was an attempt to ignite the vehicle," he said of about 25 rounds that were fired. No one was injured.
Gunfire pins down cops at border
Arizona Daily Star®
Address:
http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/printDS/104 88.php" title="http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/printDS/104 88.php" target="_blank"http://www.azstarnet.com/dail...
|
|
|
| |
| Disregarding Laws We Oppose -
An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority |
| 02.18.04 (3:33 pm) [edit] |
"Disregarding Laws We Oppose"
An Open Letter to San Francisco Civil Authority
By David Codrea
February 16, 2004
Dear Mayor Newsom (gavin.newsom@sfgov.org), Judge Warren (wsuperiorct@sftc.org) and Acting Chief Fong (sfpdpbaf@pacbell.net),
Mayor, I see you are authorizing city employees to perform homosexual marriages, Judge Warren, you are allowing them to proceed, and Chief Fong, you are allowing California law, as enacted by a vote of the people, to be publicly and repeatedly broken without making any arrests.
I'm not commenting on that issue, per se, so much as observing that you are all three instigating and abetting the violation of that law.
Judge Warren, you went so far as to state that you couldn't issue a restraining order to halt the marriages because, as Reuters reported, "there was not enough evidence presented showing that immediate damage would be done by allowing them."
Which leaves me with an interesting dilemma.
You see, I also belong to a group that is forced by social prejudices to keep a low profile—often times to hide my choices and practices lest I suffer disapproval and ultimately, life-threatening persecution by the state.
I am a gun owner and I live a gun owner life style.
I don't know if I was born with a tendency to be this way, or if it was an acquired disposition. All I know is, I don't see why I should be forced to change. Truth be known, I like owning guns, and am happy with who I am. I hope I suffer no repercussions by "coming out of the safe," but I just can't hide the truth any longer.
We gun owners have been living and working among you. Our kids go to school with yours. We may be your doctor, or minister, or your child's teacher. We may even work in city administration, or the courts, or on the police force. And we are sick of being abused for simply being who we are, all because of hoplophobic* prejudice and fear. We don't see any reason why we should have to put up with it any more.
Which brings me back to my dilemma and the reason I am writing you.
You have shown progressive thinking and tolerance for that which the majority condemns. So I was thinking of coming up to San Francisco and exercising my right to keep and bear arms, maybe showing up at City Hall with a state-banned AR-15 and a couple 30-round magazines, and also carrying several pistols concealed without a permit.
Yes, I know, it will be a violation of California laws, but you've shown that you're willing to disregard those when it serves your goals. And because I am a peaceable citizen, I should easily meet Judge Warren's criterion that no immediate damage would be done by allowing this.
So what do you think, if I visit your city and proudly display my lifestyle choices, can I count on your support? As a private citizen, don't I have as much right to disregard laws I find reprehensible as you public officials? Isn't that what equality is supposed to be all about, where no class of citizen enjoys privileges and immunities not extended to all?
How about it? You wouldn't have me arrested, would you?
Please let me know if I have your support.
Sincerely,
David Codrea
{David Codrea received a phone call from the San Francisco police over this letter, and two local police officers dropped by his home, too.
I wonder if they'll stop by all those houses of people who have illegal marriage certificates to confiscate them?}
|
|
|
| |
| Seperation of Church{'s Money} & State |
| 02.17.04 (10:40 pm) [edit] |
Amen to This
by Tom Buchanan
Separation of church and state is an outdated expression. Have you ever wondered why churches have ceased fighting immorality? The explanation is quite simple; money and the 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
Issues of morality used to be confined to churches and individuals. Over the past few decades morality has found its way into the legal system. Two loud examples are abortion and homosexuality. Once laws are on the books like Roe vs. Wade the issue enters the world of politics rather than morality.
Yes, churches are perfectly free to engage in political speech, unless of course it accepts a 501(c)(3) exemption. If the church, or any other organization accepts this exemption they cannot, by law, express or engage in the political process.
They prostitute themselves to the state by agreeing with the political ideology of the party in power. They have no choice. Speaking out may result in the loss of their precious 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
By accepting a 501(c)(3) tax exemption the church has agreed to an alliance with the state and must follow the rules as mandated by the state. It must not speak out against the state. Yet as we watch the decline of religious celebration in America the churches remain bound and gagged.
This is done so that the members of the church can claim a tax deduction for their tithing. So my question to all people that belong to a church is "If you truly believe that whatever deity you believe in is supreme and bigger than any government entity why is your voice muffled for a few pieces of silver?
So relinquish your 501(c)(3) tax exemption and let your voices be heard and let there truly be a separation of church and state! It will be money well spent. What are you afraid of?
|
|
|
| |
| Sick Federal War on Pain Relief |
| 02.17.04 (5:11 pm) [edit] |
Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, February 12, 2004
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh's legal troubles relating to his use of the pain killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have seized Mr. Limbaugh's medical records to investigate whether he violated federal drug laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial, conservative media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that individual pain patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt of overzealous prosecutors.
Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in the federal Drug Enforcement Administration's failure to consider current medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most effective in relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule II drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a growing body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be classified with these substances.
Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may be for hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this large may appear suspicious. But according to many pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain.
However, zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids altogether – even though opioids are the only way some of their patients can obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is exemplified by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi's statement that "Our office will try our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban."
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their chronic pain. For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke, Virginia, told all of Dr. Knox's patients to seek help in federal clinics even though none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60 years for manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various combinations of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As a physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I find it outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a patient's misuse of medicine.
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), one of the nation's leading defenders of medical freedom, recently advised doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, "drug agents set medical standards." I would hope my colleagues would agree that doctors, not federal agents, should determine medical standards.
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek opioids from other, less reliable, sources – such as street drug dealers. Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient's health than opioids obtained from a physician.
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic pain patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement officials can rummage through patients' personal medical records and, as may be the case with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or political scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties Union, has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh's medical records.
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the harassment of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids for relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using their best medical judgment to act in their patients' best interests. Doctors also should not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh's case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their support for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of individual liberty and constitutional government.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
|
|
|
| |
| IRS Income Taxes Are Not What You Think!
|
| 02.15.04 (10:33 pm) [edit] |
IRS Income Taxes Are Not What You Think!
