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.
|
| The Federal War on Pain Relief |
| 04.24.04 (3:55 pm) [edit] |
The Federal War on Pain Relief
by Rep. Ron Paul M.D.
The controversy surrounding popular radio host Rush Limbaugh's use of the painkiller OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the federal drug war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. In most cases patients are not high profile celebrities like Mr. Limbaugh, so doctors become the target of overzealous federal prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to eliminate drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their attention to ordinary doctors prescribing perfectly legal drugs. Federal statutes designed for the prosecution of drug dealers are being abused to ensnare innocent doctors.
Do we really want the Drug Enforcement Administration jailing doctors for the alleged misdeeds of patients? Certainly some individuals abuse prescription pain killers, but federal agents are hardly qualified to decide what kind of drugs are appropriate for pain patients. Zealous prosecutors certainly show no interest in learning the basic facts of pain management.
OxyContin and other strong pain medications are not evil, but, like all powerful drugs, they can be used judiciously or abused. A compassionate society should rejoice that we have developed drugs that can help those in severe pain, rather than demonize those drugs because a tiny minority abuses them.
The real tragedy is that the federal government once again has interfered with the doctor-patient relationship. All decisions concerning appropriate medical treatment should be made between doctors and their patients, without government involvement. But, when threatened with criminal prosecution or loss of their medical licenses, many doctors simply have stopped prescribing powerful pain drugs--no matter how much their patients may need them. Some have even posted signs in their waiting rooms advising patients not to ask for OxyContin and similar drugs. It is shameful that government has created an atmosphere where doctors are afraid of exercising their medical judgment.
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors to close their practices altogether, leaving their patients with nowhere to turn for pain relief. Is the government concerned about the terrible chilling effect caused by its crackdown on doctors? Hardly. In fact, 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."
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or seek relief from other, less reliable, sources--such as street drug dealers. Of course pain drugs bought on the street likely will pose a greater risk of damaging a patient's health than those obtained from a physician.
The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship is being destroyed by federal bureaucrats, who have turned the drug war into a war on pain relief. Americans suffering from chronic pain and their doctors are the real victims of this unprincipled and medically unsound federal campaign.
|
|
|
| |
| Lessons of Sept. 11 |
| 04.24.04 (3:33 pm) [edit] |
The Lessons of 9/11
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Before the US House of Representatives, April 22, 2004
We are constantly admonished to remember the lessons of 9/11. Of course the real issue is not remembering, but rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that sad day is.
The 9/11 Commission soon will release its report after months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake. The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well reveal little we don't already know, while ignoring the most important lessons that should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland. Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars spent by government agencies, whose job it is to provide security and intelligence for our country, failed.
A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help us in the future, but one should never pretend that government bureaucracies can be made efficient. It is the very nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient. Spending an inordinate amount of time finger pointing will distract from the real lessons of 9/11. Which agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame should not be the main purpose of the investigation.
Despite our serious failure to prevent the attacks, it's disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become. Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high stakes election-year event, and distracts from the real lessons ignored by both sides.
Everyone on the Commission assumes that 9/11 resulted from a lack of government action. No one in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings, brought to light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government. Possibly in the final report we will discuss this, but to date no one has questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of course – though elusive – a more efficient one.
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the people into believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. The majority of the American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified because of the events of 9/11. These misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and casualties, prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our presence and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity. If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war.
Though we hear much about the so-called "benefits" we have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little talk of the cost to the American people: lives lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with diseased bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud placed over U.S. markets and the economy. Sharp political divisions, reminiscent of the 1960s, are arising at home.
Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing – while using the event to start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 – have dramatically compounded the problems all Americans and the world face. Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no weapons of mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq. The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil, neo-conservative empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.
The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current policy, calling them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism. It is said that they are responsible for the growing armed resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers. It's conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died nor would tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate.
Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying a rapid growth in their ranks. By denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it's easy to play the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame. We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of what many believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of others 6,000 miles from our shores.
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to "testing our resolve." It is said by many – even some who did not support the war – that now we have no choice but to "stay the course." They argue that it's a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult. But that should not be the issue. It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy. If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need.
Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us. Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to "make the world safe for democracy" should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war – especially since it almost never produces the desired results. There are always too many unintended consequences.
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq – which even our own government wouldn't tolerate.
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election that put the radical Shiites in charge. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it's not going to happen. These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain. We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.
Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy. So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the chaos that has now become Iraq, or Iran's participation – but even they cannot know all the long-term shortcomings of such a policy.
In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neo-cons gloated – and I heard them – of the "shock and awe" that was about to hit the Iraqi people. It turns out that the real shock and awe is that we're further from peace in Iraq than we were a year ago – and Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise.
The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and avenge the deaths of American soldiers – if they kill 10 of our troops, we'll kill 100 of theirs. Up until now, announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but the new policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed. But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical Islamic militants. The harder we try to impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes.
Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time thought to be impossible – it has united the Sunnis and Shiites against our presence. Although this is probably temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq. The results are an escalation of the conflict and the requirement for more troops. This acceleration of the killing is called "pacification" – a bit of 1984 newspeak.
The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony. The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for their homeland has increased many times over. Under Saddam Hussein, essentially no resistance occurred. Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face much greater and unified efforts to throw out all foreigners than when Saddam Hussein was in charge.
It's not whether the Commission investigation of the causes of 9/11 is unwarranted; since the Commissioners are looking in the wrong places for answers, it's whether much will be achieved.
I'm sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed, whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, or all of them for failure to communicate with each other. This will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our defenses were so poor. Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence gathering each year, the process failed us. It's likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency. Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on government agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.
We should support efforts to make the intelligence agencies more effective, but one thing is certain: more money won't help. Of the 40 billion dollars spent annually for intelligence, too much is spent on nation building and activities unrelated to justified surveillance.
There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us on 9/11. If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the opposite is more likely to occur.
The first point is to understand who assumes most of the responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free society. It's not the police. There are too few of them, and it's not their job to stand guard outside our houses or places of business. More crime occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but more restrictions on property owners' rights to bear and use weapons if invaded by hoodlums. In safer rural areas, where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it is, there is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance on the owner's responsibility to deal with any property violators. This understanding works rather well – at least better than in the inner cities where the understanding is totally different.
How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies? The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather than those of rural America. They all assumed that the government was in charge of airline security – and unfortunately, by law, it was. Not only were the airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules relating to potential hijacking. Chemical plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite assumption, and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security. Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we do our passengers on airplanes.
The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the intrusiveness of the FAA is another. Two specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs who, without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the havoc of 9/11. Both the prohibition against guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist hijackers contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment freedom, we still do not have armed pilots in the sky. Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the government has taken over the entire process. This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek subsidies and insurance protection. Of course, the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all passengers.
