Archive

Archive for August, 2007

NEW ALAN STANG BOOK SAYS HOMOSEXUALS

August 31, 2007 1 comment

NEW ALAN STANG BOOK SAYS HOMOSEXUALS
PERVERT REPUBLICAN PARTY

http://tinyurl.com/2cu3da
http://tinyurl.com/2cu3da

Ted Nugent’s Marine Claim

August 31, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts

Ted Nugent’s Marine Claim
FOX News Channel/The O’Reilly Factor
Posted on 08/31/2007 12:39:57 AM EDT by GunnyBob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts

Last night on TOF on FNC, Ted Nugent claimed he was a Marine. I can find no evidence to support this but I could be missing something.

Someone want to help me out here?

–Gunny Bob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1889235/posts

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Larry Craig: Homosexual by Alan Stang

August 30, 2007 1 comment

LARRY CRAIG: HOMOSEXUAL
by Alan Stang
August 30, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan1.htm

Now that Minneapolis cops have finally nailed Idaho Senator Larry Craig, let it be said that his proclivity is stale news. Craig has routinely been accused of sodomy for at least twenty five years. In fact, Craig’s reputation as a predatory sodomite is so well-established and redundant that I did not bother mentioning him in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou, about the homosexual takeover of the Republicrud Party. Instead, I focused on Republicruds whose homosexual résumés were not so well known.

We are talking about a species of satanic insanity, because buggery means spitting in God’s face, “improving” His work. Consider first Craig’s explanation. It was a “misunderstanding.” He normally assumes a “wide position” with his feet when evacuating. That was why his foot accidentally got into the next stall and touched the policeman. Because he “foolishly” tried to wrap the thing up without counsel, he made the “mistake” of pleading guilty.

Ask yourself: What would a normal man do if accused of homosexuality? What would a normal man do if accused of homosexuality in court? Would a normal man plead guilty? Would a normal man plead guilty even were he acting without counsel? No, a normal man would roar. A normal man would loudly proclaim his normalcy. Many accusers have wound up with black eyes. Some have even wound up dead. Now look at these two You Tube links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RntWGPEjoo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXaaFbo6Oo

Here you see then Member of the House Larry Craig indignantly and righteously denouncing the usual charges in 1982 – twenty five years ago – when the charges included not just buggery but a suitcase full of cocaine. Convincing, wasn’t he? Believable. In fact, here he says something much akin to what you and I would say. Did you believe him? But now we know he was lying. Now he says this latest incident is a “misunderstanding” and a “mistake.”

But now here comes the ultimate horror. Larry Craig’s official U.S. Senate web site says he is married to the former Suzanne Thompson. I could find only one picture of that lady, the one on his site. It’s a bad picture, but she looks good. They have three children: two sons, Mike and Jay, a daughter, Shae, and “nine beautiful grandchildren.” Imagine – if you can – being one of these poor folks today. No one says anything to you, but you know perfectly well that everyone you meet knows your husband, father or grandfather has been arrested in a men’s room with his pants down.

Other commentators have probably told you all this. Craig was co-chairman in the U.S. Senate of the Mitt Romney campaign. Since the feces hit the fan, he has resigned that post and Mitt has pulled the video of himself and Craig together from You Tube. On the video Craig talks about morality and values. But the media have not told you what really ties them together. It is not religion. A few commentators have mistakenly labeled Craig a Mormon. He is in fact a putative Methodist.

As we now know for sure, Larry Craig is a homosexual. What ties them together is the fact that Mitt Romney is a homosexualist. In fact, Mitt is a flaming homosexualist. The term “homosexualist” satisfies an important need in nomenclature. Credit for devising it goes to Scott Lively, a California lawyer, whose book is Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, which suggests that Hitler was a homosexual prostitute in Vienna, and that homosexuality and Nazism are almost the same thing.

You know what a homosexual is. A homosexual is a bugger who buggers other males and is buggered. A homosexual is a male who, in effect, plunges his penis into a pail of excrement. A homosexual is a scumbag who often gives his unsuspecting wife serious diseases. And a homosexual is a male who gets himself arrested propositioning policemen in airport men’s rooms.

A “homosexualist” is an individual of either gender, who may or may not be a sodomite or a lesbian, but who does what he or she can to advance homosexuality. For instance, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh’s predecessor, the man who raped that lady in Arkansas while he was attorney general – I can’t recall his name – and then conducted presidential business in the Oval Office while an intern had sex, is obviously a homosexualist.

So is Jorge W. Boosh himself. Boosh has done at least as much as the rapist to advance the cause of sodomy. Boosh named Republicrud leader Mary Matalin, a ferocious homosexualist, as a top adviser. Mary is a heroine to the sodomite Log Cabin Republicans, whose mission is to do to the Republicruds what flaming faggots like Barney Frank of Taxachusetts have done to the Democruds. She has threatened to demonize anyone who opposes homosexuality and calls religious opponents “the Leviticus crowd.” It would be no surprise at all to learn that Mary Matalin is a secret bull dyke.

Again, Mitt Romney is a flaming homosexualist. You will find many pages documenting his homosexualist activities as governor of Taxachusetts in my new book, Not Holier Than Thou: How Queer Is Bush? Since he eagerly collaborated with Taxachusetts queers, there is every reason to believe that as President Romney would do the same on a bigger scale. Here from the book are some examples of Mitt’s homosexualism in action.

I have mentioned the Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual group. They endorsed Mitt because he met with them many times and put at least two of them on his staff. An appendix to my book offers a fulsome letter of acclamation from Romney to Log Cabin. In 2002, during Boston’s “Gay Pride” events, the Romney campaign for governor distributed bright pink flyers wishing participants a “great Pride weekend.”

Romney supports every piece of federal legislation that would advance, support, protect and finance Organized Sodomy. In November, 2003, in Taxachusetts, he said he would support homosexual civil unions. In February, 2005, he told South Carolina Republicans that he has always opposed such civil unions.

There have been more than 2,500 cases of faggots infiltrating the Boy Scouts to molest little boys, a major felony, but Mitt says, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” The 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City were the only Olympics that forbade the Boy Scouts to participate. Mitt Romney, homosexualist, ran the Olympics that year and kept them out.

We also don’t need to wonder about whom a President Romney would appoint, because Governor Romney appointed many homosexuals to top jobs in Taxachusetts government. In April, 2005, he allowed, protected, encouraged and financed distribution of the Little Black Book to Middle School kiddos at Brookline High School.

In another appendix, Not Holier Than Thou reproduces a page from that document. It is not the worst page. To tell you the truth, I feared that, had I reprinted the worst page, you would have blamed me when you threw up. But the page I do reprint tells the middle school kiddos about fisting. I am not going to spell out what fisting is here. Were I to do so, you would no doubt start screaming that I am trying to drive you insane. Again, none of this could have happened without the imprimatur of Taxachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.

Mitt told Taxachusetts Justices of the Peace that, if they refused to marry homosexual and lesbian couples, they would be fired. Romney thereby went far beyond what the law required. Again, these are just a few examples from the book. So, when Romney shows up in your neighborhood, tall, handsome, urbane, presidential, campaigning for your vote, remember that he is a lying, homosexualist skunk.

To order the book, simply go to alanstang.com and click on STORE, at the top, then scroll down to Not Holier Than Thou. The important thing to remember about all this is that it is not merely about a degenerate in high places, who has finally managed to destroy himself. The book makes clear that the true purpose of Organized Sodomy is quite literally to turn our country upside down, to destroy our civilization and our system. That is why Boosh does not enforce our borders. He thinks he has abolished them.

You can read the plan yourself in Not Holier Than Thou. The goal of the men behind that scheme is to submerge our country in a world government. They can do so only if we are thoroughly demoralized. And there is no more effective weapon of demoralization than the present homosexual assault. What happened in that airport men’s room in the Cities is not just about pathetic Larry Craig. It’s also about the abolition of America. It’s about Mitt Romney.

© 2007 – Alan Stang – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Alan Stang was one of Mike Wallace’s original writers at Channel 13 in New York, where he wrote some of the scripts that sent Mike to CBS. Stang has been a radio talk show host himself. In Los Angeles, he went head to head nightly with Larry King, and, according to Arbitron, had almost twice as many listeners. He has been a foreign correspondent. He has written hundreds of feature magazine articles in national magazines and some fifteen books, for which he has won many awards, including a citation from the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for journalistic excellence. One of Stang’s exposés stopped a criminal attempt to seize control of New Mexico, where a gang seized a court house, held a judge hostage and killed a deputy. The scheme was close to success before Stang intervened. Another Stang exposé inspired major reforms in federal labor legislation.

His first book, It’s Very Simple: The True Story of Civil Rights, was an instant best-seller. His first novel, The Highest Virtue, set in the Russian Revolution, won smashing reviews and five stars, top rating, from the West Coast Review of Books, which gave five stars in only one per cent of its reviews.

Stang has lectured in every American state and around the world and has guested on many top shows, including CNN’s Cross Fire. Because he and his wife had the most kids in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, where they lived at the time, the entire family was chosen to be actors in “Havana,” directed by Sydney Pollack and starring Robert Redford, the most expensive movie ever made (at the time). Alan Stang is the man in the ridiculous Harry Truman shirt with the pasted-down hair. He says they made him do it.

Website: AlanStang.com
E-Mail: stangfeedback@gmail.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stang/alan1.htm

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************


Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg

August 30, 2007 1 comment

Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg
Media ignores lurid history of snuff style sex scandals

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, August 30, 2007

reddit_url=’http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/300807_larry_craig.htm’ reddit_title=’Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg’

digg_title = ‘Larry Craig Pervert Scandal Is Tip Of The Iceberg’; digg_bodytext = ‘Revelations about Senator Larry Craig that have mired the Republicans in another sex scandal over the past few days continue to rumble across the media spectrum – but the true scale of perversion, organized child sex slavery rings and their connections to the elite is uniformly omitted from polite conversation.’;

Revelations about Senator Larry Craig that have mired the Republicans in another sex scandal over the past few days continue to rumble across the media spectrum – but the true scale of perversion, organized child sex slavery rings and their connections to the elite is uniformly omitted from polite conversation.

Last year, Republican Rep. Mark Foley was investigated by the FBI after he sent sexually suggestive e mails to boys working as congressional pages. It later emerged that House leaders had known for months about Foley’s lurid behavior yet chose to look the other way. Foley was co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus.

Larry Craig, albeit on a lesser scale, has now been exposed as a pervert and the media treadmill continues to afford this individual case blanket coverage – a deluge of attention not received by the thousands of missing children and victimized young men who were and continue to be the victims of gargantuan forced child prostitution rings that operate to service political, corporate and media elites all across the globe.

Keith Olbermann sends up the Larry Craig pervert scandal. 

On June 29 1989, the Washington Times’ Paul M. Rodriguez and George Archibald reported on a Washington D.C. prostitution ring that had intimate connections with the White House all the way up to President George H.W. Bush. Male prostitutes had been given access to the White House and the article also cited evidence of “abduction and use of minors for sexual perversion.”

In July 1990 a Nebraska Grand Jury was convened to hear allegations that Lawrence “Larry” King, then manager of the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union and a rising Republican party star, along with Washington lobbyists, had set up a child prostitution ring in which minors were transported around the country and forced to have sex with King, other top officials, and according to victims who some allege were later harassed into recanting, then-Vice-President Bush.

Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) was identified by victims as having engaged in the abuse and in a bizarre twist of fate, appeared on Bill Maher’s show last year and made jokes about the outing of Larry Craig as another homosexual Republican.

The Grand Jury dismissed the case as a hoax but former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp later investigated the claims and was horrified to learn that they were indeed legitimate.

Click on the enlargements to read the 1989 Washington Times expose.

The video which you can watch in full below, Conspiracy of Silence, was produced by British Yorkshire Television and was scheduled to air nationwide in the U.S. on the Discovery Channel on May 3, 1994. Despite appearing in TV guides, the documentary was pulled at the last minute. Key politicians implicated in the scandal intimidated Discovery into canning the program and it was never shown in the U.S.

The documentary team interviewed victims of the Franklin cover-up scandal and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Washington’s political elite had been involved in Larry King’s pedophile ring.

Connections between male prostitutes and the White House emerged again in early 2005, when James Dale Guckert, working under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon, was given privileged access to the White House despite his lack of suitable press credentials. Gannon first came under scrutiny when he repeatedly gave President Bush softball questions during press conferences – leading many to charge Gannon was a White House plant. Photos emerged of Bush embracing Gannon and appearing very affectionate towards him during meetings. It later came out that Gannon had previously placed ads on homosexual escort service websites.

In almost every case of human trafficking for child sex slavery, from Chile to Australia, to Bosnia, to Portugal, to Belgium, court proceedings get shut down or diverted when a clear connection to the elite arises.

In the mid 1990′s, convicted child rapist Marc Dutroux built a secret prison cell in his Charleroi basement where he kept abducted young girls hostage at the behest of what he called “a big crime ring,” which in the 2004 court case was thought by many to encompass some of Belgium’s top politicians, judges and policemen. The reason why it took so long to apprehend Dutroux was that he was being legally protected by these same individuals.

Material witnesses at the trial described “child sex parties involving judges, politicians, bankers and members of the royal family.” Victims that managed to survive (most were butchered snuff style after being raped) verified the claims.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist mediaPrison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
—————————————————————————————————————

Police actually visited Dutroux’s home and heard the cries of help from children concealed in his basement yet believed Dutroux’s explanation that the sounds were coming from kids playing in the street.

Dutroux was eventually convicted for his role in the pedophile ring but the involvement of the elite of the country was never properly investigated.

After Dyncorp and Halliburton contractors were exposed as having operated child prostitution rackets in the Balkans from the late 1990′s onwards (and more recently in the case of Halliburton), Rep. Cynthia McKinney attempted to get answers as to why the U.S. government continued to do business with these corporations.

On March 11th 2005, McKinney grilled Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers on the Dyncorp scandal and its protection by the U.S. government.

“Mr. Secretary, I watched President Bush deliver a moving speech at the United Nations in September 2003, in which he mentioned the crisis of the sex trade. The President called for the punishment of those involved in this horrible business. But at the very moment of that speech, DynCorp was exposed for having been involved in the buying and selling of young women and children. While all of this was going on, DynCorp kept the Pentagon contract to administer the smallpox and anthrax vaccines, and is now working on a plague vaccine through the Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program. Mr. Secretary, is it [the] policy of the U.S. Government to reward companies that traffic in women and little girls?”

In late 2005, Halliburton subsidiary KBR and Dyncorp lobbyists worked in tandem with the Pentagon to stall legislation that would specifically ban trafficking in humans for forced labor and prostitution by U.S. contractors.

Where were the investigations and convictions in other cases of establishment orchestrated child slavery and prostitution? Like the NATO officials responsible for the mushrooming of child prostitution in Kosovo?

What happened to UN officials identified as using a ship charted for ‘peacekeepers’ to bring young girls from Thailand to East Timor as prostitutes?

The U.S. media largely failed to even report many of these cases at the time yet Larry Craig’s bathroom activities, which are without a doubt perverted, creepy and fully worthy of a disorderly conduct charge, are given a hundred times more press coverage than huge sex slavery scandals with ties to the elite that resulted in the abduction, abuse, rape and murder of thousands of children across the globe – many of which are still missing today.

In addition, Wikipedia allows the page detailing a list of such Republican sex scandals to be deleted by trolls as if no such scandals ever took place!


Copyright © Prisonplanet.com. All rights reserved.

Printed from: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/300807_larry_craig.htm

The Party Is Over — Again

August 30, 2007 Leave a comment

The Party Is Over–Again

Posted on 8/30/2007

[Subscribe or Tell Others]

http://www.mises.org/story/2675#
In February, 2001, I saw the end of the credit-filled boom , as the stock market went bust, and predicted recessionary times, which soon followed. It seems, however, that Washington, D.C., is one great big toga party, and if it is true that Blutarsky of “Animal House” became Senator Blutarsky (as the film’s credits tell us at the end), perhaps that provides an explanation for the outright foolishness that has gone on with the Federal Reserve System for more than a decade.

However, the Fed and the rest of the D.C. crowd really did not need the hard-partying Blutarsky to set policy, as it seems that Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben Bernanke, were willing to shed their dark suits and starched collars for a toga made of bed sheets (or maybe some strips of old stock tickertape). Certainly, the policies that these two men and their agents have foisted upon this country since the heyday of the Bill Clinton Administration fall into that of one big party with the Fed spiking the punchbowl with easy credit.

It is hard to know just how far the current meltdown in the stock market and housing market will go, but we can say unequivocally that it will not be business as usual, or business that has been usual for the last many years. We can forget about a 14,000-point Dow for a long while, as economic law — something that politicians have assured us exists only in the minds of “kooks” — reasserts itself, and the results are not pretty.

In this piece, I will briefly point out some of the more egregious things the Fed and the financial system have done and why this monetary charade has been able to go on as long as it has. Before doing that, however, I will deal with one important aspect of economic theory: the relationship of production to consumption.

One of the continuing debates throughout modern economic history (modern meaning the past 300 years or so) has been that of the relationship between production and consumption, the source of what we call Say’s Law. This is what separated Say and his allies from Thomas Malthus, and the Classical economists from Marx and his followers. The debate went on into the 20th Century, with the Austrians taking one side, and the Keynesians the other.

The basics of the debate are this: One side (Say and those who followed him) says that consumption and production are directly related, and that consumption flows from production, or “supply creates its own demand.” The source of one’s consumption, they argue, is one’s production. On larger scales, economies that produce much also are going to be societies that engage in the most consumption of goods.

The ramifications of this set of beliefs are important, for if one holds to Say’s Law (as do the Austrians), one is acknowledging the efficacy of production and also the acknowledgement that in a market economy markets generally will work efficiently, as long as governments do not interfere with them. Adherents to Say’s Law do not disagree that there can be economic downturns; indeed, Say begins his famous Book I, Chapter XV, describing what we would call “recession” conditions. (I make this point because many critics of Say have accused those who hold to Say’s Law of believing that recessions are impossible. Socialists are fond of saying that “the Great Depression discredited Say’s Law,” which is simply not true.)

On the other side, beginning with Bernard de Mandeville and his 1714 “The Fable of the Bees,” it is held that because production of goods is not a guarantee that they will be sold (which in itself is true), therefore consumption must always be encouraged or economies will quickly stagnate into periods of “general overproduction” and fall into ruin. To combat this problem, they have argued, people should be encouraged to spend and spend and spend, as saving money ultimately means unsold goods, and unsold goods mean overproduction, and overproduction means layoffs and mass unemployment.

Karl Marx and others systematized this viewpoint to make the case that free-market economies are inherently unstable and if governments do not intervene to bring about consumption, the capitalist economies will implode. For Marx, the source of underconsumption was the profit-taking by capitalists, who had no right to that product which “rightfully” belonged to the “proletariat.”

John Maynard Keynes, in his 1936 General Theory, also “discredited” Say’s Law and held elsewhere that the creation of new credit by monetary authorities could “turn stones into bread.” The idea to Keynes was that private investment spending was unstable, and that that very instability, when coupled with the multiplier effect of investment spending, meant that a market economy was vulnerable to quick downward surges of general underconsumption and overproduction that would quickly lead to the dreaded “liquidity trap.”