By: Scott Eric Rosenstiel
Most people in America today feel that the federal system of taxation isn't working very well, from the collection techniques to how tax dollars are spent, and even the president and many memebers of congress admit that many items in the budget are there just to please various special-interest groups. It's also universally admitted that, despite the high levels of taxation, both the deficit and the national debt and growing at an ever- increasing rate.
To reduce this problem, President Ronald Reagan created a commission to study government waste entitled: The President's Private-Sector Survey On Cost Control, popularly known as the "Grace Commission," named after its chairman, J. Peter Grace.
In his opening letter to the president in volume one of the report, Chairman Grace revealed that "...all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."
This comes as a great shock to many, but the truth of the matter is that IRS taxes as we known them today were never intended to pay for any government services.
The concept of the withholding tax was invented during the World War II-era by Beardsley Ruml, who at the time was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. To explain the new tax, and its purposes, Chairman Ruml wrote an article which appeared in the January 1946 issue of "American Affairs." Appropriately enough, the article was entitled, "Taxes For Revenue Are Obsolete."
In summarizing the points of his article, the editors of "American Affairs" wrote, "...a sovereign national government is finally free of money worries and need no longer levy taxes for the purpose of providing itself with revenue." Chairman Ruml himself does admit though that "...a century and a half ago, the national government required revenues in order to pay its bills."
So taxes aren't needed for running the federal government anymore. This leaves many asking, "Why does the government take so much of what I earn?" Chairman Ruml, under the heading "What Taxes Are Really For," gave the following answers:
"Federal taxes can be made to service four principle purposes of a social and economic character. These purposes are:
As an instrument of fiscal policy to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar;
To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income, as in the case of the progressive income and estate taxes;
To express public policy in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups;
To isolate and assess directly the costs of cretain national benefits, such as highways and social security.
In the recent past, we have used our federal tax program consciously for each of these purposes. In serving these purposes, the tax program is a means to an end.
To summarize, here is what IRS taxes are and are not used for:
They are used to help implement economic policies designed by the federal government,
They are used for social purposes (who should, and should not, in the opinion of congress, have such-and-such amount of money), and
They are used to subsidize various groups and interests, such as private banks, but
They are not used to pay for any government services.
This means that if all IRS tax laws were repealed tomorrow, there would be no effect on government services. The only thing that would change is that the federal government wouldn't be able to exert the social and economic control that it currently does.
There are more and more people saying that we'd be better off without the regulated economy we currently have. Certainly having the federal government involved in every aspect of the economy was something never contemplated by the framers of the federal constitution.
Among those who've said that our federal tax system doesn't work is T. Coleman Andrews, who actually served as the commissioner of Internal Revenue back in the 1950's. After he left office, he began to speak out against what he perceived as being "rapacious tax enactments." In an article he wrote for the April 22, 1956 issue of "The American Weekly," he shared these reflections:
"As Commissioner of Internal Revenue I often thought how far we had gone toward coming ourselves "through excessive and unjust taxation. We have failed to realize, it seems to me, that through our tax system we have been playing right into the hands of the Marxists, who gleefully hail the income tax as the one sure instrument that will bring capitalism to its knees."
On this point, it's interesting to note that a graduated income tax is one of the planks of "The Communist Manifesto." He also explained how special-interest groups have exempted themselves fom taxation, and that the true targets of IRS tax laws are the middle class:
"Whether you believe it or not, everybody is being overtaxed and the middle class is being taxed out of existence, and the nation, thereby, is being robbed of its surest guarantee of continued sound economic development and growth and its staunchest bulwark against the ascendancy of socialism."
Almost every American, whether he's interested in current affairs or not, believes that taxes are simply too high.
Some justify this to themselves by saying that IRS taxes are absolutely necessary to pay for needed government services, and that everyone is paying just as much as they are. These arguments would undoubtedly disappear if more people knew that IRS taxes are specifically targeted on the middle-class and don't pay for any government services.
This is where Sovereign Citizenship comes in. As a Citizen, most IRS tax laws simply won't apply to you. You won't have to hope that congress "gives you a break." You won't have to change the tide of public opinion to keep what you earn.
You'll simply use the law, as it's written, to your advantage, instead of allowing it to be used advantageously against you. It's perfectly alright to do this. Even the federal courts approve:
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Helvering v. Gregory, Federal Reporter, 2nd series, Vol. 69, Page 810 (1934)
There's no patriotic duty to pay a lot in taxes. But isn't there a duty to yourself and your loved ones to reduce your costs, while justly supporting your community with your increased purchasing power?
IRS Income Taxes Are Not What You Think!
http://igps.org/liveround/patriot/irs .html" title="http://igps.org/liveround/patriot/irs .html" target="_blank"http://igps.org/liveround/pat...
|
|
|
| |
| Forgotten Quotes |
| 02.15.04 (9:47 pm) [edit] |
"The current world situation has been deliberately created by these elites who
manipulate both the so-called 'right' & the so-called 'left." By controlling
the resulting 'synthesis'-the end result of Hegelian 'thesis' & 'antithesis'-a
Globalist New World Order is produced. You can call it techno-fascism or
techno-feudalism, but the result is the same-a global consolidation &
mega-corporate transnational centralization of power, capital & resources. And
how does it work? By using 'managed conflict' or 'crisis management'. A crisis
or problem is produced. Then the crisis is 'managed' & the problem is 'solved'
with an outcome that is invariably favorable to the goals & agendas of the
Global Power Elite." -- Anthony Sutton, America's Secret Establishment.
|
|
|
| |
| Sen. Hatch's Attorney Sees 16th Amendment as Bogus After Investigation |
| 02.15.04 (8:34 pm) [edit] |
Sen. Hatch's Attorney Sees 16th Amendment as Bogus After Investigation
Source: Right On The Mark
Address: http://rightonthemark.com/
WARREN S. RICHARDSON, J.D. Attorney at Law
May 5, 2000
Mr. William J. Benson Constitutional Scholar
1128 East 160th Place South Holland, IL 60473
www.thelawthatneverwas.com
Dear Mr. Benson:
You may address me simply as Warren and I'll call you Bill. My first comment is to applaud you for the tremendous amount of work you have done in bringing to light the enormous volume of factual data-over 17,000 pages of certified government documents from each of the 48 states (the number in 1913) as well as from the National Archives in Washington, D.C. In fact, the whole project, which includes your two books, is truly monumental.
