Earl's Council Fire

Human See Human Do:

2010-12-05T07:33:00.000-08:00

Deception and Why it Works So Well

Dr. David Janda explains Rationing in Health Care Bill

2010-10-28T08:29:00.000-07:00

In the Oct. 13, 2010 video which is now going viral, Dr. David Janda quickly and succinctly explains in language all those on the left and right can understand, exactly what is wrong with the Stimulus Bill and the Healthcare Bill. It's only 6 minutes - watch it, get up to speed with the facts of the issue, and then tell your friends in time for voting on Nov 2.

David says, "We're going to lose 46% of physicians, including me. I cannot walk into a room Jan. 1st 2013 and lie to the very people I've been helping for the last 30 years. I won't do it."

New Zeal: "AGENDA:Grinding America Down"

2010-07-31T17:42:00.000-07:00

New Zeal: "AGENDA:Grinding America Down"

Chaper One Part 1, A Brief Look At History

2010-06-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

Before we began this series I ask these five question. The chances are you will benefit more from your reading if you will answer the five questions before reading this part.

Test your knowledge of history by answering the following questions before reading this part. After you have read it, review your answers and mark your score.

1- What percentage of the land area of the world does the United States have?
a. Under 10%. b. 10% to 20%. c. Over 20%.

2- How many people in history have died earlier than otherwise, due to lack of food - that is from famine and starvation?
a. 1 of every 10. b. 1 of every 7. c. 1 of every 4. d. 1 of every 2.

3- The material abundance of our nation over all countries, past and present, is chiefly the results of?
A. Our excess proportion d. Our highly skilled labor force.
of natural resources.
b. Our degree of individual e. Our greater intelligence.
freedom
c. Our supremacy in f. Some other reason.
in machine tools.

4- Is there any relationship between the material abundance of a nation and its people, and their moral-ethical-spiritual way of life.
a. yes b. No.

5- The material wealth of a people is measured by:
a. How much money (dollars) c. The tangible goods and services
they have. they have or can acquire.
b. The natural resources d. The gold backing percentage of their
per capita. currency.

Hello Americans, I have some things I'd like to share with you because I think they are of interest and concern to you. I don't pretend to know all the answers but what and how much thought we give these matters will affect not only our lives, but the lives of our children and grandchildren - and, many others.

Did you know that you are a very strange phenomenon on the face of the globe and in the pages of history? So am I and do you know why? Because you and I probably have not missed a meal all this week! Let's see if we can find out why we are so blessed. Let's look at the record.

Living in the United States today is like going to the theater in the middle of the play (movie) - much of the action has already taken place. It's the story of people - around 360 million of us, plus all those who have gone before us.

For, strangely enough, we are not only the audience, we are also the actors in this world wide drama. we need to see how we fit into the story - what our part is - and what we can do to make the drama proceed better. Let's find ourselves in this drama.

Among the leading nations of the world today, our United States is playing a starring role. While it may not have been formally planned that way, it did not just happen by chance. We must understand the difficult and demanding part our country plays. We must know the kind of drama being played on this world wide stage. We must understand the purpose, the theme, the subjects and plot - and how we can play our parts better.

The world has shrunk in the last hundred years especially in our generation. The marvels of high speed communication and travel have virtually eliminated distance and natural barriers. No longer can nations live in semi-isolation. Nowadays what happens in one nation vitally affects the rest of the world.

The drama of revolution, famine, depression, prosperity, and struggle affects all the nations of the world, directly or indirectly.

New ideas and desires push toward the light - and in so doing arouse antagonism and violence. There is the repeated pattern of situation, conflict and climax - establishing the relationship between cause and effect.

CAUSE & EFFECT! That is what we must see if we are to learn from history. Cause is like the seed - effect is like the fruit. It's easy to see the fruit, it's not so easy to see the seed.

In a little more then 100 years, the United States rose from a weak struggling Republic of 13 colonies to become the leading nation of the world. Why - and how - did this happen? Let's check possible answers to the question.

We have only 7% if the land area of the world and but 7 or 8% of the population. Do we have richer soil; more intelligent people; work longer hours; plant more crops per years? I believe that you would say no!

Did Jamestown and Plymouth colonists find this abundance here when they arrived? Did they bring it with them? NO! Of course not. Are we so different from other people?

For 60 plus centuries the earth has been inhabited by human beings not much different than ourselves. These people have about as much physical strength as we do, and among them have been men and women of great intelligence.

But, down through the ages, most human beings have gone hungry - millions and millions have starved to death. At lease one of every four - and some historians put the figure as high as three of every four - have lived a shorter life due to the lack of sufficient food. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a famine in the United States. Why?

The ancient Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, and Greeks were intelligent people. But in spite of their brains and fertile lands, they were never able to get enough food to eat - for all their people. Mothers frequently killed their babies at birth - to keep them from starving to death later!

Rome collapsed in famine.

The French were dying of hunger when Thomas Jefferson was President (1801 to 1809) - and as late as 1846, the Irish were starving to death - AND NO ONE WAS PARTICULARLY SURPRISED - for you see famines were the rule rather than the exception.

Even in these modern times, famines kill multitudes in China, India, Africa and even in Russia. In the 1930s when we were having our economic problems here, what happened else where? Millions and Millions of people starved to death on the richest farmlands of the former Soviet Ukraine. Why? Down through the ages countless millions, struggling unsuccessfully to keep bare life in wretched bodies, have died young, in misery and squalor.

Then suddenly, in one spot on earth, the course of history was reversed. Somehow, in this one spot, food is so abundant that the pangs of hunger are almost unknown.

Yes, that was right here - in these United States. Where else has so vast a majority of nation's people enjoyed such a bountiful availability of food? Why did men starve for over 6,000 years? Why is it that in these United States, we have never had a famine? Why?

Why did men, women and children eke out their meager existence for 6,000 years, toiling desperately from dawn 'til dark - often barefoot, half naked, unshaven with lousy hair, mangy skin, rotting teeth - and with never enough to eat? Why?

Never before in human history has a nation enjoyed such wealth, comfort, and leisure as we Americans now enjoy. Every day in thousands of places, men and women are thinking and tinkering - to make available to you and me - MORE - BETTER - NEWER - to further enrich the years that we have on this earth.

Thus, we the laboring class - both blue collar and white collar workers - have been able to enjoy what only most wealthy and privileged classes have in other lands - a home of our own, an automobile or two, electricity, telephones, T.V., washing machines, vacuum cleaners, micro-ovens. Why is it that we in the United States have all this - and people of other lands have so little in comparison? Why?

Economists tell us that wealth - material wealth - is not measured by printed pieces of paper called money - but by the real goods and services we can obtain. Real goods and services can be created in only one way - and that is by the expenditure of human energy, applied to natural resources - usually with the aid of tools.

It follows then, that how much we are motivated to use our human energy, will determine the amount of real good and services created and available to us. The key - or cause - of our abundance must somehow be related to the utilization of our human energy, - physical, and mental.

Economists and efficiency experts say that here in the United States, we have achieved the greatest utilization of human energies in the history of mankind. HOW - and WHY - did we do it?

A few minutes ago, we observed that we do not have a disproportionate share of the earth's natural resource. We further agreed that, as individuals, we are not physically stronger or more intelligent that others. In other words, our potential energy is probably about the same as other people, past and present.

Well then, what has permitted us, as a nation, to achieve the greatest utilization of our available human energy, mental and physical? How and why have we discovered and/or adapted so many tools to multiply our efforts? This is the question. When we have found this answer to this question, we shall have found the key to our abundance - the cause and seed of our wonderful fruit. It's important that we know this answer, lest we lose this important ingredient. The answer is really very simple - so simple that many of us overlook it. Earlier, we eliminated all the possible reasons for our abundance but one.

I submit the answer is INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, and that FREEDOM IS THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS.

As nice as our abundance and material wealth may be, they are not half as important as the way of life that abounds within freedom. It is this climate of freedom that permits the expression of man's great spirituality. This expression of spirituality is perhaps the greatest benefit of freedom.

We might even designate the material wealth and abundance as fringe benefits to the spiritual way of life with freedom. No, of course we are not angels - but I'll stack us up against anyone else as measured by our adherence to a code of morals ethics and concepts found in the Bible.

But, what is this freedom we are talking about? Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev said that the Russian people are free. Castro claimed he brought freedom to the Cuban people. How would you define FREEDOM?

Let's try this definition on for size: Freedom is the absence of external human control or restraint over individual thought and action.

I think you can see what kind of self-control and self-discipline' is required for a great degree of individual freedom. Can an individual or group have great freedom of thought and action - without a corresponding degree of responsibility for their thoughts and actions? FOR EVERY OUNCE OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM, MAN MUST ASSUME AN OUNCE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY!

Since the origin of our country, we in these United States have enjoyed more freedom than any other people, anywhere, anytime in history. we enjoy freedom of Religion...

...Freedom of speech...
...Freedom of the press...
...Freedom to peaceable assembly...
...Freedom of privacy in our homes...

We are free to go into business for ourselves, free to own property, free to work, free to compete - yes, and just as important, free to fail - and try again.We are a free people to the greatest degree ever known to man. But are we slowly but steadily giving up some of those freedoms - with our consent pangs - in exchange for what we consider security?

There is no guarantee that our abundance will continue. Neither you, nor your children, nor your grandchildren are assured this continued abundance - are assured even enough to eat - unless you and I do whatever is necessary to maintain and increase this Mainspring of Human Progress: INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM!

In my own way, I have presented my reasons for believing that FREEDOM is the magic ingredient for providing a highly spiritual way of life which has included great material wealth and abundance. Do we want this to continue for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren?

If we want FREEDOM, we have to earn it; then guard it, generation after generation. It must be understood, then taught from parent to child, from pulpit to board room, over and over again.

I guess if I were asked to sum all this up in just one short sentence, I would merely say, FREEDOM IS THE MAINSPRING OF HUMAN PROGRESS.

Now go back and answer the question again. Discuss the idea of freedom with your friends and associates. Find what they believe to be the meaning of freedom. How do you define freedom?

References: The Mainspring of Human Progress by H.G. Weaver
Essays on Freedom and Power by Lord Acton

Wouldn't this make an interesting program for your business luncheon or club meeting? As you read this keep in mind the use for such meetings.

TWO WORLDS, The story of man and the major infulences of his life.

2010-06-23T08:32:00.000-07:00

In 1966, Flick-Reedy Education Enterprises published a book titled "Two Worlds, The story of man and the major influences on his life, library of Congress catalog card number: 66-30067.

Two Worlds was first introduced as a twenty-four part film program and later published in book form. The purpose of which was "to promote individual moral responsibility through education." The foreword of this book starts out;

"It has been said that little people talk about people, average people talk about things and events, while really big people talk about ideas. The purpose of TWO WORLDS is to encourage and stimulate you to think and talk about ideas. We avoid telling people what they should do or should not do, or how they should think. Instead, we encourage study and discussion of the interrelationship of history, philosophy, social studies, economic and civics. (which is no longer taught in our schools today.) It is our opinion that individual freedom is important and desirable to every human being; that it is earnestly sought after by every human being. Therefore, it seems important that every human being determine for himself the source of individual freedom and reflect on the individual responsibilities which are prerequisites to this freedom." (emphasis added.)

In the next few weeks six segments of this publication will be posted here, starting with the first chapter titled "Human Progress."

This book is designed to give you more than just reading. It is designed to stimulate you to think, discuss, research, and reason about the ideas mentioned. The Authors have tried to avoid authoritarian statements, but rather have mentioned facts and ideas to form a base for further study. This discussion-research-reasoning method tends to help people guide themselves to truthful answers. This discussion-research-reasoning method tends to bring forth unselfish actions because the individual him/herself will have given birth to these truthful answers.

“ENGINEERS - SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL”

2009-12-26T23:28:00.000-08:00

On January 14, 1953, the chairman of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. spoke at the annual meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in Detroit. He was Admiral Ben Moreell, and in 1953, most people in the audience would have known him as a founder and leader of the Seabees -- the U.S. Navy component that built the docks, the airports, and just about everything else our military forces needed to fight and win World War II, often working under fire.

The speech Moreell gave that day is quite simply stunning. It is among the most remarkable talks about human nature, and the nature of government, ever delivered by anyone, anywhere. It rises above politics, as all serious discussions on human life ought to (but lately do not).

Although written more than fifty years ago, it is relevant today -- maybe even more so. You be the judge. While he never mentions politics, this is a must-read for every Conservative and a challenge to the foundations of every Liberal.

Please read the speech and pass it along as widely as you can.

ADDRESS BY ADMIRAL BEN MOREELL

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION

To the

SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS

1953 ANNUAL MEETING

JANUARY 14, 1953

DETROIT, MICHIGAN

Titled “ENGINEERS - SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL”

Tonight I would like to talk with you about engineers and their significance to our economic and social structures.

My dictionary defines engineering as "the art and science by which the properties of matter and the sources of power in nature are made useful to man in structures, and manufactured products."

We engineers have learned that our unceasing efforts to perfect this art and science are essential for the improvement of our material standards of living. And I believe that we may, with due modesty, point with pride to our professional achievements.