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will be ignored. I'm sure the Commission will not connect our foreign policy of interventionism – practiced by both major parties for over a hundred years – as an important reason 9/11 occurred. Instead, the claims will stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and way of life. If this error persists, all the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear little fruit.
Over the years the entire psychology of national defense has been completely twisted. Very little attention had been directed toward protecting our national borders and providing homeland security.
Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed outward toward distant lands. Now a significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq. We've kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of troops remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries.
This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while pursuing an empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected than Washington, DC, on 9/11. These priorities must change, but I'm certain the 9/11 Commission will not address this issue.
This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight.
The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more intervention; instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what the Arabs and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their homelands. This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation worldwide between the Christian West and the Muslim East. With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous. It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims and Arabs who had nothing to do with 9/11 – as we have in Iraq – further confirming the suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and occupation than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.
Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong. They can't be the same. There are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance. But that doesn't mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer, spread throughout the region and throughout the world – making it potentially much worse than what we suffered in Vietnam. In the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops. Over 700 have been killed in Iraq in just over a year.
Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan – and diverting resources to Iraq – have seriously compromised our ability to maintain a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.
Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied Afghanistan.
Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes a victory over our enemies nearly impossible. Not understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will commit deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued. Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything as part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically, from a band of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill themselves in the process. How we fight back depends on understanding these differences.
Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no easy task.
The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of others for more than a hundred years.
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial. Those reasons are multiple and varied. They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect "our" oil.
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that promoting world government is worthwhile. This involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world's resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and the Law of the Sea Treaty – all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to the poor and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the well-connected international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
Sadly, in the process the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the taxes, those whose lives are sacrificed in no-win undeclared wars, and the unemployed and poor as the economic consequences of financing our foreign entanglements evolve.
Regardless of one's enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one cold fact soon must be recognized by all of us in Congress. The American people cannot afford it, and when the market finally recognizes the over commitment we've made, the results will not be pleasing to anyone.
A "guns and butter" policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates. The current "guns and butter" policy is even more intense, and our economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then. These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both internationally and domestically. It is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other hot spot, can be pursued for years.
But when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion dollars per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our citizens.
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher interest rates, a continued erosion of the dollar's value, and a faltering economy. Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go down for all Americans – except for the privileged few who have an inside track on government largess – if this policy of profligate spending continues.
Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger generation, will have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the notion that perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be pursued indefinitely.
Conclusion
I'm sure the Commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades. I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked.
I'm afraid the Commission will answer only a few questions while raising many new ones. Overall though, the Commission has been beneficial and provides some reassurance to those who believe we operate in a much too closed society. Fortunately, any administration, under the current system, still must respond to reasonable inquiries.
|
|
|
| |
| Demand Firing of Treacherous Berkeley Professor |
| 04.14.04 (2:42 pm) [edit] |
Demand Firing of Treacherous Berkeley Professor
ISSUE: Do you remember almost exactly one year ago, when Columbia University Assistant Professor Nicholas DeGenova told an anti-war gathering that he would like to see "a million Mogadishus," a chilling reference to the 1993 ambush in Somalia that killed 18 American servicemen? He added that, "The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military," and said those Americans who call themselves "patriots" are nothing but white supremacists.
We told our members about that, and gave you the opportunity to send a message to the President of Columbia University demanding action be taken regarding this treacherous professor. Over ELEVEN THOUSAND messages were sent, and President Bollinger had to issue a huge apology for Prof. DeGenova's actions.
Well, guess what... it's happened again. And it's time for YOU to take action again.
According to WorldNetDaily.com, "A University of California at Berkeley lecturer speaking at an anti- war rally Saturday called for a Palestinian-style intifada, or uprising, against the United States in response to American actions in the Middle East."
In case you missed it, the "intifada" is the violent Palestinian uprising that has resulted in hundreds of deaths in Israel.
So this U.C. Berkeley professor -- Hatem A. Bazian, a native Palestinian -- says that "it's about time that we have an intifada in this country that change[s] fundamentally the political dynamics in here." (See an amateur video of the speech here: http://tinyurl.com/2zmxv -- warning, the .avi file is over 12 mb.)
In other words, according to Prof. Bazian,
it's about time that we have a violent uprising of terrorist organizations in America that will result in hundreds of deaths of American citizens.
Does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?
This isn't a "free speech" issue. Prof. Bazian has crossed the line. Americans across the country need to demand that this public employee be FIRED for this.
ACTION ITEM: This isn't just "dissent". It's TREASON, defined in Article III Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution as "adhering to [the United States'] Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." As President Bush declared on September 15, 2001, "We are at WAR" with terrorists.
Adhering to the terrorists' tactics by calling for their implementation in this country is downright treacherous, giving aid and comfort to the enemy that at this very moment is killing U.S. Marines in Fallujah.
If you agree, go to our site below to send a FREE message to Robert M. Berdahl, the Chancellor of U.C. Berkeley, DEMANDING that Prof. Bazian be FIRED for his treacherous remarks:
http://www.conservativealerts... AOL GO HERE
And for those of you so inclined... Chancellor Berdahl's office number is 510-642-7464; Prof. Bazian's office number is 510-642-8356.
NOTE: A copy of your message will also be sent to Prof. Bazian. Be sure to forward this e-mail to everyone you know who wants to call this radical professor to task for his treacherous remarks. Thank you!
------------------------- -----------------
|
|
|
| |
| Raze Fallujah by Tammy Bruce |
| 04.10.04 (4:53 pm) [edit] |
Raze Fallujah
By Tammy Bruce
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 2, 2004
The latest reminder of the type of brutality that has ruled Iraq under the thumb of Saddam Hussein is in the action of his supporters, and their al-Qaeda mentors, in Fallujah. The murder and desecration of the bodies of American contractors reminds us that, while the Iraqis everywhere appreciate and support their liberation, there are a few rats who would prefer a return to the hell of Saddam's depraved tyranny.
Fallujah has remained a hotbed of support for the brutal past regime, and for reasons that can only be explained by political correctness, we have not, up to this point, destroyed that base of murder, terrorism and bestial violence.
I contend it is now time to raze Fallujah.
I'll remind you of what it took to quell the beasts of Germany and Japan in 1945: complete and total destruction. There was a reason why we bombed Dresden into oblivion. There was a reason why Berlin was not saved. There was a reason why two atomic bombs had to be dropped on Japan after Hiroshima: they still refused to surrender unconditionally.
Beasts of violence and destruction understand one thing: destruction. The media, of course, are comparing the Fallujah horror with Mogadishu. Almost with gleeful hysteria, the Left and their water boys, the mainstream media, seem desperate to cast this as Mogadishu.