In case you wish to know a little about my background, let me give you a brief overview. I was honored to serve my nation in World War II as a Naval Aviator.
Since my college career at the University of Rochester had been interrupted by the war, I went back to the U. of R. and obtained my A.B. degree in history. That was followed by a B.S. in accounting. By then I was married and we moved to the Washington, D.C. area so that my wife could continue her college work while I attended law school. Upon receiving my law degree, I was honored to be chosen for the first class of Honor Law Graduates at the Justice Department. (This program was started in 1953 while Eisenhower was president.) Because of my law and accounting background, I moved to the legal department at the General Accounting Office. After 5 years as a government attorney, I left for the private sector, where I have been ever since. Two years of that time was spent in a law firm and the rest has been working in the lobbying profession.
Before going to the subject of your books - the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America was not properly ratified-I wish to lay some groundwork. In 1895 the United States Supreme Court ruled a direct income tax to be unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company (158 U.S. 601). Since our forefathers who established our form of government (a republic, not a democracy) by splitting the federal power into three equal branches (legislative, judicial, and administrative), it was clearly within the Court's discretion to render their verdict in the Pollock case.
The Supreme Court's decision in that case can only be changed by one of two methods:
1. The Supreme Court, assuming it has valid reasoning, could reverse the Pollock case; or,
2. An Amendment to the Constitution authorizing a direct income tax could be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States.
Following the procedure of item 2, above, the Secretary of State has the duty of announcing to the public, the President, and the Congress that a proposed amendment has been accepted or rejected.
The people who wished to overturn the Pollock case chose the second alternative.
In my professional opinion your two books demonstrate, at least to me, that the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified even though the Secretary of State made the public announcement that it had been properly ratified. When only four states of the required 38 ratified it properly, how could it be considered valid? In view of the facts, how could it become a valid part of our Constitution? Since the Pollock case has not been reversed by the Supreme Court, what is the legal framework upon which the current income tax law is based?
Although I am a lawyer, it is important to note that I am not a constitutional scholar; therefore I do not speak as one. As noted above, it is my opinion that, based on your overwhelming evidence, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified.
Furthermore, I believe that it is imperative to have legal scholars in constitutional law study this matter deeply and render their opinions on whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Provided they come to the same conclusion we do (that it was not properly ratified), what would be the logical next move? That last question is a real tough one because of the politics involved. Assume that the Supreme Court rules upon a case properly brought before it that the tax system of the U.S. is not legal. Can you even visualize the reaction of the Members of Congress?
Bill, you have done a magnificent job in providing the factual data about whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. I am hopeful that we can find the scholars who will go to the next step and suggest what should be done now.
Thanks for your hard work. You have done a great service to your country.
Sincerely,
/S/ Warren S. Richardson
|
|
|
| |
| U.S. Civil Flag History |
| 02.15.04 (3:32 pm) [edit] |
|
|
 The united states Civil Flag. The banner
of the Republic! In-law under the Constitution.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely
three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or
droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic;
but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically,
instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a
civil, and not a military, post of Uncle Sam's
government is here established.
-Nathaniel Hawthorne
Scarlett Letter
US Civil Flags is seeking the restoration of a Common-Law government as defined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these united states of America; and the re-institution of a debt and usury-free Gold-based currency coined by the Treasury of
these united states.
|
U.S. Civil Flag History
We the People of these united states, actually have two national flags, a military flag and a civil flag for peacetime. They have several important distinctions and meanings. Almost all Americans think of the Stars and Stripes "Old Glory" as their only flag.
U.S. CIVIL FLAG.ORG
|
|
|
| |
| THE CRUMBLING FOUNDATION OF HATE - The NAACP |
| 02.15.04 (2:03 pm) [edit] |
THE CRUMBLING FOUNDATION OF HATE - The NAACP
by Joe Miller
IS THERE A LINGERING CONCERN
ABOUT WHERE WE ARE HEADED WITH THE SOUTHERN HERITAGE PRESERVATION MOVEMENT AND/OR "THE SOUTHERN CAUSE"? IF SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT IT SOME MORE.............
All of today's honorable and ethical Southern heritage preservation groups have absolutely nothing in this life to fear but fear itself.
There is a very good reason for that. The reason is simple: Those Southern Heritage Preservation groups are built on the solid foundation of loyalty, dedication, devotion and compassionate love of the Sacred Spirit and honorable memory of each and every one of their past kin. There is not one single aspect of malice in their honorable cause.
Within the bounds of decency, the ethical Southern Heritage Preservation Organizations have no agenda of banning or censoring any aspect of other ethical organizations. Their faith in their cause assures the lasting heartfelt devotion to that cause all the way into eternity.
On the other hand:
Any cause or proposition that has hate and/or revenge as its foundation, is doomed to fall into the pit of failure and public humiliation and disgrace, and ultimately will do so when left to the veracity of their merits. The SPLC and the NAACP are two of such groups.
The much ballyhooed practice of "affirmative-action", a policy that is widely spread across this nation, was built entirely on a foundation of spiteful vengeance to "get even". And it is propped up by the left-over "Reconstruction" policies of our corrupt yankee government of liars and cheats.
A well known Southern subversive hate group that is sworn to the vengeful overthrow of our beloved Southern culture and tradition is the intolerant snoop, snipe and snitch low-life group with a high falutin' name, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the most notoriously hypocritical frauds ever inflicted on the American public. It was conceived, conspired, constructed and created on the prospects of potential profits to be made from the hatred involved in "getting even" and spewing venomous hatred for the Southern patriots who choose to Constitutionally assemble fraternally with other patriotic Southerners and share their traditional Southern values and exercise their Constitutional rights of free speech and expression in the loyal and dedicated celebration of their Honorable Southern heritage.
There is no penalty too severe for the trickery the SPLC is perpetrating on the honest, hard-working, unsuspecting American people and the publicly funded devious, corruption-laden government agencies that contribute to the continuation of this deceitful enterprise.