However, my purpose tonight is not to give an accounting of the good works of scientific engineers. For I believe that we should now be more concerned with a "pseudo-engineering” that is developing to an alarming extent among us - a kind of engineering which is quite different from that "science by which the properties of matter are made useful to man." I refer to the profession of "social engineering", whose practitioners are known as "social engineers".

A MASTER PLAN

These social engineers - who appear to be more numerous and, at the moment, far more powerful, than we scientific engineers - are dedicated to the thesis that, by using the force of government, mankind in the mass can be changed and molded to conform to a master plan, in much the same way that engineering materials can be processed in accordance with preconceived designs.

We scientific engineers have the unchanging laws of chemistry, physics, and the other natural sciences to guide our efforts. By means of those laws, when we come to understand them, we can predict the behavior of the materials and forces of nature. But the social engineers either know nothing of nature's immutable laws, or choose to ignore them. Instead, they have their man-made and variable laws of compulsions, prohibitions, and other restrictions on the free actions of individuals. By means of these, they claim, they can compel the behavior of men in a manner that will redound to the good of mankind.

We scientific engineers recognize that the materials we use and the laws we follow come from the Creator - a Power of which man himself is but an infinitesimal manifestation - and that these materials may be used and these laws observed to the advantage of mankind. The "raw material" used by the social engineers is all of mankind itself - and the laws and rules which they follow some from no source other than their desire to remold humanity in their chosen images. Scientific engineers process their raw materials to create products for the service of mankind. Social engineers use their raw material - human beings - to create products designed to serve and please their own fancy - and frequently to satisfy their craving for personal power. And often they do this by appealing to the baser traits of man - laziness, greed, selfishness and irresponsibility.

PLANS AND EXPERIMENTS

We scientific engineers do extensive planning and experimenting. We construct models in order to obtain date with which to predict the behavior of the full-scale prototype.

Social engineers also are given to extensive planning and experimenting. They, too, construct models in order to secure a better idea of how they may control the full-scale project. For example, in 1933 practically an entire State, with all of its people - Tennessee - was selected for what was called "a pilot plant" and "a yardstick". I refer to the Tennessee Valley Authority, a project to which its "social engineer in charge" proudly referred as "a seamless web - the unity of land and water and men", all under his direct authority.

The Chief of the Woman's Auxiliary of the Social Engineers is famed for her experiments with model villages and other "social reforms". From these she moved into the Planning Division of the United Nations where - is collaboration with the master social engineers of other nations - she has been busily planning to apply her experiments on a worldwide basis.

Social engineers who have worked in the field of agriculture have, at various times, set aside tracts of land and all of their inhabitants for test projects. Then, satisfied that they had produced a happier, healthier, and more perfect human being, they have returned to Washington and attempted to place into operation a master plan to transform all of mankind by use of the force of government.

They have built model housing developments. The occupants are carefully selected, house-broken, and taught to conform to certain behavior patterns. If the operation of the models and the conduct of the people placed in them are pleasing to the planners, they demand from government the power to force many others to conform to the standards they have set - standards which they claim will reduce crime, improve morality, and develop a better society. But, actually, experience has shown that almost always the ultimate effects are the direct opposite of those that they claim.

These self-anointed friends of humanity are deeply concerned about your health, your diet, and your attitude toward other people, your business, and your job. Ins short, they believe in government-forced control of man in relation to his wages, hours, working conditions, prices, savings, insurance, drinking habits, entertainment, and a host of other problems that every person must face in his daily living.

THE RIGHT TO PLAN

Now, I do not deny to any person the right to make any plan be chooses - whether it be a plan to fly to the moon or a plan to create a superior human being. But I do deny the planner the right to force me, or any other person, to conform to his plan.

We scientific engineers do not need laws to force people to adopt our plans or to buy our products. I believe that each of us s willing to leave the decision to the competitive market where all persons have complete freedom to buy or not to buy, to join or not to join, to invest or not to invest.

But these would-be managers-at-large of society are not willing to extend freedom of choice to others than themselves. They must have the power of government -- the police force - behind their plans or they are helpless. They know that in almost all cases a free people in a free market would reject their wares. That is why they want to abolish the market economy and force people to conform to their plans or to suffer the penalty of fines and imprisonment.

For example, I am an unwilling "stockholder" in the Tennessee Valley Authority. I continue to pay money into that project for the simple reason that the police force will use violence upon me should I refuse. I am willing to sell my share of TVA, and of all similar welfare projects, at a large discount. In fact, I would give my equity to these humanitarians if they would only stop forcing me to subsidize their schemes.

They claim they can "prove conclusively" that the Tennessee Valley Authority is a great financial success, which regularly returns a profit to the people of America. If this so, why do they come to Congress almost every year for additional appropriations? Why do they not offer stock in the open market where the people can have a choice?

The answer is simple: A free people would reject the stock. If this were not so, there would have been no reason to make their participation compulsory in the first instance.

These promoters with the public purse have been planning a Missouri Valley Authority and various other such authorities for many years. And they have been using your money to propagandize the gullible into believing that the projects are economically sound; that they will pay back far more than they cost. If this is so, why do they demand that the police force, government, recruit their stockholders?

GOOD INTENTIONS

Now, these social busybodies may have the best intentions in the world. Their personal lives may be above reproach. Their primary motive may be only too "do good for the people". I question neither their intentions nor their sincerity. But I do question their basic belief that good can be accomplished through the use of violence. To illustrate my point, let us consider the French Revolution. The people rebelled against a government that forced them to conform to its decrees on wages, prices, profits, employment, housing, and similar matters.

Now, it would be logical to suppose that the revolters against a government of favoritism would reject favoritism and entrust their social and economic relationships to a market and a society where freedom of choice was controlling.

It is true that some effort was made in this direction in the early stages of the French Revolution. But soon there came to power Robespierre - a man of unquestioned personal integrity and habits - a dedicated humanitarian. He became the foremost "social engineer" of his day. Here is his master plan for re-creating the people of France:

"In our country,” he said, "we desire to establish morality, honesty, principles, duties, reason, contempt of vice, pride, greatness of soul, love of glory, good people, merit, genius, truth, happiness, greatness of man, generosity, strength - in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues of a republic for all the vices of a monarchy".

Who can disagree with those noble objectives? Certainly, I do not, any more than I disagree with those of most of our own social planners. But Robespierre had no faith in people. He rejected any thought that the people would develop those desirable virtues by the use of violence; to use the power of government to force all people to conform to his plan for making them better. He became known as the "humanitarian with the guillotine". Those who refused to conform to his concepts of morality and economic behavior were fined or imprisoned or executed.

When it came his own turn to bow to the guillotine, his defense was that of all humanitarians who rely on the force of government for the accomplishment of their good works. He said that his every act had been "for the good of the people"; that he was only trying to help them to peace, prosperity, and happiness.

ADOLF HITLER: SOCIAL ENGINEER

And so it is with all social engineers, including Hitler, Stalin, and our domestic brand. Hitler looked upon people as clay to be molded to his purposes. Some of this clay - human beings - did not meet his specifications. So he destroyed it in much the same manner that a scientific engineer discards defective material. His program of social reform allowed little freedom of choice. He used the force of government to regulate wages, prices, profits, working conditions, unions, rents, housing, education, medical services, social security, production, and a host of other vital matters. And he, too, repeatedly announced that all these things ere being done for "the good of all the people". That is the familiar chant of these "public benefactors". The dictator who "liquidates" a group of persons is practicing social engineering - as is the public official who takes money from one group of citizens and gives it to another group - in the form of public housing or some other socially "useful" project.

Both are doing what they say is "best for the people as a whole". They may differ in their approach, but if you think that our domestic brand is any less determined than the variety, just try deducting from your tax bill your share of the cost of socialized housing in America. First, you will be fined. If you refuse to pay the fine, you will be sentenced to prison. If you resist the officer who is sent to arrest you - well, just what does happen in our country to persons who resist arrest?

RELIGION AND SOCIAL ENGINEERS

Now you may ask: Did our great religious teachers practice social engineering? Was Jesus a social engineer? Recalling that I have defined social engineers as those who would re-make mankind in the mass by using the force of government, my answer is an emphatic no. For Jesus always appealed only to individuals. He asked that each one make a voluntary choice to follow God's way. He said to the individual, "The Kingdom of God is within you. "That is, it does not lie in the group, or in the mob, or in the vote of the majority, but in the individual himself. Nor did Jesus ever appeal, or even suggest an appeal, to the force of government for the accomplishment of good works. Instead, He appealed to each person to reform himself, that he might be born again. He recognized no such thing as "group morality". Rather, He taught that each individual must eventually answer personally for his own deeds of commission and omission, form which it follows that no one can divest himself of his responsibility by hiding it behind someone else or even behind our collective agent - government.

THE AUTHORITY IDEA

All social engineers are devotees of the pagan concept of authority. Their every action shows clearly that they do not believe that freedom, as a way of life will work.

They believe inherently that free mane cannot possibly be adequately housed, clothed, or fed. By their actions they show clearly that they consider themselves superior in intelligence to the rest of us. For our own good they desire to force the rest of us to live and act and think, as they believe we should.

Since they assume for themselves a higher degree of intelligence and morality than the rest of us, I suggest that we examinee their credentials. Who has commissioned them to use us as raw material, to be molded as they see fit? Surely no such commission could be valid unless the Almighty Himself signed it. Apparently no social engineer ever stops to consider that this raw material he is remolding is composed of human beings - creatures of God, created in God's image. Or, if he does think about it, apparently he concludes that God's work should be improved upon. It is my belief that God intended men to be free to make their own decisions and to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Thus it seems to me that it is an act against God for men to pass laws which destroy individual liberty; which force some persons to conform to the ideas and plans of other persons; which deprive persons of the responsibility for their own acts and for their own welfare.

It seems to me that there is convincing evidence to support my beliefs on this subject. And the basic evidence is found in the fact that no person is physically or mentally or morally identical to any other person. For example, we know that the fingerprints of all persons are different. And these differences - these individualities, these inequalities - carry through all the physical, mental, and moral characteristics of mankind.

THE LAW OF NATURE

This inequality among persons is a law of nature - law which is just as unchangeable and just as necessary to understand as is any other natural law, as, for example, the law of gravity. This particular law is known as the "law of variation", and from the unrestricted operation of this law comes all human progress. The law of variation permits children to be different from their parents. It permits brothers to think differently and to act differently. It permits the existence of both miser and philanthropists, saints and sinners, rich and poor. It is the foundation for all conceivable human relationships. These natural variations underlie all commerce and trade and exchanges of any kind - including all the aspects of social and economic life within a society.

The law of variation permits inventors to invent, managers to manage, and scientific engineers to improve the material well being of mankind. It permits each person to seek a job or profession, which is most suited to his natural talents and his desires. It encourages a voluntary division of labor, with resulting maximum efficiency and greater prosperity for all. Without this variation - this unequal ness - our social structure would be similar to that of an anthill or a beehive, where each member is born to do a certain predetermined job, which he does with blind allegiance to his society and with no consideration of personal interests or preferences.

EQUALITY AND POSSESSIONS

The slogan of the social engineer is "equality" and the tools he proposes to use to bring this about are the compulsions and prohibitions of government. But what does he mean by equality? Certainly I am not equal to anyone else. I frequently meet persons who are my superior in intelligence, in morality, in health, and in material possessions. By equality does he mean that we should all have equal intelligence? If so, his arguments should be directed to God. If not equality of intelligence, does he mean that one of the most important by-products of intelligence - material possessions - should be equalized? Or, if he merely intends that some degree of equality of possessions should be achieved, just what degree does he have in mind? If his concept of equality is what he chooses to call "adequate" housing for all, then does not the same principle apply to adequate clothing, food, medical care, entertainment, education, and work for all? And should we not have adequate religious training for all? Surely he does not intend to leave that vital subject to chance! In due time I am quite sure that he will get around to controlling that, too.

When the social engineer uses his compulsions to establish equality or "adequateness" in one area, he may deny vehemently that he intends to establish it elsewhere. In fact, he usually does issue such a denial. But it never works that way. Once it is conceded that people should be forced to conform to the ideas of others, there is no principle on which we can rely to deny the same authority in any area.

EQUALITY AND LAW

It seems to me that the only equality we can logically expect is equality before the law. In that event, no person would be subsidized at the expense of another. There could be no subsidies - for if every person were equal before the law, then the law could not take from some in order to give to others. If we were all equal before the law, there would automatically be a free market wherein no person could use the law to force upon ant other person his concepts of wages, prices, or anything else.

Equality before the law means that no person may steal from another person, defame him, defraud him, injure him, or coerce him in any way. Equality before the law cannot exist until the law recognizes the right of every person to the possessions he has honestly acquired in a free society. There is no equality as long as the law takes from one person against his will to give to another person who has not earned it.

RESPONSIBILITY AND SECURITY

In my opinion, the greatest evil of our times is that so many of us are trying to impose on others our ideas as to how they should live their lives. And when they fail to behave as we think they should, we are tempted to resort to coercion - acting through or agent - government. We apparently see no incongruity in the question, "How can you do good for the people if you just let them alone?"