Why? To make George W. Bush look bad, that's why. Because they revel in horror. Because they need Americans to be just like them. We must see a pit like Fallujah as Saddam's last bunker. The time for political correctness, worry about inflaming the situation, and restraint, are over. This is war. The people of Fallujah have decided to continue the war, so it should indeed be visited upon them with no mercy.
But consider this inane comment to the New York Times by Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, chief spokesman for the American military command in Iraq, as he tried to explain why American forces have yet to enter the city:
"I think that there was a well-thought-out decision on the part of the Marines that let's not rush headlong into there, there may be ambushes set up a pre-emptive attack into the city could have taken a bad situation and made it even worse."
Really? With this kind of response, if Kimmitt was making decisions in April 1945, perhaps we would have simply put a fence around Berlin in an effort not to inflame Hitler.
Really, now, how can we make a situation where Americans have been murdered, set aflame and their bodies dragged through the streets and hung from a bridge worse?
Let's be honest here. The violent only understand violence. Gentility emboldens them. Kindness disgusts them. And it should. Even the barbaric have no respect for being handled with care. Even they know they should be destroyed.
Kimmitt is now making noises that we will be teaching Fallujah a lesson. What that would be from the man who didn't want to make the situation worse I can't imagine. Kimmitt should be reminded of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The brutal respond to and understand brutal might, especially when it is delivered by the decent.
This is a good time to remember, however, the difference between the Clinton and Bush administrations. Bill Clinton was afraid and retreated out of Somalia, which as we know, is what so empowered bin Laden and made him feel Americans would cower when confronted.
We now know bin Laden was behind the Somali warlord in Mogadishu, and when we turned and ran like frightened rabbits, did that help the world situation? Was our cowardice then supposed to help save American lives? While it was supposed to, it did quite the opposite on September 11, 2001. Three thousand Americans died, mostly civilians, because the American military, neutered by a terrified Clinton government, told the beasts that we have no character, no conviction. Clinton, soft and afraid, told bin Laden that Americans were soft and afraid.
For those of you conflicted, ask yourself, would World War II have ended more quickly if we threw up our hands and said, oh let Hitler have it! Yes, of course. And then what? The disease of Hitler would have metastasized to our homeland, replete, no doubt, with smiling German-speaking Frenchmen leading the charge. After all, so many Jews, so little time!
Were we not supposed to know the consequences of showing the Radical Islamist animals our underside? Did we not understand, despite examples through thousands of years, that murderous despots and terrorists are never appeased, they are made more bold by the retreat of the decent?
Of course, we knew, but we are apt to take our President's lead when it comes to what is right. Even today, we have just learned that Clinton knew of the Hutus "final solution" in Rwanda, and the genocide of Tutsis that took place. For years Clinton denied knowing the scope of the slaughter.
Now, intelligence reports obtained using the U.S. Freedom of Information Act show Clinton knew of the genocide with his senior officials privately using the word within 16 days of the start of the killings, but chose not to do so publicly. Why? Because the president had already decided not to intervene because he remained terrified of "another Mogadishu."
With these reports, it appears the legacy of our first "black president" is that he chose to ignore the murderous slaughter of 800,000 black people.
We must decide what we're made of because how we handle the barbarians in Iraq will send a message to beasts everywhere. Are we to be like George W. Bush or Bill Clinton? It's an easy question. Just ask Rwanda's surviving Tutsis who they prefer we be like.
I wonder, as Clinton sits around his office with his cigars, Hillary (or some other woman. It really doesnąt matter, does it?) and John Kerry, does he ever wonder what it's like to be hacked to death with a machete? Heck, why do I even ask this of a man whose only concern has been with women whose limbs can do him some good?
Today's Democrats, who are Clinton's Democrats, still have no stomach to do what's right. Why not? Because they cannot see beyond themselves and wanting to save their own skin. The malignant narcissists who run the Democratic Party and American leftists who control our culture, feel there is nothing worth fighting for except their own power.
Facing down the depraved takes courage, perseverance and the resolve to put the bad guys where they belong. We did not leave the world to the Germans because we're better than that. And we will not leave the world to the Islamists, because we are still better than that. No matter how much nihilistic American leftists and the media would prefer us to return to the days of fear and cowardice, we will still refuse to be like them.
FrontPage magazine.com :: Raze Fallujah by Tammy Bruce
Address:http://www.frontpagemag.com/A...
frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12852
|
|
|
| |
| Disabling America |
| 04.10.04 (12:03 am) [edit] |
"Disabling America"
The Unintended Consequences of the Government's Protection of the Handicapped
By Greg Perry
Book Review by Steven Fantina
Case # 1
A 410-pound applicant is denied a job driving a subway by the New York City Transit Authority because his girth will not allow him to fit inside the conductor's booth.
Case # 2
An AIDS-infected kitchen worker is unhappy that he is transferred to a position that does not warrant his direct contact with food and seeks retribution for what he perceives as an unjust move.
Case # 3
A man born with only one leg and a total of three deformed fingers becomes an internationally renowned computer expert and the author of over 75 books before his 45th birthday without any help from the government.
Which of these three people identified qualifies for special protection under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)?
The first two pertain to actual ADA cases. Number 3 most likely would be eligible for some ADA assistance, but as his resume suggests, he doesn't need any handouts. Greg Perry, aka # 3, is the author of Disabling America and scores of other books. His vitae gives him an immunity in writing such an excoriating indictment of so-called "civil rights" legislation, and his talents give him the ability to put forth an intelligent exposé of this regulatory albatross.
The need for a massive "civil rights" initiative to cover the disabled is debatable. Before the passage of the ADA in 1990, the U.S. was not overrun with discrimination against handicapped individuals. Blind people weren't being forced to the back of the bus, deaf patrons were not denied service at selected luncheonettes, and nary an establishment had separate water fountains for wheelchair-bound customers. As Perry recalls, the vast majority of business owners willingly made reasonable accommodations for those who faced added difficulties.
He attributes this un-coerced helpfulness to various factors: the American way, common courtesy, and good business sense. As he aptly notes, not all businesses could or wanted to make special access. Those that did not risked facing punitive measures due to the free market's decision-making powers, not legislated decrees. Perry obviously has considerable firsthand experience of disability-compliant practices, and he believes that overall the unregulated system was working rather amicably for all parties.
Rejecting the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990. Unfortunately the ADA quickly proved to be an example of good intentions gone bad, and it has only been since its inception that the disabled have become separated. Says Perry:
"...disabled people now have their own entrances into many places that normal people are discouraged from using. How do the truly handicapped feel when, now, everywhere they go they must bear the mark of the chair?"
Perry also suspects that the often-expensive alterations forced upon businesses create an understandable resentment towards those truly disabled.