Thus, his view — and the view that has dominated government economic policies for at least a century — is that government must act to prop up consumption through various actions of monetary creation through central banks, as well as massive spending on public works and transference of income from the non-consuming rich to the consuming poor. The idea was that wealthy people were unlikely to spend all of their income, displaying an unhealthy “propensity” to save, which meant that their spending habits would ensure general underconsumption unless some of that money was taken via taxation and given to those entities — individuals and government agencies — that would “responsibly” spend and keep the economy afloat. Just put money into the “hands of the people,” they will spend thusly, and from that spending, production will automatically occur, just as the Golden Calf allegedly rose from Aaron’s fire.

All of this hit me hard when I briefly chatted with an official from the Federal Reserve System at a recent economics conference in Seattle. When I spoke to him about the various bubbles the Fed has created over the past decade, he did not deny that point. Instead, he insisted that the bubbles were good, since unemployment is relatively low. My answer (that he admittedly said was hard to argue against) was that he was trying to tell me that without these bubbles, we would be worse off, economically speaking, something that is incredulous on its face.

While the Fed has been advocating credit for nearly anyone with a pulse, in reality it has been advocating the old Keynesian position that it must constantly create new “money” in order to facilitate commerce, and the Fed has not disappointed in that arena. However, despite the assurances of various Fed spokespersons, in reality a bubble is called a bubble precisely because it cannot be sustained over time.

The reason that the Fed has been able to get away with its monetary shenanigans for more than a decade has been the historical accident of the US dollar being a major world currency, and the rise of the Asian economies. The Asian central banks have been willing to hold dollars at levels well out of proportion to their real value, and Americans have benefited — temporarily, I will add — by the fact that the Chinese and others will accept US dollars for their relatively inexpensive goods.

Indeed, one can say that in one way, the Fed has succeeded (temporarily) in giving us the ultimate Keynesian economy, one in which the US government prints dollars and the Chinese accept them without question. All one has to do is find a way to get dollars in one’s hands — the lending and credit processes seeming to do the trick — and then sit back and consume, consume, consume!

Thus, whether it be the refinancing of one’s home (again and again) to put extra cash in one’s pocket, beating the latest stock bubble, or “flipping” a house, there has seemed to be no end to government schemes to direct money to people to enable them to live beyond their means. However, Say’s Law is not dead; indeed, the markets now seem to be catching on to the reality that Austrians and their fellow travelers have recognized for years, and that is that a policy of easy money cannot sustain itself. Someone has to pay the piper, and he has shown up at the door.

Americans my age and older have been down this road before. Following World War II, the dollar truly was the world’s reserve currency, and it was considered to be “good as gold.” Bolstered by the dogma of the “New Economics,” which was Keynesian garb in American academic robes, promoted by the high priests of US economists, Paul Samuelson and Walter P. Heller, the US government went on a spending orgy. (Compared to the government spending habits today, the “orgy” of the 1960s was little more than a tea party.)

By 1971, however, it was clear that the dollar by itself was empty, and when President Richard Nixon closed the Bretton Woods “gold window” on August 15, 1971, it was the official beginning of the stagflation that dominated the US economy for a decade. Only when the dollar was rejected by others was the folly of Washington’s endless economic toga parties fully exposed.

While I was roundly critical of the Clinton Administration for its irresponsible economic policies, nothing compares to what the George W. Bush Administration has given us, making Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter look responsible in comparison. The entire time this administration has been in office, it has given us the “economy by bubble.”

$25
George W. Bush makes Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter look responsible by comparison.

From the housing bubble to the latest brief upward explosion in the stock market, we are now faced with the hard reality that there is no place for this huge wad of cash to go. It is not the case that we have a “liquidity problem” because there is no money to lend; we have a “liquidity problem” because the outlets for borrowed money have shrunk drastically.

Furthermore, the Chinese are now beginning to realize that the dollar is not what it used to be, and bellicose talk from Washington is wiping out whatever good will has been present between China and the United States. The war in Iraq has turned that country into a charnel house, oil and gasoline prices have drastically increased, thanks to the war and government policies, and people are finding that Washington has nothing to offer, as if it ever did.

War abroad and fiscal and monetary irresponsibility at home gave us the infamous end of Bretton Woods 36 years ago. (I am not endorsing the Bretton Woods agreement of 1944, which Henry Hazlitt knew from the beginning to be terribly flawed, but in retrospect, it was still superior to the current monetary madness that is the Federal Reserve.)

It now seems that the authorities have learned nothing from the financial disasters of four decades ago: they are determined to make the rest of us repeat them. Granted, many of us have benefited from this era of “easy money,” but that is going to change. Indeed, the party is over, the lights are out, and I don’t know when they will be turned on again. Please leave your togas at the door.


William Anderson, an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, teaches economics at Frostburg State University. Send him mail. See his articles. Comment on the blog.http://www.mises.org/story/2675#

 

“A Ron Paulian Blueprint?”

August 30, 2007 4 comments

Rockwell’s Thirty-Day Plan

by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.


DIGG THIS

When Eastern Europe broke free in 1989, we all realized just how little thought had been given to the transition from socialism to capitalism. Mises had told us the collapse was coming, and we should have been prepared.

As America comes to resemble a command economy, we need a transition plan here too. Yuri Maltsev proposed a “One-Year Plan” for the U.S.S.R. We’re not in that bad a shape (yet), so we could do it in 30 days.

DAY ONE: The federal income tax is abolished and April 15th is declared a national holiday. The 40% reduction in federal revenues is matched by a 40% cut in spending. The budget is still almost twice as big as Jimmy Carter’s.

DAY TWO: All other federal taxes are abolished, including the corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, the gasoline tax, “sin” taxes, excise taxes, etc. Businesses boom, and the few legitimate federal functions are funded with an inexpensive head tax. People who choose not to vote need not pay it. (Note: this was a mainstream view in the 19th century.)

DAY THREE: The federal government sells all its land, freeing up tens of millions of acres for development, mining, farming, forestry, oil drilling, private parks, etc. The government uses the revenue to pay off the national debt and other liabilities.

DAY FOUR: The minimum wage is reduced to zero, creating jobs for ex-federal bureaucrats at their market wage. All pro-union laws and regulations are scrapped. The jobless rate falls dramatically.

DAY FIVE: The Bureau of Labor Statistics, like the rest of the Labor Department, is sent to that big hiring hall in the sky. Without detailed economic statistics, future economic planners will be blind and deaf.

DAY SIX: The Department of Commerce is abolished. Big business has to make its own way in the world, without subsidies and privileges at the expense of its competitors and customers.

DAY SEVEN: The plug is pulled on the Department of Energy. Oil and gas prices plummet.

DAY EIGHT: All regulatory agencies, from the Interstate Commerce Commission to the Federal Trade Commission, are deep-sixed. Competition is legalized.

DAY NINE: HUD is squashed like a bug. There’s a building boom in cheap, private, apartments.

DAY TEN: The interstate highways reopen as private businesses. Road entrepreneurs price travel according to consumer demand. Using modern technology, drivers get bills once a month. Credit risks – and drunks and dangerous drivers – aren’t allowed on the road. Non-drivers no longer subsidize car owners.

DAY ELEVEN: Government welfare is wiped out. Bums work or starve. The deserving poor find a cornucopia of private services designed to make them independent. Private charity explodes, as the American people, already the most generous in the world, find their incomes almost doubled, thanks to the tax cuts.

DAY TWELVE: The Federal Reserve closes its open-market operations and stops protecting the banking industry from competition. But banks can now engage in all the non-bank financial activities previously forbidden to them. The business cycle, which is caused by monetary expansion through the credit markets, is liquidated.

DAY THIRTEEN: Federal deposit insurance is scrapped. All insured deposits are redeemed from federal assets, which include the personal assets of high-level government employees. The threat of bank runs forces banks to keep 100% reserves for their demand deposits, and prudent reserves on all other accounts. There are no more inherently bankrupt banks propped up by the government, at taxpayer expense, and no more bail-outs.

DAY FOURTEEN: The shaky fiat dollar is defined in terms of gold, with the ratio determined by dividing the government’s gold stock by all existing dollars on that day.

DAY FIFTEEN: The federal government sells National and Dulles airports to the highest bidder, and stops all subsidies to other socialist airports around the country. All constraints on airline prices and service cease. It costs more to fly during peak hours than off-peak, but overall, air travel drops in price.

DAY SIXTEEN: All government regulations that create and sustain cartels are abolished, including those for the post office, telephones, television, radio, and cable TV. Prices plummet, and a host of new and unforeseen services becomes available.

DAY SEVENTEEN: Centrally planned agriculture, as imposed by Hoover and Roosevelt, is repealed: there are no more subsidies, payments-in-kind, marketing orders, low-interest loans, etc. Farm prices drop. Entrepreneurial farmers get rich. Welfare farmers go into another line of work. The poor eat like kings.

DAY EIGHTEEN: The Justice Department shutters its anti-trust division. Companies, big and small, are free to merge – up, down, or sideways. Stockholders can buy any other company, or sell their stock to anyone else. Marginal producers can no longer battle their competitors with bureaucratic weapons.

DAY NINETEEN: The Department of Education flunks the constitutionality test, and is kicked out. Private charities set up remedial reading and writing programs for the former bureaucrats. Federally subsidized sex education and other anti-family programs go out of business. Local school districts become responsive to parents or close, pressured by a fast-growing private school sector (which many more parents can now afford).

DAY TWENTY: All federal monuments are sold, in some cases to non-profit groups based on the Mt. Vernon Ladies Association, which owns and runs George Washington’s home. The VFW buys the Vietnam memorial. There is much bidding for the Jefferson and Washington monuments. Nobody wants FDR’s, so it’s torn down and the land sold to a farmer. (With the federal government cut back to its constitutional size, much of Washington reverts to productive uses like agriculture, as in late 18th century.)

DAY TWENTY-ONE: The computerized financial and political dossier maintained by the government on every American is erased. The public wanders through the federal offices to make sure, in a reprise of the East Berliners’ visits to Stasi headquarters.

DAY TWENTY-TWO: Equal rights are granted to all Americans, even members of non-victim groups. There is no affirmative action, no quotas, no set-asides, no public accommodations laws. Private property and freedom of association are fully restored.

DAY TWENTY-THREE: The EPA is cleaned out, with all “clean air” and similar big-government laws repealed. Ten thousand lawyers leap from their balconies. Private property is established in air and water. Americans harmed by pollution are free to sue the polluters, who are no longer protected by the federal government.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR: Americans are given complete freedom of contract, restoring rationality to malpractice and product liability law.

DAY TWENTY-FIVE: Government scrambles for more assets to sell (i.e., the National Zoo, also known as Washington, D.C.) to pay off the liabilities of the privatized Social Security system.

DAY TWENTY-SIX: Porno artists have to earn their own livings, as the National Endowment for the Arts tries to raise its budget through sidewalk painting sales.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN: Foreign aid is outlawed as unconstitutional, unjust, and un-economic. Foreign politicians have to steal their own money. The World Bank, IMF, and United Nations close their super-luxurious doors.

DAY TWENTY-EIGHT: The American people are given the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms.

DAY TWENTY-NINE: The Defense Department is reoriented towards defense. American troops come home from all around the world. We adopt a policy of armed neutrality, remembering the Founding Fathers’ teaching that we could not have an empire abroad and a constitutional republic at home.

DAY THIRTY: All tariffs, quotas, and trade agreements are put through the shredder. Americans can trade with anyone in the world, without barriers or subsidies. Japanese car prices drop an immediate 25%.

In just 30 exhilarating days, we have established the outlines of free market. Radical? Maybe so. Me, I can’t wait until Month Two.

August 30, 2007

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail] is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty. This article appeared in The Free Market for March 1991.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

Lew Rockwell Archives

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html

WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (PC)?

August 30, 2007 1 comment

WHAT IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (PC)?

Let me ask you something. What is political correctness? To quote from Wikipedia, “The term “political correctness” is derived from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary, and was used to describe the appropriate “party line,” [7] commonly referred to as the “correct line.” [8] The term was used in communist countries, and by communist and Trotskyist parties.
Ref
Are We Teaching Our Children To Lie?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Daubenmire/dave82.htm
Read more…

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse…

August 29, 2007 Leave a comment

Congressman: Stock Market Will Eventually Collapse…

Paul Joseph Watson on 29 August, 2007

imagePrison Planet  -

Ron Paul says martial law provisions in place to deal with economic discord

Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul says that attempts to rescue an ailing stock market last week, during which the Fed pumped in billions in liquidity, were merely a stop gap measure – and that an economic collapse is all but inevitable.

“They think that they can control it but eventually they can’t, as powerful as they are eventually the markets are more powerful,” the Congressman told the Alex Jones Show yesterday.

“The dollar can’t be kept in check because eventually it will come unwound,” he added.

“But I think the most significant figure we’ve heard in the last few weeks is the measurement between 2000 – 2005, the clear cut admission that real income has gone down, which is a reflection of the dollar.”

Paul explained that recent attempts to pump liquidity into the markets are only a temporary fix and that the long-term effects of doing so spell disaster for the economy.

“The dollar is plunging no matter what you read and hear about and no matter how hard they work to keep the bubble going the only way they can do that is creating more money….causing the dollar to go down even faster, the market seems to be reassured – there’s a contrivance to try to hold this together….but it won’t last, eventually it’s going to collapse,” said Paul.

—————————————————————————————————————
The Internet leader in activist mediaPrison Planet.tv. Get access to hundreds of special video reports, audio interviews, books and documentary films. Subscribers also get instant access to our hugely popular forum where you can network with like-minded people, meet up and get active! Click here to subscribe.
—————————————————————————————————————

The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.

“If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do,” said Paul.

The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a “very dangerous sign” that plans were being laid for martial law.

“Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn’t plan to use them,” concluded Paul.

Suspicions were raised last week when a mystery trader risked billions of dollars after buying 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, in effect a speculation that the market would crash by a third before September 21st.

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/print/257.html

MSM is Formally Accused of Felony Rico and Conspiracy Against Dr. Ron Paul

August 29, 2007 Leave a comment

 

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/248.html

 

MSM is Formally Accused of Felony

<>Rico and Conspiracy Against Dr. Ron Paul

Clarence Malcolm -

 

What the public needs to understand is that FOX, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and the other established *mainstream “mass media“/news sources [*see definition @ Wikipedia.org] are perpetrating criminal fraud (via omissions, distortions and  outright lies) and a deliberate censorship of Dr. Ron Paul in 2008 Presidential race—with malice and aforethought and evil intent to control the 2008 presidential elections.  This is an outrage and “We the People” need to organize against this dangerous plot and TAKE ACTION by filing  “class action” criminal charges and civil suits against the owners and executives of these news sources.    This illegal censorship is not only harming Americans because they wield the power to control the outcome of elections via the quantity and quality of the news coverage they provide the candidates; it constitutes an unAmerican and antiAmerican criminal enterprise; not to fail to mention a violation of the first amendment/freedom of the press. These accused individuals—the elitist media executives—exercise monopolized and Fascist-control over media/news sources with intent to get the candidate preferred by them elected while simultaneously wrongfully hiding and/or playing down the true facts, popularity and success of the Ron Paul campaign.

Please spread this message and let’s get criminal charges and a class action lawsuit executed against this dangerous organized crime syndicate identified as the present mainstream media outlets which are collaborating in a RICO [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-1968; reference: www.ricoact.com] conspiracy to censor Dr. Ron Paul and control the outcome of the 2008 Presidential Election.  This is definitely “RICO” if it can be shown that any of the accused media executives have donated money to any of the other presidential candidates, directly or indirectly!  The accused individuals herein have wrongfully utilized their outrageous MONOPOLY over the media across America to injure Dr. Ron Paul and his millions of supporters; all Americans, in fact.  These accused individuals need to go to prison upon conviction.  They need to be criminally prosecuted and have their personal assets seized.  They need to have their Federal FCC licenses revoked for participating in this criminal conspiracy.    Help us spread this felony information far and wide.  Let’s get these elitist outlaws criminally prosecuted and civilly sued.

 

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/248.html

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Ron Paul Debates The War…

August 28, 2007 Leave a comment


Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul406.html

Ron Paul Debates the War
With Doug Casey, against Dinesh D’Souza and Larry Abraham

DIGG THIS

Buy a copy of Ron Paul’s
new book for $20.

See the Ron Paul File

August 28, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul406.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Will A U.N. Navy Defend America?

August 28, 2007 Leave a comment

Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?
Cliff Kincaid

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1279776

Author: Cliff Kincaid
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 28, 2007

In September, the Senate will vote whether to join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). FSM Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid wonders whether allowing “foreign panels and courts” to tell us what we can do on the high seas is such a good idea.

 

Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?

 


By Cliff Kincaid

 

Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic Congressman from Indiana, reports in an August 27th column in the Indianapolis Star that the Senate will vote in September whether to join the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The treaty, the most comprehensive and potentially dangerous ever devised, would dramatically affect the ability of the U.S. to compete for oil and gas and precious minerals in the oceans of the world.

 

The New York Times is the latest liberal paper to endorse the treaty, arguing in an August 25 th editorial that “unless the United States joins up, it could very well lose out in what is shaping up as a mad scramble to lay claim to what are believed to be immense deposits of oil, gas and other resources under the Arctic ice – deposits that are becoming more and more accessible as the earth warms and the ice melts.” But something is fishy here. Since when has the Times been an advocate of the U.S. laying claim to and exploiting those resources? This is a paper that has consistently opposed President Bush’s limited plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

 

The Times’ endorsement of the treaty, by citing the real and pressing need for access to resources under the Arctic ice, is dishonest. If the U.S. ratifies the treaty and stakes a claim to those resources under it, the paper would be the first to oppose it. In fact, the U.S. already has valid and legitimate claims to the area without going through the treaty.

 

While there have been rumors that UNCLOS hearings will be held in September before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Hamilton column is the first indication that a vote will be held as well. That means the public only has days or weeks, at most, to understand what is at stake and influence their Senators. The treaty requires 67 votes for passage.  

 

Ironically, the Times editorial serves as a case study of what is wrong with the treaty.

 

Regarding the Arctic, for example, the Times says that “The Law of the Sea [treaty] will provide the forum for determining who gets what.” That is true if the U.S. agrees to ratify the treaty. But why should the U.S. agree to let a treaty negotiated under the auspices of the U.N. decide “who gets what?” The Times says that, “Claims and disputes will be resolved by arbitration panels established by the treaty.” Again, why should the U.S. delegate decision-making authority to international bodies? 

 

The complete failure of the Times editorialists to provide any answers to these questions demonstrates that a pro-U.N. media bias is at work here. The paper wants the treaty ratified simply for the sake of passing another treaty. This is the globalist mind-set exhibited by those opposed to America acting in its own national interest. The irony, of course, is that the Bush Administration, a frequent target of the Times for its conduct of foreign affairs, is backing UNCLOS.

 

Yet, it was Bush adviser Karl Rove who told Rush Limbaugh that “…if you have to wake up in the morning to be validated by the editorial page of the New York Times, you got a pretty sorry existence.” Many conservatives are wondering why President Bush and Times editorial writers are on the same page. Perhaps they are both wrong.

 

The Times editorial describes the treaty as “solemn,” which is a fascinating word choice suggesting it has been handed down from on high and that God-like authority has been delegated to those enforcing it.

 

Indeed, consider what else the Times says about UNCLOS. “The law gives each nation control over its own coastal waters – an ‘exclusive economic zone’ extending 200 miles offshore,” it says. “The rest is regarded as international waters, subject to agreed-upon rules governing fishing, protection of the marine environment, navigation and mining on the ocean floor. A country can claim territory and mineral deposits beyond the 200-mile limit, but only if it can prove that the seabed is a physical extension of its continental shelf.”