We need not go beyond our own recent history to find examples of the demoralizing effect of depriving people of the personal responsibility of being free. In response to the urging of our social engineers, many Americans are trying to avoid this responsibility by voting for men who promise to install a system of "government-guaranteed security", a partial return to the old slave laws of some of our Southern States that guaranteed to all slaves "the right to food and raiment, to kind attention when sick, to maintenance in old age." And the arguments used in defense of this present-day trend toward the bondage of a welfare state are essentially the same as those used formerly to defend the bondage of outright slavery.

For example, many of the slaveholders claimed to know what was "best for the slaves". After all, hadn't they "rescued" the slaves from a life of savagery? Our social reformers who advocate "government-guaranteed security” also claim that they know what is best for the people and they say, "After all, haven't the American people shown conclusively that they are incapable of handling the responsibility for their own welfare?"

Many of the slaveholders believed sincerely that the "dumb, ignorant slaves" would starve to death unless their welfare were guaranteed by the masters. And the social engineers say, "Are you in favor of letting people starve?"

But let us consider the emancipated slaves. Many of them were old or crippled or sick. They had no homes, no jobs, and very little education, but - most precious of all - they were free. They were responsible for their own welfare. They had the privilege of finding their own security.

Now, compare the remarkable progress of those former slaves to the lack of progress of the American Indians who have been made wards of the government; who were given state-guaranteed "security" instead of freedom with responsibility. In 1862 most American Negroes were slaves. Today they are about as self-supporting and responsible as other American citizens. And in the meantime the Indians, as group, have become less self-supporting and more dependent on government. It has even been claimed that many thousands of Indians will die of starvation unless the government feeds them. If this is true, why is it so?

MISUSE OF RESOURCES

I am aware that many social engineers justify their projects by pointing with horror to some instances of the misuse of human and natural resources in the market economy as it developed in the Western World. I freely admit and decry those abuses. My studies indicate that they were possible only because one group of citizens was able to obtain special favor from government at the expense of others - i.e., government failed in its basic duty to protect the rights of all citizens equally. However, I see no justification in such past errors for setting up other privileged groups and thus prolonging this process, which has proved so corrosive to the public morals.

I am sure few will deny that, over the years, there has been a steady, substantial, and voluntary improvement in our social consciousness and behavior. I hold that our sloe hope for continued progress in this area lies in the improvement by the individual of his own moral stature so that he will know what is right and want to do it, voluntarily, not be granting, by votes or otherwise, ever-increasing power and dominion to social engineers to regulate and control our lives, our morals, and our property. That we are justified in expecting even greater developments in morals in evidenced by the current tremendous outpourings of financial and other support for our churches, our charities, our educational institutions, our hospitals, and many other benefactions.¹ The total of the new contributions each year, i.e., not including income on investments, is now estimated to be well in excess of four billion dollars! There is no dearth of beneficence here. Our great error is a lack of confidence in the voluntary acts of free people.

A philosopher friend recently summarized this subject in the following cogent words: "An incalculable amount of harm has been done by those who have gone fourth to reform society. As a matter of fact, there is no way of reforming society except by making individuals better. And no one can make individuals better except the individual himself. If you want to be a reformer, reform yourself. That will keep you busy for a while and lend encouragement to others. Then, when there are significant numbers of transformed individuals, society will be reformed, but not before."

¹ This may or may not be true today as it was back in 1953 when this speech was presented!

NATIONAL HEALTH CARE

2009-10-31T09:56:00.000-07:00

There's been so much debate on national health care that I'm sick of hearing all the whining from both sides of this issue; the D’s verses R’s.

Is our health care system in American really broke and does it need fixing? If so what kind of fix does it need? Should we use the same system of health care that Canada and Britain uses, which is socialism and won't work, or should we, model our health care after the form used in Germany or Taiwan? Which does work. Either way be prepared, taxes will go up!

The current form that Congresswoman Nancy Palosi (D, CA) and Senator Harry Reed (D, NV) are backing and pushing through Congress is socialism and needs to be questioned and debated by us, the American people, not the politicians in Washington. Let us make that decision, (it called freedom of choice.)

Given the track record of the United States Government and the Bureaucrats within government the only beneficiary’s will be special interests groups. Not the Individual American!

Here’s what you’ll get under the current plan.

The courtesy of the I.R.S.

The efficiency of the Post Office

The effectiveness of FEMA after Hurricane Katrina.

Is this what you want, be careful, you may get what you want and as I’ve learned in my short life, “what I want is not necessarily what I need."

A Warning to all Americans

2009-10-22T19:09:00.000-07:00

Oct. 22, 2009

From Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry Wilson

We lived in California during the winters of 2007 and 2008. We became addicted to Fox News and watched O'Reilly and Hannity and Colmes every night. When we got back home, we upgraded our cable to get Fox. I watched the Presidential campaign very closely. Initially because I thought the Democrats would nominate Hillary Clinton and then in astonishment when they chose an even more hard-left candidate. All of last year I told everyone I could that Obama was not a Democrat, he was a Marxist. He is far to the left of any European leader and even our far left party, the NDP.

I read Saul Alinsky when I was in the University. I studied him and his writing carefully. When Bill Ayers and his idiot wife were bombing and killing people at random in the Weather Underground. Weather Underground and the Black Panthers were closely allied. I read David Horowitz's account of changing from a Marxist to a conservative after seeing that the government was afraid to prosecute members of the Panthers for murdering his personal assistant. He suddenly understood the evil that Marxism really was.

After the student radicals failed in creating a Marxist revolution in the United States by violent means, they embraced Alinsky. You would be wise to read "Rules for Radicals" because it outlines how Hillary and Obama planned to get into power, and what they intended to do when they got it.

Socialism is not the correct descriptor for what Obama and the Democrats are doing. They are going to be much more far reaching than anything Sweden has ever been able to do. Obama is following Alinsky's plans, those set out in "Rules for Radicals" and his other writing. The Democrats are attempting to create one party rule in the U.S. and in achieving that, will create crisis after crisis by their own actions and use those crisis to nationalize the means of production in the U.S. You are in the middle of a communist revolution and few in the U.S. can actually see it for what it truly is.

The U.S. is now on the path of financial destruction. The Constitution has been shredded and individual human rights are being trampled. In less than 8 months. Obama has used a recession to take over the two largest industries in the U.S. He will debase the Dollar and is on the road to creating an incredible energy shortage that will allow him and Congress to take over the energy industry.

But by and large I think that by the 2010 elections, the Democrats will have gerrymandered electoral districts to the point that it will be impossible for them to lose control of both houses of Congress. The incredible increase in the money supply is going to create Zimbabwe and Venezuela style inflation, and with it, controls on the currency and the amount of money that can be taken out of the country.

I love America , I cannot believe how the ignorance of the American public has created a situation where by they are going to lose their Republic and slip into an age of repression and tyranny.

I may be nuts, but so far I have been 100% in my predictions of what Obama was going to do, because I merely had to look at "Rules for Radicals" to see what was coming next.

I read Glenn Beck's book, "Common Sense" and in it re-read Thomas Paine's pamphlet with the same name. I recommend the book.

When the storm finally hits (and it will), those of you who supported the Obama administration will be affected as well. It won't just be us gun owners or Flat-Taxers, or Pro-Lifers that get hit. You'll be right there next to us.

You all thought the Conservatives were nut cases. You know, all of us who believe in God, small government, the Second Amendment, etc. You thought you could just go back to sleep after the election was over. In your world, America will continue as before. You'll still have the same rights, the same nice house, the same big screen television. After all, your high school football team won and the other team lost "go team"! Even if you have bothered to look up from the daily grind since Nov 4th, you dismissed everything that has occurred as "politics as usual"the same old stuff.

In the end, it'll all be OK won't it? Not this time.

There are a growing number of citizens in the US that are ready to fight to shut down the government's grab of personal freedom, it's blatant abuse of the constitution, and it's attempt to replace the American way of life with socialism. You have to listen carefully to hear them, but they are there. I won't start that fight, but when it goes down I will join it.

As for you, why, you'll be shocked because you didn't see it coming. And eventually you'll be saddened when you see that we have truly lost the way of life with which you grew up. You'll be saddened that your children and grandchildren live in a socialist, government-controlled gulag where their every movement from cradle to grave is tracked by the government. But most of all, you'll be saddened by the death of friends and relatives who are brave enough to fight and die for something they believe in.

You know, McCain wasn't much of a candidate. I'll give you that. He was the lesser of two evils for most of us. I don't blame you for not voting for him since, at the time, you didn't know what we all know now. But at least John McCain was an American. He was a supporter of the American way of life and he understood that you can't negotiate with terrorists. He understood and appreciated the sacrifice made by my father and other members of the Greatest Generation.

Mark my words friends. All across America groups are forming. They are forming out of anger and out of desperation at the thought of losing America . They're not militia groups, terrorists as the Department of Homeland security would have you believe; they are Americans, loyal to the constitution. They are mothers and fathers and grandparents. They belong to groups like the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, the Peaceful Resistance, the Constitution Party, the Young Conservatives, the 9/12 Project, and Grassfire. Right now they are fragmented, each focused on their own cause. But sometime in the next two years, our government is going to do something really stupid and these groups will come together. Watch for it, wait for it's get ready. It will happen.

When that event happens, whatever "it" is, our great country is going to plunge into chaos for a while. I pray to God that we make it through that time and emerge a stronger, smarter country.

Naval Aviator, Commander Jerry Wilson, jerrywilson@centurytel.net ( http://us.mc813.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jerrywilson@centurytel.net )

Live Free or Die Fighting

This is a time to be looking UP And to be praying

Wake up America!!!

2009-04-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

Here's an E-mail I received today. I fully agree with its content. The Author's word's are very close to my own conclusions

by Pam Geller

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life. I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it.. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two.

We demand and then codified into law the requirement that our banks make massive loans to people whom we know could never pay back? Why? We learned recently that the Federal Reserve, which has little or no real oversight by anyone, has "loaned" two trillion dollars (that is $2,000,000,000,000) over the past few months, but will not tell us to whom or why or disclose the terms. That is our money. Yours and mine. And that is three times the $700B we all argued about so strenuously just this past September.

Who has this money? Why do they have it? Why are the terms unavailable to us? Who asked for it? Who authorized it? I thought this was a government of "We the People," who loaned our powers to our elected leaders. Apparently not.

We have spent two or more decades intentionally De-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?). We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government. Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in its length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

And now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not d own right scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

Mr. Obama's winning platform can be boiled down to one word: Change.. Why?

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure. Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

And that is only the beginning.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission.

And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world.

He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and change. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though...

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. And in less than six years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U. S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust); I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have another latte and ignore what is transpiring around me.

Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe - and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong. But, I do not think I am.

About the author via Google...

Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York

Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York

Observer as Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her

fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American

Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President

Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.

After 9/11, Atlas had the veil of oblivion violently lifted from her

consciousness and immersed herself in the education and understanding

of geopolitics, Islam, terror, foreign affairs and imminent threats the

mainstream media and the government wouldn't cover or discuss.

***************************************************************

Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Everybody that is on this mailing list is either a

senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version

(at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive

rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part

of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today

by Bloomberg with the following statement.

Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform will

not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions

that come with age instead of treating them."

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just

remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own health care plan

that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the

remainder of their lives and are not subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the Internet to get this

message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election

coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address

and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies

have begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard! Lets do it!

If you disagree, don't do anything.

Bailout Politics

2008-10-09T17:40:00.000-07:00

by Thomas Sowell

Nothing could more painfully demonstrate what is wrong with Congress than the current financial crisis.

Among the Congressional "leaders" invited to the White House to devise a bailout "solution" are the very people who have for years created the risks that have now come home to roost.

Five years ago, Barney Frank vouched for the "soundness" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and said "I do not see" any "possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury."

Moreover, he said that the federal government has "probably done too little rather than too much to push them to meet the goals of affordable housing."

Earlier this year, Senator Christopher Dodd praised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for "riding to the rescue" when other financial institutions were cutting back on mortgage loans. He too said that they "need to do more" to help subprime borrowers get better loans.

In other words, Congressman Frank and Senator Dodd wanted the government to push financial institutions to lend to people they would not lend to otherwise, because of the risk of default.

The idea that politicians can assess risks better than people who have spent their whole careers assessing risks should have been so obviously absurd that no one would take it seriously.

But the magic words "affordable housing" and the ugly word "redlining" led to politicians directing where loans and investments should go, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and various other coercions and threats.

The roots of this problem go back many years, but since the crisis to which all this led happened on George W. Bush’s watch, that is enough for those who think in terms of talking points, without wanting to be confused by the facts.

In reality, President Bush tried unsuccessfully, years ago, to get Congress to create some regulatory agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
N. Gregory Mankiw, his Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, warned in February 2004 that expecting a government bailout if things go wrong "creates an incentive for a company to take on risk and enjoy the associated increase in return."