Perry can speak from experience about the draconian restrictions placed on landlords. The author of a bestselling work entitled Managing Rental Properties for Maximum Potential, Perry was forced out of the investment property business by such regulations. Perry contemplates the irony of handicapped man's livelihood being terminated by "handicapped-friendly" legislation.
Perhaps Perry's excessive challenges have given him a heightened appreciation of the sanctity of life. He feels grateful that he was born long before the ADA was hatched, saying of the post-ADA mentality, "I cannot take it for granted that a doctor or some state-funded social caregiver assigned to my mother would not have tried to convince her that I could not fully enjoy life."
That may also increase his awareness of those that the seemingly-limitless statute overlooks:
"...one room exists where no ADA advocate, attorney, or Department of Justice official would ever enter to stop an ADA violation. That room is an abortionist's office."
Equally pernicious is the increasing number of violent students forced into mainstream classrooms because their antisocial behavior constitutes a "disability."READ MORE
Book Review: Disabling America by Greg Perry
Address:http://www.townhall.com/bookc...
townhall.com/bookclub/perry.html
|
|
|
| |
| "Subversion of the Constitution since 1865"
|
| 04.09.04 (11:36 pm) [edit] |
"Subversion of the Constitution since 1865"
If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge
of the limits of its own powers through its own courts,
...then there would eventually be no limits to those powers
and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.
One consequence of Lincoln's war was that
the Supreme Court was the sole and final arbiter
of constitutional controversies.
Appeals to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed
by the Constitution would be sneered at as "folly"
with the end result being "a subversion of the Constitution"
This... is exactly what has happened
with increasing frequency ever since 1865.
Lincolnian Judicial Tyranny
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
"The War between the States established ... this principle, that the federal government is, through its courts, the final judge of its own powers." - Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, p. 178.
It's high time for [those] who belly ache and complain about federal judicial tyranny to confront the fact so clearly stated in 1908 by Woodrow Wilson: It was the War between the States that established arbitrary federal judicial tyranny over the American people.
Lincoln's war overturned the Jeffersonian states' rights tradition in America, an important element of which was citizen opposition to any federal monopoly of constitutional interpretation. As Jefferson himself wrote in his famous 1798 Kentucky Resolution (See F. Drake and L. Nelson, eds., States' Rights and American Federalism, p. 81):
The government created by this compact [i.e., the Constitution] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself, since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
If the federal government were ever to become the sole judge of the limits of its own powers through its own courts, Jefferson warned, then there would eventually be no limits to those powers and the Constitution would effectively become a dead letter.
In the Virginia Resolve of 1798, U.S. Senator John Taylor echoed Jefferson's states' rights judicial philosophy. The powers of the federal government, wrote Taylor, are "limited by the plain sense and intention" of the Constitution, and are "no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact."
Moreover, whenever there is a "dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States ... have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil..."
The Jeffersonians urged the citizens of all states to nullify any and all federal laws that violated the Constitution. The importance of such nullification or interposition was clearly explained by St. George Tucker in his book, View of the Constitution of the United States. Tucker was the stepfather of John Randolph, the author of a 1796 plan for the abolition of slavery in Virginia, and a professor of law at the College of William and Mary. His book was an attempt to apply William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England to the American political system.
Tucker believed that any confederacy such as the United States would become a despotism if the people did not retain sovereignty over their agent, the federal government, as citizens of the respective states. He concurred with Jefferson and Taylor that if the federal government were to enact unconstitutional laws, "every such act is an act of usurpation in the government, and, as such, treason against the sovereignty of the people." (p. 32). This meant opposing the federal judiciary with nullification whenever it overstepped its constitutional bounds.
In his classic, Tyranny Unmasked, John Taylor continued this theme by mocking the idea that the founders would have trusted "five or six men" of the Supreme Court to be the sole guardians of constitutional liberty. "Being an essential principle for preserving ... liberty [the founders] never could have designed to destroy it, by investing five or six men, installed for life, with a power of regulating the constitutional rights of all political departments." (p. 198). He recognized that state governments could be corrupt, of course, but it was "inconceivable" to him that they could be as corrupt as kings, presidents, senates, congress, or federal judges, all of whom hold a degree of centralized power that is largely detached from public scrutiny and control.
Another great Jeffersonian political theorist, John C. Calhoun, understood that a paper constitution would never be sufficient protection against the political plundering of one (taxpaying) class by another (tax-consuming) class. Over time, the majority would "endeavor to elude" any constitutional restraints on federal powers by ignoring the arguments of the strict constructionists. Appeals to reason, truth, justice, or the obligations imposed by the Constitution would be sneered at as "folly" with the end result being "a subversion of the Constitution" (R.M. Lence, Union and Liberty: The Political Philosophy of John C. Calhoun, p. 27).
This of course is exactly what has happened with increasing frequency ever since 1865.
Andrew Jackson also embraced the Jeffersonian legal philosophy in his response to the Supreme Court's opinion in McCulloch vs. Maryland that the Second Bank of the United States was constitutional. "To this conclusion I cannot assent," Jackson declared. Congress and the president must each weigh in, and
Must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. It is as much of the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill... The opinion of the [Supreme Court] judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges ... (Robert Remini, Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, p. 82).
From 1789 until 1865 the citizens of all states, North and South, made periodic use of the principles of nullification, interposition, and even the threat of secession, to protect themselves from federal judicial tyranny (and federal tyranny in general). They invoked the Jeffersonian judicial philosophy to oppose protectionist tariffs, military conscription, the War of 1812, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Bank of the United States, trade embargos, and other unconstitutional usurpations (See James J. Kilpatrick, The Soversign States: Notes of a Citizen of Virginia).
Lincoln's war ended citizen opposition to federal judicial tyranny. As Forrest McDonald wrote in States' Rights and the Union (p. 224), one consequence of Lincoln's war was that the [Supreme] court was the sole and final arbiter of constitutional controversies. No longer could a Jefferson arise to insist that the other branches of the federal government had coequal authority to determine constitutionality. No more could a Calhoun arise to defend a doctrine of interposition or nullification.
Jefferson, Tucker, Taylor and Calhoun would not be at all surprised to learn that the consequence of this has been rampant federal judicial tyranny....
In Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln the "progressive" historian James Randall wrote approvingly of the fact that Lincoln's trashing of the Constitutuion in the North during the war created precedents for "a living constitution" that, with creative interpretations by the federal judiciary, could become "a vehicle of life." He criticized "excessive reliance" on the ideas of "a by-gone generation," i.e., the founding fathers.
|
|
|
| |
| How they vote in the UN |
| 04.09.04 (2:39 am) [edit] |
How they vote in UN
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records:
Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time.
Morocco votes against t he United States 70% of the time.
United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time.
Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time.
Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time.
Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time.
Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time.
Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time.
Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time.
Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time.