 

The phrase “the law gives” is interesting and revealing. By passing the treaty, foreigners on panels and courts will then decide what we can do in “international waters.” So what happens if and when these foreign-dominated panels decide against America? Will the Times support the U.S. abrogating a “solemn” treaty that goes against our interests? Don’t bet on it. 

 

In the past, Karl Rove and other administration officials have defended the treaty on the grounds that the U.S. military supports it. An analysis of why this is the case shows that the dramatic decline in the number of U.S. Navy ships, from 594 under President Reagan to only 276 under President Bush, is driving the Pentagon’s endorsement of the pact. Under the sway of international lawyers, Department of Defense officials have concluded that a piece of paper that asserts some rights we already take for granted on the high seas is better than nothing.

 

The Pentagon is not immune to the influence of international lawyers. My recent report on this matter noted that Navy Commander James Kraska, who handled oceans policy on the Joint Staff of the Pentagon, was among those who paid tribute to Louis Sohn of Harvard, a writer of UNCLOS who co-authored a book, “World Peace Through World Law,” outlining a plan for transforming the U.N. into a world government. I also discovered a thesis written back in 1996 by a student at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, on the subject of establishing a U.N. Navy. British Professor Gwyn Prins, who served as a consultant in the Office of the NATO Secretary-General, has long advocated such a force.

 

This kind of thinking is why many conservatives argue that the Pentagon has gone dangerously off-course. They say the answer to UNCLOS is building up the U.S. Navy and the Coast Guard and making our military once again into the “Law ON the Sea.”

 

On the other hand, if we want America to be defended by international lawyers and a U.N. Navy, rather than U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ships, UNCLOS makes perfect sense.

 

# #
FamilySecurityMatters.org FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Cliff Kincaid is Editor of Accuracy in Media. He can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
read full author bio here

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to pr@familysecuritymatters.org.

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

Other Articles by Cliff Kincaid…
Will a U.N. Navy Defend America?
How Does the Law of the Sea Treaty Affect Our National Security?
U.N. May Give Black Gold at North Pole to Russia
The North Pole is Ours, Not Russia’s
Barbara Walters Funds U.N. Lobby Group
Administration’s Policies Promote Global Jihad
U.S. Troops Now Fighting for U.N. in Iraq?
Selling America to Communist China
The Fairness Doctrine is Not Dead
Last Stand for American Sovereignty

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/global.php?id=1279776

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

August 27, 2007 Leave a comment

www.NewsWithViews.com
August 28, 2007
New Article

<>Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice in 2008

<>
Let’s cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal. No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious…….
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm
by Pastor Chuck Baldwin
~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~

<>Conservative Republicans Have Only One Choice In 2008

 

 

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

August 28, 2007

NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm

Let’s cut to the chase: conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. Unlike the GOP frontrunners, Paul is the real deal.

No real conservative could support Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, Fred Thompson, or Newt Gingrich. When it comes to historic conservative principles, each of these men is as phony as a three dollar bill. That they are now attempting to cast themselves as conservatives is more than laughable: it is downright hilarious.

For an ongoing review of the major presidential aspirants, I invite readers to visit this web page often.

The more that conservatives (and the rest of America) learn about the GOP’s “top tier” candidates, the more they will dislike them. This fact does not bode well for the GOP in the 2008 general election should one of these five men obtain the nomination. Plus, G.W. Bush has forever wasted the antiquated “lesser of two evils” philosophy. As they say here in the south, “That dog won’t hunt.” Not anymore.

On the whole, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are head and shoulders above the aforementioned “top tier” candidates, especially on the very important illegal immigration issue. They are also opposed to so-called “free trade” agreements, and they are both pro-Second Amendment. This is a plus. Hunter supports preemptive war, however, and he voted for both the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, which disqualifies him for President, in my judgment. I confess to liking Tom Tancredo. He strikes me as an honest man and was a bulldog in fighting Bush’s amnesty for illegal aliens proposal. However, he also voted for the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback are strong on the life issue, but they are dismal on immigration and Big Brother issues. All that said, it is Ron Paul alone who contains the “whole package.”

He has a twenty-year record as a conservative congressman that is virtually unblemished. Unlike the vast majority of congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., Paul consistently honors his oath of office to support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That, all by itself, should be worth a conservative’s support.

In fact, Ron Paul has voted against so many unconstitutional bills offered by both Democrats and Republicans that he is known on Capitol Hill as “Dr. No.” This moniker comes from both his “no” votes and the fact that Paul is a former medical doctor, an OB/GYN physician who has delivered more than four thousand babies.

If one wants a true photograph of how a congressman or senator votes on conservative, constitutional issues, the best place to look is the Freedom Index in the New American Magazine. Ron Paul almost always ranks as the most conservative congressman from either chamber or either party. His current ranking is 100%, which is a score that few congressmen or senators, except Ron Paul, ever achieve. And Paul does it routinely.

See the Freedom Index here.

Ron Paul’s commitment to the sanctity of human life goes beyond rhetoric. He is the man who sponsored H.R. 776, entitled the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005.” Had it passed, H.R. 776 would have recognized the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognized the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, H.R. 776 would have removed abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision, and would have denied funding for abortion providers. In plain language, H.R. 776 would have ended abortion on demand. (It is more than interesting to me that none of the Religious Right’s pet politicians, including George W. Bush, even bothered to support Paul’s pro-life bill.)

In addition to being willing to stop the illegal alien invasion, Ron Paul is one of only a handful of congressmen that dares speak out against the emerging North American Union, NAFTA superhighway, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, all of which are being promoted by the White House in concert with the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

Another critical issue in next year’s election is the gun issue (it is always a critical issue where freedom is concerned). On this issue, Ron Paul stands atop the field. Because Paul truly supports the Constitution, he truly supports “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Period. Should Ron Paul become President, gun owners would have the best friend they ever had.

For a comprehensive review of the presidential contenders’ records on the Second Amendment, click here.

Regarding the war in Iraq and other foreign policy issues, Paul is a traditional conservative of the order of George Washington and Robert Taft. Not ignorant of military matters (he is an Air Force veteran), Paul subscribes to a historical American approach of no entanglements with foreign nations. In fact, in the area of foreign policy, Ron Paul stands alone as a traditional, constitutional, American statesman.

Unlike his neocon counterparts, Ron Paul believes in an independent America. He believes that it is not America’s responsibility to police the world. He believes America’s political leaders are duty-bound to protect the interests of the United States, not the interests of internationalists. Accordingly, he opposed the unprovoked and preemptive invasion of Iraq. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul’s principled position.

In fact, those conservatives who have followed President Bush’s preemptive war doctrine are the ones who have abandoned historical conservative principles. Before G.W. Bush changed the landscape, conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, mostly subscribed to Augustine’s “just war” theory regarding accepted protocols for the conduct of war. Today, however, many professing conservatives have foolishly followed Bush’s “preemptive war” theory, which, before now, was practiced mostly by pagan emperors. Not so with Ron Paul. As a Christian, he still subscribes to “just war.”

Of course, Ron Paul believes in protecting America from terrorists. He authored H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 3,500 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

And speaking of Christianity, Ron Paul’s testimony is clear. He has publicly acknowledged Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. And for Paul, this is not political posturing, it is a genuine personal commitment. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that he does not wear his Christianity on his sleeve, as do so many politicians (of both parties).

Just recently, Ron Paul said these words, “I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

Could conservative Christians ask for a testimony that is any clearer?

Should Ron Paul win the Republican nomination, he would almost certainly win the general election. His constitutional, common-sense ideals would be attractive to such a broad range of voters, I dare say that he would win a landslide victory, no matter who the Democrats nominated. Conservatives, independents, libertarians, union members, and even some liberals (mostly those who oppose the war in Iraq and Bush’s Big Brother schemes) would support Ron Paul. The challenge is winning the Republican nomination.

Face it: the big money interests, the Chamber of Commerce crowd, the international bankers and GOP hierarchy will never support Dr. Paul. He is too honest, too ethical, too constitutional, and too independent for their liking. Therefore, the only chance Ron Paul has of winning the Republican nomination is for every Christian, every conservative, and every constitutionalist within the GOP to get behind him.

Conservative Republicans have only one choice for President in 2008: Ron Paul.

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence.

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet http://www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com and newspapers.

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: www.chuckbaldwinlive.com. When responding, please include your name, city and state.

E-mail: chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin394.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?

August 25, 2007 1 comment

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?

 

It is said that when it was inquired of a Marine officer how many Marines we have like Chesty Puller, the officer responded…”just one, only the one.”
(paraphrased, no source cited here)

 

List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star recipients

List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star recipients (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*****

 

I think the if someone now asked, how many politicians and/or elected/appointed officials we have like Congressman Ron Paul, the answer would have to be, just one, only the one.
-RWG

 

*****

 

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of...

Ron Paul, member of the United States House of Representatives from Texas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ron Paul Archives
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

 