Since risky investments usually pay more than safer investments, the incentive is for a government-supported enterprise to take bigger risks, since they get more profit if the risks pay off and the taxpayers get stuck with the losses if not.

The government does not guarantee Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but the widespread assumption has been that the government would step in with a bailout to prevent chaos in financial markets.

Alan Greenspan, then head of the Federal Reserve System, made the same point in testifying before Congress in February 2004. He said: "The Federal Reserve is concerned" that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were using this implicit reliance on a government bailout in a crisis to take more risks, in order to "multiply the profitability of subsidized debt."

Chairman Greenspan added his voice to those urging Congress to create a "regulator with authority on a par with that of banking regulators" to reduce the riskiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a riskiness ultimately borne by the taxpayers.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not deserve to be bailed out, but neither do workers, families and businesses deserve to be put through the economic wringer by a collapse of credit markets, such as occurred during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Neither do the voters deserve to be deceived on the eve of an election by the notion that this is a failure of free markets that should be replaced by political micro-managing.

If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved

DON'T WORRY

2008-09-25T08:19:00.000-07:00

BE HAPPY

By: Philip J. Rappa

There is no need to be a forensic pathologist to understand the cause of death of America's financial institutions and our credibility abroad. The only thing required is a familiarity with our history.

Over the past twenty-nine years beginning with the 96th Congress and concluding with the 106th, there has been a systematic concerted effort by our elected officials to unravel the remaining vestiges of our institutions that represented our sovereignty as a nation. If we just round up these usual suspects, based on reasonable suspicion we can begin to delineate more then just probable cause, but most importantly the direct cause of our misfortune.

Following the stock market crash of 1929, laws were enacted to prevent another debacle: The Glass-Steagall Act and the creation of the FDIC. Both officially named the Banking Act of 1935. These laws set in motion the apparatus separating commercial banks from investment banks; this arrangement worked for sixty-four years.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) included banking reforms some of which were designed to control speculation. Some provisions such as Regulation Q allowed The Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts. In 1980, congress in all its wisdom repealed the FDIC reforms by enacting the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act.

Then on November 12th, 1999, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. One of the effects of the repeal was to allow commercial and investment banks to consolidate. From that moment in time it only took Wall Street and K-Street nine years to destroy our financial institutions and our credibility abroad.

The only noteworthy fact that is prologue to this disaster is that each generation preceding us has had their own financial calamity ushered in by unencumbered and unbridled capitalism. Each time profit trumped public interest. The agents of our despair have treated their oath of office as if it were an antiquated notion giving their allegiance as well as aid and comfort to the free market, while the working man became little more then an expendable asset.

Each generation had its own brand of corporate and government corruption and cronyism and an understanding of the collusion between the government, industry, military and the bankers. Even to a casual observer a pattern seems to emerge. Humanity has struggled for centuries to unshackle themselves from the subjugation of kings, popes, empires and raw capitalism.

In one generation we have idly watched as these same elected officials dismantled our nation's industries sending them, our jobs and our technology to foreign shores to be made on the cheap. America's labor force has been disemboweled placed on a pyre fueled by vapors of a gossamer web that once epitomized America's "Promise": that of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The "Promise", once the tapestry of this nation's domestic social contract, which was won by the blood, sweat and tears of those who came before us has been shredded by an unregulated corporate free-market fanaticism. We on Main Street shall be left to pay the piper due to the treasonous actions of our elected officials and our own individual participation in this Ponzi scheme.

" Published originally at EtherZone.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

IS TIME RUNNING OUT

2008-07-15T17:43:00.000-07:00

Or have you giving up?

More terminated Mixed Blood Ute's are sounding off about the Ute Partition Act than ever before. But, have things reached the point where the sounding off is more of a jarring cacophony than a stirring rallying cry? -Or- are we all destined to lose in the long run? Politicians and lawyers, aided by behind-the-scenes handlers of all kinds, quite nimbly played one faction against another and have been for more then fifty years. They seized the opportunity to appeal to a group that they knew wouldn't take the time to read the fine print and notice scripts change just enough to lock in a different agenda, while claiming to represent the best choice for everyone's future.

Politicians, Lawyers and the Ute Indian Tribe, worked itself into a frenzy of viewing the Ute Partition Act (Termination) as a do-or-die marathon, never noticing or caring what the effects this act would have on individuals. It was and is a game where greed and bigotry replaced common sense and effort--from qualifying to a winner take-all finale. Now, when the stakes were at the highest, individuals were coerced into ‘stakeholder” status, the rules rapidly change; but too few people paid any attention to the details.

This process (termination) can be compared to an Old Western movie, where the gullible Rancher loses his wallet, jewelry, horse, ranch, and even his very life-- because the Rancher mistakenly assumes the game was honest. The Ute Partition Act was not an Old Western movie. It was and is real life. By the time they noticed the game was rigged and what was lost it was too late.

What's left? Do we have any workable solutions? Who can orchestrate a sustained and needed solution? Do we have time left to find out and get any orchestrated efforts all working together? The tune is more important than the people directing the chorus! There is still time!

A SOCIALIST BY ANY OTHER NAME...

2008-06-26T16:13:00.000-07:00

SWEEPING THE WEST
By: Selwyn Duke

One of the consequences of being right in an age of lies is that it brands you as a radical. Remember that being an extremist doesn't mean you're wrong, but simply that your views deviate greatly from those of the mainstream. If you say that 2+2=4 in a land where everyone else insists it's 5, you'll be labeled a radical. The same is true if you assert that a certain society of men is full of wolves when everyone else believes they're sheep.

Now, for years I've been telling people that most of our Democrats are essentially socialists; sure, either they won't admit it publicly or aren't fully aware of it themselves (quite common; self knowledge is often sorely lacking, especially among leftists). It was a message as hard to relate as it is for many to accept, as it renders you something less than the kind of "credible" commentator who gets invitations to appear on Fox News (bigot Opio Sokoni was on O'Reilly last week). But that message now goes down a little easier with the recent Democrat proposal to nationalize oil refineries.

There is a great article on this very subject by a writer named Lance Fairchok; it is titled "Why Do We Call Them 'Democrats'? After quoting a couple of Democrats who waxed enthusiastic about nationalizing the oil refineries, he presents this Freudian slip by Congressman Maxine Waters:
"This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh . . . would be about . . . basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."

Well, well, I don't suppose that's the kind of rhetoric she used on the campaign trail (although I suspect most of her constituents either wouldn't know what she was talking about or wouldn't care). Don't rejoice too much at the shedding of the mask, however, as it's not so much attributable to a sudden spirit of honesty as it is to a changing climate. The truth is that no small number of American citizens are now socialists, only, they usually aren't aware of it. These are people – and we've all met them – who never heard a proposal for government involvement they didn't like. They only ask that one of two criteria be met: The proposal must sound convenient for them or inconvenient for someone who they envy. Oh, and, yes, I have always known that greed and jealousy -- as opposed to some noble desire to help the downtrodden -- are what drive leftists. Winston Churchill observed this decades ago when he said:
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

If you doubt both that old curmudgeon and me, a younger one, consider research related by columnist Peter Schweizer in this article. He writes,
Scholars at Oxford and Warwick Universities found the same sort of behaviour (a desire to take from those who have more) when they conducted an experiment.

Setting up a computer game that allowed people to accumulate money, they gave participants the option to spend some of their own money in order to take away more from someone else.

The result? Those who considered themselves 'egalitarians' (i.e. Left of centre) were much more willing to give up some of their own money if it meant taking more money from someone else.

Much of the desire to distribute wealth and higher taxation is motivated by envy – the desire to take more from someone else – and bitterness.
Unfortunately, while we can give ourselves pep talks about how we value liberty and the wonders of our "free market" (if only it were freer), the truth is that socialism has swept the West. British Chancellor of the Exchequer quipped about this over a century ago when, after introducing death duties in the budget of 1894, he said, "We are all socialists now."

As I said before, though, let's not lose sight of the fact that the politicians merely reflect the people. Too many Americans have been instilled with unrealistic expectations for lifestyle and a spirit of entitlement, and they will glom onto any slick demagogue (even if he has a strange foreign name) who promises a larger piece of the pie. As to this, in Fairchok's article he presents a chilling prediction made by U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas more than half a century ago. To wit:
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

While I can't say much for the man's politics, he was, at least insofar as this went, quite prescient. Most Americans have been inured to socialism under a different name, although virtually all would protest loudly if so accused.
People fall victim to the idea that socialism can work for a few reasons. For one thing, new generations are born and, with history taught so poorly, the mistakes of the past must be learned anew. Then, many labor under the illusion that socialism breeds prosperity in places such as Sweden, when in reality such countries are dying a lingering death.

Yet, if socialism – in any guise – is what Americans want, it's what they will get. But not only won’t they know how it happened, as Thomas said, they won’t like the consequences and won't know what to blame them on. Thus, they probably will fancy that the solution is even more government involvement.

Another thing that gets you branded a radical is when you point out that socialism is just a less virulent strain of communism. Yet the pseudo-intellectuals who would thus stigmatize you are blithely unaware of an important fact.

Karl Marx himself said that socialism was just a transitional phase on the road to communism.

We just have to wait for the second mask to come off.

" Published originally at EtherZone.com: republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

“AN ENIGMA”

2008-04-09T10:05:00.000-07:00

The Perplexity of Life as a Mixed Blood Uinta

There are still many barriers facing the terminated Uintas that seem extremely difficult to over come. In the white communities adjacent to; along with the Indian communities on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, and some individuals within our own group; there exists a foundation of prejudice which inexorably target’s the mixed-bloods efforts at regaining their Indian identity. While the full-blood Indian feels a need to marginalize the terminated mixed bloods and their descendant’s because of dogmatic tenets within the Ute Tribe; the tribe supercilious believes all mixed bloods must be held prisoner behind invisible bars and malevolently feel that to allow the mixed blood to escape this prison will be the very death of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah.

This kind of mindset is nothing more then a 1970’s colloquium on South Africa and the Coloureds. This vociferous wanton attitude, by the tribe, its members; which is fomented by the white community, and with some mixed blood’s supercilious dogmatic attitude, assiduously maligns the terminated mixed blood, which only serves to empower cabal grift-ers ad-nauseum.

For the terminated Uinta, notwithstanding their disparate mixed blood lineage, this becomes a form of genocide, or, put in the word spoken as a hiss by Indians, assimilation. This is an enigma and is the crux of the problem for me.

I’ve been assimilated. It seems like a thousand years from Dry Mountain, Rock Creek, Pigeon Water and Mud Springs, to the freeways of California, and I traversed those thousand years in one swift stroke. I’m also one of the many thousands of metis¹ (mixed blood) whose combination ancestry serves to bridge those thousand years between white and Indian ways. I’m a living testament to the best, and the worst, of two significantly dissimilar worlds.

I suppose I’m luckier than most mixed bloods, including direct cousins. I look white and thus am automatically exempt from the immediate visual tag of half-breed. I do not consider myself much different from my white neighbors or my Indian cousins. However I do cling tenaciously to my Indian-ness and its like holding fast to a wet rope while the floodwaters try to carry me away.

We had our identities taken away by an antecedent wanton act, but those malevolent demagogues couldn’t and won’t make us disappeared. The terminated mixed-blood is still here and here to stay!

Most Indians seem to think the government owes them just because they’re American Indian, but that feeling isn’t true of all American Indians. A few, like me, realize that you can't turn back the clock. Instead, we argue, pay the Indian his/her due, as spelled out in treaties, and then leave us the “h***” alone!

Is Education Our Salvation?

Education is the great dilemma facing our people. Without it, we will never be able to survive the white man and yet with it the full blood Indian has tried to destroy us. On today’s U & O Reservation, Ute parents sends their child to the local white school located off the Reservation to learn values and trades that do not necessarily relate to the world on the U & O. The reservation doesn’t have the economy to support an Indian with an advanced education. It is fine to train a young Indian boy or girl to be a dentist, doctor or engineer, but when they must choose between going home and serving their people or moving to a large urban area and making money, the choice is obvious, especially if they’re a descendent of a terminated Uinta, but for the full blood an advanced education is like trying to break the suction of a suckling piglet clinging to the tit of a Sow (the government.) All though there are a few exceptions to this rule, but not many.

We mixed bloods are better educated, but having a diploma doesn't mean you'll be infused with or automatically gain wisdom; wisdom can only be gained by experience and time.

When it comes to my Indian-ness, I'm pragmatic and not ignorant. Ignorance² is the condition of being unaware, or uninformed.” I have an awareness of things as they really are and I know who I am. The enemy wants to keep us ignorant! This can be prevented by making an effort at keeping the lines of communication open between each other and not shutting anyone out of the loop.

We are surrounded by many tenacious miscreants bent on keep us down. We must all have fidelity, fortitude and not abrogate our faith in, both, Dennis Chappabitty and Felter v. Kempthorne.

1 - Métis were the offspring of local Indians and Europeans in the Red River area of what is now southern Manitoba. They call themselves the Forgotten People.
2 - Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is sometimes misinterpreted as a synonym of stupidity, and is as thus often taken as an insult.