India votes against the United States 81% of the time.
Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time.
Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time.
US Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.
Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.
Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes.
Pass it along. Everyone needs to know this.
Might even mention it to your congressman, who knows it anyway...what a disgrace...no wonder the world has no respect for us!
********************** *
The "private sector" of the economy is, in fact, the voluntary sector; and...the "public sector" is, in fact, the coercive sector.
~ Henry Hazlitt
|
|
|
| |
| You Know Things Are In Bad Shape When Jay Leno Makes More Sense Than Either G. W. Bush Or John Kerry |
| 04.06.04 (2:51 pm) [edit] |
You Know Things Are In Bad Shape When Jay Leno Makes More Sense Than Either G. W. Bush Or John Kerry
By Chuck Baldwin
April 6, 2004
Recently, on NBC's The Tonight Show, Host Jay Leno quipped,
"They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it's worked for over 200 years, and [heck], we're not using it anymore."
That a stand-up comic would interject the subject of a country actually using our U.S. Constitution to a national audience is quite remarkable considering the fact that both major parties routinely ignore or blatantly disobey the Constitution. Yes, the sad truth is, Leno was absolutely right: we're not paying any attention to the Constitution anymore.
The fact is, most of the proposals put forth by both President Bush and John Kerry are egregiously unconstitutional. Yes, Martha, both Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, deliberately and recklessly ignore their oaths of office to faithfully submit to the Constitution of the United States. That's why, in the end, it doesn't matter to a hill of beans which party is in power. Neither party has any intention of obeying the Constitution.
It seems that most political office holders in Washington, D.C., don't even realize that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of our country. It seems that they are not even cognizant of the oath they take before God to be faithful to the precepts and prohibitions outlined within the Constitution.
Yet, are not our national leaders presumed to be educated and intelligent people? Cannot they read? Cannot they understand what they read? Or, are they too lazy or too unconcerned to read? Or, is the problem that they do understand and do comprehend what the Constitution says and just don't give a flip?
What is even worse is the reality that most Americans, including Christian conservatives, couldn't care less about the U.S. Constitution. As with the pagan left, the religious right demonstrates a total disregard and apathy toward fidelity to the Constitution. As a result, both are equally culpable for the continued demise of our republic.
For example, Christian conservatives are salivating over the prospect of receiving hundreds of millions of dollars from the federal treasury for "faith-based initiatives." Preachers and churches by the droves are running to Uncle Sam with their hands out in order to receive President Bush's latest bribe.
What is even more disconcerting is that some of the people at the head of the line at Uncle Sam's doorstep were the very ones who had taught me that we were supposed to go to our Heavenly Father for such things. Then again, it appears that many of my conservative brethren believe Uncle Sam and the Heavenly Father are one and the same.
When Bush first took office, he was frustrated by Congress' unwillingness to quickly pass his faith-based proposals. So, following the example of his predecessor, Bill Clinton, he simply by-passed Congress and signed an Executive Order. (So, who needs Congress, anyway?)
As a result of his EO, nearly 500 "faith-based" programs have received over $1 billion in federal handouts during 2002 and 2003.What President Bush has not done is to explain where the Constitution grants him the right to do that. And, of course, don't expect any of the "conservatives" who are receiving this inducement to ask that question.
What many conservatives have forgotten (and liberals never learned) is that fidelity to the Constitution is the glue that holds our republic together. Without adherence to the Constitution, the line between "liberal" and "conservative" is blurred to distinction. Without adherence to the Constitution, the United States of America ceases to exist.
As Daniel Webster said, "Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster, and what has happened once in 6000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world." Webster also declared, "The hand that destroys the Constitution rends our Union asunder forever."
Destroying the Constitution is exactly what both major parties are doing. If Jay Leno can figure this out, why can't Bush or Kerry?
© Chuck Baldwin
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.c...
chuckbaldwinlive.com
|
|
|
| |
| Yes, Virginia, WW-3 really is a religious war. Declared by Islam against all other religions. |
| 04.03.04 (11:40 pm) [edit] |
GLOBAL JIHAD
Islamists leave 'killing field'
of civilians
Team finds remains of unarmed villagers in southern Sudan
By Art Moore
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
The bones of scores of villagers litter a "killing field" left in the wake of an unprovoked attack by Sudan's militant Islamic regime in which as many as 3,000 unarmed civilians died, according to a team of fact-finders.
Dennis Bennett of the relief group Servant's Heart recently returned from Upper Nile Province where he and his colleagues heard local survivors tell of a massive attack they believe killed between one-third and one-half of the 6,000 people who lived in the villages of Liang, Dengaji, Kawaji and Yawaji.
A woman from Dengaji named Tangook told Bennett's team that her two children, approximately ages 4 and 5, were killed in the late April 2002 attack by Arab soldiers. Two days after she fled to a neighboring village, men from Dengaji went back to find the bodies.
"My children's bodies were being eaten by birds," she said, according to a transcript of a video interview. "The soldiers burned all our houses and took all our belongings. When the men went back to the village looking for [salvageable] items, they found almost nothing left."
Bennett said the estimate of up to 3,000 dead was made in part by counting survivors who have returned to the villages and those in refugee camps. But he wants an investigation from an independent monitoring team that was established in an agreement with the Khartoum regime last October.
"It was a completely unarmed region of more than 6,000 unarmed civilians," Bennett told WND. "No rebel soldier was in the area and none had ever been there."
Villagers interviewed said many of the people are Christians and some are animists.
'Jihad is our way'
Backed by Muslim clerics, the National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 5 million have become refugees.
Sudan's holy war against the south was reaffirmed in October 2001 by First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.
"The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and will keep its banner high," he said to a brigade of mujahedin fighters heading for the war front. "We will never sell out our faith and will never betray the oath to our martyrs."
Survivors in the Upper Nile villages said the attackers were members of the Sudan regular army from the Boing Garrison, commanded by Brig. Gen. Ibrahim Saleh.
Bennett said his team – which included Mel Middleton, president of Freedom Quest International and Glenn Penner, communications director of Voice of the Martyrs Canada – walked almost 30 miles each way in 115-degree heat to document the incident.
'Deliberate attacks' on civilians
The U.S. State Department said yesterday it has forwarded Bennett's findings to the international Civilian Protection and Monitoring Team, CPMT, assigned to report on violations of the March 2002 agreement between Khartoum and the rebel Sudanese People's Liberation Movement.
The agreement specifically barred both sides from attacking civilians. Bennett and his colleagues are urging the State Department to include details of the attack in the report to Congress mandated by the Sudan Peace Act, which was signed into law last October.
The Sudan Peace Act requires the U.S. administration to present a detailed report by April 21 of any acts of genocide or war crimes.