href=”http://www.spreadtheword2008.com“><img src= “http://www.spreadtheword2008.com/images/spreadtheword.jpg” alt=”www.spreadtheword2008.com” width=”200″ height=”90″ border=”0″ title=”www.spreadtheword2008.com” /></a>
~~~~~

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

 

IS THIS MAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF...

IS THIS MAN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, MENTALLY ILL? (Photo credit: SS&SS)

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele

August 25, 2007 Leave a comment

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele

http://tinyurl.com/2sf2u9
Please Go To the above Link for the full article…

Excerpt:

There is No Hope

Do not look to the system for any sort of meaningful change.  Voting is rigged.  Everything is rigged.  Of the current announced Presidential candidates, only one would effect meaningful change:  Ron Paul.  I hesitate to endorse the man because I so like him. 

I firmly believe that, if the current media disinformation campaign fails and Ron Paul actually becomes a leading contender, they simply will kill him as they have so many before (Huey Long and Robert Kennedy come to mind).  If elected and he lives through to his inauguration and refuses to knuckle under, they simply will kill him then, just as they did JFK. 

Make no mistake – Ron Paul would make a great President, but it simply ain’t gonna happen, folks.  But, he says he wants the job, so he’s got my vote, regardless.

Possibilities

There are possibilities, but none of them are pretty. 

Perhaps America will get nuked into submission by a world tired of being bullied at every turn.  Once backed by gold, then by oil, the dollar today is backed by America’s nuclear arsenal.  Do what we say and use the dollar to transact international business or we will bomb you into rubble.  Just ask Iraq.  A nuclear exchange, finally, will pull America’s trump card.

http://tinyurl.com/2sf2u9

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy

August 25, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy
GAMBLING 911 ^ | 25 AUGUST 2007 | JENNIFER REYNOLDS
http://tinyurl.com/3cvs57
Posted on 08/25/2007 10:00:25 AM EDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. On the other hand, it does not show much honesty, integrity, or conviction. The latest test of this principle is to watch “1st tier” presidential candidate Mitt Romney start to emulate the political philosophy of “2nd tier” candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul has been in favor of small government since he became a Congressman. He has been in Congress for ten terms or twenty years. (Ron Paul is currently listed with 8 to 1 odds of becoming the next US President)

Throughout that time he has consistently advocated that we strictly adhere to the Constitution of the United States. He has written volumes of information on the topic and may be the most patriotic statesman this country has seen in generations. The mainstream media either ignores or ridicules Dr. Paul and his views, but lucky for us, there are two wonderful sources of finding these volumes of writings. The first is on the Lew Rockwell site. Visit the home page and look for the Ron Paul file in the lower left corner. There you can find many articles written by and about Ron Paul as well as a host of videos. Another source is the Ron Paul Library . For the well versed Ron Paul supporter as well as people new to his positions, I suggest that you look through his work. His writings and statements he has given on the House floor are truly inspiring.

Apparently, others are now finding Ron Paul’s writing inspiring too. Of late, a nod to Constitutional policy has been found in sound bites from the other candidates. One can attribute this to the surprising support that Ron Paul has seemed to garner. Surprising, that is, to all of the Neo-cons who were sure their pro-war nation building tactics would surely gather the most supporters. Not at all surprising to the rest of us who know the country is ready for Dr. Paul. As Ron Paul’s popularity continues to rise, the other candidates have tried to ridicule him or ignore him. Now, seeing the amazing support Dr. Paul is generating, some candidates are trying to be him.

In a recent interview with the Associated Press, Mitt Romney gave responses that were not just taken from a page out of Ron Paul’s book, but seemed to be taken right out of the good doctor’s mouth. Mr. “I will double Guantanamo Bay” has now decided that States have rights and perhaps we ought to consider ceding them more authority over certain issues such as education and abortion. Both of these are positions that Ron Paul has been stating for years (not surprising to those of us who have read the U.S. Constitution), yet Mr. Romney seems to have had a sudden epiphany as I have heretofore not seen nor heard him state these position. On January 30, 2006, over a year ago Dr. Paul wrote: “. . . the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. . . .Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy?” Today, August 22, 2007, Mr. Romney remarked: that states should “fashion their own laws with regard to abortion. That’s what I think the next step should be.” I wonder where he got that idea.

What this all shows, besides the fact that Mr. Romney has an amazing ability to learn to adapt as quickly as a chameleon, is that Ron Paul is having a major effect on the campaign. The man who everyone scorned, laughed at, made fun of, and generally ignored, is now the man to be emulated, copied, and listened to as closely as E.F. Hutton.

Ron Paul’s success has been frightening a lot of candidates. Despite continued low national polling numbers (many have consistently questioned the methods of the pollsters) Ron Paul did amazingly well this weekend in two straw polls. He won by a landslide in Alabama receiving a whopping 81% of the votes, while Mr. Romney received 5%. Dr. Paul also took New Hampshire by storm in the Strafford County GOP straw poll on August 18, 2007 receiving 73% of the votes cast. Two days earlier Dr. Paul came in third by a hair in the Illinois Republican Party straw poll. While on August 14, 2007 he came in first in the Gaston County, N.C. straw poll with 37% of the votes.

All this success is being ignored, as usual, by the mainstream media, but apparently not by his opponents. Ron Paul is beginning to run away with this race where it counts: in the voting booth. Ron Paul may become the only President in history to win the nomination while “polling” nationally at 1%.

The Ron Paul wannabees are now trying to jump on the Constitution bandwagon. Watch for more of them to parrot Dr. Paul’s ideals and positions as we get closer to the primaries. How can you tell the true blue from the copycats? Long ago, my mother taught me a way to test a man’s character that has held me in good stead. I hope it helps you. She told me: “You can trust that a man will behave in the future the way he has behaved in the past.” People who develop “instant” new positions can usually be counted on to be equally as flexible in the future: leaving you with no real idea of what they will do once in office. Let’s not forget George W’s speech about no nation building while he was campaigning. If you want a man who means what he says, lives what he espouses, and has been unwavering in his dedication to keeping the United States a free nation where people retain their liberties, then Ron Paul is your man. How can this be said with such conviction? Just look at his voting record and writings over the past decade.

Here is what Dr. Paul wrote back on July 20, 1997, over ten years ago, about the dangers of the Federal Government taking over the education of our children (one could choose from many more articles and statements made throughout the years as he has never wavered on his position):

An American statesman once said that the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of the government in the next. And thanks to the federal take-over of education, that’s a thought which should scare us all.

After all, the federal government has so invaded our classrooms, that daily our children are constantly bombarded with the message that everything good flows from the federal government, and that no one but the federal government has the ability to put right problems in our culture and world. On any given day, the federal government has more influence on the education of the average child than that child’s parents. . . .

As long as we accept the notion that the federal government has some sort of “right” to control education, we will never see this trend reversed. But the good news is, more and more people are awakening to the horrible things which have occurred since the federal government began taking over our schools. . . .

There is absolutely no authority over education given to the federal government by the Constitution, none whatsoever. Everything we see the federal government doing in education is outside the bounds set by the Constitution; not, of course, that many people any longer feel bound by the restrictions set forth in the highest law of the land.

So the real challenge for us is determining how to rescue our school kids from the clutches of the federal education bureaucrats.

Even though many people across the nation are tired of what they see the federal government doing in education, there are too many entrenched congressmen, senators and federal employees who are unwilling to eliminate this unconstitutional waste of tax dollars. Therefore it is unlikely we see the Department of Education abolished, as it needs to be, any time soon, nor will we see the myriad of education-related federal rules and regulations discarded.

I am confident that day will come, for history has shown us that big, centralized government systems always collapse. But until that days arrives we cannot sacrifice our children. In order to ensure our children and grandchildren are receiving the education they need, parents must be able to consider options for their kids other than, or in addition to, the government schools. But realistically, tutoring sessions, home schooling and private schools are options far out of reach for many people, simply because of the cost. . . .

I am absolutely convinced that the key to an educationally prosperous nation is found not in a federal government program, but in the right of parents – consulting with teachers and local administrators – to effectively utilize their moral responsibility for their children. By so doing, we will foster a philosophy of independence, self-reliance, and local responsibility; a philosophy which will permeate our classrooms and our government.

And that is a philosophy of which we are in desperate need not just for the next generation, but also today.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1886396/posts

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Also Known As: Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Gunny G’s Mailbag: Another New GyG Place…

August 25, 2007 Leave a comment

The “G” Weblog @N54

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302

(Also Known As…Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Click-Here For Previous Posts!!!!!

WHAT IS A WIKI?
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 2:25 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661842>

IT’S THE PEOPLE vs. THE GOVERNMENT
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 2:04 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661506>

Yes, OSS Was Riddled With Communists
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:46 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24661047>

The Clinton Crime Family
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:31 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24660711>

HuffPo Calls For Military Coup In USA
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 26 at 1:09 AM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24660174>

DON IMUS AND THE AMERICAN APPETITE FOR SHOCK JOCKS
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 8:31 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24653360>

AARON RUSSO: FREEDOM FIGHTER ­REST IN PEACE
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 7:57 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24652445>

After Ron Paul Makes Meteoric Gains, Romney “Borrows” Philosophy
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 7:21 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24651758>

Tipping Point by Edgar J. Steele
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 5:37 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24648914>

CHESTY PULLER AND RON PAUL ALIKE?
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 5:14 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24647727>

Note to Muslims: We didn’t yield free speech on 9-11
Rated 5 in topic Multi-topical
From network54.com on August 25 at 1:35 PM
<http://www.furl.net/item.jsp?id=24639964>

PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING OTHER THAN MYSELF!
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, etc.
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking….Articles you just don’t see…Elsewhere!

The DeLorean Is Back!

August 21, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts

Coolest Car News Of The Day – The DeLorean Is BACK! (And American Made Too Alert)
Debbie Schlussel.com ^ | 08/21/2007 | Debbie Schlussel
Posted on 08/21/2007 11:38:35 AM EDT by goldstategop
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts

He may be gone–suave auto world genius John DeLorean died in 2005–but his namesake is back.

My favorite car ever, the silver stainless steel DeLorean with its gull-winged doors is making a comeback (details here and here). You remember it as the time-transporting car from the hit movie, “Back to the Future.” DeLorean Motor Company went out of business 25 years, but it has been reborn.

The Dashing, Brilliant Late John DeLorean

>p>
& His Namesake Automotive Invention

A new DeLorean will set you back $57,500 (today’s real dollar equal to the original $25,000 price tag) and will retain the original John DeLorean design. And they will be American made–hand-assembled in Humble, Texas at one or two DeLoreans per month, and mostly made from original DeLorean parts from the ’80s. That will begin in the third quarter of next year. There will be five U.S. dealerships and one in Europe.

One of my schoolmates parents drove a DeLorean, and it was very cool. Hard to fit the car in a two-car garage next to another car and still to be able to open the doors, though. About 6,500 DeLoreans from the original 9,000 are still in existence.

If I could afford to drive any car, DeLorean would be it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1884329/posts

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

The Essence of Liberty #124, Chapter 3, The State As Aggressor

August 18, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.flyoverpress.com
editor@flyoverpress.com

The Essence of Liberty: Part 124

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp
Chapter 3: The State
The State as Aggressor

Central to libertarianism is the opposition to any and all aggression against property rights. But, there is nothing unique about that since almost everyone opposes random violence against persons and property. However, there is a difference in emphasis. In the libertarian society there would be no “district attorney.” The victim would decide whether to press charges without having to convince the district attorney that he should. The emphasis would never be on “society’s” jailing the criminal. Instead, the emphasis would be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim. This would be in contrast to the present system where the victim is not recompensed and also pays taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker. Logically, this is nonsense.

On the other hand, libertarians would not interfere with a person’s right to be a pacifist. For example, if Jones is a pacifist and objects to defending himself by violence (and is therefore opposed to the prosecution of crime), then he would simply not prosecute. There would be no government mechanism for the trial of criminals against the wishes of the victim.

Libertarians regard a ll States everywhere as the ultimate organized aggressor against persons and property. The State is always considered above the general moral law. Service to the State is used to justify actions that would be immoral or criminal if committed by “private” individuals. To cover its crimes, the State cloaks its activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For example: mass murder is called “war,” enslavement is called “conscription,” and robbery is called “taxation.” The State need not be thought of as anything more than a band of organized criminals.

There are two crucial distinctions between government and all other organizations. First, all other persons or groups receive their income by voluntary payment. Only government obtains revenue by coercion and violence in the form of a threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Second, only government uses its revenue to commit violence against its own or the subjects of any other government. Only government aggresses against property rights in order to extract revenue in order to, in turn, impose its moral code or to kill people with whom it disagrees.

The absence of any check upon State depredation is another reason why State aggression is more important than private. There is no one to protect us against the State itself. The State holds the compulsory monopoly on protective services�e.g. a virtual monopoly of violence and ultimate decision-making. There is no other agency to which one can turn.

The uS constitution supposedly imposes limits on government. But, the constitution must be interpreted by men and these men (the Supreme Court) are the government’s own. The much touted “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” are, in reality, very flimsy. The reason is simple. They are all divisions of the same government and controlled by the same rulers.

John C. Calhoun warned of the inherent tendency of a State to exceed any limits of a written constitution. Assuming that any constitutional provision aimed at limiting power will be sufficient to prevent the dominant party from abusing its power is a large mistake. The minor (the party that would be in favor of the restrictions) would simply be overpowered.

Further, we are told that, in a “democracy,” � we� are the government.” However, the collective term “we” is nothing but camouflage. If we are the government, then anything the government does is �voluntary,� just and not tyrannical. For example, claiming nonchalantly that �we owe it to ourselves� conveniently obscures a huge public debt. Following this line of reasoning, the Jews that were murdered by the Nazis were not murdered. So, they must have “committed suicide.” There is no logical way out of such grotesque conclusions for those who view the State as a benevolent and voluntary agent of the public.

So “we” are not the government and it does not “represent” the people. Furthermore, even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the other 10%, it would still be murder and slavery. There is nothing sacred about a majority. Crime is crime, aggression is aggression.

The normal condition of the State is oligarchic rule by a coercive elite that has gained control of its machinery. This is for two reasons.

The first is the inherent inequality and division of labor found in the nature of man. This gives rise to an “Iron Law of Oligarchy.” Individuals differ in ability in all walks of life. This vast natural diversity within mankind flowers as civilization progress. As the process proceeds, leadership will be assumed by a handful of the most able in each field of endeavor. This �Iron Law of Oligarchy� is what Thomas Jefferson referred to as the �natural aristocracy.�

A second basic reason for the oligarchic rule of the State is its parasitic nature. It lives coercively off of the citizenry. The fruits of parasitic exploitation must be confined to a minority. Otherwise no one would be able to gain anything from it. Franz Oppenheimer identified the only two means of obtaining wealth. One is production and voluntary exchange, which he called the “economic means.” The other is robbery by violence. This one he called the “political means.” It is parasitic in that it requires previous production. In addition, it subtracts from (instead of adding to) total production of society. The State is the “organization of the political means.”

On the one hand, private crime is sporadic and uncertain and resistance of the victim can cut the parasitic lifeline. On the other, the existence of the State provides for legal, orderly and systematic predation. Thus its parasitic lifeline is certain, secure, and “peaceful.” Albert Jay Nock put it this way: “The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime�It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants�”

At first it may be startling for some to hear taxation referred to as robbery (and therefore government as a band of robbers). But anyone can easily envision what would happen if he should choose not to pay.

Hans Kelsen attempted to �scientifically� justify the State but came to a sticking point. What , exactly is it that makes the edicts of the State different from the commands of a criminal gang? His only answer was to simply claim that the decrees of the State are “valid.” By necessity, he did this without bothering to define “validity.” A useful exercise for doubters would be to ponder a way taxation could be defined which would make it different from robbery.

Lysander Spooner likened government to a highwayman. They both demand, “Your money, or your life.” But he went on to point out a significant difference. The highwayman takes total responsibility for the danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim or that he intends to use your money for your benefit. He is too sensible to profess to be your “protector.” In addition, after he takes your money, he leaves you alone and does not persist in following and “protecting” you by robbing you of more money. He does not brand you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy and shoot you down if you dispute his authority. He is too much of a gentleman to make you either his dupe or his slave.

The plunderers who constitute the ruling elite come in two forms: 1) the full-time apparatus� politicians, bureaucrats, etc and 2) groups who have gained special privileges, subsidies, and benefits. John C. Calhoun saw that the very nature of government creates two unequal and conflicting classes: those that pay the taxes (the “tax-payers”) and those that live off taxes (the “tax-consumers”)�and the greater the scope of government, the greater its fiscal burdens, the greater the artificial inequality between these two classes. Thus, every tax increase enriches and strengthens the one while impoverishing and weakening the other.

How has this oligarchic group of predators been able to maintain their rule over the masses? David Hume had the answer: In the long run every government depends on the support of the majority. Of course, this does not mean that these governments are “voluntary.” M ajority support does not have to be eager and enthusiastic. It only needs to be passive acquiescence and resignation.

Now, by necessity, tax-consumers are a minority (parasites can not outnumber their hosts). So, how can compliance and acquiescence of the masses be insured? Why do the bulk of the government’s subjects accept such a situation? These questions are answered in the next section of this chapter.

Next Previous

Copyright �2004, FlyoverPress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

�Gunny� LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he �simply got tired of living a life of crime.�

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL http://www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

� Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Curtailing the Pleasures of Driving and Privacy

August 16, 2007 Leave a comment

Curtailing the Pleasures of Driving and Privacy

by Michael S. Rozeff

DIGG THIS

My first car was a 1939 Buick that had belonged to my cousin. He gave it to my brother who unofficially ceded it to me. After I left home, the car reverted to him and he sold it for $10. That was $1 for each mile per gallon of gas that the car got. But the car burned almost as much oil as it did gas. It needed a ring job that no one wanted to pay for. I should check up on this history, but to do that I first need to remember to check up on it.

The whole family used to fill up in those days at a Gulf gas station in the center of town. Gas was never more than 29.9 cents a gallon. Why can I remember the price of gas 52 years ago and not remember what I mean to buy once I set foot inside a supermarket? I think it’s the din of “music” propagated inside. The station owner I remember as a nice man. His eyebrows seemed to suggest he was always about ready to cry. Much later when I took my business elsewhere because my car didn’t seem to run right on Gulf gasoline, his feelings were hurt. I felt bad about this. It wasn’t just his eyebrows. He was really a sensitive man. A small town was not impersonal, which meant that exchange wasn’t so impersonal in those days. He traded at my family’s small meat market, and we traded at his service station.

I shared a bedroom with an older brother from birth until I left home when I was 16. My first year of college I had an upper bunk. Finally I got a cubicle as a college sophomore with three roommates. The back seat of the Buick had more room than my share of all my bedrooms. They made them roomy so they could double as bedrooms. You could lie down without encountering seat belts everywhere. Anyone who bought this car didn’t need an apartment. The car had running boards which were ideal for carrying gangsters with machine guns or for transporting an entire baseball team. This car fit right in with any Cagney or Bogart Warner Brothers tough guy picture of the thirties. I imagine seeing it when I watch the Untouchables episodes put out by Desilu.

Another customer of ours taught me to drive. He was the high school drivers ed teacher who doubled as an athletic coach. This was made necessary by the small size of the school. My class had 34 students. Driving permits were allowed at 15 years of age, so I have now been driving for 50 years.

Seven or eight years ago, I got my first ticket. It was for going 40 in a 25 mph school zone. This is allowable when the school is out of session, which I mistakenly thought it was at the end of June. But despite its being deserted, I was trapped. The hard-hearted officer refused any entreaty to keep intact my unbroken skein of police-free and accident-free driving. He was more interested in the $100 fine. He pointed to the wire fence around the empty playground, not yet barbed wire, and warned me that children could climb over it and run into the street in front of demon drivers like me. I wondered what would have happened had I been female. Such is my stereotyped mind. I bought a radar detector.

Safe driving means adapting to the conditions of the road at the time one is driving. On the same road months earlier, I drove much more slowly because there was a young biker ahead. And a good thing it was. With his earphone supplying him with sound, he was oblivious to my car as he swerved across the road in front of me. I was able to brake safely. He didn’t even respond to horn blasts.

Great Britain has an extensive camera and speed-monitoring surveillance system on its roads and streets. This amounts to a stealth tax that brings in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It keeps drivers preoccupied with their speedometers, which diverts their attention from where it belongs, on road conditions. The result of the camera surveillance program has been to stop the long-term downward trend in fatal accidents. As penalties and prosecutions using speed cameras rise, fatalities not only do not drop, they are higher than what they otherwise would have been. The money spent on cameras takes away from money spent on appropriate human monitoring by police and improving roads to make them less accident-prone.

Driving can be a joyful experience, although traffic due to the government’s road mismanagement greatly diminishes the pleasure of it. But knowing that one is being constantly monitored and may suffer a penalty has to erase any residual pleasure from driving. Driving pleasure is a real phenomenon. Do social planners consider how much pleasure is curtailed by excessive monitoring of individuals driving their cars? My doubt that they do is monumental, and looking at a selection of Canadian web pages on social planning does nothing to alleviate my doubt. Monitoring individual driving is not simply a tax on driving. It is a tax on the pleasure of living and a tax on the pleasure of privacy.

New York City has announced its own surveillance program, in the name of anti-terrorism. Any number of stealth terrorists already are living in the U.S., and short of draconian measures, of which this is a step, there is no possible way to prevent them from traversing New York City or any of a hundred other cities by car or by some other means. At this point, it is access to and proper interpretation of solid intelligence that can uncover terrorist threats before they are realized. That and a long-run strategy of defusing the political reasons that underlie terrorism on U.S. soil may lower the risk of terrorist attacks. Is spending $90 million to monitor everyone’s number plates in Lower Manhattan the best that we can do? This can’t work unless one already knows what number plates to look for. And in that case, why not monitor those vehicles and individuals directly? As anyone who travels by air knows, the out-of-pocket costs of air travel are only the tip of the iceberg. Air travel used to be pleasurable. No longer. It looks as if the Department of Homeland Security means to make automobile travel as unpleasurable as air travel. Eventually, they will get down to internal travel passes as they morph into a homegrown Gestapo.

There is always some convenient excuse for such pork barrel spending and accumulations of power. Great Britain did not need the terrorism excuse when it began its program in 1995 and before. China has a different excuse, which is crime and immigration. An August 12, 2007 New York Timesarticle (available on news.com) reports that the government of China has introduced a pilot people-tracking program in Shenzhen, a city of 12.4 million people near Hong Kong. Chinese citizens already must carry national identity cards with basic information like name and date of birth. The upgraded computer chip on the card “will include not just the citizen’s name and address but also work history, educational background, religion, ethnicity, police record, medical insurance status and landlord’s phone number. Even personal reproductive history will be included, for enforcement of China’s controversial ‘one child’ policy. Plans are being studied to add credit histories, subway travel payments and small purchases charged to the card.”

This is part of a larger picture, which includes camera surveillance. The city already has 180,000 cameras operated by businesses and government agencies. The city is installing 20,000 new police-operated surveillance cameras on roads and streets in order to spot suspects and criminal activity in-the-making; and it will have the power to tap into the other 180,000 cameras.

Is there any doubt that surveillance is a foot in the door leading to a big brother society? Cuba and other totalitarian societies operate with paid informants as well as neighbors and children ratting on parents. In this technological age, the authorities will try to accomplish the same using technology. All dogs and pets will have chips, and then all human beings, unless we stop this now. How do we do that? I guess we will all have to burn our ID cards or snip them in half or pass a strong magnet over them.

Pleasure and privacy are not a matter of teasing out abstruse rights from axiomatic foundations. They may not be there. Nor are they a matter that needs empirical study. Research suggests that driving pleasure has a component related to “responsiveness of the vehicle to driver manipulation of the controls, which means that the vehicle obeys and executes driver’s commands faithfully.” In other words, it’s fun to drive. We live in a society where we spend thousand of publicly paid dollars to show that well-fed plants are green. Do we need to fund research to show that human beings value privacy and freedom of action? That already loses the battle because it assumes that we cannot act without studying everything, and that assumes that to study everything we must have a crew of social scientists who will study it for us, and in turn they are assumed to know or be able to measure what’s good for us. To commission a study over such a matter is to lose the battle. It is to turn one’s life over to an interest group of high-paid sociologists or some other newly-minted category of social science.

Jurisprudence may have trouble discovering a lawful area of privacy, but that does not mean that privacy is not valuable to us. Jesus enjoined privacy in prayer and interacted with his disciples privately on any number of occasions. Privacy is as basic as one’s good name. It is as basic as inhabiting one’s body. We need instinctively and automatically to defend the integrity of all of these from intrusions that threaten them or undermine them: our good name, our privacy, and the safety of our persons.

August 16, 2007

Michael S. Rozeff [send him mail] is a retired Professor of Finance living in East Amherst, New York.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Michael S. Rozeff Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff162.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

“No American President Can Stand Up To Israel”

August 16, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152007.html

CounterPunch
August  15, 2007

The Peculiar Relationship

“No  American President Can Stand Up to Israel”

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

“No American President can stand up to  Israel.”

These words came from feisty  Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations (1967-1970)  and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1970-1974). Moorer  was, perhaps, the last independent-minded American military leader.

Admiral Moorer knew what he  was talking about. On June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the American  intelligence ship, USS Liberty, killing 34 American sailors and  wounding 173. The Israelis even strafed the life rafts, machine-gunning the American sailors leaving the stricken ship.

Apparently, the USS Liberty  had picked up Israeli communications that revealed Israel’s responsibility  for the Seven Day War. Even today, history books and the majority  of Americans blame the conflict on the Arabs.

The United States Navy knew  the truth, but the President of the United States took Israel’s  side against the American military and ordered the United States  Navy to shut its mouth. President Lyndon Johnson said it was  all just a mistake. Later in life, Admiral Moorer formed a commission  and presented the unvarnished truth to Americans.

The power of the Israel Lobby  over American foreign policy is considerable. In March 2006,  two distinguished American scholars, John Mearsheimer and Stephen  Walt, expressed concern in the London Review of Books that the  power of the Israel Lobby was bending US foreign policy in directions  that serve neither US nor Israeli interests. The two experts  were hoping to start a debate that might rescue the US and Israel  from unsuccessful policies of coercion that are intensifying  Muslim hatred of Israel and America. The Israel lobby was opposed  to any such reassessment, and attempted to close it off with  epithets: “Jew-baiter,” “anti-semitic,” and  even “anti-American.” Today Israeli citizens who oppose  Zionist plans for greater Israel are denounced as “anti-Semites.”

Many Americans are unaware  of the influence of the Israel lobby. Instead they think of the  US as “the world’s sole superpower,” a macho new Roman  Empire whose orders are obeyed without question or the insolent  nonentity is “bombed back to the stone age.” Many Americans  are convinced that military coercion serves our interest. They cite Libya, Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now they are ready  to bring Iran and Pakistan to heel with bombs.

This arrogance results in the  murder of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of  men, women and children, a fate that many Americans seem to believe  is appropriate for countries that do not accept US hegemony.

Coercion is what American foreign  policy has become. Macho superpatriots love it. Many of these  superpatriots derive vicarious pleasure from their delusions  that America is “kicking those sand niggers’ asses.”

This is the America of the  Bush Regime. If some of these superpatriots had their way every  “unpatriotic, terrorist supporter” who dares to criticize  the war against “the Islamofacists” would be sent to  Gitmo, if not shot on the spot.

These Bush supporters have  morphed the Republican Party into the Brownshirt Party. They  cannot wait to attack Iran, preferably with nuclear weapons.  Impatient for Armageddon, some are so full of hubris and self-righteousness  that they actually believe that their support for evil means  they will be “wafted up to heaven.” [see

It has come as a crippling  blow to Democrats that "their" political party is comfortable  with Bush's America, and will do nothing to stop the Bush regime's  aggression against the Iraqi people or to prevent the Bush regime's  attack on Iran.

The Democrats could easily  impeach both Bush and Cheney in the House, as impeachment only  requires a majority vote. They could not convict in the Senate  without Republican support, as conviction requires ratification  by two-thirds of Senators present. Nevertheless, a House vote for impeachment would take the wind out of the sails of war,  save countless lives and perhaps even save humanity from nuclear  holocaust.

Various rationales or excuses  have been constructed for the Democrats' complicity in aggression  that does not serve America. Perhaps the most popular rationale  is that the Democrats are letting the Republicans have all the  rope they want with which to produce such a high disapproval rating that the Democrats will sweep the 2008 election.

It is doubtful that the Democrats  would assume that men as cunning as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney  do not understand the electoral consequences of a low public approval rating and are walking blindly into an electoral wipeout.  Rove's departure does not mean that no strategy is in place.

So what does explain the complicity  of the Democratic Party in a policy that the American public,  and especially Democratic constituencies, reject? Perhaps a clue  is offered from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune news report  (August 1, 2007) that Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison will  spend a week in Israel on "a privately funded trip sponsored  by the American Israel Education Federation. The AIEF--the charitable  arm of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)--is  sending 19 members of Congress to meet with Israeli leaders.  The group, made up mostly of freshman Democrats, has plans to  meet with Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and [puppet] Palestinian  President Mahmoud Abbas. The senior Democratic member on the  trip is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, who has gone three  times. . . . The trip to Israel is Ellison’s second as a congressman.”

According to the Star-Tribune,  a Republican group, which includes Rep. Michele Bachmann (R,  Minn), led by Rep. Eric Cantor (R, Va) is already in Israel.  According to news reports, another 40 are following these two  groups during the August recess, and “by the time the year  is out every single member of Congress will have made their rounds  in Israel.” This claim is probably overstated, but it does  show careful Israeli management of US policy in the Middle East.

Elsewhere on earth and especially  among Muslims, the suspicion is rife that the reason the war  against Iraq cannot end, and the reason Iran and Syria must be attacked, is that the US must destroy all Muslim opposition to  Israel’s theft of Palestine, turning an entire people into refugees  driven from their homes and from the lands on which they have  lived for many centuries. Americans might think that they are  merely grabbing control over oil, keeping it out of the hands  of terrorists, but that is not the way the rest of the world  views the conflict.

Jimmy Carter was the last American  president who stood up to Israel and demanded that US diplomacy  be, at least officially if not in practice, even-handed in its  approach to Israel and Palestine. Since Carter’s presidency,  even-handedness has slowly drained from US policy in the Middle  East. The neoconservative Bush/Cheney regime has abandoned even  the pretense of even-handedness.

This is unfortunate, because  military coercion has proven to be unsuccessful. Exhausted from  the conflict, the US military, according to former Secretary  of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin  Powell, is “nearly broken.” Demoralized elite West  Point graduates are leaving the army at the fastest clip in 30  years. Desertions are rapidly rising. A friend, a US Marine officer who served in combat in Vietnam, recently wrote to me that his  son’s Marine unit, currently training for its third deployment  to Iraq in September, is short 12-16 men in every platoon and  expects to be hit with more AWOLs prior to deployment.

Instead of re-evaluating a  failed policy, Bush’s “war tsar,” General Douglas Lute,  has called for the reinstitution of the draft. Gen. Lute doesn’t  see why Americans should not be returned to military servitude  in order to save the Bush administration the embarrassment of  having to correct a mistaken Middle East policy that commits  the US to more aggression and to debilitating long-term military  conflict in the Middle East.

It is difficult to see how  this policy serves any interest other than the very narrow one  of the armaments industry. Apparently, nothing can be done to  change this disastrous policy until the Israel Lobby comes to  the realization that Israel’s interest is not being served by  the current policy of military coercion.

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 The  Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts08152007.html

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

BLACKWATER

August 15, 2007 Leave a comment

Via E-Mail…

editor@flyoverpress.com

http;//www.flyoverpress.com

~~~~~

I am currently reading this book and can highly recommend it–especially to those who are unaware of the underhanded shenanigans that the uS government and those it subsidizes are capable of. I trained with Blackwater in 2004 and pretty well figured out for myself what was going on (see WHEN “PRIVATIZATION” IS NOT “PRIVATE”or How Neo-cons Are Like Liberals at http://www.flyoverpress.com/blackwater.htm). This book fills in the facts and gory details that support my general conclusions.