The despicable and repulsive Southern Poverty Law Center finds it profitable to view an all white family-reunion as a "racist" event, with the probability of placing them on their "racist-hate-group" list that they can peddle to a publicly funded bunch of dupes. Their disgusting group of reprehensible and phony misfits represents the two faces of deceit as they preach tolerance while, in fact, practicing bigoted intolerance. "The people" are beginning to wise-up to the SPLC confidence game and their slimy syndicate of fraud will fall hard one day soon.
And the blatantly racist-hate group of malcontents whose very name explicitly expresses racial favoritism and special treatment, the poisonous, conniving National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the political darlings of the Democratic party and a detestable home-grown terrorist group that uses threats, boycotts and extortion instead of bombs, to make gains in their divisive and subversive agenda of hate and rabble-rousing tactics to destroy the roots of every white family tree in the South. They are a repulsive product of very deep-seated hatred and unbridled vengeance. Theirs is one organization that would be doomed to immediate failure if our government of pathetic wimps withdraw their extorted sympathy and support.
The vengeful NAACP declaration of war against our beautiful and glorious Confederate Battle Flag is totally based on their hate-filled ignorance and psychopathic delusions that have led to their deranged crusade of intolerance and despicable lies about the world's leading emblem of courage and honor and beloved symbol of the Sacred Spirit of the proud South.
The NAACP deliberately fails to mention that the institution of slavery had been in existence hundreds of years before the Flag was created to identify our brave Southern soldiers on the battlefield, defending their families, homes and independence from the overwhelming numbers of brutal savages and evil-driven invaders from the North.
The largest hate group in the nation, the biggest political powerhouse in the world, the one and only U.S. Government sponsored extortionists ever, the NAACP, will never win their battle to eliminate the glory-filled Confederate Battle Flag. That Flag is too well entrenched in the minds, hearts and souls of decent, law-abiding Southerners who know that the very fabric of that Flag was woven with the blood, sweat and tears of our past Southern kin-folks who struggled, suffered, bled and died to defend their loved ones, homes, honor and independence while serving under that Flag. If it is temporarily removed from Confederate cemeteries and memorials by a few unconscionable dupes of political correctness, the more concentrated the image of that Flag becomes in the independent minds of healthy, strong and determined Southern descendants of kinfolks who were victims of shamefully vicious and inhumane acts of atrocities in an unlawful invasion of their Southern homeland.
Further, our Southern culture, represented by that Confederate Battle Flag, will never be replaced by the hip-hop culture, a part of which was recently on display at the Super Bowl.
Semper Fi and Deo Vindice,
Joe Miller
|
|
|
| |
| Canada's Den of Thieves |
| 02.13.04 (8:45 pm) [edit] |
Found this while surfin'.
Seems Canucks have a crooked government, too.
I wonder how much tar and feathers we would need to...? Why did citizens stop punishing their govmt. officials?
Canadian Politics and Boondoggles
Address:http://www.sticksite.com/thef...
Canada has been ROBBED!
I am a Canadian and would not want to be anything else. I love Canada. But, like other countries, Canada has problems. Always did, always will. But now, a crisis of MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS has arisen. The country has been ROBBED........... by its own GOVERNMENT! If you can imagine that!
The crimes committed by top government officials are staggering. On February 10, 2004, the Auditor General for Canada released her much-feared report of the wrong-doings. Clearly, there is no reason why the parties involved should not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and be forced to repay every cent stolen.
After that, jail-time would be quite in order.
If you can imagine it, get this: the man in charge of Canada's finances at the time of the offences, Paul Martin, is now the Prime Minister. It is no wonder the former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, stepped down before the damning report was released. He had planned to retire in February but knew what was coming so quit early.
I'm not smart enough to follow all the lurid details but others can do that and I'll refer you to their reports.
First, Linda Leatherdale's report:
http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale /2004/02/11/344031.html" title="http://money.canoe.ca/Columnists/Leatherdale /2004/02/11/344031.html" target="_blank"http://money.canoe.ca/Columni...
CTV has this:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st ory/CTVNews/1076532572313 _56///?hub=TopStories" title="http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/st ory/CTVNews/1076532572313 _56///?hub=TopStories" target="_blank"http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Art...
CBC news reports:
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/11/pub lic_accounts040211" title="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/11/pub lic_accounts040211" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/stories/200...
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupa ction/" title="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/groupa ction/" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/news/backgr...
and
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/11/new auditor040211" title="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/11/new auditor040211" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/stories/200...
and
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/10/fra ser_report040210" title="http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/10/fra ser_report040210" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/stories/200...
More on the Auditor General's Report:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/audito rgeneral/report2004.html" title="http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/audito rgeneral/report2004.html" target="_blank"http://www.cbc.ca/news/backgr...
We keep paying more and more taxes, including that horrible "Gouge and Screw Tax" (a.k.a. "GST") while they waste it as fast as they get it.
PLEASE encourage the news media to KEEP AT IT and not just let it die.
Already, as expected, the Prime Minister is saying that steps will be put into place to make sure this never happens again.
THAT is what they ALWAYS say! That, they think, will make us shut up and let them keep rolling in their ill-gotten gains.
Prime Minister Paul Martin is seen today on TV saying "I JUST DON'T ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT." That was well-put, Mr. Martin. I emailed the P.M. today, Feb. 11 with this:
Mr. Prime Minister, like "the man" said, "I JUST DON'T ACCEPT THIS ARGUMENT."
I do not accept YOUR arguments. Do you take all Canadians for fools?
The buck stops with the Minister of Finance and YOU WERE IT!!
And now you blatantly tell Canadians "We acted at once......!" BULL!!!
Come on, Mr. Martin, YOU must be charged with flagrant disregard for your duties as Minister of Finance for Canada.
YOU and the others need to be charged and forced to pay back to us poor Canadians all the money your poured into the pockets of your friends. PLUS penalties and JAIL TIME!
I hope a class-action lawsuit is soon started against you and the others responsible for this, the greatest scandal of all time in the Canadian government. I want to be part of it.
I had high hopes that you would be everything Jean was not. Too bad.
And I added my complete snail-mail address.
Please send your letters and emails to the guilty and the members of the opposition.