Last Sunday, the CPMT issued a report charging that since Dec. 31, government-backed forces had initiated "deliberate attacks against non-combatant civilians and civilian facilities" in Western Upper Nile province.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Tuesday in response to the report that the U.S. condemns "these unconscionable attacks and abuses against civilians."
The CPMT said many of the attacks focused on towns along a road under construction between Bentiu and Adok that would provide access to numerous oil facilities in the province.
In a similar campaign in the Western Upper Nile and Kordofan Provinces in 1997, militia and government forces raided villages to clear out the area for an oil pipeline project to Port Sudan. China's national oil company holds a majority stake in the pipeline.
Many human rights groups charge that Khartoum is using oil revenues to fuel its war effort. Bennett, with 20 years experience in international risk management and banking, said he was the first to probe the link between oil and jihad that is now documented and publicized by the rights groups. His research began in 1996 when he asked: If you're the government of Sudan and you're broke, how are you paying for your war?
On his recent fact-finding trip, Bennett said his team came within five miles of the Government of Sudan positions from which the attack was launched. Three Arab nomads spying for the government were caught in a village Bennett visited, which forced his team to leave secretly and walk most of the night to reach safety.
Early morning assault
In the April 2002 attack, heavily-armed government forces reportedly struck in the early morning as the villagers slept, launching a rampage of killing, looting and burning down houses. Residents said the attackers were armed with 60 millimeter mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, 12.7 millimeter heavy machine guns and AK-47 assault rifles.
In a videotaped interview, villager Tunya Jok said he witnessed his 4-year -old daughter being shot and killed as she fled from the soldiers.
Later, his 6-year-old son was captured and beheaded by the soldiers. The boy's body was thrown into a burning hut and his head planted upright, facing away from the dwelling.
Awtio, subchief of the village of Liang, said a young girl named Yata was captured by the soldiers and thrown into a fire.
Others fled into the bush and died there, he said.
Tunya Jok, who says 6-year-old son was beheaded by soldiers (Dennis Bennett photo)Wol Majief, a woman from Dengaji, said she began to flee when soldiers started shooting, but four of her children were killed.
Teela, Anjota, Jotier and Berta were shot by the troops, she said.
Dengaji village chief Billy Worgo told Bennett's team, "Your coming here is good."
"This is the first time anyone from the outside has come to find out about this problem," he said. "This is very encouraging to us. Your visit makes us very happy."
WorldNetDaily: Islamists leave 'killing field' of civilians
Address:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=31033
|
|
|
| |
| Hundreds of slaves freed in Sudan |
| 04.03.04 (11:23 pm) [edit] |
Hundreds of slaves
freed in Sudan
374 people held in government camps make way to freedom in south
April 2, 2004
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Hundreds of people held as slaves in government-controlled Sudanese camps have reached freedom in the southern part of that nation after what was described as a "harrowing exodus from bondage."
According to a statement from Christian Solidarity International, 374 slaves safely reached the town of Warawar in southern Sudan yesterday. Representatives from CSI and members of the local Dinka community are attending to them.
Over the past three weeks, the organization says, 503 slaves, mainly women and children, were gathered from government-run camps in northern Sudan. Most of the slaves had been held in the camps for between one and three years.
The 374 slaves were tightly packed in open trucks, approximately 55 on each truck. The remaining 129 of the 503 slaves had not yet arrived as of yesterday.
According to the report, the convoy of slaves was detained for more than a week near the southern Sudan border after being threatened by government-sponsored militias. It took the intervention of the World Union of Progressive Judaism at the U.N. Commission on Human Rights to secure government approval for the slaves to continue their journey to freedom.
However, at least one boy was reportedly re-abducted by his knife-wielding master as the convoy crossed the Bahr-Al-Arab River into the southern portion of the nation.
CSI says the slave exodus was organized and led by James Aguer and other members of the Committe for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children and members of the Warawar Arab-Dinka Peace Committee. CSI is providing humanitarian assistance to the liberated slaves.
Sudan's cleric-backed National Islamic Front regime in the Arab and Muslim north declared a jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south in 1989. Since 1983, an estimated 2 million people have died from war and related famine. About 5 million have become refugees. The Khartoum government denies that slavery exists in Sudan.
This week, the Sudanese government boycotted the opening session of peace talks with rebels designed specifically to end more than a year of fighting between them in the Darfur region of Sudan.
WorldNetDaily: Hundreds of slaves freed in Sudan
Address:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37853
|
|
|
| |
| State Department pushes 'Enterprise' Socialism |
| 04.03.04 (11:31 am) [edit] |
State Department pushes 'Enterprise' Socialism
Henry Lamb - April 3, 2004
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
The U.S. State Department is asking the Senate to join a socialist "Enterprise" and to guarantee 24 percent of its operating costs, while retaining only one of 145 votes on the governing council. The "Enterprise" is a mining company owned by the International Seabed Authority created by the Convention on the Law of the Seas.
In a capitalist enterprise, 24 percent of the total investment would buy 24 percent of the voting power and 24 percent of the profit, and ensure the investor the right to examine the books.
This socialist "Enterprise" is owned by a world government agency, financed on the principle of "from each according to his ability ..." expressly for the purpose of mining the seabed for "the common heritage of mankind." Neither the U.S. nor any other nation could demand an independent audit of the books.
It could not be more socialist.
Irritated by the sudden, intense and unexpected opposition to the treaty that developed immediately after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved it, John Turner, assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, came out swinging before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last week.
In an effort to rebut criticism of the treaty,
John Turner claimed that the treaty required "no surrender of sovereignty. In fact," he said, "the Convention supports the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the United States. ..."
He did not explain, however, how his claim can be justified in view of the requirement of Article 2 (3), which says:
The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law.
If the U.S. agrees to exercise its sovereignty over its territorial sea, subject to this Convention, then the U.S. is surrendering its sovereignty to this U.N. authority.
And with a straight face, John Turner told the committee that "the ISA has no authority or ability to levy taxes."
The truth is Agreement Annex, Section I (6)(a)(ii), specifically requires a fee of $250,000 for exploration, and the agreement authorizes other fees and royalties. Turner calls this "administrative fees and revenue-sharing provisions," which, he says, "are modest." This semantic game playing was the norm during Clinton's "what the meaning of 'is' is" administration. The truth is that when a government agency has the power to compel payment, it is a tax, regardless of what John Turner may call it.
Every one of Turner's efforts at rebuttal slip and slide around the actual facts. Every one of his so-called benefits of ratification describe conditions the U.S. already enjoys, or are benefits that accrue to the U.N.
Treaty proponents wasted no time rolling out the media mill to denigrate treaty opponents. Capitol Hill Blue described "right-wing neo-isolationists" who billboarded the treaty on their websites near fund-raising links and who pressured Karl Rove to the extent that the White House is now backing away from the treaty.