Scahill seems to be bothered by the fact that Blackwater (which is the largest of a multitude of companies like them) are essentially the president’s own private army. Well, I’ve got news for him. It is not the first. Contrary to common knowledge, the much touted “Delta Force” has been the president’s “Republican Guard” since its inception. Yep, other military units trace their chain of command all the way from squad leaders up through Company, Battalion and Division commanders and ultimately through the Sec Def and on to “El Presidente”. Delta Force don’t. The commanding officer of Delta Force reports DIRECTLY to the president.

Scary. Well, I don;t know about you, but it scares the shit out of me and I ain’t a scared a nuthin.

thegunny, 419

~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill

The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army

Order Blackwater the book!!

About the Author

Media Inquiries

  • For media inquiries or to request a review copy of Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill contact:Anne Sullivan at Nation Books/Avalon Publishing: email: anne.sullivan (AT)avalonpub.com+1-646-437-1222

BEHIND THE BOOK

Film/Foreign Rights

2007.04.28

Blackwater Book Tour in Cali: Two Upcoming Major California Blackwater Book Events

Saturday April 28
Oakland, CA, 7:30PM
KPFA Event
First Congregational Church
2501 Harrison St.
+++++++++++++++
Monday, April 30
Los Angeles, CA
Nativity Episcopal Church
7:30PM
6700 West 83rd St.
Westchester

Posted at 03:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.04.08

Blackwater Debuts at #9 on The New York Times Bestseller List

Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill has made its debut on The New York Times Bestseller List at #9. In a write-up on the book, the Times called Blackwater “muckraking” and a “crackling exposé.” Click Here to read the Times feature on Jeremy Scahill and Blackwater.

Posted at 02:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.04.07

Blackwater Book Tour Coming to California as Blackwater Comes Under Fire in the State

As Local Residents and Their Congressman Move to Block Blackwater’s Expansion Plans, Jeremy Scahill Author of NY Times Bestseller Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army Launches State-wide Book Tour of California April 26th – May 6th.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported the proposal by Blackwater USA to “build a training center on a 800-acre former chicken and cattle ranch in the rural-town of Potrero in San Diego County has torn apart the tiny community and brought protests by those opposed to the company’s government contracts in Iraq.”

San Diego County’s “Rep. Bob Filner says he is exploring legislation that would block a controversial proposal for a major defense contractor’s training camp in the backcountry community of Potrero.”

Scahill’s California Tour Dates:
Saturday April 28
Oakland, CA, 7:30PM
KPFA Event
First Congregational Church
2501 Harrison St.
+++++++++++++++
Sun April 29
Los Angeles, CA
LA Times Book Festival
2pm book signing
at Nation Books booth
+++++++++++++++
Monday, April 30
Los Angeles, CA
Nativity Episcopal Church, 7:30PM
6700 West 83rd St. Westchester
+++++++++++++++
Tues. May 1
San Diego, CA
Unitarian Church, 7PM
4190 Front Street
+++++++++++++++
Wednesday, May 2
La Mesa, CA 7PM
La Mesa Community Center
4975 Memorial Drive
+++++++++++++++
Thursday, May 3
Sacramento, CA 7pm
First United Methodist Church
Corner of 21st and J Street
+++++++++++++++
Saturday, May 5
Fresno, CA 6PM
KFCF Event
North Fork Town Hall
33507 Recreation Road
+++++++++++++++
Sun May 6
Chico, CA
Justice and Peace Institute
Chico State University
526 Broadway
Posted at 12:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.03.16

Bush’s Shadow Army

Nationscahillcover
Jeremy Scahill’s new investigative article, “Bush’s Shadow Army,” hits newsstands this week as the cover story for The Nation magazine’s April 2 issue: “While the initial inquiries into Blackwater have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration’s Praetorian Guard.” READ THE FULL ARTICLE

Posted at 01:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater Author on VideoNation

Blackwater Rising:
Posted at 01:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.28

Blackwater Book Launch Set for March 21 in NYC

Nationinstad

Posted at 03:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.11

Blackwater Author Jeremy Scahill Appears on CNN Report on Blackwater Congressional Hearings

Watch Andrea Koppel’s story on the February 7 Congressional hearing featuring Blackwater USA and the families of four of its contractors killed in Fallujah on March 31, 2004.

Posted at 12:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater USA Takes Congressional Hot-Seat as Landmark Hearing Probes Mercenary Firm’s Role in Iraq

On Wednesday February 7, Blackwater USA found itself in the Congressional hotseat as Rep. Henry Waxman launched the opening salvo in what could be a very long Congressional road for the Bush administration’s mercenary company of choice. For the first time, Blackwater was forced to face the families of four of its contractors ambushed and killed in Fallujah on March 31, 2004. The families of the four men have filed a ground-breaking wrongful death suit against Blackwater, alleging the company cut corners in the pursuit of greater profits, sending their loved ones into Fallujah under-staffed, under-armed and in Pajero jeeps instead of fully-armored vehicles. Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince had been invited to testify but instead sent an emissary, Blackwater legal counsel Andrew Howell. On February 8, the day after the hearing, Jeremy Scahill–who was in Washington for the hearings– appeared on the national radio and television program Democracy Now! to discuss developments in the case. Also on the show was Katy Helvenston, who is suing Blackwater. Her son, 32-year old Scott Helvenston, was one of the contractors killed in Fallujah. READ THE TRANSCRIPT, WATCH THE PROGRAM.

Posted at 12:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.02.04

Congress Begins Blackwater Investigation

In Washington DC this week, the Democratic Staff Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) will begin what some analysts and Capitol Hill operatives are saying will be a series of investigations into Blackwater USA. The hearings kick off on Tuesday when former Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer III appears before the committee. Bremer, who served as the proconsul in Baghdad from 2003-2004, was protected by Blackwater under an initial $21 million no-bid contract. Blackwater subsequently won a $300 million State Department contract to provide diplomatic security and has guarded Ambassadors John Negroponte and Zalmay Khalilzad, as well as several regional occupation offices in Iraq. On Wednesday, the hearings will focus in on the high-profile ambush of a Blackwater convoy in Fallujah on March 31, 2004. Four Blackwater contractors were killed, their bodies burned and hung from a bridge. That event marked a turning point in the war that sparked multiple U.S. sieges of Fallujah and emboldened the Iraqi resistance that haunts occupation forces to this day. Appearing at the hearing will be the mothers of the four contractors killed. They have filed a ground-breaking wrongful death lawsuit against Blackwater. Also asked to appear is Blackwater’s secretive CEO and founder, Erik Prince. Congressional sources, however, are predicting that Prince will send a representative instead of appearing himself. READ JEREMY SCAHILL’S ARTICLE ON THE LAWSUIT: “BLOOD IS THICKER THAN BLACKWATER.” At issue will also be the system of subcontracting in Iraq and who exactly the four Blackwater contractor’s were working for the day they were killed. In addition, representatives of the massive war contractors KBR and Fluor, as well as military officials will testify. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), chair of the Senate Foreign Rleations Committee, have both indicated in recent days their intent to investigate private armies and other war contractors.

Posted at 03:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBack (0)

2007.01.30

Jeremy Scahill’s Reporting Featured on CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer

On Tuesday’s edition of “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer”, Jack Cafferty’s “Cafferty File Question of the Day” was based on Jeremy Scahill’s reporting on Blackwater USA.

Posted at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Blackwater Book Tour Dates

About Blackwater by Jeremy Scahill

  • MEET BLACKWATER USA, the powerful private army that the U.S. government has made its Praetorian Guard for the “global war on terror.” Blackwater has the world’s largest private military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, and 20,000 contractors at the ready. Run by a multimillionaire Christian conservative who bankrolls President Bush and his allies, its forces are capable of overthrowing governments, and yet most people have never heard of Blackwater. That is about to change. READ MORE

Advance Praise for Blackwater

Blackwater Reporting

Recent Posts

Subscribe to this blog’s feed

Archives


Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

TR and the Modern Presidency

August 14, 2007 4 comments

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

Theodore Roosevelt and the Modern Presidency

by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

DIGG THIS

According to the Associated Press, all the presidential candidates see themselves in Theodore Roosevelt. (Well, all but one, but you know the routine by now.)

This is precisely the problem. Theodore Roosevelt is responsible for devising and putting into action the philosophy of the presidency to which all modern presidents have subscribed. That isn’t a compliment.

With polls of historians classifying TR among the “near great” and political aspirants in both parties eagerly positioning themselves squarely within his model of governance, the prima facie case that the Rough Rider must have been a villain is pretty strong. Look closely at his record and that instinct is confirmed.

What follows here originally appeared in Reassessing the Presidency, John Denson’s edited volume from 2001. More about Teddy and his real history can be found in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask.

In 1896, Brooks Adams wrote a book called The Law of Civilization and Decay. Like most late-nineteenth-century commentators, he believed that his country was nearing a watershed in its history. But unless America rallied around a strong leader, the center of world power, which he thought might be about to shift from England to the United States, would shift instead to Russia. In many ways, Theodore Roosevelt – who read Adams’s book with interest – would prove to be this leader, invigorating the executive branch in both the domestic and the foreign arenas. In so doing, he became the first modern president.

Roosevelt was well suited for this role. Philosophically he was the consummate Progressive, determined to bring efficiency and coordinated intelligence to bear against the trusts, against despoilers of the natural environment, and against international disorder. He was, as one historian put it, “the first great president-reformer of the modern industrial era.” [1] He therefore had little patience with federalism and indeed with most of the constitutional impediments that stood between him and the construction of a new American state. Politically he was a committed nationalist. He thus could barely bring himself to speak of Thomas Jefferson, whom he loathed; and as late as the 1880s he was still condemning Jefferson Davis as a traitor. The Confederate cause, since it denied that a large consolidated nation was its own justification, enraged him. Roosevelt brought to the presidential office a thorough and consistent philosophy of the presidency. What a previous president may have done hesitatingly or without fanfare, Theodore Roosevelt made a matter of principle. He deserves credit for innovation even, paradoxically enough, in cases in which he was exercising an executive prerogative that one of his recent predecessors had in fact pioneered.

Presidential scholar Edward Corwin has spoken of the “personalization of the presidency,” by which he means that the accident of personality has played a considerable role in shaping the office. And indeed it is hard to think of a stronger personality than that of Theodore Roosevelt who ever served as president. One presidential scholar observed that Roosevelt gave the office “the absorbing drama of a Western movie.” [2] And no wonder. Mark Twain, who met with the president twice, declared him “clearly insane.” In a way, Roosevelt set the tone for his public life to come at age twenty, when, after an argument with his girlfriend, he went home and shot and killed his neighbor’s dog. [3] He told a friend in 1884 that when he donned his special cowboy suit, which featured revolver and rifle, “I feel able to face anything.” [4] When he killed his first buffalo, he “abandoned himself to complete hysteria,” as historian Edmund Morris put it, “whooping and shrieking while his guide watched in stolid amazement.” His reaction was similar in 1898 when he killed his first Spaniard. [5]

He loathed inactivity. At one point during the 1880s he wrote to a friend that he had been working so hard lately that for the next month he was going to do nothing but relax – and write a life of Oliver Cromwell. Henry Adams said that

all Roosevelt’s friends know that his restless and combative energy was more than abnormal. Roosevelt, more than any other man living within the range of notoriety, showed the singular primitive quality that belongs to ultimate matter – the quality that medieval theology assigned to God – he was pure act. [6]

One of his sons is said to have remarked, “Father always wanted to be the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.” [7]

Bringing such a personality to the presidency, Roosevelt increased very significantly the visibility of the office and the popular fascination with the person of the president. One presidential historian explained it this way:

As no president in memory and probably none up to that time, Theodore Roosevelt became a “personality” – a politician whose every action seemed newsworthy and exciting. His family, his friends, his guests, his large teeth, his thick glasses, his big game hunting, and his horseback riding – all were sources of media attention and delight. In a way that Washington and Lincoln had not done, and even Jackson avoided, Theodore Roosevelt became a very visible tribune of the people, a popular advocate whose personality seemed immediate, direct, and committed to their personal service. [8]

The modern tendency to micromanage even affairs that clearly belong to the care of civil society, to refer even the most trivial issues to the discretion of the executive, with the implicit presumption against the ability of individuals and intermediate bodies to manage their affairs, also finds substantial precedent in the Roosevelt administration. The classic example occurred in 1905 when Theodore Roosevelt assembled athletic personnel from Harvard, Princeton, and Yale at the White House to reform the rules of college football to make the game safer. The 1903 season had witnessed several dozen deaths from excessively rough play. Roosevelt’s small convocation was a minor incident, to be sure, but it was the first step in a long series by which the presidency would assume an aggressive and visible presence in the life of the nation, and by which the American people would grow accustomed to entrusting to the person of the executive even the most trivial aspects of everyday affairs.

This was the kind of energy and vigor that Theodore Roosevelt brought to his office and that he used to promote his distinct philosophy of the presidency. “There inheres in the presidency more power than in any other office in any great republic or constitutional monarchy of modern times,” Roosevelt once remarked. But far from deploring this state of affairs, he went on to say, “I believe in a strong executive; I believe in power.” [9] “I don’t think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man’s hands,” He argued elsewhere, “provided the holder does not keep it for more than a certain, definite time, and then returns it to the people from whom he sprang.” [10]

He agreed with Andrew Jackson, who had argued that the president, by virtue of his election by the nation as a whole, possessed a unique claim to be the representative of all American people. Each member of the executive branch, but especially the president, “was a steward of the people bound actively and affirmatively to do all he could for the people,” he maintained. He could, therefore, “do anything that the needs of the nation demanded” unless expressly prohibited in the Constitution. “Under this interpretation of executive power, I did and caused to be done many things not previously done. . . . I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.” [11]

The cry of “executive usurpation” had hounded Andrew Jackson during the 1830s when he attempted to put a similar theory of the presidency into practice. “What effrontery!” John C. Calhoun had exclaimed in response to the suggestion that the president was “the immediate representative of the American people.” “[T]he American people are not represented in a single department of the Government,” Calhoun insisted; “the people of these States [are] united in a constitutional compact . . . forming distinct and sovereign communities,” and therefore, “no such community or people, as the American people, taken in the aggregate [exists].” [12] Calhoun was characteristically perceptive when he pondered why Jackson would put forth such a theory.