Here are a few addies you can use:
CTV television: news@ctv.ca
CBC television: letters@cbc.ca
Prime Minister: pm@pm.gc.ca
Government of Canada Internet Addresses: http://canada.gc.ca/directori...
Alphabetical list of all MPs:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/m embers/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Se s=1&Sect=hoccur&Order=Per sonOfficialLastName" title="http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/m embers/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Se s=1&Sect=hoccur&Order=Per sonOfficialLastName" target="_blank"http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/...
The Hon. Gary Breitkreuz (Conservative MP) Breitkreuz.G@parl.gc.ca
The Hon. John Williams MP: willij@parl.gc.ca and see his website at http://www.johnwilliams.ca/ AND you can sign up to receive his free "Waste Report" by email and/or snailmail.
The Hon. Rahim Jaffer: Jaffer.R@parl.gc.ca and see his Waste
Report at http://www.rahimjaffer.com/fi...
And note that you can write letters, the "Old-Fashioned" way to Members of Parliament, and you don't even need to put a postage stamp on the envelope:
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
And if that is not terrible enough, on Feb. 13, 2004, CTV Newsnet reports that our "Governor General" Clarkson just blew $5,300,000 to take a trip on taxpayer's expense. That lady has an awful habit of going through (our) money like it was her own. AND WE DON'T EVEN *NEED* HER! A completely USELESS position.
WHY DO WE ALLOW THIS LUNACY TO CONTINUE?
http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&art icleID=1528186" title="http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&art icleID=1528186" target="_blank"http://www.mytelus.com/news/a...
|
|
|
| |
| Teresa Heinz Kerry:
Bag Lady for the Radical Left
|
| 02.13.04 (10:05 am) [edit] |
Teresa Heinz Kerry:
Bag Lady for the Radical Left
By Ben Johnson
FrontPageMagazine.com | 02-13-04
With Matt Drudge's recent revelation that John Kerry is as faithful to his second wife as he was to his old Vietnam "brothers," the senator's presidential campaign may depend more than ever on the actions of his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. While the mainstream media has thus far overlooked the alleged infidelity, media outlets have also overlooked a far more important story: The former Mrs. John Heinz is also in bed – financially – with the radical Left.
Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a "charity" established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes.
The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.
During the years 1995-2001, the Howard Heinz Endowment, which Heinz Kerry chairs, gave Tides more than $4.3 million. The combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh office of the San Francisco-based Tides Center. Since that time, the local branch has tirelessly pushed an anti-business agenda in the name of "preserving the environment."
However, it is the Tides Foundation's national organization whose connections are most disconcerting.
The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee.
Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with." That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?
The Antiwar Movement
Senator John F. Kerry has gone far with his nuanced view of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He voted for the war resolution but specified a litany of conditions the Bush administration must meet before he would support combat, then proceeded to vote against funding troops already in harm's way – then claimed he had always supported the president when Saddam Hussein was captured. The grant recipients of the Tides Foundation, to which Kerry's wife has steered more than $4 billion in "charitable" funds, understand no such nuance.
Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the antiwar movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. (Howard Dean, not Kerry, won MoveOn.org's "virtual primary.")
The antiwar movement often boasted that MoveOn.org and the radical website Indymedia provided them "alternate media coverage." Indymedia, an enormous news and events bulletin board with local pages in most of the world's major cities, provided a vital link for radical activists often with violent agendas to coordinate their protests. Indymedia received $376,000 from the Tides Foundation.
The Institute for Global Communications is another leftist communications facilitator that received Tides grant money. IGC, which during the 1990s was the leading provider of web technology to the radical Left, links to "recommended sites" such as the War Resisters League (a group whose purpose is enabling peaceniks to refuse to pay taxes) and the leftist American Friends Service Committee. Most disturbing is the link to Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, which has supported Slobodan Milosevic and North Korean strongman Kim Jong-Il. The IAC is the force behind International ANSWER, which sponsored the major antiwar (and anti-Bush) rallies before the invasion of Iraq. When ANSWER was outed as a Communist organization, United for Peace and Justice, headed by longtime Communist Party member Leslie Cagan was created as a "moderate" alternative. UFPJ is also a Tides grant recipient.The Tides-funded "A Better Way Project," which opposed war in Iraq, also coordinated efforts of United for Peace and Justice and the Win Without War Coalition. The celebrity-laden Win Without War Coalition, along with the Bill Moyers-funded Florence and John Schumann Foundation, ran full-page ads in the New York Times opposing the War on Terrorism. This will not be the last overlapping of far-Left causes.
The Islamist Front
Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a "9/11 Fund" to advocate a "peaceful national response" to the opening salvos of war. Part of the half-million dollars in grants the 9/11 Fund dispersed went to the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs. The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the "Democratic Justice Fund," which was established with the aid of George Soros' Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as "terrorist nations."
Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a "Muslim civil rights group," CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in "hate crimes."
CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush's anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorism. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, "I am a supporter of the Hamas movement." Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi has been arrested for visa and bank fraud. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist "charities" shut down by the Bush administration. Every few months some CAIR campus official is arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.
The Legal Matrix
The Tides Foundation has funded a number of the pillars of the radical legal establishment. Chief among these is the National Lawyers Guild, which began as a Commnist front organization and is proud of its lineage. At its recent convention last October, the concluding speaker was Lynne Stewart, an indicted terrorist NLG lawyer arrested for helping her client – convicted 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman – communicate with his terrorist cells in Egypt. In her speech, Stewart said she and her NLG comrades were carrying on a proud tradition of their forebears, past and present:
And modern heroes, dare I mention? Ho and Mao and Lenin, Fidel and Nelson Mandela and John Brown, Che Guevara who reminds us, "At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love." Our quests like theirs are to shake the very foundations of the continents.