Incrementalism

2008-03-29T20:45:00.000-07:00

How To Boil A Live Frog
By Tom Barrett
http://www.americandaily.com/

(08/07/03)
Please do not try this at home. I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not advocate frog boiling. I am simply describing a science experiment which I learned about roughly a hundred years ago when I was in high school. I want to make this very clear, because otherwise I'll have liberals demonstrating on my front lawn about my insensitivity to frogs. (Isn't it interesting that the same people who advocate killing babies in the womb are so concerned about animals? Kind of twisted, isn't it?)

In the experiment a frog was dropped into a pot of hot (not boiling) water. It immediately jumped out, as would any sensible frog. Then it was placed in a pot of cool water sitting on a stove. This was more to its liking, so it swam about and lounged comfortably. The heat was turned on and raised very gradually. Soon it was hotter than the water in the first experiment, but the frog didn't jump out. This was because there was no dramatic difference, as there had been when it was taken from room temperature and dropped into hot water. The frog became accustomed to the increased temperature as it was raised little by little. Before long the temperature was so high that the frog was unable to jump out of the pot, and it died.

Thinking about some of the radical changes in our society over the last several decades made me remember that frog. Here are a few things that would have been unthinkable when I graduated from high school in 1966. A homosexual U.S. Congressman is caught having sex with a male Congressional page, and is allowed to stay in office. Schools suspend high school students for quietly praying together during lunch, but teach classes on witchcraft and Satan worship. Little children are sexually abused by trusted day care workers. Illiterate teenagers receive High School diplomas. The President of the United States commits perjury before a Grand Jury, and beats impeachment. High school girls are ashamed to admit that they are virgins. When I was in high school they would have been ashamed to admit that they weren't! Irresponsible adults use abortion as birth control; over half of the babies conceived in this nation are killed in their mothers' wombs.

These changes didn't take place overnight. Just like the frog, our nation has been assaulted gradually, so that we didn't realize what was happening to us. It wasn't easy to turn a mostly moral nation into an amoral morass. But the liberals, secular humanists, God-haters and perverts who have systematically engineered this cultural revolution had strong allies in their campaign. Over the years they have targeted and gained control of four of the most powerful influences on American thought: the public schools, the judges and justices on the benches of our appeals courts, the entertainment industry, and the media. Here are just a few examples:

I often tune in to C-Span's live coverage of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I once saw a bunch of Hollywood stars and two hundred young diabetics testify before a Senate sub-committee. They were supposedly there to request additional funding for juvenile diabetes research. Instead they used the television exposure to lobby for embryonic research. I saw deliberate, repeated use of the term "embryonic stem cell research." No mention was made of the fact that there are many other sources of stem cells for research that do not involve killing an embryo. For instance, literally tons of stem-cell-rich human fat from liposuction are discarded every week. They are desperate to link the use of the word "embryonic" to the phrase "stem cells" so that no one will realize that you can have stem cell research without using embryos. They know that most Americans are in favor of stem cell research, and that if they can tie these two concepts together, they can get America to approve of killing human embryos.

Mary Tyler Moore disgraced herself by repeating the lie that all human embryos will be destroyed. No mention was made of the fact that millions of infertile couples could adopt those embryos, and that human embryo adoption has already resulted in many healthy babies being born. They put ten-year-old children in front of the microphones to parrot scripts written by PR hacks. One little girl talked about "...legislators playing politics to stop the embryonic stem cell research that could save children like me." Come on - does that sound like a ten-year-old speaking from her heart? She had obviously memorized her lines. Liberals seem to have no compunctions about using ill children to push their agenda.

The heat is being turned up in the area of morality. School children are told by their teachers, "We know you're going to fornicate, so here are some free condoms." TV sitcoms show happy homosexual and lesbian couples living "normal" lives. Anyone who has studied the statistics knows that heterosexual couples stay together far longer on average than same-sex couples. A national radio ad has a dentist advising listeners to "Ask your lover if you grind your teeth at night." Not your spouse; your "lover." Not too long ago most radio stations would have refused such an ad; now few people take notice.

It's getting very difficult to find any family-safe programming on television or at the movies. It used to be the filthy words, sex and violence were reserved for the R-rated programs. Now PG programs are like the former R's, and the R's are frankly pornographic. Even some G-rated programs contain sexual innuendos. Many times we have tuned in to or rented a movie that we thought was safe, only to have to cover our daughter's eyes and hurriedly turn off the tube.

Am I hopelessly old-fashioned, or am I right when I say that we are in serious danger of becoming a completely perverted, amoral nation? Only you can decide whether you will idly stand by and watch as the heat gets turned up, or whether you will take action.

What action? Please don't say, "What can I do? I'm just one person." There are many things each of us can do to stop this slide. Start with talking to other people. Don't be afraid of controversy. During Election 2000 two men from my church were on a job with another man who described himself as a Christian. When he said he planned to vote for Gore, they asked him if he was aware that Gore was in favor of abortion on demand, and was an advocate of homosexual marriage. The man was shocked. He said he had no idea that was where his candidate stood, and that as a Christian he could not vote for him after finding out Gore?s views on these moral issues. These men made a difference by being willing to speak the truth in love.
Talk. Discuss. Vote. Write letters. Get involved! Evil can only prevail when good people fail to act.

I'D BE LOST WITHOUT OUR EDITORIAL BOARD. These volunteers review each issue before it is published, and their corrections, comments and suggestions are incorporated in the final version. In response to this issue, Editor Michael Carr made me laugh with his comment, "And may we dinosaurs continue to roam the earth."

Editor Ed Mitchell sent back some very insightful comments. I couldn't send this issue out without including them: "When alchemists were in their heyday, frogs were considered to be excellent catalysts, and were used for all kinds of experiments. In his search for gold, one alchemist took a tub of urine (because of its gold color) added a frog (as a catalyst) and boiled the pot. The point is that all this "embryonic stem cell research" is simply modern day alchemist's medieval philosophy, using newer tools. The frog still dies, only in this case it is a human embryo. True scientists try to expand man's knowledge and condition by understanding the mind of God through researching his creation. As you said, fat cells, bone marrow and umbilical cord blood are full of stem cells, and they are discarded every day. Federal funding and private research should be involved for the good of mankind. The assault on the human embryo is consistent with Satan's big lie and the liberals parrot it constantly. If evolution is true, then human life (or any life for that matter) is of concern only to the family or state as long as it is a productive life. Thus a donkey has more value than a baby because a donkey can do work." (NOTE: Most of these "researchers" are medical doctors. They have forgotten their Hippocratic Oath, which says, in part, "First, do no harm.")

Laws Killing Refineries and Jobs in U.S.

2008-03-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

Our Thorny Oil Patch

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY, 3/13/08

Energy Policy: When America’s biggest oil refiner contemplates putting almost a third of its refineries on the market, Congress should sit up and take notice. The business climate it has created is hurting our economy.
Valero Energy Corp. is an industry leader that refines more oil than any other in the U.S. The San Antonio, Texas, company had a good run in the stock market this decade, rising 1,400% before earnings topped last year. But it’s no longer so easy for the company or any refiner.

Valero will probably sell three of its 17 refineries this year and maybe two more later to focus on its core operations amid what CEO Bill Klesse acknowledged on Tuesday is a weak economy.

But maybe that’s because the environment for the energy business in the U.S. has turned downright hostile.

Upstream, oil drilling is off-limits, crimping supply and driving prices ever higher. Downstream, refiners are hit by not only high energy prices, but also bureaucratic regulations, environmental lobbies and special interests that make moving to Asia, where economic growth is still valued, more attractive.

The sorry fact that no new refinery has been built in America since 1983 has been cited so many times that we would have thought someone in Washington would have done something about it by now. But no — it just keeps getting worse.

In 1982, the U.S. economy was served by 301 refineries. By 2007, the number had dwindled to 149. Productivity has kept output steady over the years at 17 million barrels a day. But the U.S. economy has grown by 125%.
"Valero believes there will never be another refinery built in the U.S.," spokesman Bill Day told IBD. He cited costs, environmental regulations, neighborhood activism and lawsuits.

"For a new refinery, it would take five years for a permit and five years for construction, and it’s very expensive. A company would have to know it would pay off."

Congress has been of no help whatsoever. Mandates requiring certain ethanol percentages in gasoline composition are chopping down refiners’ market share at the pump.

Refiners are undercut by the subsidies ethanol producers get that refiners don’t. Ethanol producers are also protected by high tariffs on overseas ethanol, while imported gasoline comes in duty-free. This brings in a lot of competition for refiners.

Given these conditions, is it any wonder companies such as Valero are looking for friendlier climes?

The laws by which Congress hamstrings energy producers have had the lethal effect of slowing down the economy while driving up prices. It’s high time for measures that do just the opposite.

Jurisprudence?

2008-03-17T17:20:00.000-07:00

From the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study, knowledge, or science of law"; in the United States, more broadly associated with the philosophy of law.

What is law? How does a trial or appellate court judge decide a case? Is a judge similar to a mathematician or a scientist applying autonomous and determinate rules and principles? Or is a judge more like a legislator who simply decides a case in favor of the most politically preferable outcome? Must a judge base a decision only on the written rules and regulations that have been enacted by the government? Or may a judge also be influenced by unwritten principles derived from theology, moral philosophy, and historical practice?

WHY MOST VOTERS SHOULDN'T VOTE

2008-03-06T21:36:00.000-08:00

"GET-OUT-THE-DOPE DRIVES"

By: Selwyn Duke

Often the most fanciful ideas become the least questioned assumptions. In this election season a few have made themselves apparent, such as the notion that “change” is good by definition and “experience” is definitely good. Yet an even better example is the oft-repeated platitude that greater voter participation yields a healthier republic.

Ah, I’ve transgressed against dogma, but let’s be logical. Most of us agree that having an educated populace is a prerequisite for a sound democratic republic. We also know that not everyone is well-educated. Thus, it cannot be a good thing for everyone to vote. For those of you who had trouble following that line of reasoning, please remember that Election Day is November 5.

And one needn’t be disenchanted with universal suffrage to agree. It’s one thing to have one man, one vote; it’s quite another to have one man, one obligation to vote. Yet we still hear that it’s our “civic duty” to go to the polls. Well, no, actually, it’s a civic duty to make ourselves worthy to do so.

This “vote first, ask questions later” idea reaches the very nadir of inanity when it manifests itself in get-out-the-vote drives, which can quite correctly be defined as an effort to rally the idiot vote disguised as a noble exercise in democracy. Yet whether the call to the polls is organized or incidental, I would always make the same point: If people don’t have the initiative to get out and vote without prodding, it follows that they don’t have the greater initiative necessary to inform themselves on the issues; thus, they shouldn’t vote. As I said years ago in “Get-out-the-dopes Drives”:

“. . . this is a problem that takes care of itself when we let nature take its course. Those who don’t care may not inform themselves, but more often than not a result of that will be that they won’t vote, so no harm done. The problem arises when we put the cart before the horse and encourage those who can’t yet drive to take the wheel.”

This is no minor point. When people don’t vote, it’s for the same reason why they don’t repair cars, fly planes or perform brain surgery.

They’re not interested in those things.

This is important because, generally speaking, interest is a prerequisite for competency. How often have you met someone who became adept at something through disinterest? “You know, I don’t like playing the piano, but one day someone convinced me to tickle the ivories and my fingers started playing Mozart’s Concerto No. 9.” When you hear that, let me know.

Really, we delude ourselves. We see a lot of posturing about getting people “engaged in the process,” but it’s all talk. A process is just that, a process, “a systematic series of actions directed to some end” [1], while voting is simply an action. Or perhaps we could say it’s a reaction – catalyzed by one’s own knowledge and passion.

If people really were interested in the health of the “process,” they would start at the beginning of that “systematic series of actions” – which is the step whereby you encourage people to care, study and inform themselves – not at the end with voting. They would understand that once this step was tended to, people would naturally cast ballots, as it is merely a by-product of personal political health.

Yet we entertain the folly that for some mysterious, inexplicable reason everyone should participate, that it’s a good thing, regardless of how ignorant or ill-informed he may be. Well, why don’t we apply this to others matters? We might as well say that if everyone flies a jumbo jet, air travel will somehow be better; we should assume that if everyone performs brain surgery, medical care will somehow improve. Why? Well . . . participation is the answer! That is enough.

Does it sound ridiculous? It’s no more so than asserting that having everyone vote will yield a healthier nation. What we should do is take the Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” This applies not just to those too ill-informed to vote but also those ill-informed enough to encourage them to do so.

You can call me an elitist, but it’s getting easier to achieve that designation all the time. Study after study after study has revealed an appalling lack of historical knowledge among American youth – which carries over to adulthood – and our grasp of significant current events is no better. Quoting author of The Age of American Unreason, Susan Jacoby, The Wall Street Journal writes,

“(One poll that [sic] found more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map . . . .)”
Moreover, many aren’t any better at navigating the political map – some people don’t even know the name of our vice president (hard to believe, but true). Despite this, there still are those who would convince the uninformed to vote, even though when pulling the lever at a polling place, the latter have no more grasp of the consequences of their actions than if they were to pull one in a casino.