But why all this solicitude on the part of the president to place himself near to the people, and to push us off to the greatest distance? Why this solicitude to make himself their sole representative, their only guardian and protector, their only friend and supporter? The object cannot be mistaken. It is preparatory to farther hostilities – to an appeal to the people; and is intended to to [sic] prepare the way in order to transmit to them his declaration of war against the Senate, with a view to enlist them as his allies in the war which he contemplates waging against this branch of the Government. [13]

Calhoun’s remark applies equally well to Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, as we shall see, convinced he was doing the will of the people and what was best for the country, did not hesitate to disregard the Senate or the Congress as a whole. He honestly believed himself to be doing the people’s will, and his solemn responsibility to see that will vindicated overrode concerns regarding the separation of powers. He remarked privately that in the United States,

as in any nation which amounts to anything, those in the end must govern who are willing actually to do the work of governing; and insofar as the Senate becomes a merely obstructionist body it will run the risk of seeing its power pass into other hands. [14]

Roosevelt’s innovations in the area of domestic policy were more subtle than those he introduced in foreign affairs. Previous presidents, following both American tradition and the spirit of the Constitution, had not entered office with an extensive legislative program whose passage they vigorously prosecuted. They deferred instead to Congress, the branch which, it was generally understood, was to retain the initiative in such matters. But Roosevelt found a certain virility in bold leadership, and in situations in which decisive action seemed called for he considered deference to Congress or to other legal restraints on executive power as a sign of pusillanimity and decadence. He wrote in his Autobiography:

In theory the Executive has nothing to do with legislation. In practice as things now are, the Executive is or ought to be peculiarly representative of the people as a whole. As often as not the action of the Executive offers the only means by which the people can get the legislation they demand and ought to have. Therefore a good executive under the present conditions of American political life must take a very active interest in getting the right kind of legislation, in addition to performing his executive duties with an eye single to the public welfare. [15]

Although the political parties of Roosevelt’s day, as in our own, shared a great deal in common, political discourse in the United States was still fluid enough that matters of real import were still discussed within the halls of Congress. Thus Senator Isidor Rayner, aghast at Roosevelt’s approach, remarked in 1906:

Here we were day after day struggling with questions of constitutional law, as if we really had anything to do with their settlement, laboring under the vain delusion that we had the right to legislate; that we were an independent branch of the Government; that we were one department, and the Executive another, each with its separate and well-defined distinctions, imagining these things, and following a vision and a mirage, while the president was at work dominating the legislative will, interposing his offices into the law-making power, assuming legislative rights to a greater extent than if he were sitting here as a member of this body; dismembering the Constitution, and exercising precisely and identically the same power and control as if the Constitution had declared that the Congress shall pass no law without the consent of the president; adopting a system that practically blends and unites legislative and executive functions, a system that prevailed in many of the ancient governments that have forever gone to ruin, and which today still obtains in other governments, the rebellious protests of whose subjects are echoing over the earth, and whose tottering fabrics I hope are on the rapid road to dissolution. [16]

The annual presidential message read to Congress in December 1905 – the “State of the Union,” having fallen into disuse since Jefferson’s tenure, would be revived by Woodrow Wilson – contained a lengthy plea from Roosevelt for a series of regulatory legislation. The significance of Roosevelt’s program was not lost on his political opponents. The New York World, a Democratic newspaper, called it “the most amazing program of centralization that any president of the United States has ever recommended.” [17] One disgruntled commentator remarked after the legislation was passed that Roosevelt’s policies betrayed “a marked tendency toward the centralization of power in the United States and a corresponding decrease in the old-time sovereignty of the states, or of the individual.” [18]

Roosevelt’s top legislative achievements, such as the Meat Inspection Act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Hepburn Act, reflect the president’s confidence in expert commissions and, more broadly, his stewardship theory of the executive branch. As one scholar put it, these acts, taken together, “might well be considered as marking the birth of the modern regulatory state.” [19] Not everyone was especially sanguine at this prospect. One conservative Republican observed that the president was “consciously, or unconsciously . . . trying to concentrate all power in Washington, to practically wipe out state lines, and to govern the people by commissions and bureaus.” [20]

It is fashionable in historical circles to describe Roosevelt as a conservative because he advocated domestic reform in large part simply to keep at bay more radical initiatives. [21] So, for example, he called for legislation to regulate the railroads in order to counter calls for outright nationalization. Historians of the New Left have gone even further, arguing that since big business itself frequently played a role in agitating for and even shaping the emerging regulatory apparatus, the ostensible effort by Roosevelt and his successors to rein in business interests was a sham. New Left scholars have, indeed, added a necessary corrective to the previously existing literature, and their claims certainly hold water in such obvious cases as the Federal Reserve System. The Fed, which, while perhaps still not as centralized as some bankers may have wanted, clearly served bankers’ interests by socializing risk and by helping to coordinate the inflationary policies of member banks, thereby reducing the risk of runs. [22]

But it is too hasty to conclude from this that all regulation, even when corporate interests themselves may have played a role in its passage, ultimately works to the benefit of big business. That a government–business alliance characterized the emerging American regime at the turn of the century is beyond dispute; but New Left historians fail to acknowledge that the state always maintained the upper hand in this partnership. The New Left critique stems partially from the fact that its partisans would have been satisfied with nothing short of nationalizing or dismantling large interests; and from such a perspective Roosevelt can indeed seem the reactionary.

The battle over railroad regulation and the Interstate Commerce Commission provides a good example of the shortcomings of this thesis. Roosevelt supported further railroad regulation in addition to that already on the books, and ultimately signed the Hepburn Act of 1906 – which, while not as radical as what he had sought, he considered satisfactory. The Act increased the number of members of the Interstate Commerce Commission and gave it the authority to set “just and reasonable” rail rates. Whatever rates the Commission decided upon were to take effect immediately. Although the railroads had a right to appeal to the courts, the burden of proof rested on them and not on the Commission.

The results were devastating. In a book that earned the Columbia University Prize in American Economic History in 1971, Albro Martin described the situation in detail. His thesis, stated simply, is that Roosevelt’s Hepburn Act, combined with subsequent regulatory enactments – in particular William Howard Taft’s Mann–Elkins Act of 1910 – deprived the railroads of the rate increases they needed, an especially debilitating handicap in an inflationary atmosphere. The railroads needed investment capital following the reorganizations of the 1890s if they were to preserve their capital stock, to rebuild, and to modernize. In other words, they needed to be left alone. Instead they got policies that both increased labor costs and refused the rate increases they needed. The result was that by 1911 profits had vanished, and the collapse of the system of private management of the railroads followed soon afterwards. [23]

One historian who concedes that railroad regulation ultimately proved destructive attempts to exonerate Roosevelt by claiming that the president had wanted a Commission that would be fair rather than punitive; but Roosevelt can hardly be held blameless for having adopted, uncritically, the standard Progressive faith in the disinterested rationality and overall benevolence of expert commissions. [24] Indeed, Roosevelt never bothered to explain how the granting of rate-setting power to a board of supposed experts who were completely divorced from the actual operation and ownership of the railroads, and for whom rational economic calculation was therefore impossible, could have yielded anything but arbitrary decrees.

This arbitrariness, this apparent belief that seeing vindication of his iron will was an adequate substitute for a sober assessment of a situation, was a central feature of Roosevelt’s personality, and it appears time and again in his dealings with big business. Unlike some Progressives, whom he dubbed “the lunatic fringe,” Roosevelt did not consider business concentration a trend to be avoided or reversed. He saw it as an inevitable and even beneficial development of industrial society, albeit one that had to be regulated in the public interest. It is also true that Roosevelt’s reputation as a trustbuster has been exaggerated; historians rightly point out that the Taft administration initiated twice as many antitrust suits in its one term than Roosevelt did in his two. But at issue here is not so much whether Roosevelt was especially severe in this or that area, or whether he was an outright radical. The question is whether he dealt justly with the private sector, what kind of precedents he set for the future, and how he helped to strengthen the executive beyond what the framers had envisioned.

In early 1902, Roosevelt ordered Attorney General Philander Knox to file an antitrust suit against the Northern Securities Company, a holding company that had taken over two railroads that stretched from Seattle to St. Paul, the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern. [25] This is the case that almost single-handedly earned Theodore Roosevelt his trust-busting reputation; but again, in a desperate effort to portray Roosevelt as judicious and moderate, most historians have belittled its significance. Roosevelt himself pinpointed its importance:

From the standpoint of giving complete control to the National Government over big corporations engaged in interstate business, it would be impossible to overestimate the importance of the Northern Securities decision and of the decisions afterward rendered in line with it in connection with the other trusts whose dissolution was ordered. The success of the Northern Securities case definitely established the power of the government to deal with all great corporations. [26]

The decision at last overthrew what he called the “vicious doctrine” of the E.C. Knight case of 1895, which had severely limited the scope of the Sherman Act. In that case, the Supreme Court had ruled that, although the American Sugar Refining Company held about 95 percent of the American sugar market after buying the E.C. Knight Company, they had committed no actionable offense since they had done nothing, strictly speaking, to restrain trade. “This decision,” Roosevelt said with some satisfaction, “I caused to be annulled by the court that had rendered it.” [27] The argument that Northern Securities was neither restraining trade nor preventing other lines from providing transportation along the same route – an argument its architects had been led to believe, on the basis of the precedent in Knight, the federal government would consider unimpeachable – suddenly no longer held water.

Before advising Philander Knox to initiate the case, Roosevelt neglected to ask himself some fairly obvious questions. For one thing, did the new holding company in fact substitute a monopolistic arrangement for a previously existing state of competition? In fact, it did not. The Great Northern and the Northern Pacific may have appeared to be two alternative lines between St. Paul and Seattle, but in fact, as Balthasar Henry Meyer points out, price wars between the two lines were a thing of the past, and for twenty years the railroads had lived in “comparative peace.” “It was assumed that competition had been stifled without first asking the question whether competition had actually existed; and whether, if competition could be perpetuated, the public would profit by it.” [28] According to Dominick Armentano,

Both railways had maintained joint rates, and the consequent backloading and even flow of freight realized from such arrangements had increased the efficiency and economy of each line, and allowed a generally low level of rates that would have bankrupted other roads.

The idea for the holding company originated partly from a desire to put the arrangement on a more stable footing and partly from concerns surrounding the designs of E.H. Harriman, who in early 1901 had tried to get a controlling interest in the Northern Pacific. In a mere four days, its common stock rose from $144 to over $1000 per share. The holding company would put both rails beyond the reach of Harriman, and, thus, prevent him from undermining the economic advantages that obtained from the close relationship that existed between the two lines. Naturally, these advantages paid dividends to the consumer: rail rates declined on the Hill–Morgan lines between November 1901, when the Northern Securities Company was incorporated, and 1903. There had been a chance, following Knight, that the arbitrariness of the antitrust laws might to some degree be mitigated; Roosevelt helped ensure that they would continue to be leveled against corporations that simplistic, static models deemed monopolistic but which nearly always brought benefits to the consumer.

In domestic affairs, then, Roosevelt greatly accelerated the process by which the executive became the de facto originator of legislation, and in other ways, such as his increasing use of executive commissions, set in motion a trend toward presidential supremacy. As Forrest McDonald explains in his own study of the presidency, “Roosevelt’s showmanship in pretending to be the fountain of reform legislation transformed the expectations Americans had for their presidents and thus opened the door for the emergence of the legislative presidency.” [29] That his legislative record was not more impressive was not from lack of trying. But he paved the way for his successors, who would build upon Roosevelt’s foundation.

Theodore Roosevelt made even more significant contributions to the modern presidency in the area of foreign affairs. In domestic affairs, Roosevelt explained, Congress could generally be trusted to come around to the correct position. But in the conduct of foreign policy, senators, who were, as he put it, “wholly indifferent to national honor or national welfare” and “primarily concerned in getting a little cheap reputation among ignorant people,” could interfere with the conduct of an honorable course abroad. [30] “More and more,” Roosevelt declared to Congress in 1902, “the increasing interdependence and complexity of international political and economic relations render it incumbent on all civilized and orderly powers to insist on the proper policing of the world.” [31] The contention that Congress was the more popular branch of government and, therefore, even prescinding from the constitutional question, deserved special deference in matters of peace and war, would not have dissuaded him. He had privately called public opinion “the voice of the devil, or what is still worse, the voice of a fool,” and in a calmer moment, speaking in particular of foreign affairs, he observed that “[o]ur prime necessity is that public opinion should be properly educated.” [32] Hence, while he favored executive supremacy in all areas of governance, the need for it in foreign policy was correspondingly greater.

Roosevelt’s fascination with war is corroborated both by his own testimony and by that of those who knew him. A college friend wrote in 1885, “He would like above all things to go to war with some one. . . . He wants to be killing something all the time.” [33] Roosevelt told another friend a few years later:

Frankly I don’t know that I should be sorry to see a bit of a spar with Germany. The burning of New York and a few other sea coast cities would be a good object lesson in the need of an adequate system of coast defenses, and I think it would have a good effect on our large German population to force them to an ostentatiously patriotic display of anger against Germany. [34]

Over and over again Roosevelt insisted that the country “needed” a war. “He gushes over war,” wrote the philosopher William James,

as the ideal condition of human society, for the manly strenuousness which it involves, and treats peace as a condition of blubberlike and swollen ignobility, fit only for huckstering weaklings, dwelling in gray twilight and heedless of the higher life. . . . One foe is as good as another, for aught he tells us. [35]

One of the top scholars of Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy has explained that the Rough Rider “sought a big navy because it would prevent war, but also because it was such fun to have a big navy.” [36]

So attached was Roosevelt to the issues of national readiness and the martial virtues that after leaving office, Roosevelt suggested adapting some of the wartime model to the needs of peacetime. He became an advocate of “universal obligatory military training” and, in a comment that unwittingly reveals the rarely acknowledged link between universal suffrage and universal conscription, Roosevelt declared: “Let us demand service from women as we do from men, and in return give the suffrage to all men and women who in peace and war perform the service.” When it came to men’s training, Roosevelt pointed to the U.S. Army camps as the standard to be imitated.

I believe that for every young man . . . to have six months in such a camp . . . [with] some field service, would be of incalculable benefit to him, and . . . to the nation. . . . [M]aking these camps permanent would be the greatest boon this nation could receive. [37]

This attachment to war, combined with the various manifestations of imperialism during his presidency, earned Theodore Roosevelt the scorn of New Left historians, after having enjoyed a period of tremendous popularity during the 1950s. The pendulum has since swung back in Roosevelt’s favor. Nearly every historian of Roosevelt since the late 1970s, with the smug self-satisfaction that comes from seeming to overturn the conventional wisdom, has argued that notwithstanding his reputation and his personal bellicosity, Theodore Roosevelt was actually much more restrained in foreign policy matters while in office than might have been expected. The only way to make this interpretation of Roosevelt’s conduct in foreign affairs persuasive is to downplay or to eliminate altogether any mention of the discomfiting fact that both as vice president and as president Theodore Roosevelt presided over a vicious and brutal war of suppression in the Philippines. It is simply not possible to pretend to assess Roosevelt’s tenure as president without examining this ugly episode in American history. This is in fact what most of these historians, to their everlasting shame, have done.

The United States obtained the Philippines during the Spanish-American War in 1898, when Commodore George Dewey, under instructions from Theodore Roosevelt himself (then assistant secretary of the Navy), attacked the islands a few days after the opening of hostilities in Cuba. Shortly after the war’s conclusion, when it became apparent that the United States had no intention of granting independence to the islands, guerrilla warfare broke out, spearheaded by Emilio Aguinaldo, the head of the rebels. The size of the American effort to suppress the Filipino nationalists has rarely been fully appreciated: some 126,000 American troops saw action in suppression campaigns, and an incredible 200,000 Filipinos lost their lives. [38]

While the fighting was going on, the Philadelphia Ledger featured a front-page story by a correspondent covering General J. Franklin Bell’s campaign that read:

The present war is no bloodless, fake, opera bouffé engagement. Our men have been relentless; have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people, from lads of ten and up, an idea prevailing that the Filipino, as such, was little better than a dog, a noisome reptile in some instances, whose best disposition was the rubbish heap. Our soldiers have pumped salt water into men to “make them talk,” have taken prisoner people who held up their hands and peacefully surrendered, and an hour later, without an atom of evidence to show that they were even insurrectos, stood them on a bridge and shot them down one by one, to drop into the water below and float down as an example to those who found their bullet-riddled corpses.

This correspondent might seem to be a critic of American policy. In fact, he joined Roosevelt’s generals in pointing to the primitive and uncivilized Filipinos as an excuse for disregarding the norms of civilized warfare. “It is not civilized warfare,” he admitted, “but we are not dealing with a civilized people. The only thing they know and fear is force, violence, and brutality, and we give it to them.” [39] Roosevelt’s own views on race, which would take an entire chapter to describe in detail, only encouraged this kind of barbarism; and more than once he insisted that he had no intention of dealing with peoples he called backward with the same treatment he afforded civilized countries. He told Rudyard Kipling how irritated he became with those who dared suggest that a country like Colombia “is entitled to just the treatment that I would give, say, to Denmark or Switzerland.” The very suggestion was a “mere absurdity,” he told another correspondent. [40]

Only after American conduct in the Philippines was given embarrassing publicity at home in 1902 did Roosevelt take any action at all, ordering the court-martial of General Smith and Major Glenn, and, even then, he seemed clearly displeased that the subject had been broached at all. At the same time, he denounced lynchings in the South – acts, he claimed, which were “worse to the victim, and far more brutalizing to those guilty of it,” than any atrocities that may have been committed in the Philippines. [41] Charles Francis Adams, who suspected that the brutality of the American side of the fighting enjoyed at least the president’s benign acquiescence, had predicted earlier that year that Roosevelt would “be very severe in words – on outrages; but no one will be punished.” He was right: Glenn ended up being fined fifty dollars, and Smith was “admonished.” Theodore Roosevelt’s utter lack of interest was made especially manifest when, immediately following his court-martial of General Smith, he wrote General J. Franklin Bell to congratulate him on his conduct of the war in Batangas. Bell was a man whose methods Henry Cabot Lodge himself had described as “cruel,” and it was well-known that Bell had ordered 100,000 Filipinos into concentration camps. [42] In 1906 Roosevelt went even further, and appointed General Bell as his chief of staff. [43]

Roosevelt’s approach in the Philippines was only the most spectacular indication that the content of his foreign policy left much to be desired, and it inaugurated a century of humanitarian violence that would be couched in the saccharine language of idealism and justice. Even more important from the point of view of Theodore Roosevelt’s contributions to the presidency as an institution, however, is the more procedural question of how he actually carried out his policy. It is here that he demonstrated his most brazen contempt for the legislative branch.

An excellent example concerns Roosevelt’s decision to take over the customs houses in the Dominican Republic. In what has become known as the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, Theodore Roosevelt had declared in 1904 that although the United States had no territorial ambitions in its own hemisphere, cases of “chronic wrongdoing” on the part of a Latin American country that might invite occupation by a European power could force America’s hand. To forestall European occupation, the United States would intervene to restore order and to see that all just claims were satisfied. When it looked in early 1905 as though one or more European countries might intervene in the Dominican Republic to recover outstanding debt, Roosevelt put the Corollary into effect for the first time by declaring that the United States would administer the Dominican Republic’s customs collections to forestall any such foreign intervention.

From the beginning, Theodore Roosevelt seemed to have hoped to be able to avoid consulting the Senate at all. The agreement reached with the Dominican Republic was set to take effect February 1, 1905, a mere eleven days after it was signed – obviously too short an interval to allow for Senate discussion or approval. The administration had a change of heart after it found itself the subject of severe denunciations in the Senate, even among supporters of the president. Senator Augustus Bacon, not unreasonably, objected:

I do not think there can be any more important question than that which involves the consideration of the powers of the president to make a treaty which shall virtually take over the affairs of another government and seek to administer them by this Government, without submitting that question to the consideration and judgment of the Senate. [44]

For his part, Senator Henry Teller added:

I deny the right of the executive department of the Government to make any contract, any treaty, any protocol, or anything of that character which will bind the United States. . . . The president has no more right and no more authority to bind the people of the United States by such an agreement than I have as a member of this body. [45]

After the treaty was finally submitted to the Senate, a special session closed without taking a vote on it. An exasperated Roosevelt simply defied the Senate, drawing up what today we would call an executive agreement – by which, he later noted in his autobiography, “I went ahead and administered the proposed treaty anyhow, considering it as a simple agreement on the part of the Executive which could be converted into a treaty whenever the Senate acted.” The Senate finally did approve a modified version of the treaty two years later, but Roosevelt later wrote, “I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress.” [46]

Forrest McDonald observes that before Theodore Roosevelt’s accession to power, the last time a matter of real significance had been carried out by means of an executive agreement was the Rush–Bagot Agreement of 1817 between Britain and the United States that limited naval armaments on the Great Lakes. But even here, President Monroe eventually sought the opinion of the Senate as to whether it required ratification; and while that body gave no answer, it did approve the agreement by a two-thirds vote. It fell to Theodore Roosevelt to convert the executive agreement into a major instrument of American foreign policy, and he did so without hesitation or apology. These included “agreements to approve Japan’s military protectorate in Korea, to restrict Japanese immigration into the United States, to uphold the Open Door policy in China, and to recognize Japan’s ‘special interests’ in China.” [47]

One of the classic combinations of Roosevelt’s belligerence and his contempt for Congress was the Rough Rider’s decision to send the entire battle fleet on a worldwide tour, the aim of which was to impress all nations, but in particular to intimidate Japan. As presidential scholars have noted, the manner in which Roosevelt carried out this exhibition was perhaps as significant as the act itself. Congress objected immediately, threatening to withhold funds for the tour. Roosevelt saw their bluff, and warned Congress that since he had the money to send the ships to the Pacific, their refusal to fund the return trip – and therefore to strip the East of its defenses – was a political decision he would leave to them. [48]

Indeed, Congress (and even Roosevelt’s own cabinet) looked on impotently as much of Theodore Roosevelt’s foreign policy was conducted. “I took Panama without consulting the Cabinet,” Roosevelt later recalled. “A council of war never fights, and in a crisis the duty of a leader is to lead.” Upon sending his Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, to restore some kind of order in Cuba, he told the future president, “I should not dream of asking the permission of Congress. . . . It is for the enormous interest of this government to strengthen and give independence to the Executive in dealing with foreign powers.” [49] When the Senate insisted on modifying the language of a series of arbitration treaties between the United States and nine European countries and Mexico so that the right of the president to reach a “special agreement” with a country with whom the United States was entering arbitration would instead become the right to enter a “special treaty” – thereby requiring the president to secure the Senate’s consent – Roosevelt rejected the treaties altogether on such a basis. [50] Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Shelby M. Cullom, meanwhile, later explained that the Senate had had no choice but to “assert and uphold its rights as part of the treaty-making power.” [51]

Many of Roosevelt’s contemporaries favored a strong executive and an expansionist foreign policy because they had become convinced that American business needed to seize foreign markets for their unsold surpluses. Roosevelt seems to have shared this view, but his primary concern in expansion was a geopolitical one: to elevate the United States to the great-power status to which it had an increasing claim. In fact, as Emily Rosenberg has pointed out, Roosevelt only became interested in the economic issues involved in foreign affairs when he perceived matters of national honor at stake, when a foreign power was not showing the United States the respect he thought it deserved. Thus, in 1905 Roosevelt was prepared for a direct confrontation with China when that country cancelled a railroad concession it had granted to J.P. Morgan. It was not without reason that the Chinese ordered the cancellation: in five years Morgan had completed a mere twenty-eight miles of what was ultimately supposed to be an 840-mile track, and they also claimed certain violations of contract on his part. Morgan himself, perhaps recognizing the flimsiness of his case, accepted the settlement, which included a handsome compensation package for profits foregone. Roosevelt, on the other hand, was furious. He later remarked privately that if Morgan had decided to fight, “I would have put the power of the government behind them, so far as the executive was concerned, in every shape and way.” [52] No wonder that a half-century later, when the proposed Bricker Amendment, which among other things would have limited the executive’s free hand in foreign affairs, came up for discussion, big business was one of its most vocal opponents. [53]

Looking back on his years in office, Roosevelt told his son in 1909: “I have been a full president right up to the end.” [54] And just as he promised, Roosevelt had seized all the power that inhered in the presidency, and through his actions in office permanently strengthened the executive for his successors.