More recently, the NLG has endorsed the March 20 call to End Colonial Occupation from Iraq to Palestine & Everywhere" organized by International ANSWER, and has posted a petition for "Post-Conviction Relief" for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Tides' Peace Strategies Fund has funneled money to the Center for Constitutional Rights. The CCR was stablished by Sixties radical William Kunstler, defender of the Chicago 8, and Arthur Kinoy. The two also had plans to establish a new Communist Party. Executive Director Ron Daniels has been honored by the Communist Party USA for his work. Daniels also has a long and cordial relationship with racist, anti-Semitic "poet laureate" Amiri Baraka. Since 9/11, CCR has channeled its efforts into fighting every effective Homeland Security measure. They have opposed increasing the government's ability to wiretap Islamists suspected of plotting terrorism and moaned the sequestering of terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was an unexcusable form of "racial profiling." CCR President Michael Ratner has portrayed American soldiers as the offenders, guilty of 9/11 by their Middle East policy and guilty of keeping Islamist killers "shackled, hooded and sedated during the 25 hour flight from Afghanistan." CCR has also defended Lynne Stewart's "innocence" in aiding Sheikh Rahman's Islamic Jihad.
Tides also funds the Alliance for Justice, a group dedicated to stopping Bush judicial appointees (a cause John Kerry can agree wholeheartedly endorse). Other Tides grants have gone to the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and the Asian Law Caucus.
Environmental Extremism
The Tides Foundation has funded the Ruckus Society, a group of anarchist Greens who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots. The Tides Center of Western Pennsylvania, established in Pittsburgh with Heinz Family funds, advocates for environmentalist measures that have helped put holes in the Rust Belt's economy.
Tides money has also squashed free speech. Thanks to complaints generated by the Tides-funded Environmental Working Group, ABC cancelled a John Stossel piece exposing the misleading nature of environmental advocacy in public elementary schools.
Greenpeace is a well-known Tides grant recipient. Greenpeace is best known for its illegal actions, endangering humans in order to make a point about the environment. Tides gave Greenpeace a quarter of a million dollars over ten years.
Lest one think only Tides' money is going to radicals, not funds directly controlled by Teresa Heinz Kerry, remember that Heinz money has repeatedly found its way to the Earth Island Institute. On September 14, 2001, the Institute's website bore the headline "U.S. Responds to Terrorist Attacks with Self-Righteous Arrogance."
Heinz family philanthropic funds have also had some dubious effects on the presidential race. The League of Conservation Voters has recently endorsed John Kerry's presidential campaign. The Heinz Family Foundation gave LCV at least $20,000 and donated almost $250,000 to a member of the LCV board.
Perhaps this circular rotation of cash and endorsements should not surprise anyone. The grant-making institutions of the Left and their feverish recipients ultimately form an amorphous, leftist entity. One never needs to search very far to find connections between a leftist foundation and extreme advocacy groups. Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center; Tides funds the National Lawyers Guild, CAIR, MoveOn.org and United for Peace and Justice; those organizations then unite in fluid coalitions to protest against their common political enemies (Republicans).
Ultimately, their representatives end up on Bill Moyers' PBS programs or active within the Democratic campaigns of their fundraisers. Between now and the election, these organizations will run constant interference for the Democratic presidential nominee (presumably Kerry himself): they will march en masse against the Bush administration again and again; they will file more lawsuits against the administration's Homeland Security measures, decry any effective response to terrorism, claim the United States is guilty of slaughtering Iraqi civilians and petition leftist judges to open America's borders to Islamist terrorists. After they help his election, President Kerry will be indebted to them. And then they will insist he begin implementing their political agenda.
Moreover, they will have a close ally in the East Wing of the White House, an ally more intimately tied to them than she is to her (second) husband. (She only adopted his last name and political party registration less than 18 months ago.
"Politically, it's going to be Heinz Kerry," she recently said. "But I don't give a sh-t, you know?") Teresa Heinz Kerry will play a potent role in saving her second husband's presidential campaign now – as Hillary Clinton did in 1992, and again during her husband's impeachment. Like Hillary, in return for her service, Heinz may demand a place at the table for her pet causes. Caveat emptor
CLICK LINK TO READ ARTICLE and to see links to stories.
FrontPage magazine.com
Address:http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
|
|
|
| |
| LAWMAKER ARROGANCE |
| 02.11.04 (11:59 am) [edit] |
Lawmaker Arrogance - State and National
Commentary by Steve Scroggins
A core goal of the Georgia Heritage Coalition is to promote and restore good government for Georgia and all Americans.
The 2004 Georgia Flag FAIR VOTE bill is just one example. We are demanding that our Georgia lawmakers represent us, the people of Georgia, rather than outside special interests. We are demanding that they implement OUR will, not theirs. The elections of 2002 were a state-wide mandate for a Fair Vote on the Georgia State Flag. Specifically, the people want a chance to restore the 1956 Flag of Honor that was stolen in 2001 by way of corrupt back-room deals in which the lawmakers of our State defied the will of the people and just did what they wanted in exchange for 30 pieces of silver.
Certain lawmakers were and are unwilling to simply repeal the act that removed our flag of honor. Instead, they crammed another flag down our throats in 2003, and adding insult to injury, they're calling the March 2004 referendum a "choice." Please.
It's not asking too much to let the people decide in a referendum. With a Fair Vote, the General Assembly can clearly see the will of the people and enact it.
Clearly, we the people of Georgia, must show the folks in Atlanta just who is in charge. Is it us? Or them? The 2002 election was just a warm up. The anger remains and it grows and the shockwaves of surprise will be even larger in 2004.
We have a similar "arrogance" situation at the national level. It's a different issue, but the arrogance, elitism and the core question are the same. Does the U.S. Congress represent the American people and their constituents? Or do they act only on self-interest and accordingly on behalf of the special interests that own them?
We have some politicians who will sell out anything or anyone to hold onto their power and privilege. They are, after all, human beings and sinners like the rest of us. AND…they have a really sweet deal.
(More on this below.)
Social Security has been a major concern for some time. It's been called the "third rail of American politics." Anyone who has dared to propose serious reform (touching that rail) has been politically destroyed. Few issues have more demagoguery and fear-mongering associated with them. Reform has been promised for decades and promises proliferate as demographic projections paint the financial doom of the system as inevitable. (Remember the "lockbox" joke? Where did that Lockbox go?)
There is NO incentive for anyone in the U.S. Congress to risk any true reform. Not yet, at least. They won't do what's right for the people if that requires them to take too much risk. Any sense of honor and duty they have is tossed aside in favor of political survival. Besides, the members of the U.S. Congress have a really sweet deal. See the text below. This message is circulating on the Internet in a number of forms. Members of Congress are counting on the hope that Americans will continue to let them skate on the issue and not deal with it.