Yet, when some encourage the ignorant to vote, there is method to their madness. The people I speak of do in fact care about the “process,” it’s just that their process – that “systematic series of actions directed to some end” – probably isn’t the same as yours. This is because they seek a very different end: The attainment of power.

The people I refer to are liberals.

It’s well known that the greater the voter turn-out, the more likely it is that liberal politicians will prevail. Thus, liberals reason that low turn-out is bad because it’s bad for them. This, of course, means it’s good for America.

Many will bristle at what I’ve said, but just take a look at how liberals plumb the depths of the barrel for votes. They want convicts and the homeless (many of whom are mentally ill, a perfect leftist constituency) to vote; they aggressively get out the vote in urban wastelands, their strongholds, which are plagued by crime, drug use and high abortion rates; and their constituencies are people such as homosexuals and others with aberrant lifestyles. Liberals in California were even advocating pubescents’ suffrage: Giving 14-year-olds the right to cast ballots. So, it’s funny. It used to be said that the Democrats were the party of the common man. The truth is that they’re the party of the uncommon man.

And there is an irony here, one I’d like to ask our liberal friends about. I know you believe you’re much smarter than we traditionalists, as you often attribute the embrace of our ideology to stupidity. I was, in fact, once told by a certain bit-part, liberal actor (forgive the redundancy) that I just wasn’t as “evolved” as he was.

Thus, I wonder about something. How is it that, with few exceptions, the more degraded, immoral, criminally inclined, immature, and ignorant voters are, the better it is for liberal candidates? If these normally apathetic people are in fact voting correctly, as you liberals assert, to what do you attribute it? Beginner’s luck? And does this make you liberals question your ideology at all? Does it make you think, even for a moment, that maybe you’re on the wrong side?

I won’t hold my breath waiting for a good answer, but I will mention another irony. Liberals are completely taken with gun control; some of them even say that no one but the police should own firearms. Yet they believe that people too irresponsible to have their finger on the trigger should influence the choice of who will have his finger on the button.

1. Dictionary.com

"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."

Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

2008-03-06T12:30:00.000-08:00

Family's religious beliefs 'no evidence' of 1st Amendment violation.

By Bob Unruh
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

A California court has ruled that several children in one homeschool family must be enrolled in a public school or "legally qualified" private school, and must attend, sending ripples of shock into the nation's homeschooling advocates as the family reviews its options for appeal.

The ruling came in a case brought against Phillip and Mary Long over the education being provided to two of their eight children. They are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court, because they have homeschooled all of their children, the oldest now 29, because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools.

The decision from the 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles granted a special petition brought by lawyers appointed to represent the two youngest children after the family's homeschooling was brought to the attention of child advocates.

"We find no reason to strike down the Legislature's evaluation of what constitutes an adequate education scheme sufficient to promote the 'general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence,'" the court said in the case. "We agree … 'the educational program of the State of California was designed to promote the general welfare of all the people and was not designed to accommodate the personal ideas of any individual in the field of education.'"

The words echo the ideas of officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth.

Wolfgang Drautz, consul general for the Federal Republic of Germany, has said "school teaches not only knowledge but also social conduct, encourages dialogue among people of different beliefs and cultures, and helps students to become responsible citizens."

Specifically, the appeals court said, the trial court had found that "keeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' 'cloistered' setting."

The appeals ruling said California law requires "persons between the ages of six and 18" to be in school, "the public full-time day school," with exemptions being allowed for those in a "private full-time day school" or those "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught."

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

Their "sincerely held religious beliefs" are "not the quality of evidence that permits us to say that application of California's compulsory public school education law to them violates their First Amendment rights."

"Such sparse representations are too easily asserted by any parent who wishes to homeschool his or her child," the court concluded.

The father, Phillip Long, said the family is working on ways to appeal to the state Supreme Court, because he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children.

"We just don't want them teaching our children," he told WND. "They teach things that are totally contrary to what we believe. They put questions in our children's minds we don't feel they're ready for.

"When they are much more mature, they can deal with these issues, alternative lifestyles, and such, or whether they came from primordial slop. At the present time it's my job to teach them the correct way of thinking," he said.

"We're going to appeal. We have to. I don't want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don't believe in," he said.
A spokesman for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the world's premiere homeschooling advocacy organizations, said the group's experts were analyzing the impact of the decision.

"It's a very unfortunate decision," he said.

Randy Thomasson, of Campaign for Children and Families, said under California law parents have the legal right to create a private school in their home and enroll their own children.

"Children belong to the parents, not to the state," he said. But he acknowledged that there's a great deal of misinformation about the status of homeschooling in California.

"For years the government school establishment has been lying to parents about the law. Just this week, a Los Angeles Unified school district employee lied to a mother who wanted to homeschool, telling her you must have a license, you must be credentialed and you must follow all the state curriculum. That's three lies in one sentence."

"Now we have judges going crazy and actively separating children from their parents."

A legal outline for parents' homeschool rights in California, published by Family Protection Ministries, confirmed Thomasson's description.

The state's legal options for home educators include establishing a private school in their home by filing a private school affidavit with state regulators or enrolling in private school satellite instruction programs or independent study programs, it said.

The Long family had been involved in such a program with Sunland Christian School, but the appeals court took the extraordinary step of banning the family from being involved in that organization any longer, since it was "willing to participate in the deprivation of the children's right to a legal education."

A number of groups already have assembled in California under the Rescue Your Child slogan to encourage parents to withdraw their children from the state's public school system.

It's because the California Legislature and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 394 as law, plans that institutionalize the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices.

"First, [California] law allowed public schools to voluntarily promote homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality. Then, the law required public schools to accept homosexual, bisexual and transsexual teachers as role models for impressionable children. Now, the law has been changed to effectively require the positive portrayal of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality to 6 million children in California government-controlled schools," said Thomasson.

Even insiders joined in the call for an abandonment of California's public districts. Veteran public school teacher Nadine Williams of Torrance said the sexual indoctrination laws have motivated her to keep her grandchildren out of the very public schools she used to support.

The Discover Christian Schools website reports getting thousands of hits daily from parents and others seeking information about alternatives to California's public schools.

WND reported leaders of the campaign called California Exodus say they hope to encourage parents of 600,000 children to withdraw them from the public districts this year.

The new law itself technically bans in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, said Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

There are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs, however. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

"SB 777 will result in reverse discrimination against students with religious and traditional family values. These students have lost their voice as the direct result of Gov. Schwarzenegger's unbelievable decision. The terms 'mom and dad' or 'husband and wife' could promote discrimination against homosexuals if a same-sex couple is not also featured," she said.

Karen England, chief of CRI, told WND that the law is not a list of banned words, including "mom" and "dad." But she said the requirement is that the law bans discriminatory bias and the effect will be to ban such terminology.
"Having 'mom' and 'dad' promotes a discriminatory bias. You have to either get rid of 'mom' and 'dad' or include everything when talking about [parental issues]," she said. "They [promoters of sexual alternative lifestyles] do consider that discriminatory."

The California plan still is facing a court challenge on its constitutionality and a possible vote of the people of California if an initiative effort succeeds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One more Nail in the coffin of Freedom!

Is John McCain Constitutionally Qualified?

2008-02-23T09:35:00.000-08:00

What are the Qualification's to be President of the United State of America?

Article 2 section II clause 5 of the Constitution states:
No person except a Natural-Born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President;

The Naturalization Act of 1795
An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the Act heretofore passed on that Subject. For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States;

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, that the Act, intitled, "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

It must be clearly understood by you and all the candidates, including Senator John McCain that:

Only someone physically born within one of the States is lawfully qualified to be elected president, and that … In order for naturalized citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger and John McCain to be qualified an Amendment to the Constitution under Article V would have to be passed before a naturalized citizen could legally be elected President. It has been assumed incorrectly that children born overseas to US citizens are considered to be "natural born". They are automatically "naturalized citizens" as a result of their parents but they are not "natural born citizens". That misunderstanding is likely rooted in the Naturalization Act of 1790. First Congress, Session II, Chapter 4, pages 103-104, wherein the relevant part states:

"... And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens:"

The use of the phrase "natural born" in the Act of 1790 raises the issue of it having been unconstitutional, since it was in conflict with the language of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 cited above. The Act of 1790 was not an Article V modification and could not lawfully change the Constitution. This act was repealed by The Naturalization Act of 1795.

John McCain was born on August 29, 1937 at the Coco Solo Air Base in the Panama Canal Zone. The Panama Canal Zone was not a territory of the United States but was leased property subject to Panamanian law making John McCain a Naturalize citizen not a Natural Born Citizen. Thus John McCain does not meet the requirement's set forth under the Constitution of the United States to be a candidate for President! He is not eligible for the office!

The root of the natural birth requirement was that the States formed the federal government and they required that a person must be physically born in one of the states. Simply being born on US territory or commonwealth property overseas does not qualify you as being natural born. This is also a related source/reason for the Electoral College. The States elect the executive and not the people because we do not have a democracy but a republic. The two are not the same but are *antithetical*.

A good friend of mine, who's wife was born overseas to an Air force officer and his wife, both citizens. She was taught as was everyone else and they knew/know that if you are born overseas and not physically within a state, then the only limitation to your citizenship (it is automatically naturalized) is that you cannot be president. You can run for Senate or the House or be a judge but not President.

Unless and until the Constitution is changed with an Article V process that is still the law.

One cannot unknow what they know. Facts and actions have consequences.

So I say “no” John McCain is not qualified, because I'm a strong supporter of the original intent of the Constitution.

*Antithetical: of, relating to, or marked by antithesis. Being in diametrical opposition. (Antithesis: direct contrast; opposition: "hope is the antithesis of despair.")

Democracy or Republic?

2008-02-01T15:09:00.000-08:00

I am a Conservative and a Constitutionalist when it comes to preserving all that is good in our constitution and a Radical at removing all laws that undermine the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally denounce both the passions of the many and the prejudices of the few. I also refute any law, order, or resolution based on passion (Fear) or prejudice.

Any rule that takes away from one, in order to reward another, I repudiate and it is every citizens duty to remove from position of power any official who proposes, endorses or has a hand in passing any regulation, code, ordinance, statue or legislation that is based on emotion, if their actions do not meet the standards set forth under the Constitution.

On a daily bases we're constantly bombarded from all sides by propaganda. It seems every Liberal or Conservative, Democrat or Republican, and even the person on the street, tells us this country is a Democracy! Well, in my opinion, that is just not true.

Now that I've got your attention, and the smokes rolling out of your ears and your blood pressure is on the rise, let me explain.

Why is the word "Democracy" always used when someone or some group promotes a certain agenda? I've been asking myself that question for years. I've come to the conclusion that this is an effective marketing strategy developed during the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. The strategy is, use words that invoke an emotional response in people and if a word or phrase is used enough people will begin to believe it, even if it’s a lie. The Socialist Democratic Party (The Nazi's) in Germany of the 1930's perfected this strategy called Propaganda. Today, both Liberals and Conservatives use this same method to promote their agenda's, evoke an emotional response and repeat it over and over enough times and no one will question your motives...

What is the definition of a Democracy? There are as many definition of that word as there are ants on an anthill. I've boiled it down to just one.

Democracy: Majority rule. (Literally "rule by the people", from the Greek demos, "people," and kratos, "rule") Democracy is a form of government in which all the citizens have a vote. Today, the term democracy is often used to refer to liberal democracy, but there are many other varieties and the methods used to govern differ. While the term democracy is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to other bodies, such as universities, labor unions, public companies, or civic organizations.

Now where does it state we live in a Democracy? Not in the Declaration of Independents, that’s for sure! Does the Constitution of the United States, or the Articles of Confederation tell us that? No, not in these two documents, either! If our form of government is not democratic, then what is it?

A country with a true democratic form of government can be compared to a ship without a compass and a rudder. Having no control over its course, with no means to determine which direction to take. The ship’s course is completely at the mercer and control of the wind.

The ship is the government, a compass is a set of core principles, the rudder is the rule of Law, and the wind is the people of that country.” True or simple democracy lacks a compass and a rudder and can only move in the direction and at a speed the wind dictates.

Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people, which results in mobocracy¹. And has been repeatedly tried without success.

A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: "A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." Sound familiar

To quote Thomas Paine, who wrote The Rights of Man. "Simple democracy is society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By engrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature."

So what system or form of government do we have? I was taught in school back umpteen years ago that our form of government is a Representative Republic.

The definition of a Republic is:
A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. In a broad definition, a republic is a state or country that is led by people whose political power is based on principles that are not beyond the control of the people of that state or country. Several definitions, including that of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, stress the importance of autonomy and the rule of law as part of the requirements for a republic.

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

A republic is a form of government under a constitution, which provides for the election of:
1) An executive and
2) A legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create
3) A judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize
4) Certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy². Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to minorities and individuals.

Federalist No. 48 is an essay by James Madison, the forty-eighth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on February 1, 1788 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. This paper builds on Federalist No. 47. In that essay Madison argued for separation of powers; in this one he argues that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government must not be totally divided. It is titled, "These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other."