[W]henever I could establish a precedent for strength in the executive, as I did for instance as regards external affairs in the case of sending the fleet around the world, taking Panama, settling affairs of Santo Domingo and Cuba; or as I did in internal affairs in settling the anthracite coal strike, in keeping order in Nevada this year when the Federation of Miners threatened anarchy, or as I have done in bringing the big corporations to book – why, in all these cases I have felt not merely that my action was right in itself, but that in showing the strength of, or in giving strength to, the executive, I was establishing a precedent of value. [55]

In both domestic and foreign affairs, that meant seizing the initiative, constitutionally or not, from Congress, and in international relations it meant that the United States would force its way onto the world stage to take its rightful place among the great powers. Long gone was the view of Charles Pinckney, who had said that

[w]e mistake the object of our Government if we hope or wish that it is to make us respectable abroad. Conquest or superiority among other Powers is not, or ought never to be, the object of republican systems. If they are sufficiently active and energetic to rescue us from contempt, and preserve our domestic happiness and security, it is all we can expect from them – it is more than almost any other government ensures to its citizens. [56]

Instead of this classical vision of the American republic, Roosevelt solidified trends toward centralization that had been at work since the 1860s and institutionalized what amounted to a revolution in the American form of government. His legacy is cherished by neoconservatives and other nationalists but deplored by Americans who still possess a lingering attachment to the republic the framers established.

Notes

[1] William Henry Harbaugh, Power and Responsibility: The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (New York: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1961), p. 522.

[2] Clinton Rossiter, The American Presidency (New York: New American Library, 1960), p. 97.

[3] Walter LaFeber, “The Making of a Bully Boy,” Inquiry, June 11 and 25, 1979, p. 15.

[4] Emmet John Hughes, The Living Presidency: The Resources and Dilemmas of the American Presidential Office (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan), p. 91.

[5] Edmund Morris, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (New York: Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan, 1979).

[6] Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (New York: Random House Modern Library, 1931), p. 417.

[7] John Milton Cooper, Jr., The Warrior and the Priest: Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983), p. 69.

[8] Michael P. Riccards, The Ferocious Engine of Democracy: A History of the American Presidency, vol. 2, Theodore Roosevelt through George Bush (Lanham, Md.: Madison Books, 1995), pp. 5–6.

[9] Forrest McDonald, A Constitutional History of the United States (Malabar, Fla.: Robert E. Krieger, 1982), p. 166.

[10] John Morton Blum, The Republican Roosevelt (New York: Athaneum, [1954] 1962), p. 122.

[11] Ibid., pp. 107–08.

[12] Calhoun’s remarks are taken from Register of Debates in Congress, 23rd Cong., 1st sess., May 6, 1834 (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834), pp. 1645–46.

[13] Ibid., p. 1646; see also Gary L. Gregg II, The Presidential Republic: Executive Representation and Deliberative Democracy (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1997), pp. 80–89.

[14] Theodore Roosevelt to John St. Loe Strachey, February 12, 1906, in Elting E. Morison, ed., The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 5, The Big Stick, 1905–1907 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 151.

[15] Theodore Roosevelt, The Autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt, Wayne Andrews, ed., (New York: Octagon, 1975), p. 282.

[16] Congressional Record, April 5 and June 19, 1906.

[17] Quoted in Lewis L. Gould, The Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991), p. 158.

[18] Quoted in ibid., p. 169.

[19] William C. Widenor, “Theodore Roosevelt,” in Frank N. Magill, ed., The American Presidents: The Office and the Men, vol. 2: Lincoln to Hoover, rev. ed., (Danbury, Conn.: Grolier Educational Corporation, 1989), p. 185.

[20] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 198.

[21] See, for example, Richard Hofstadter, The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It (New York: Vintage Books, [1948] 1974), pp. 298–99.

[22] See Murray N. Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1994).

[23] Albro Martin, Enterprise Denied: Origins of the Decline of American Railroads, 1897–1917 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971).

[24] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 165.

[25] On the Northern Securities case, see Dominick T. Armentano, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982), pp. 53–55; Henry F. Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt: A Biography (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1931), pp. 252ff.

[26] Roosevelt, Autobiography, pp. 228–29.

[27] Pringle, Theodore Roosevelt, p. 253.

[28] Armentano, Antitrust and Monopoly, p. 54.

[29] Forrest McDonald, The American Presidency: An Intellectual History (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1994), p. 358.

[30] W. Stull Holt, Treaties Defeated by the Senate: A Study of the Struggle Between President and Senate over the Conduct of Foreign Relations (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1933; Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1964), p. 221.

[31] Blum, The Republican Roosevelt, p. 127.

[32] LaFeber, “The Making of a Bully Boy,” pp. 15–16;Theodore Roosevelt to William Bayard Hale, December 3, 1908, in Morison, ed., Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, vol. 6, The Big Stick, 1907–1909, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 1408.

[33] On all this, see Howard K. Beale, Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of America to World Power (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), pp. 36–38.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., p. 36.

[37] Matthew J. Glover, “What Might Have Been: Theodore Roosevelt’s Platform for 1920,” in Natalie A. Taylor, Douglas Brinkley, and John Allen Gable, eds., Theodore Roosevelt: Many-Sided American (Interlaken, N.Y.: Heart of the Lakes, 1992), pp. 488–89.

[38] Precise casualty figures are difficult to establish, in large part because deaths resulting from a cholera epidemic at the end of the war have often been conflated with those of the war itself. It is also unclear to what extent war conditions and American policy led to or exacerbated the spread of cholera. See Glenn A. May, “150,000 Missing Filipinos: A Demographic Crisis in Batangas, 1887–1903,” Annales de Demographie Historique [France] 1985: 215–43; Mary C. Gillett, “U.S. Army Medical Officers and Public Health in the Philippines in the Wake of the Spanish–American War, 1898–1905,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 64 (1990): 567–87; Ken De Bevoise, Agents of Apocalypse: Epidemic Disease in the Colonial Philippines (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995); Matthew Smallman-Raynor and Andrew D. Cliff, “The Philippine Insurrection and the 1902–04 Cholera Epidemic: Part I – Epidemiological Diffusion Processes in War,” Journal of Historical Geography 24 (January 1998): 69–89; Warwick Anderson, “Immunities of Empire: Race, Disease, and the New Tropical Medicine, 1900–1920,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 70 (1996): 94–118. The figure of 200,000 deaths appears in McDonald, The American Presidency, p. 394.

[39] Stuart Creighton Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation”: The American Conquest of the Philippines, 1899–1903 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), p. 211.

[40] Howard C. Hill, Roosevelt and the Caribbean (New York: Russell and Russell, 1965), p. 208.

[41] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, pp. 56–57.

[42] Daniel B. Schirmer, Republic or Empire: American Resistance to the Philippine War (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1972), pp. 238–39.

[43] Miller, “Benevolent Assimilation,” p. 260.

[44] Holt, Treaties Defeated by the Senate, p. 216.

[45] On all this, see ibid.; quotation on pp. 215–16.

[46] McDonald, The American Presidency, p. 390.

[47] Ibid., pp. 389–90.

[48] Riccards, Theodore Roosevelt Through George Bush, p. 19.

[49] Hughes, The Living Presidency, pp. 92–93.

[50] Gould, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, p. 149.

[51] Shelby M. Cullom, Fifty Years of Public Service, 2nd ed. (Chicago: A.C. McClurg, 1911), p. 399.

[52] Emily S. Rosenberg, Spreading the American Dream: American Economic and Cultural Expansion, 1890-1945 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1982), p. 58.

[53] See “Bricker’s Battle I,” Human Events (January 13, 1954): 1; see also Duane Tananbaum, The Bricker Amendment Controversy: A Test of Eisenhower’s Political Leadership (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988), pp. 58, 127.

[54] Emmet John Hughes, The Living Presidency, p. 93.

[55] Theodore Roosevelt to George Otto Trevelyan, June 19, 1908, in Morison, ed., The Big Stick, 1907–1909, p. 1087.

[56] Quoted in Felix Morley, “American Republic or American Empire,” Modern Age 1 (Summer 1957): 26.

August 14, 2007

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [view his website; send him mail] is senior fellow in American history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the author, most recently, of 33 Questions About American History You’re Not Supposed to Ask. His other books include How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (get a free chapter here), The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards), and the New York Times bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History.

Copyright © 2007 Ludwig von Mises Institute

Thomas Woods Archives

Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods79.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************


David Crockett To Bono: “It’s NOT Yours To Give”

August 12, 2007 6 comments

David Crockett To Bono: “It’s NOT Yours To Give”

 

By Mary Starrett
August
12, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

 

GyGRet

GyGRet (Photo credit: GunnyG1345)

 

http://www.newswithviews.com/Mary/starrett73.htm

 

The Republican National Committee has signed on to endorse a proposal by Irish rocker Bono to commit American taxpayers to spending $30 million to “eliminate global poverty.”

 

As if any amount of tax payer funds would actually accomplish that goal. What usually happens is the money extracted from us to fund these wealth transfers first fills the pockets of foreign fat cat dictators while barely a trickle ends up lining empty food bowls.

 

English: David Crockett

English: David Crockett (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

History has shown us socialism does not work. Countries laboring under the delusion that Utopia can be achieved by making sure all have ‘what they need’ necessitates that relatively few must labor to provide for all. Bono’s ill-advised scheme is socialism. The Republican Party has agreed to consign Americans to the same fate as other socialist countries with its recent endorsement of Bono’s global goody bag.

 

Bono, the mouthpiece for environmentalism, global wealth transfer and socialist policy in general owns several opulent mansions throughout the world and travels by jet. The four engine behemoth he flies (while admonishing you to drive a hybrid) gets about 3 miles per gallon. (So much for the imperiled ozone, the Kyoto treaty and greenhouse gasses.)

 

Read more…

Leaderless Resistance by Louis Beam

August 12, 2007 8 comments


http://reactor-core.org/leaderless-resistance.html

LEADERLESS RESISTANCE
by Louis Beam
published in The Seditionist #12, February 1992
written in 1983

The concept of Leaderless Resistance was proposed by Col. Ulius Louis Amoss, who was the founder of International Service of Information Incorporated, located in Baltimore, Maryland. Col. Amoss died more than fifteen years ago, but during his life was a tireless opponent of communism, as well as a skilled Intelligence Officer. Col. Amoss first wrote of Leaderless Resistance on April 17, 1962. His theories of organization were primarily directed against the threat of eventual Communist take-over in the United States. The present writer, with the benefit of having lived many years beyond Col. Amoss, has taken his theories and expounded upon them. Col. Amoss feared the Communists. This author fears the federal government. Communism now represents a threat to no one in the United States, while federal tyranny represents a threat to everyone . The writer has joyfully lived long enough to see the dying breaths of communism, but may, unhappily, remain long enough to see the last grasps of freedom in America.

In the hope that, somehow, America can still produce the brave sons and daughters necessary to fight off ever increasing persecution and oppression, this essay is offered. Frankly, it is too close to call at this point. Those who love liberty, and believe in freedom enough to fight for it are rare today, but within the bosom of every once great nation, there remains secreted, the pearls of former greatness. They are there. I have looked into their sparking eyes; sharing a brief moment in time with them as I passed through this life. Relished their friendship, endured their pain, and they mine. We are a band of brothers, native to the soil gaining strength one from another as we have rushed head long into a battle that all the weaker, timid men, say we can not win. Perhaps…but then again, perhaps we can. It’s not over till the last freedom fighter is buried or imprisoned, or the same happens to those who would destroy their freedom.

Barring any cataclysmic events, the struggle will yet go on for years. The passage of time will make it clear to even the more slow among us that the government is the foremost threat to the life, and liberty of the folk. The government will no doubt make today’s oppressiveness look like grade school work compared to what they have planned in the future. Meanwhile, there are those of us who continue to hope that somehow the few can do what the many have not. We are cognizant that before things get better they will certainly get worse as government shows a willingness to use ever more severe police state measures against dissidents. This changing situation makes it clear that those who oppose state repression must be prepared to alter, adapt, and modify their behavior, strategy, and tactics as circumstances warrant. Failure to consider new methods and implement them as necessary will make the government’s efforts at suppression uncomplicated. It is the duty of every patriot to make the tyrant’s life miserable. When one fails to do so he not only fails himself, but his people.

Read more…

Gunny G: Is The Army Trying To Hide Its “Pogues”?