Even with millions of signatures on a petition, do you think anyone in the U.S. Congress would introduce a bill to place Congress on Social Security? And even if one maverick had the nerve, would it ever get out of committee and on the floor for a vote?
Sounds familiar at the Georgia level, doesn't it? In the last ten days, we've heard rhetoric from Georgia politicians that basically comes down to…"We defied the people of Georgia on the state flag vote. So what? Can't we just move on?"
How do we overcome this arrogance and elitism in our Government? By changing the people we elect to run it. Talk is cheap. The politicians must be shown---with action---that defiance has real consequences in elections. Just ask Roy Barnes. Ask Tom Murphy.
We need to show (apparently repeatedly) the people in Atlanta that Georgians really are in charge. Some of these politicians remain convinced that some issues will blow over and that special interest money will win their elections. It's our duty as citizens and it's in our self-interest to give them the lessons they need. You see, folks, corporations and money don't vote. People do. And votes are what win elections, not campaign war chests. Just ask Roy Barnes.
Send the suggestion below to your U.S. Representative and your U.S. Senators.
I'm betting that they won't even acknowledge or respond to it. If they do, it'll be with empty platitudes and form letters. Tell them you want them to lay down their "ten foot poles" and to put their hands on this issue.
When they ignore you, the question remains: What are you going to do about it? We know this is Georgia and it ain't Missouri…but these politicians are saying,
"Show me." This is what we do in grass-roots organizations like Georgia Heritage Coalition. We put together a team, bring in players with various talents, and then we show them. Join us and, together, we'll show them.
************************* ****
Internet Message on Social Security
GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.
2004 Election Issue!!
This must be an issue in "2004." Please! Keep it going.
------------------------- ---------
SOCIAL SECURITY:
(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)
Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.
Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.
You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own
benefit plan.
In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.
For all practical purposes their plan works like this:
When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.
Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.
This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.
Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.
Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00.
NADA....ZILCH....
This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;
"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!
From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which a mount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.
That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.
How many people can YOU send this to?
Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard.
Have a great day
************************* *****
(Ed. Note: Are you aware that U.S. Supreme Court justices DO NOTPAY INCOME TAX?
You can guess why, right? Congress was told, If they were not declared exempt, they would rule the income tax "UNCONSTITUTIONAL"!
Why, oh why, do we let them get away with constantly screwing US?
TURN 'EM OUT! All of them, and all their lifetime employees, too! Bureaucrats for damn sure, OUT!
Put the citizens, 'we the people' back in Washington D.C., your state capital, county and local governing bodies too! )
************************* ****
|
|
|
| |
| Starting a Brush Fire for Freedom |
| 02.11.04 (9:39 am) [edit] |
Starting a Brush Fire for Freedom
An interview with US Rep. Ron Paul
by John W. Whitehead
RUTHERFORD.ORG
When asked what advice he would give to Americans concerned about the growing power of the federal government and the various threats to our liberties,
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.) quoted Samuel Adams: "Every individual has a responsibility to be informed, to know what is going on and to know the issues."
As Samuel Adams once said, "Go out and start a brush fire." And you can do that with one individual or many. You can become a teacher or a writer or help somebody in politics. But you can only start a brush fire for freedom if you feel confident that you understand the issues and really can defend liberty as being the best system for all of us.
Born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Ron Paul graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County as a specialist in obstetrics / gynecology.
While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. While serving on the House Banking Committee, he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve?s inflationary measures. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively preserve, protect, and defend our constitutional principles of government. In fact, in Congress he is known as 'Dr. No' because he refuses to accept any legislation that does not pass strict constitutional muster.
In 1984, Dr. Paul voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice in Texas. However, in 1997 he returned to Congress and has continued to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
Since the 9/11 tragedy, Dr. Paul has been an outspoken critic of the USA Patriot Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which he believes are a threat to liberty and a sign that our country is becoming more like a police sate. "The idea that search warrants could be granted so easily under the Patriot Act," says Dr. Paul. "..with sneak and peak searches and going into libraries and other places to find out what people are doing is wrong. It's total surveillance."
Dr. Paul has also been a strong critic of the war in Iraq, going so far as to call it "unconstitutional" because there was no formal declaration of war, and "immoral" because there was no direct attack on our country. "Iraq is a Third World Nation that couldn't defend itself," says Dr. Paul. "This has been proven to be correct. We had been bombing them, flying over their air space, intimidating them and controlling them for 12 years. They have been trying to shoot our airplanes down, and never have been able to. Iraq simply could not defend itself."
Obviously, opinions like this have made Ron Paul somewhat of a lone wolf in Congress. But as one writer pointed out, "There has always been one politician in Washington who has never been a politician. That man is Congressman Ron Paul from the 14th District in Texas who has always been a throwback to the original 'citizen statesman' that the Founders promoted as the ideal type of leader for the Republic they had formed."
Indeed, Dr. Paul is quick to point out that we have 'drifted away' from the original idea of a Republic and have more of a centralized government which presents a threat to individual liberty. Still, he remains cautiously optimistic about the future of America. "I am not optimistic in the short run," Paul admits. "I have a lot of concerns. But we will have to wait and see what evolves. However, I am optimistic enough to believe that if we put the time and energy into fighting for our country and the Constitution, there is as good a chance of winning this fight as losing it."
Rutherford Institute President John W. Whitehead interviews Ron Paul to talk about his lone wolf status in Congress, the USA Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and the rise of big government under Republican leadership.
READ INTERVIEW
|
|
|
| |
| "God-Given" Right to Federal Money |
| 02.09.04 (2:57 pm) [edit] |
The government knows best how to take and spend our money. It can't be trusted to individuals to spend it themselves.
"God-Given" Right to Federal Money
J. Justin Wilson - collegiatenetwork.org
On the heels of Stanley Kurtz's congressional testimony about biased Middle Eastern Studies professors, Congress is set to take action on the issue by creating an advisory board to oversee programs receiving federal money under Title VI. Meanwhile, academics are decrying the measure as an academic "witch hunt" aimed at pushing a pro-west, pro-Israel agenda.