Charles A. Beard, historian (1874-1948) said, “One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence.” This statement is truer today then when it was originally spoken.

There are many Individuals and Groups who daily erode the constitution. This erosion is being accomplished by the strategy I spoke earlier about. One example is the propaganda put out that the first amendment of the constitution says there is a separation of church and state. These five words do not appear anywhere in the first amendment. They are taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church in New England in the early 1800’s. You need to understand that groups and individual will take a few words from a sentence that they use to further their agenda and throw the rest of the sentence away.

Little by little our freedoms are being eroded away. It seems most people want to have someone else tell them what and whatnot to do and make decision for everyone, from safety to privacy in our homes. I don’t need you to protect me from myself! I don’t need someone to tell me that putting my head in a microwave and turning it on can kill me, if I don’t know the dangers of this action then my death will mean one less idiot you’ll have to worry about or put up with.

¹ The mass of common people as the source of political control or political control by a mob.

² Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority cannot be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

The “speeches and debates” of the candidates

2008-01-24T20:21:00.000-08:00

by: John Silveira
On January 22, on the CNN website, there was a poll asking: Have you listened to or watched any speeches or debates by the presidential candidates?

The choices were:

Speeches
Debates
Both
Neither

I voted. I checked “neither.”

Then I viewed the results. Here they were as of the moment I voted:

Percent # votes
Speeches 3% 536
Debates 14% 2374
Both 38% 6455
Neither 44% 7493
Total Votes: 16858

Those percentages will hold pretty constant even with thousands of more votes.

Why, you may ask, do I not bother to listen to the candidates’ debates nor their speeches?

Quite simply because what they say is more often than not meaningless. They say whatever they think they have to say to get elected. Often, what they say depends on who they are talking to. It often depends on what the polls say prospective voters want to hear. (It means these politicians are not standing on principles, they’re saying whatever they have to, to get elected.)

I remember a long-ago speech, before tobacco farmers by Al Gore in which he promised them his support. This contradicted anti-smoking speeches he made both before and after that speech, anti-smoking speeches he made to groups that were clearly against tobacco. Like most politicians, he was firmly in the camp of the wishy-washies.

I also recall that in 1980, friends urged me to vote for Reagan, instead of the Libertarian candidate, Ed Clark, because we had to get a liberal like Carter out and a conservative like Reagan in. I said I couldn’t vote for Reagan because he wasn’t a conservative, he was a big-government Republican. I based my opinion on what he did as governor of California and not on what he said in his campaign speeches. And, as it turned out, I was right.

After listening to these guys for years, I realize if there is any positive the correlation between what they say and what they do when they get into office it is more a matter of chance and coincidence than a matter of them keeping their promises.

They all promise smaller government, lower taxes, peace, etc. But, once in, those speeches and promises are forgotten.

As an aside, I thought it was laughable when Clinton ran for reelection, in 1996, and simply appropriated the Republican platform. Not that he intended to carry out any of the promises for smaller government, lower taxes, etc., that he ran on. It was just neat stuff to say. And, when he was reelected? All the promises were forgotten–by both the voters and the press.

I even asked liberal friends why they were voting for him when he was backing away from the liberal agenda. They, of course, didn’t answer and Bill, as I said, abandoned all the small-government rhetoric he’d gulled the swing voters with. I knew he’d do so. I imagine even his supporters knew his speeches were bullshit–lies–but they didn’t care.

However, if you really want to know where a candidate stands, and assuming he was previously in an elective office, look at his voting record in whatever legislative bodies he may have been in, look at his track record if he was a governor. What they’ve done in the past, they’re very likely to do in the future.

Only one of the candidates says what he means and means what he says, and that’s Ron Paul. His voting record in Congress is a reflection of his campaign speeches and what he says in the so-called “debates.” But I don’t listen to him, either, because I already know what he’ll do if elected. He’s not going to say anything in his speeches or the debates that he hasn’t said and done before. He’s the only one there I trust. He’s the only one up there not trying to snow you.

I’ll vote for him even if he doesn’t run.

Thinking For Yourself Is Now A Crime

2008-01-07T15:16:00.000-08:00

Monday, January 07, 2008
by: Paul Craig Roberts

What was the greatest failure of 2007? President Bush's "surge" in Iraq? The decline in the value of the US dollar? Subprime mortgages? No. The greatest failure of 2007 was the newly sworn in Democratic Congress.

The American people's attempt in November 2006 to rein in a rogue government, which has committed the US to costly military adventures while running roughshod over the US Constitution, failed. Replacing Republicans with Democrats in the House and Senate has made no difference.

The assault on the US Constitution by the Democratic Party is as determined as the assault by the Republicans. On October 23, 2007, the House passed a bill sponsored by California Democratic congresswoman Jane Harman, chairwoman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that overturns the constitutionally guaranteed rights to free expression, association, and assembly.

The bill passed the House on a vote of 404-6. In the Senate the bill is sponsored by Maine Republican Susan Collins and apparently faces no meaningful opposition.

Harman's bill is called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. When HR 1955 becomes law, it will create a commission tasked with identifying extremist people, groups, and ideas. The commission will hold hearings around the country, taking testimony and compiling a list of dangerous people and beliefs. The bill will, in short, create massive terrorism in the United States. But the perpetrators of terrorism will not be Muslim terrorists; they will be government agents and fellow citizens.

We are beginning to see who will be the inmates of the detention centers being built in the US by Halliburton under government contract.

Who will be on the "extremist beliefs" list? The answer is: civil libertarians, critics of Israel, 9/11 skeptics, critics of the administration's wars and foreign policies, critics of the administration's use of kidnapping, rendition, torture and violation of the Geneva Conventions, and critics of the administration's spying on Americans. Anyone in the way of a powerful interest group--such as environmentalists opposing politically connected developers--is also a candidate for the list.

The "Extremist Beliefs Commission" is the mechanism for identifying Americans who pose "a threat to domestic security" and a threat of "homegrown terrorism" that "cannot be easily prevented through traditional federal intelligence or law enforcement efforts."

This bill is a boon for nasty people. That SOB who stole your girlfriend, that hussy who stole your boyfriend, the gun owner next door--just report them to Homeland Security as holders of extreme beliefs. Homeland Security needs suspects, so they are not going to check. Under the new regime, accusation is evidence. Moreover, "our" elected representatives will never admit that they voted for a bill and created an "Extremist Belief Commission" for which there is neither need nor constitutional basis.

That boss who harasses you for coming late to work--he's a good candidate to be reported; so is that minority employee that you can't fire for any normal reason. So is the husband of that good-looking woman you have been unable to seduce. Every kind of quarrel and jealousy can now be settled with a phone call to Homeland Security.

Soon Halliburton will be building more detention centers.

Americans are so far removed from the roots of their liberty that they just don't get it. Most Americans don't know what habeas corpus is or why it is important to them. But they know what they want, and Jane Harman has given them a new way to settle scores and to advance their own interests.

Even educated liberals believe that the US Constitution is a "living document" that can be changed to mean whatever it needs to mean in order to accommodate some new important cause, such as abortion and legal privileges for minorities and the handicapped. Today it is the "war on terror" that the Constitution must accommodate. Tomorrow it can be the war on whomever or whatever.

Think about it. More than six years ago the World Trade Center and Pentagon were attacked. The US government blamed it on al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission Report has been subjected to criticism by a large number of qualified people--including the commission's chairman and co-chairman.

Since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks in the US. The FBI has tried to orchestrate a few, but the "terrorist plots" never got beyond talk organized and led by FBI agents. There are no visible extremist groups other than the neoconservatives that control the government in Washington. But somehow the House of Representatives overwhelmingly sees a need to create a commission to take testimony and search out extremist views (outside of Washington, of course).

This search for extremist views comes after President Bush and the Justice (sic) Department declared that the President can ignore habeas corpus, ignore the Geneva Conventions, seize people without evidence, hold them indefinitely without presenting charges, torture them until they confess to some made up crime, and take over the government by declaring an emergency. Of course, none of these "patriotic" views are extremist.

The search for extremist views follows also the granting of contracts to Halliburton to build detention centers in the US. No member of Congress or the executive branch ever explained the need for the detention centers or who the detainees would be. Of course, there is nothing extremist about building detention centers in the US for undisclosed inmates.

Clearly the detention centers are not meant to just stand there empty. Thanks to 2007's greatest failure--the Democratic Congress--there is to be an "Extremist Beliefs Commission" to secure inmates for Bush's detention centers.

President Bush promises us that the wars he has launched will cause the "untamed fire of freedom" to "reach the darkest corners of our world." Meanwhile in America the fire of freedom has not only been tamed but also is being extinguished.

The light of liberty has gone out in the United States.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/076152553X/counterpunchmaga
The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Liberals and others

2008-01-01T21:17:00.000-08:00

The big government vs big business paradigm diverts attention from the international bankers who run both. It places the blame on capitalism and the U.S., which has been under internation banking cartel control for at least a century. It teaches each new generation to be alienated from their country, culture and economic system, and to become dysfunctional and impotent.

The bankers love socialism and Big Government. They have a monopoly of money and need a monopoly of power (i.e. government.) Together, these international banker monopolies are the essence of liberals, socialists etc. and are using elected officials, who they control, to bribe the people with social services and jobs which create debt and higher profits for bankers.

Modern world history is nothing but the process by which this satanic force is replacing Western Civilization with an occult world police state managed by taser and television. The whole world is being colonized by this imperialist financial power, which is behind all left, liberal, Communist and revolutionary movements. What they call "progressive" is progress only in their occult terms.

Socialist Presidential candidate Norman Thomas said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

The world is in the advanced stages of a diabolical multi generational conspiracy. Our educators, elected politicians, mainstream media, plus cable news have largely been subverted.

The ruling classes have been hoodwinked to believe they are building a Brave New World. In fact they are accomplices in the mental, spiritual and possibly physical enslavement of humanity.

Thus, a person such as Ron Paul and anyone like him who favors individual freedom along with self-reliance, family, nation, and smaller government, God and believes in following the Constitution are labeled “Rightwing Crackpots”. These are the people and things that internationalisms are out to destroy.

I favor individual freedom, self-reliance, family, freedom from government interference. I also believe in free expression, if this makes me a rightwing crackpot, so be it. I believe in the power the three boxes, the soapbox, the ballot box and the ammunition box. I will be voting for Ron Paul in the coming primary and general elections.

WHAT ABOUT SOVEREIGNTY?

2007-12-10T12:45:00.000-08:00

IS IT FOR AMERICAN INDIAN NATIONS?:
The dictionary lists sovereignty as a synonym for freedom but in reality there is a significant difference between the meaning of the two words. “Freedom is the absence of hindrance, restraint, confinement, or repression.” while sovereignty is “above or superior to all others; chief, greatest, supreme”. Freedom has to do with action and sovereignty has to do with station.

Tribal sovereignty refers to the right of tribes or of federally recognized Native American nations to exercise limited jurisdiction within and sometimes beyond reservation boundaries.- Source Wikipedia

Sovereign sets the legal standard and determines the perspective from which decisions emanate and is dangerous when it is improperly used.

All sovereignty is granted by our Creator. God's Laws are to be obeyed and His dominion enforced. Human sovereignty not proscribed by our Creator's control is always tyrannical. It is the pathway to chaos and death.

The Government of the United States and American Indian Tribes is misusing sovereignty by attempting to exert control over God’s creation without regard for His Laws and His Kingship, which is bringing disaster upon individual American Indians.

American Indians are living in an Alice in Wonderland world in regards to His/Her sovereignty.

GROVELING TO A FALSE GOD

2007-12-07T11:13:00.000-08:00

In recent times, the ideology in the policies of some Tribal Nations has been about power and the benefits power brings, one benefit is control of the Tribal purse string.

The biggest threat is the control power and money has over a society and that is where the real potential for evil is and where totalitarian societies can inflict horrors upon individuals.

Now, there are those who will argue that power and money are intertwined and are one in the same and they have a point. Money might be the first object of the average person, but eventually the realization emerges that power can be a very ease and productive route to wealth and vice versa.

Modern history is the account of how the central banking cartel converts its monopoly of credit into a monopoly of power. This entails destroying your connection with nation, religion (God), race and family. It means substituting objective truth (God, nature) with their Dictate (political correctness, etc.)

Tribal members have been sold out, "by their leaders", dumbed down by the media, under educated, and spoiled stupid by the tribal welfare state. (Anyone can be bought.) They either refuse to recognize what is happening or are too afraid to speak out because of the threat of dis-enrollment.

They believe they have prosperity and think they are free.

As Aldous Huxley said:
"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves WHO DO NOT HAVE TO BE COERCED, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors and schoolteachers." [Brave New World, Bantam Books, 1967, p. xii. Caps added.]

On the bright side, the knowledge that American Indian Tribal Government’s and the societies they've create is a fraud and doomed to fail, is strangely liberating. You will no longer need to touch your knee to the ground and grovel to this false god when it happens. "The truth does make you free!"