The article reports: " According to a source close to Lugar, the chairman [of the Foreign Relations Committee] told [Condoleezza] Rice: 'We're going to pass this – with you or without you.'"
This president walked away from the Kyoto Protocol, refusing to subject the United States to its regulatory power. He walked away from the International Criminal Court, refusing to subject U.S. citizens to the U.N.'s version of justice.
How this same president could even allow consideration of this Law of the Seas Treaty, which is the purest form of socialism and on its face requires the surrender of sovereignty over territorial seas, is a question that will cause him much grief in this election year.
This treaty is John Turner's baby. His long-time friendship with Vice President Cheney provided the political cover needed to pursue his green objectives from his remote corner in the State Department. While building a coalition of support for this treaty among environmental organizations, Turner indicated that he intended to "revisit" the Convention on Biological Diversity as well.
Globalists were shocked in 1994 when, after approval by the Foreign Relations Committee, opposition to the Convention on Biological Diversity forced the Democrat majority leader to pull the treaty from the Senate Calendar. The Desertification Treaty was never placed on the Senate Calendar for a vote. It was included in a package of 34 "technical" treaties, all of which were passed by a show of hands, without debate or a recorded vote.
John Turner and Richard Lugar tried to use this same "show of hands" tactic on the Convention on the Law of the Seas, avoiding review by any other committee and the scrutiny of a public vote. This stealth tactic failed. Opposition has mounted and continues to grow, as the American people discover just how horrible this treaty really is.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
WorldNetDaily: State Department pushes 'Enterprise' socialism
Address:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37870
|
|
|
| |
| Missing the Point on Government Power
|
| 04.03.04 (8:48 am) [edit] |
Missing the Point on Government Power
Scott McPherson April 2, 2004
FUTURE OF FREEDOM FOUNDATION
Opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act has spread throughout this country. Around the nation, Americans are joining together to send a clear message to Washington that expanding federal powers at the expense of personal liberty in the name of security in the post–9/11 world is not only unnecessary, but a direct threat to our way of life.
This was the topic of discussion at the second Spring Political Issues Forum held at City Hall, in Falls Church, Virginia, on March 25, hosted by the Falls Church News-Press. The guest speaker at this forum was David Cole, author of Enemy Aliens and coauthor of Terrorism and the Constitution, professor at the Georgetown Law Center, volunteer staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, legal affairs correspondent for The Nation magazine, and a frequent commentator for National Public Radio.
I had the pleasure of attending this event, and found Cole's presentation, entitled "Enemy Aliens and American Freedoms:
How the War on Terrorism Has Undermined Our Freedom and Our Security," both valuable and insightful.
The focus of the talk was the U.S. government's use of immigration law to single out a specific group of people, namely Arabs and people of Middle Eastern descent, for persecution and harassment. Cole provided an excellent overview of the way in which federal officials have used these laws to arrest and detain thousands of innocent foreign residents, denying them access to attorneys or any other semblance of due process, all in the name of fighting terrorism.
In Cole's view, the provisions of the PATRIOT Act giving federal agents the power to pry into Americans' library records or "sneak and peak" into their homes and personal computers were not the worst aspects of that law. Rather, it was the many arrests, deportations, and general harassment of certain immigrants and their communities that should most shock the conscience of freedom-loving Americans.
The current environment, noted Cole, provides Americans with a worrisome tradeoff. Americans are being asked not to decide which freedoms they will sacrifice for greater security — they're being told that by sacrificing the freedoms of foreigners, they will have greater security. The end result, he indicated, will be a government with the ability to use its new powers against citizens as well.
But for all the sense he made, I couldn't help but feel that Cole failed to see the larger picture. He did a wonderful job of showing how the Bush administration has eroded constitutional protections of privacy and due process and used the awesome powers of the federal government to engage in ethnic profiling and harassment and imprisonment of immigrants.
But his approach betrayed his politics. It quickly became obvious that Cole is a leftist of the ACLU variety, and his talk a means to bash President Bush and his cronies rather than show the true threat to freedom posed by a powerful central government that views individual liberty as an obstacle to national security.
This first point became obvious by Cole's use of language. Not once, speaking for more than an hour, did he ever refer to individual rights as being threatened by the PATRIOT Act, "PATRIOT II," TIPS, or the government's Total Information Awareness proposals. He was more concerned that few Americans were outraged over the way the federal government was treating foreigners. "We're not respecting basic human rights," was his constant refrain.
He even felt the need to say that in America we have "moved away" from a "natural rights" approach to liberty in favor of a "human rights" approach, which is left-speak for saying that we should take our cue on rights from organizations such as the ACLU, Amnesty International, and the United Nations, rather than from such "archaic" documents as the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. Cole did not give the impression that he was bothered by this development, making his view on the issue suspect.
During the question-and-answer session, he even said that he did not oppose a national identification card, and, like Nadine Strossen of the ACLU, said that he was not bothered by the government's stop and search powers — so long as they weren't used discriminatorily. Apparently, tyrannical measures aren't so bad — if applied equally.
While discussing the fact that anti-Americanism has reached a peak never before seen in the world, Cole suggested that it was America's "unilateral" actions that had prompted such bitter resentment. "We're a law unto ourselves," was his complaint. In other words, interfering in the affairs of foreign countries isn't so bad if it is done under the auspices of the United Nations. Again, the UN becomes the great measuring stick of objective truth and justice. That the Founding Fathers spoke warningly and at great length about foreign entanglements was omitted from the discussion.
In fact, not once did Cole ever mention our nation's founding ideals until, in the last 30 seconds of the evening, he referred to the PATRIOT Act and other anti-terror legislation as a danger to "the principles this country was based on." To hear him tell it, the only real threat to freedom has come since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
And that is where Cole, like so many in this country, and particularly those who are so riled about the PATRIOT Act and its ilk, fail to draw the proper parallels about the threats posed by the "war on terror" and the dangers to a free society inherent in any expansion of government power.
It's not that the Bush administration's actions are not a threat to freedom — they certainly are. Likewise, the targeting of immigrants for political expediency reminds one of the internments of Japanese-Americans during World War II (carried out under a Democratic president with bipartisan support) and the embarrassing marks left by such events on our nation's history.
The real point that needs to be understood, however, is that oppressive government is a nonpartisan issue. Republicans and Democrats alike are more than happy to use force and coercion to stamp out the "evildoers" of the day, and always at the expense of the "principles this country was based on." It's ludicrous to talk so ominously about the menace of Big Brother without simultaneously acknowledging the peril to freedom that is posed any time government exerts greater power over the citizenry.
Consider just two examples. First, there's the individual income tax. In direct contradiction to the very idea of a limited government, every single American is required each year to open, under penalty of law, his entire financial life to the prying eyes of government bureaucrats and pay up, on demand, whatever the Internal Revenue Service claims he owes, with little meaningful recourse to the law. The IRS enjoys powers that would make the KGB blush, including the "right" to extract information from "suspects" without a warrant and to seize property without due process — and this has been going on for decades.