Title VI was created to help increase the number of graduate students studying Middle Eastern languages. The program, which now distributes $95 million dollars in grants to Middle Eastern Studies programs, aims to foster more qualified government experts in the field. To do so, Title VI subsidizes foreign language and cultural programs for graduate students.
The proposed panel would serve as an oversight board and peer-to-peer committee to better allocate Title VI funding to programs actively pursuing the program's goals. The committee is not a new manifestation. A similar committee existed during the Regan administration to serve the same process.
Yet despite taking millions of federal dollars, some professors actively dissuade students from entering government work upon graduation.
Nezar AlSayyad, chair of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, told the Chronicle of Higher Education: "We get money from the federal government. That does not mean we do what the federal government says. As academics, we have academic freedom. That's our God-given right. Being in the academy means that we're allowed to form opinions actually based on intellectual discourse, not on political position."
Perhaps Prof. AlSayyad should take Kenneth D. Whitehead's advice. Whitehead, a former director of educational programs at the Department of Education, asked "What does whether or not you're competent in Arabic or Chinese or Farsi have to do with academic freedom?"
Prof. AlSayyad and his comrades seem to think that they are entitled(by God, or should I say Allah) to federal money with no strings attached -- but that is not the case. Across academia, grants, both federal and otherwise, aim to achieve certain goals. If those goals aren't met, let alone actively opposed, then the professors violated the terms of the contract.
Whitehead went on to tell the Chronicle: "If the centers are worried, he says, 'maybe they shouldn't be taking the money.'"
The Collegiate Network - The Home of Conservative College Journalism
Address:http://www.collegiatenetwork....
|
|
|
| |
| AMERICAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE - Renew America Forum |
| 02.09.04 (7:56 am) [edit] |
This week's question -- RenewAmerica Forum
Friends of Alan Keyes,
This week's RenewAmerica Forum deals with
AMERICAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
This vital question isn't meant as an "academic exercise." We'd sincerely like to know what you think of current language trends in American culture that are becoming prevalent. Do you see or hear things that offend or concern you--on the job, at home, in the theatre, out and about? Do you personally use language that you shouldn't? Is communication in our country becoming too crude, coarse, and offensive? Where do we draw lines of propriety in language, so as to preserve our nation's virtue and integrity as a society?
We'd like to know your thoughts on our . . .
Question of the Week
February 8, 2004
AMERICAN LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
Anyone who has tried to learn a second language knows that language is wedded to culture. In fact, it's often hard to tell the difference between language and culture--especially when we think of language broadly to include all possible forms of expression and communication within a given cultural tradition.
That said, what does our use of language in America today suggest about the current state of our society? Do you see significant indications--as some observers note--that our language is declining, and what do these indications suggest about American culture? The much-recognized malaise in public education over the past 40 years has focused mainly on the rise of illiteracy, but are there other "social" indications that our language is seriously deteriorating?
How do you personally respond when you hear friends, associates, co-workers, or public figures use vulgar, obscene, or crude language, especially openly? How do you explain the growing use of such language throughout our society--in education, the workplace, the arts, the home, and other settings? What kind of language do you, yourself, resort to when you can't "find the right words"--and do you condone the use of offensive or coarse language in certain situations? What do you think of the notion that people turn to profanity or vulgarity because of their verbal and linguistic inadequacies?
If that observation is true, how do explain the apparent popularity of crude language in academia, bureaucracy, the professions, and other "educated" sectors of American society?
Finally, if indeed our language is going down the tubes, because our culture is declining, what do you propose to counter the trend, and can that trend even be turned around? Or are we doomed to hear four-letter words take over our nation's vocabulary?
Please post answers here and
you can also post your response at http://www.renewamerica.us/fo...
|
|
|
| |
| Congress AWOL;
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
|
| 02.08.04 (11:13 pm) [edit] |
Congress AWOL
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, February 4, 2004
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge Saddam Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and that Al Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.
Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether or not secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad information is a good investment. The administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice so much in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that surely will last for years to come.
But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress – as we're now scrambling to accomplish – clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened – and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision made by a country – the decision to go to war – was assigned in our Constitution to the body closest to the people. If we followed this charge I'm certain fewer wars would be fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there would be less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could not be placed on one individual or agency. This process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in recent decades.
The president reluctantly has agreed to support an independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures, and that is good. Cynics said nothing much would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it looks like some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry. We can hope for the best from this newly appointed commission.
But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence agencies themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering related to North Korea and elsewhere. If the commission avoids the central controversy – whether or not there was selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to support a foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration – the commission will appear a sham.
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is missing the most important point – the failure of Congress to meet its responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war. The current mess was predictable from the beginning.
Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over war and illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002. The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the halls of Congress then. We should have debated a declaration of war resolution. Instead, Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president to avoid the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young people into harms way, against a weak, third world country. This the president did on his own, with congressional acquiescence. The blame game has emerged only now that we are in the political season. Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is all part of this political process.
It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the president the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Congress AWOL
by Rep. Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul154.html" title="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul154.html" target="_blank"http://www.lewrockwell.com/pa...
|
|
|
| |
| So, Who Wants My Vote? |
| 02.08.04 (5:35 pm) [edit] |
So Who Wants My Vote?
Paula Devlin, 09/30/03
AmericanDaily.com
As the political sweepstakes wax frenetic, little attention is paid to the basic issues so near and dear to the hearts of ordinary citizens. Squeezed out of the equation by big government, big business and the whacky NGOs' agendae, the bottom line for the vast majority remains: to own their own home, have a family and to have the means to provide for it without interference from a whole lot of people (starting with the in-laws).
The politicians see the voter as their source of power and untold wealth. Big business sees voters as production machinery. Many NGO's see voters as something to be curbed, herded and enslaved (maybe even exterminated) after easing their property and cashflow away from them.
In the meantime, the proletariat gets up every morning, brushes its teeth, combs its hair and heads off to keep the nation strong. It's these ordinary things, done by the ordinary people that make this country great. Sometimes we are even blessed with good leaders who see this and recognize that it is the product of individual freedom, not of overbearing government. The ordinary voter might not have the sophisticati | |