The Devastation of American Indian Tribes

2007-11-01T12:56:00.000-07:00

Since law creates the religion of a nation, engagement in the political arena is a righteous endeavor. But when victory involves the use of questionable procedures the process becomes evil. Politics in the United States provides a fundamental lesson in Hegelian Dialectics. Compromise with evil is standard practice; there are questionable coalitions, outright mendacity, consorts with the Devil, and manipulation of naïve voters. Victory is sought without regard to its cost. Most tribes and their members within Indian country have fallen into this trap.

Political decisions made by ferocious, unctuous elected leaders in organizations like the Pechanga, the Oneida, and a number of other American Indian Nations, are devastating tribal unity. By electing duplicitous individuals into leadership positions who promise tribal members a few crumbs from the Hog’s Trough while they, themselves, will be feasting on world governance and other inimical programs. Individual American Indian Tribal members are hoodwinked; their vote promotes an evil agenda.

It appears these Indian Tribes’, whose leaders, hold substantial sway over voting members cherishes their ability to manipulate the political process and are willing to relinquish the exclusivity of their spiritual beliefs in an evil pragmatic effort to secure victory for anyone who promises them a larger position of the slop at the Hog’s Trough. The fact that they may not understand the evil nature of Hegel and his Dialectic and are practicing it unwittingly does not mitigate the devastating effects it has on the unity of their tribes.

The cause of this evil can be summed up in three words: Apathy, Enmity, and Greed! These causes are like malignant tumors and if left un-treated will destroy the body. Any nation that either fails to acknowledge or is unable to discern reality and make decisions in its best interests from an accurate assessment is destined for destruction.

There are a number of evil independent conspiracies operating in parallel, highly organized, powerful, working to hold mankind in a satanic vice. Yet their actions show they're full of hate, in love with death, consumed by avarice. Courage and truth comes hard to them.What is needed are statesmen not pompous tenacious leaders who are unable to refrain from using subterfuge and turpitude.

If this steps on some toes, so be it. Don’t expect an apologue! Hopefully this will open some eyes and shed some light on one cause of an evil disease infecting Indian Country”…

JURRIUS, Cui Bono "To whose benefit?"

2007-09-20T13:08:00.000-07:00

Why do I fear for the Uintah and Ouray Reservation? Because I see an immanent crisis looming on the horizon, and the vast majority are unprepared to meet it.

For over one hundred and fifty years forces have conspired to destroy the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation while, at the same time, insidiously working to undermine the capability of the average tribal member to think or to reason from cause to effect. The result is that the average tribal member of the Northern Ute nation has not the slightest inkling of the deep problems' they face or how to go about solving them because of the deep biased divisions between bands and individuals!

There is something basically counterintuitive about the viral pettiness of the partisanship that's occurring within the reservation. The diametric opponents' has been reduced to sound and fury signifying nothing…

The perpetual ‘us’ versus ‘them’ sophomoric battle of nonsense may be cool for a high school pep rally and political fund raising dinners, but it is a cancer which genuinely threatens the existence of the Reservation.

Instead of a multi-media harangue of ‘neener-neener’ the tribe needs grown ups to develop, implement and maintain policy. Instead of smart people doing dumb things the tribe needs a basic analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. And that ‘SWOT’ analysis should be focused on securing the land,its resources and economic development for the furture instead of partisan advantage.

The reasons for this situation are, at this point, best left to historians to pick at the nits. The negative consequences of extricating your fist from the tar baby needs to be addressed by reality check motivated adults, not partisan hacks.

Partisans may get a visceral rush out of throwing rocks but reality reveals ‘do overs’ are not an option. What is done is done…

"When you let someone do it for you, they'll do it to you!"

The Castle Doctrine

2007-08-23T18:05:00.001-07:00

Castle Doctrine refers to a legal concept derived from English Common Law as it is presently applied in sections of the United States of America. It designates one's home (or any place legally occupied, such as one's car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protections from both prying and violent attack. In the United States, laws informally referred to as 'castle laws' can sometimes impose an obligation to retreat before using force to defend oneself. The Castle Doctrine provides for an exception to this duty. Provided one is attacked in their own home, vehicle, or place of business, in jurisdictions where 'castle laws' are in force, one may stand their ground against an assailant without fear of prosecution.

The Castle Doctrine is now in Texas awaiting Governor Perry's signature. That makes sixteen states now in support of citizens. Critics opposed to the Castle Doctrine and who are urging Governor Perry to nix it fail to understand the concept. It's not hard to grasp if you love people, it's hard to follow if you disrespect family.

Editorials encourage Texas Governor Perry to veto the bill because it would mean a return to the Wild West, and that more guns would put more people in harm's way. As I said, they fail to understand the concept.

The clue is that these anti-liberty positions basically say that gun owners are the aggressors. Projection. Interference with a civil right and family and personal safety is aggression. Meanwhile, most Americans understand that editorial boards and public officials under oath have no say-so in opposing a civil right - more aggression.

Let's look for a moment at the outright hostility the anti-gun activists exhibit so clearly. Look at it not as a civil right issue - which it is - but also as a how-you-run-your-own-household issue. You are head of a household, and you protect your family. You want to learn what you need to know in making your best-informed decisions on how you run your home. You don't want newspapers keeping things from you or officials failing to protect your interests by refusing to mention certain legal facts.

For all their bad advice, three things the anti-guns cannot deny -

1. Police have no duty to protect individuals. In all fifty states, they simply don't really have to come, much less arrive in time. For failure to protect, the Supreme Court held in 2005 no constitutional right to police protection. Been that way since 1845. Tough luck.

2. Citizens in this country are already possessed of all legal authority to use up to deadly force when facing grave danger. Editorial boards and people who encourage you to dial 9-1-1 and do nothing until they get there obfuscate this. Bad advice to a head of a household responsible for his children and for his/her own life.

3. Police understand that the individual is the first - and last - line of defense in facing grave danger alone and do not oppose guns as advertised. Good to know if you're head of a household.

...So the anti-gun activists try the emotional hysterical language of Wild West, easy access to guns, illegal guns and Harm's Way instead. As if average citizens are completely irresponsible or gun runners.

As always, what some officials think of you shows up as outright hindrance of how you may run your own home.

In criticizing the Castle Doctrine, anti-gun activists are handing out very bad advice - advice that gets people killed by turning their backs on aggressors (walking away), by waiting for police while the aggressors carry on (call 9-1-1 instead), and by being talked out of their legal authority (don't resist violence) - and this is one of the worst offenses against the country - editors and officials talking people out of their legal authority to respond when facing grave danger alone.

And that's why anti-gun is anti-liberty: it talks citizens out of their personal, legal authority, “your Authority.”

That authority is recognized and affirmed by the Castle Doctrine, and it is an expression of respect for the citizen now with the force of law. That authority has been there all along, even when hidden by anti-gun activists, but now clarified and affirmed.

As head of a household, how do you now adjust your preparedness for an encounter with violent crime at home and away from home?

Every state should have a Castle Doctrine law, because it builds rapport between the government and the governed by respecting the citizen immensely. Government's job is not to protect people -- government's job is to protect our rights.

The Castle Doctrine is good for the country. And it's a great plank for 2008 candidates.

Values, An Elder's Message

2007-08-17T12:28:00.000-07:00

"If a child hasn't been given spiritual values within the family setting, they have no familiarity with the values that are necessary for the just and peaceful functioning in society."
--Eunice Baumann-Nelson, Ph.D, PENOBSCOT

When we are born, we start with a beautiful empty mind ready to be given our beliefs, attitudes, habits and expectations. Most of our true learning comes from watching the actions of our parents and others. As we watch our family or relatives, whatever their actions and values are, so will be the children's values and acts. If we see our families living a just and peaceful way of life, so then will the children. If we see our family shouting, arguing and hateful, so will it be for the children. The cycle of life - baby, youth, adult and Elder is all connected. If the older ones have good values, it will be connected to the children.

Oh God, my Creator, if there are values I have missed, it is not too late. I can get them from You. Teach me today Your spiritual values. Respect, trust, giving, honesty, wisdom etc. Amen.

“It Set the Indian Aside as a Problem”

2007-07-26T08:49:00.000-07:00

Criticizing the Indian Reorganization Act

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, and called the Indian New Deal, dramatically changed the federal government’s Indian policy.

*As far as the Indian Reorganization Act is concerned, in my opinion, is possibly one of the worst intentioned happenings that could have possibly taken place as far as individual Indian people are concerned. Although it did stop the alienation, the sale of Indian lands and did stop the allotment system, it created a socialistic society, and set the Indian people apart from the mainstream of American life and made them a problem. So what this has really done, it has substituted in place of the governing system that the Indians had prior to the Indian Reorganization Act, an (a European white man’s) idea of how they should live, rather a paternalistic type of government that had as its object the socializing of all the activities of the Indian people. One cannot help but think that there was an overt conspiracy in the back of the mind of these bureaucrats.

Now when speaking of bureaucrats, I not only include the actual officeholders, but the families and friends of all these officeholders who form the controlling and guiding memberships of these Indian organizations. I want to elaborate a little on the effects of the Indian Reorganization Act insofar as it has deterred the development and the independent thinking of the Indian people. In the first place, it set the Indian aside as a problem. The Indian was and is still being told that he was/is a problem from the very day that he are born under this system and as he grows older, he is by the presence of these so-called experts in agriculture and ranching and other activities they were paying lip service to teaching the Indians, he is made to feel that he is inferior, that he isn’t able to compete. So that the whole system emphasized the activities of the Indians as a whole for the benefit of the whole, rather than the individual, (private enterprise system of our American system.) He isn’t taught to be a capitalist, which they must be taught in order to survive in today's modern society in this country.

Many of the programs had limitations, particularly, the cattle program. They would allow an Indian to acquire a few head of cattle and he couldn’t get any more. I forget the exact figures, but there were limitations put on him so that any programs that were instituted were not aimed at benefiting the Indian but where some side effects did benefit him, it was probably an unfortunate occurrence because their main objective was to show what they’ve been doing to members of Congress on the Appropriations Committee to justify the millions of dollars they were spending, when actually, the Indian was getting little or no benefit from any of this. And I think the main thing that was wrong with the whole thing was that the setting of the Indian aside on a different place in the state, designating him as a problem, making him feel he is a problem, beating down rebels, beating down Indians who expressed any independent thinking, rewarding collaborators, rewarding them economically and with positions of importance in some intense and completely stifling independent creative thinking from the Indian people, having, different laws apply to him, setting up a different kind of government. In other words, the American Indian isn’t under the same kind of government that his white neighbors are. Rather, what should have been done is set up a county system exactly like the neighboring counties, with county officials, with municipal officials, with Indians going about their daily political and economic activities in the same way that other people in the state are, so that they could benefit from the intercourse, (dealings or communications,) with their white neighbors and the meetings that they have, state-wide meetings of county officials, municipal officials, and in fact, becoming part of the mainstream of American life without sacrificing their customs and traditions.

*Paraphrased from an interview of Ramon Roubideaux, a Brule Lakota, and given to historian J.H. Cash in 1968.

Within a few years of its passage by Congress, elections were held on each separate reservation to accept or reject the IRA. Cleverly, John Collier, (commissioner of Indian affairs in the 1930’s who was responsible for the new policy,) had gotten language into the bill stipulating that the Act was accepted as long as a majority of adults did not vote against it. This got around the issue of "traditional" Indians who saw cooperation of any kind with the federal government as an encroachment on sovereignty. Ultimately a majority of adult Indians on a majority of the existing reservations accepted the IRA--or did not outright reject it--with the significant exceptions of the Crows, the Klamath, and the Navajo, where a majority actually voted and chose to reject it.

Next, tribal constitutions needed to be drafted and accepted. With no background in constitutional government, most tribes were forced to rely on model constitutions drafted by the Interior Department. These, of course, had a distinctly Euro-American flavor and, not surprisingly, the majority of tribal constitutions ended up resembling each other.

The legacy of the Indian Reorganization Act is the incorporation of Indian tribes into businesses, allowing them to exist as financial entities. While tribes still operate under financial limitations that states do not, without this provision of the IRA Indian tribes could never have entered into gaming or any of the other financial ventures that have allowed some tribes to be lifted out from under the blanket of poverty. But the individual American Indian still does not have a right to self-determination as long as the IRA exists and Indian tribes and individual American Indians refuse to face reality. And that reality is, “the American Indian is a Ward-of-the-State, second-hand citizens who needs to be treated as unruly stepchildren.” ‡

Food for Thought

2007-02-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

Elephants wear tu-tus so they can hide in pine trees. Did you ever see an elephant in a pine tree? No? Well then, you know it works.
Ever stop to think, and forget to start again?
Despite the cost of living, have you noticed how it remains so popular?
Promises are like babies: fun to make, but hell to deliver.
USA Today has come out with a new survey: Apparently three out of four people make up 75 percent of the population.
What's the difference between roast beef and pea soup? Anyone can roast beef.
What's the main use of cowhide? To hold cows together.
You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
Write your questions down on the back of a $20 dollar bill and send them to me.
IMPORTANT: No animals were harmed during the posting of this massage, although the mutt next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you.