In 1984, IRS agents actually kept parents from taking their children out of the Engleworld Learning Center in Allen Park, Michigan, until they agreed to pay to the IRS their outstanding debt to the day-care center — to cover taxes owed, not by the parents (that would have been bad enough), but by the center. Outrageous acts by IRS agents such as this could be recounted at length, without so much as a peep about "human rights" from the political Left.
Then of course there's the "war on drugs." In its zeal to persecute (certain) drug users and suppliers, the federal government has been attacking individual liberty for a quarter-century to a far greater extent than any "anti-terror" measures introduced in the last two and a half years. Asset forfeiture, paramilitary-style police raids, militarization of the police, expanded wiretap authority, the use of paid informants, and imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of American citizens for what amounts to nothing more than a political crime — yet they elicit no outrage from folks at the ACLU or the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The Left's mounting resistance to the PATRIOT Act and its offspring is certainly welcome, but this growing popular movement should be about much more than scoring political points against a Republican president and promoting a social agenda. What is needed in this country is a fundamental rethinking about the meaning of freedom and the role of government in the lives of free people.
Much more is at stake than just the effects of the USA PATRIOT Act and threat to liberty posed by a government trying to provide greater security. A government powerful enough to take away one person's rights is truly powerful enough to take away everyone's rights, which is precisely why we should always distrust powerful government.
Scott McPherson is a policy advisor at The Future of Freedom Foundation.
FFF.ORG
Missing the Point on Government Power
Address:http://www.fff.org/comment/co...
|
|
|
| |
| Are we next? |
| 04.03.04 (8:26 am) [edit] |
DO AS WE SAY, NOT AS WE DID
I see where the people of Haiti finally got sick of defrocked collectivist priest and all-around 'necklace' killer Jean-Bertrand Aristide, took up arms, and kicked him out. So what are U.S. forces doing there now? About 1,800 of our guys have been sent in to -- in the words of Associated Press reporter Paisley Dodds --rid the nation of guns.
Hey, good plan. In the great tradition of George Washington, Francis Marion, and young Jim Monroe, the Haitian people just used firearms to throw out a vicious tyrant, and the immediate goal of Big White Brother is to rebuild a shattered police force and disarm militants who began the insurgency. . . . How do you think the people of the proud, young, free United States of America would have reacted if some foreign army had arrived here in 1783 with the declared the goal of ridding the nation of the guns that had just been used to win America's freedom?ť
- Columnist Vin Suprynowicz
|
|
|
| |
| Washington's Farewell Address |
| 04.03.04 (8:16 am) [edit] |
Americans Need To Read Washington's Farewell Address
By Chuck Baldwin
April 2, 2004
Our first and greatest President, George Washington, delivered
what many regard as the greatest political speech ever given on
American soil. It is simply called, "Washington's Farewell
Address." The principles contained in this address formed the
direction of this republic to one degree or another for nearly the
following century.
Believe it or not, I even remember studying Washington's Farewell
Address in elementary school. Even more astonishing is the fact
that it was a public school. (Of course, in those days, we even
prayed and read the Bible in public schools, too.)
One of the more intriguing elements of Washington's Farewell
Address is his warning regarding an overemphasis on political
parties. Bear with me as I quote George Washington.
"Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in
the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of
party, generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having
its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists,
under different shapes, in all governments, more of less stifled,
controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen
in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened
by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in
different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid
enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to
a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and
miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek
security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and
sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or
more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the
purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
"Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which
nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and
continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it
the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
"It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the
Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded
jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part
against another; foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It
opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a
facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of
party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are
subjected to the policy and will of another.
"From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be
enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being
constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public
opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it
demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame,
lest, instead of warming, it should consume."
A careful reading of Washington's warning should convince
anyone of its merits, because virtually everything he warned
against has come to pass. The two major parties have become an
end and aim of themselves, and people blindly loyal to them tend
to constantly compromise the principles of liberty in order to
obtain victory for the party. The result of this lack of vision and
purpose is a willingness to promote that which is bad for the
country in preference for what is deemed good for the party.
Blind loyalists to the two major parties seem to have forgotten that
parties are to serve the best interests of the country, not the other
way around. As with many special interest groups (on both the
right and the left), party survival and success is considered more
important than the survival and success of our nation's founding
principles.
This "spirit of party" has also opened the door to corruption and
undue foreign influence just as Washington warned. The lust for
money, power, and influence has opened the doors of our country
to every conceivable treachery and evil. This has produced
unconscionable results, especially during the last half of the 20th
Century, as our fighting men have mostly been used as pawns for
self-serving politicians, not as defenders of America's national
security.
Furthermore, we can thank the loss of American jobs and
industries to overseas interests, an ever widening trade deficit, and
a dangerous explosion of illegal immigration to this same "spirit of
party."
So deep is party loyalty today that many people actually believe
that they are being patriotic by serving the narrow and shallow
schemes of the party. However, doesn't anyone stop to notice how
eerily similar such an attitude is to that of communist or fascist
ideology? I guess not.
Until the American people are willing to cast aside this insipid
infatuation with party loyalty and are willing to once again hold
their elected representatives accountable to the Constitution, it will
not matter which party prevails in the elections.
A contemplative and studious reading of Washington's Farewell
Address would be a good beginning for every American citizen
who values his or her freedom. And it wouldn't hurt if our
president and congressmen read it, either!
© Chuck Baldwin
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com" title="http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com" target="_blank"http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.c...
|
|
|
| |
| Misc. |
| 04.03.04 (8:07 am) [edit] |
THE CRADLE OF COMMON LAW: When suspects are convicted of a crime and, after years in prison, are proven to be innocent, how does society repay them for their incarceration? The U.K.'s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has an idea of what to do: charge the former prisoners for food and board -- at least 3,000 pounds (US$5,430) per year for the prisoners' "saved living expenses" during their time in stir. A spokesman for the Home Office said the concept "takes into account the range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been imprisoned," adding "Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate." It's not a proposal: the government has already sent bills to some freed prisoners. A spokesman for the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice
Organisation called the program a way to "punish people for having the audacity to be innocent."
(Glasgow Sunday Herald) ...And the world thinks America is contemptible?
********************** *
Give this a try!
1) Go to www.Google.com
2) Type in ---- weapons of mass destruction----( but DON'T hit return)
3) Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, NOT the "Google search"
4) Read the "error message" carefully. Someone at Google really has a sense of humor.
********************** *
The state is the great fiction by which everybody tries to live at the expense of everybody else.
~ Frederic Bastiat
|
|
|
| |
|
|