August 12, 2007 1 comment


STLtoday.com

http://tinyurl.com/38eqns

“Stripping away the branch insignia makes soldiers more like Marines.”
~~~~~

The Army is rooting out its branches
By Harry Levins
POST-DISPATCH SENIOR WRITER
Saturday, Aug. 11 2007

Now that we’re at war, you see something you rarely saw in peacetime — soldiers
wearing field uniforms in airports and hotels.

And if you look closely at Army officers, you may notice that the new uniforms
lack something found on older uniforms — branch insignia.

Time was when an officer wore his rank on his right collar. On the left collar,
he wore his branch insignia — crossed rifles for infantry, for example, or a
castle for engineers.

Now, the collar is bare. The rank has been moved to a tab dangling down the
shirt’s front. The branch insignia is nowhere to be seen.

The result: It’s impossible to “read” an officer’s field uniform.

I called the Department of the Army to ask why. Nobody had an answer, although
they agreed (off the record) with my own theory:

Stripping away the branch insignia makes soldiers more like Marines.

Back when Army officers still displayed their branches, I asked a Marine
colonel why his service made it so hard to “read” a uniform. Aviators excepted,
Marines show no clues to their military specialities. Why?

“Because we’re all plain-and-simple Marines,” the colonel said.

He explained, “If you ask a soldier what he does, he’ll say, ‘I’m infantry,’ or
‘I’m airborne,’ or ‘I’m a tanker.’ If you ask a Marine what he does, he’ll say,
‘I’m a Marine.’”

I suspect that the Army’s decision to strip away the branch insignia is a way
of prodding officers to see one another as soldiers first and specialists
second.

Back in my soldiering days as a lieutenant in Germany in 1964-65, I proudly
pinned the crossed rifles of the infantry on my left collar tab and donned a
scarf that was colored the powder blue of the infantry.

Mind you, few of us going through the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Ga., had
wanted to be in the infantry.

But even though few wanted the infantry, everybody respected the infantry. For
the first time in my life, I was macho. I could look down my nose at captains
and majors wearing the insignia of, say, the Finance Corps, or the
Quartermaster Corps.

I’m guessing that the new uniform is an effort to dampen branch rivalries and
get soldiers to thinking of themselves as soldiers.

Oh — those colored scarves are long gone. Too bad. On the day I learned that
I’d drawn the infantry, I said, “Infantry? Aw, (bleep)!”

I was unaware that standing behind me was a major of artillery from the ROTC
faculty.

He leaned over my shoulder and said with a malicious grin:
“Look at it this way, Levins — the scarf will go good with your eyes.”

http://tinyurl.com/38eqns

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Drawing The Wrong Lessons From The Mpls Bridge Collapse

August 11, 2007 Leave a comment

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/41774.html

Liberty & Power: Group Blog

David T. Beito
Drawing the Wrong Lessons from the Minneapolis Bridge Collapse

As they did with Katrina, the politicians and public have taken it for granted that the Minneapolis bridge collapse illustrates the need for bigger government. In record speed, Governor Tim Pawlenty recanted his previous opposition to a gas tax increase for bridge and road repears. Few have even considered that the collapse might illustrate the dangers of relying too much, not too little, on governments for infrastructure.

One hundred and fifty years ago, the citizens of Nevada, who faced an even more daunting infrastructure crisis, came to a different conclusion. An example was the Placerville State Road, a government-maintained mountain artery on the section of the Overland Trail. It “was literally lined with brown-down stages, wagons, and carts, presenting every variety of aspect, from the general smash-up to the ordinary capsize. Wheels had taken rectangular cuts to the bottom, broken tongues projected from the mud; loads of dry goods and whiskey barrels lay wallowing in the general wreck of matter; stout beams cut from the roadside were scattered here and there, having served in vain efforts to extricate the wagons from the oozing mire.”

Instead of assuming that these problems proved the need for more government, Nevada’s politicians and voters turned to the private sector. They granted dozens of charters to companies and individuals to construct and maintain roads. Between the 1850s and 1880s, local entrepreneurs financed, built, and operated more than one hundred toll roads and bridges. This represented an enormous amount of activity in an area with so few people.

While some grumbled about paying tolls, even the sternest critics acknowledged that privatization brought dramatic improvements in quality. Referring to the Placerville Road, one observer commented that “a narrow, dangerous, wretched trail [which] was scarcely fit for the passage of sure-footed pack-mules” had been transformed into “a broad, compact, well-graded highway, which might be fairly be likened to an old Roman road.”

For more on the rise and fall of Nevada’s toll roads and bridges, see my article (co-authored with Linda Royster Beito), “Rival Road Builders: Private Toll Roads in Nevada, 1852-1880,” Nevada Historical Society Quarterly 41 (Summer 1998), 71-91.

Posted on Saturday, August 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM | Comments (0) | Return

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/41774.html

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Ron Paul, Iowa and The Presidency…Karen Kwiatkowski

August 11, 2007 Leave a comment


http://tinyurl.com/ysw6nc

Ron Paul, Iowa and the Presidency

Karen Kwiatkowski

Posted August 11, 2007 | 02:30 PM (EST)

A lot of people are frightened of Dr. Ron Paul’s possible presidency. They’re scared to talk about it, to consider it, or recognize its possibility. Like so many frightened people, they are putting their heads in the sand, and hoping it will all just go away.

Give us a snarky political professional like Guiliani or Clinton, or a nicely coiffed white family man like Romney or Edwards. Give us a nice neoconservative grandpa like Fred Thompson, or a grouchy neoconservative grandpa like McCain. Give us an Obama — for a change of pace in everything but currently established domestic and foreign policies.

But by golly, don’t dare threaten the establishment with Jeffersonian democratic vision and Washingtonian non-interventionism. Don’t boldly challenge the NYC/DC axis of politics with sheer constitutionalism. Better yet, don’t remind us that the American president is not the commander-in-chief of everybody but a narrowly defined and legally constrained institution that is only equal — and certainly subject — to our judicial and legislative bodies.

Ron Paul, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are the only candidates who seem to understand this. They are also the only candidates who will quickly, if not immediately, end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Wait a sec — I mean end it peacefully. Ultimately, Iraqis and their supporters around the world will bring down the American occupation — but they will do so limb by limb, heart by heart, and soul by soul. They will kill thousands of us and themselves before it reaches that inevitable point of non-occupation and honest political independence. Only Paul and two underfunded Democratic contenders offer wisdom to Americans across the nation who are hungry for wisdom, at least in foreign policy.

However — it is in domestic policy where Ron Paul completes the package. Unlike the democratic longshots, and the candidacy of GuiliClintoRomnObamThomEdwaCain, Ron Paul is about real freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom to live, freedom to decide for ourselves. He offers freedom from excessive government mandates, excessive rules and regulations, excessive confiscation of our life and property. In this, Paul is the only real conservative in the group, and yes, perhaps the only radical.

Social planners of all sorts — some more Marxist in orientation, others more nationalist — present themselves as the American presidential front runners. The media focuses cameras on their faces, murmurs over their every word, and wonders if America and the world will really like them as Most Supreme Leader of the World.

Ron Paul, humbly and simply, honors the Constitution — and perhaps this makes him boring to mainstream media. When asked recently how he would use the great power of the executive office, circa 2009, Paul indicated he’d use his power to restrain the natural temptation to abuse that mostly unconstitutional concentration of power. He’d then work to restore a constitutionally established presidency — in part by revoking the many executive orders to which we have all become inured.

Ron Paul may not excite the mainstream press, establishment policy cheerleaders, big investors in government programs, or the military-industrial complex. But Ron Paul really excites a whole heck of a lot of regular people — and puts the scare in the rest of them.

Ron’s latest odds in the Iowa Straw poll are 8 to 1 — and the big Republican candidates who represent all-spending, all-war, all-the-time are worried. So worried, many of them aren’t even coming to Iowa.

Those who wish to discredit Ron Paul as a viable candidate don’t point out his popularity among traditional Republicans, Democrats and Independents. They don’t point out that his “Don’t Tread on Me” libertarian streak is shared by half the adults in this country, and three quarters of the teenagers. They ignore his grass roots support, the money and the passion that flows steadily into his campaign.

The Republican Party, its Democratic emulators, and mainstream media are living dinosaurs. All refuse to pull their heads out of the sand and face the issues that really touch Americans, and to deliver what Americans really want for themselves, their families and their government. And unlike in previous elections, nobody in American really, truly, cares what mainstream media thinks. It’s not that Katie Couric and her ilk aren’t nice people. It’s just that times have changed.

These dinosaurs — and the theropods that report the news — are increasingly irrelevant. I believe that the other contenders for the Presidency will soon begin to adopt Paul’s message and attempt to promote his agenda of freedom and peace, or they will become politically extinct. As a peace and freedom-loving American, I can’t wait.

http://tinyurl.com/ysw6nc

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Ron Paul’s Online Support Put To The Test?

August 11, 2007 Leave a comment

<>http://tinyurl.com/2bjam6

Ron Paul

Paul’s Online Support Put to Offline Test


Though he’s bigger on MySpace, Rep. Ron Paul did work the Iowa crowds the old-fashioned way at the Iowa state fair. (AP).

Today’s Iowa straw poll isn’t merely a test for Mitt Romney, who leads in Iowa in the latest Washington Post/ABC news poll and has easily outspent the rest of the GOP field.

It’s also a test for the Paulites — the undeniably loyal and undeniably Internet-savvy followers of Rep. Ron Paul.

His YouTube videos are the most viewed of any presidential candidate — yes, more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has more MySpace friends than Romney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former senator Fred Thompson combined. His online followers, many of them live-and-let-live libertarians, were essential to his second quarter fundraising haul of $2.37 million, which easily surpassed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

And the big question on many a online political operative mind is: Can Paul translate all that online enthusiasm into offline results?

Five months before the Iowa caucuses, the straw poll is a non-binding test of a candidate’s organizational mettle. Voters are scheduled to pack Iowa State University’s Hilton Coliseum, in summer heat, to show their support. Paul’s Iowa operation lags behind Romney’s, no doubt. Paul just opened his headquarters in Iowa on Thursday, and his aides said the 400 or so members of his Iowa Meetup groups have been working the phones, passing out campaign literature and stuffing mailers in recent days. “We don’t have any lofty expectations,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said. “We just want to prove that we can run with the pack.”

To some Republican online political operatives, it does look like the Paulites are running with the pack. Patrick Ruffini, head of the Republican National Committee’s online department, views Paul’s chances in Iowa optimistically,

“I think Paul could place as well as second in the straw poll, if the enthusiasm that he’s generating online translates to actual bodies on the ground,” Ruffini said. “If it doesn’t, then you might begin to question the effectiveness of his online support. I mean, if he can’t translate it in Ames, then where can you translate it?”
–Jose Antonio Vargas

Posted at 7:00 AM ET on Aug 11, 2007  | Category:  Ron Paul
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.

“I mean, if he can’t translate it in Ames, then where can you translate it?”

Possibly somewhere that votes are not so blatantly purchased by the one with the most money. How representative is it to only have people who are able to pay $35 to cast a vote? I suspect many Dr. Paul supporters, the most principled and independent people around, would have a hard time participating in such a sham. They may wait till they can vote for free, in the real primary, rather than a fundraiser for the GOP.
Posted by: lizviering | August 11, 2007 08:19 AM

Or the real caucus even…?

Posted by: Boutan | August 11, 2007 08:59 AM

I live right by Ames and would love to go and support Ron Paul but unfortunately i have to work 2nd shift. You see being recently single plus the cost of living and taxes i have to work over time just to eat. Like lizviering said up above Maybe most of his supporters are the working class Americans who don’t have time or the money to enjoy daily life.

Posted by: alldayworkn | August 11, 2007 09:21 AM

Look it is clear. 30% of Republicans do not like what we are doing in Iraq (and Ron Paul is VERY clear in his position on Iraq). 10% of the population is libertarian. And everyone can vote in Iowa, even the Democrats (for free if they take up ALL the candidates offers!!) to mess with the Republicans selections or even if they do not like any of the candidates better except Ron Paul.

The question is have ALL of these folks been paying attention. Have they heard of Ron Paul? Do they have any clue of how good he is? After all at first glance he IS a politician AND it is 15 months before the real election AND we have been disappointed for 27 years since we last had a statesman running, who was charismatic.

This is a real test for Ron Paul:
Can he get HIS base to the polls in a state that loves the federal government and where a profit is made by the state in return on taxes paid to Washington and dollars back from the feds. If he can NOT get 3-4000 votes or 10%, then in my opinion we are in trouble as a country!

There have to be that many people, only 10% in Iowa, who have not given up on America. Hopefully? Please.

Go Ron Paul!!

Posted by: RamseySt | August 11, 2007 09:43 AM

Ron Paul seems to be a combination of Howard Dean in 2004 and John McCain in 2000. He is appealing to a great # of independent and idealistic voters. However, the primary process is controlled by other forces. Translation, his support is a mirage. His signs are everywhere in my state and his support is loud, but his likely chances of scoring any real victories is long. Like Dean (2004) and McCain (2000), his supporters are unlikely to have any real impact over a closed primary process that tends to strictly favor the the establishment’s candidates of choice.

Posted by: m_guszak | August 11, 2007 10:42 AM

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com‘s articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain “signatures” by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Click Here to post a comment. You may be asked to sign in first.


 

http://tinyurl.com/2bjam6

**********
SEE ALSO:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts

Paul’s Online Support Put to Offline Test
Washington Post ^ | Aug 11, 2007 | Jose Antonio Vargas
Posted on 08/11/2007 11:10:49 AM EDT by indcons
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts

Today’s Iowa straw poll isn’t merely a test for Mitt Romney, who leads in Iowa in the latest Washington Post/ABC news poll and has easily outspent the rest of the GOP field.

It’s also a test for the Paulites — the undeniably loyal and undeniably Internet-savvy followers of Rep. Ron Paul.

His YouTube videos are the most viewed of any presidential candidate — yes, more than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He has more MySpace friends than Romney, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former senator Fred Thompson combined. His online followers, many of them live-and-let-live libertarians, were essential to his second quarter fundraising haul of $2.37 million, which easily surpassed former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback.

And the big question on many a online political operative mind is: Can Paul translate all that online enthusiasm into offline results?

Five months before the Iowa caucuses, the straw poll is a non-binding test of a candidate’s organizational mettle. Voters are scheduled to pack Iowa State University’s Hilton Coliseum, in summer heat, to show their support. Paul’s Iowa operation lags behind Romney’s, no doubt. Paul just opened his headquarters in Iowa on Thursday, and his aides said the 400 or so members of his Iowa Meetup groups have been working the phones, passing out campaign literature and stuffing mailers in recent days. “We don’t have any lofty expectations,” Jesse Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said. “We just want to prove that we can run with the pack.”

(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879736/posts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

THE DEATH OF FREEDOM Part 2…by Joe American

August 11, 2007 1 comment

 

 

THE DEATH OF FREEDOM

Part 2

 

 

Joe American
August 8, 2007
NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe1.htm

 

“Those who read, study and learn from history Form the foundation Of tomorrow’s victories

Because they understand Where they’ve been And know where they are going.” — Joe American

Preamble: Did you read the “Declaration of Independence” or the U.S. Constitution since we last chatted? Probably not. But if you did, thank you.

Rome’s Emperor’s understood the importance of bread and circus’. The empire knew that if they kept their population in a perpetual state of war, provided cheap bread and offered the spectacle of the Roman Circus in the Coliseum, they could rule with an iron hand and no one would complain. It worked for nearly five-hundred years. Yet Romans thought themselves “free.”

Today, the grain provides cheap beer instead of bread and the “circus” has become television. Just like Imperial Rome, Imperial America has been in a state of perpetual war since 1861. The Civil War, the “Indian wars”, Spanish-American War, World War One, World War Two, the Cold War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Gulf War One, Gulf War Two, and the War on Terror. Then there were uncounted mini-war interventions around the world. For good measure, we also had the War on Poverty and the Drug War. Always it seems, there is room for more war, because war is good for distracting people. It adds to the “circus” atmosphere.

Roman Bread and Circus’s and perpetual war.

American Beer and Television, and perpetual war.

My-oh-my, how little really changes in this world.

Let’s look at another example of repeating history.

The National Socialist German Workers Party, better known to history as the Nazi Party, came to power on January 30, 1933 when Adolph Hitler was sworn into office as Chancellor of the German Weimar Republic. Twenty-eight days later, the Reichstag (The names of Germany’s congressional building and Congress), was destroyed by a deliberately set and very fast moving fire.

The day after the fire, the German press was printing headlines that sound ominously similar to today’s headlines: “This act of incendiarism is the most monstrous act of terrorism carried out by Communists in Germany” and “The government is of the opinion that the situation is such that a danger to the state and nation exists.”

Thirty days after that, the Reichstag passed the “Enabling Act” which gave Hitler the authority to rule by decree. He was now a dictator.

How fortuitous for Herr Hitler that a simple minded, homeless Dutch drifter named Marinus van der Lubbe was found near the Reichstag soon after the fire was put out. Van der Lubbe had past ties to the Communist Party and eventually confessed to setting the fire, but historians disagree as to whether his confession was freely offered or delivered under torture. But what is known is that near military grade incendiary fuel was used throughout the Reichstag to burn the building quickly to the ground.

Where would a homeless, foreign drifter get that type of incendiary fuel? How did he get inside this important Government building late at night? Why did he wait for the police to arrest him before the fire was even put out? Was it just fantastic police work?

And if van der Lubbe’s confession was the result of torture, who really started the fire?

The Reichstag fire was the excuse Hitler and the Nazi Party used to declare a State of Emergency in Germany that lasted until Russian troops entered Berlin in 1945. Hitler called upon the patriotism of all Germans to support what needed to happen to save the “Reich.” What was needed, according to Chancellor Hitler, was for Germans to relinquish their constitutional freedoms, to allow the harsh measures necessary for the State to be able to act in a unilateral manner, to find those people responsible for Germany’s troubles and bring them to (German) justice. Sound familiar to anyone?

Let’s look at recent American history and see how things have taken a dramatic turn for the worse here at home during the past 15 years. In particular, since 1993 Americans have watched a steady stream of events that bode an ill wind. We have seen the destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. We have also watched Federal authorities burn down a Texas church, cremating the 76 men, women and children inside it, and witnessed the assassination of a young Ruby Ridge, Idaho mother, shot in the head by a Federal sniper, while she stood in the doorway of her home, holding her infant child and posing no threat to anyone. That sniper received a commendation for bravery. The trend is not good and getting worse.

Let’s take a look at Tim McVeigh, convicted and executed for the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh was “caught” by lone Oklahoma State Trooper Charles J. Hanger after he was stopped because his vehicle didn’t have a license plate. McVeigh had a fully loaded semi-automatic pistol in a shoulder-holster when he was taken into custody without resistance by this lone Trooper, on an isolated rural road.

Starting to sound familiar? Again, what fantastic police work! Once more, yeah, right.

Let Me ask you these questions:

-If you were smart enough to build a bomb and could destroy a steel reinforced modern American concrete building, would you drive away in a vehicle without a license plate?

-If you were cold hearted enough to have just detonated a bomb, destroying a Federal Building, killing 168 people, would you allow yourself to be taken into custody on an isolated road by a single police officer, when you could just have easily shot him and driven away?

Either McVeigh had nothing to do with the bombing or he was part of a larger plot and thought he was going to be held until his control agent got him released. Since he was executed, if he was an agent, his trust was misplaced. If he was not involved, his trust in the American legal system was misplaced.

McVeigh was considered John Doe number one in this case, Terry Nichols was John Doe number two. But what ever happened to the three other men seen, in now missing video surveillance tapes from neighboring buildings, walking away from the Ryder truck that housed the bomb? Didn’t hear about them? Wonder why.

Some suggest that the government was involved in a conspiracy, even planned the attack in order to justify persecuting right-wing organizations in a manner similar to Nazi prosecutions of left-wing political parties after the Reichstag fire. Terry Nichols maintains to this day that McVeigh was being directed by high ranking FBI agents.

In 1995, demolition’s and explosives expert Brigadier General Benton K. Partin (Ret.) issued an exhaustive analysis of the destruction to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. From the General’s report:

 

“The media and the Executive branch reported that the sole source of the devastation was a single truck bomb consisting of 4,800 pounds of ammonium nitrate, transported to the location in a Ryder Truck and parked in front of the building. It is impossible that the destruction to the building could have resulted from such a bomb alone.

 

“To cause the damage pattern that occurred to the Murrah building, there would have to have been demolition charges at several support column bases, at locations not accessible from the street, to supplement the truck bomb damage. Indeed, a careful examination of photographs showing the collapsed column bases reveals a failure mode produced by demolition charges and not by a blast from the truck bomb.”

 

And then there is the curious absence of FBI agents in the building, along with all their children being absent from the day care that was destroyed in the explosion. All the agents and all their kids did not show up for work or school on this particular day? Makes me curious why. What about you? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

The 2001 attack on the World Trade Center, every bit the symbol of American economic power and freedom, much the same as the Reichstag was a symbol of German political freedom, succeeded with dramatic results, killing 3,000 people.

The destruction of the World Trade Center also occurred soon after George W. Bush was sworn into office as President, and also provided a pretext for changing the nature of our government in much the same manner as Chancellor Hitler changed Germany.

Even if you believe it was a group of determined foreign nationals who succeeded in flying those planes into the twin towers, how is it that a modern superpower like the United States was caught so completely off guard?

What about all of the reports from various foreign or alternative intelligence services and news sources that claimed the FBI, CIA, NSA, among others, indeed had advanced knowledge of not just of a plot, but specifically of this plot to attack these buildings? Why was nothing done? Why has no one been held accountable for, at the very least, bad judgment in burying these reports?

Instead we got the USA Patriot Act, or as I like to call it, the “Death of Freedom Act.” Anyone remember the circumstances and speed with which this law make it through Congress?

Forty-six days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, with virtually no discussion by Congress, this Act was passed into law. Anyone who has ever had any experience with how things work in Washington, D.C. knows that this “Act” could not possibly have been written in response to the attacks in New York.

That means it was already written and waiting, before the attacks occurred. Think about what that means. Don’t believe it? Okay, so don’t believe me. Go check out the facts for yourself. Go online and search the words “patriot act” and see what comes up.

And lest we forget, the USA Patriot Act’s follow-up, “The Real ID Act,” is set to go into effect on January 1, 2008. Cap both of these off with Public Law 109-394 “The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ and you have everything in place for a Presidential declaration of Martial Law. In simple language, dictatorship, right here in America.

It took 30 days after the Reichstag fire for Hitler to be given dictatorial power by German Legislators. It took just forty-six days for Congress to give it to George W. Bush.

The USA Patriot Act identifies/creates the justification, the Real ID Act provides the tracking tool and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act provides both the authority and the funding for this act of total aggression against the American people.

What I am telling you is real. It is happening right now and if you ignore it, you do so at your own peril.

This is not a time to mince words. This Republic does not have much time left. Those of us who see what is happening must reach out to our fellow citizens and do whatever we can to raise their awareness of this pending disaster. But we face a tremendous problem. That problem dear reader is you. But as I said in Part One of this article, you still have a chance to make a difference, but it won’t be easy.

The good news is, since you have read this far, it must be for some reason. You are now either very angry at me, or you have become very afraid of your government. Of course you could also be scoffing at everything you have just read, which would indicate to me that you are very tired and probably need to lay down.

If you are mad at me, good. At least you can still get mad. Now you can make a true choice for yourself. Like I said earlier, prove me wrong. Use the internet. I used wikipedia.com for my source information. Look up these issues yourself and prove to everyone that I’m just a nut.

You will have to use our mind to do so, and that too is good. Just maybe you will learn something about the world you live in. And then maybe you can become a person who will make a difference.

On the other hand, if your are afraid of your government, good. You should be. I am. But don’t you see, that is not the way any American should feel? If you are so afraid of your government that everything I have told you is not enough to convince you to become involved with other people whom you trust to talk about these issues, then nothing ever will.

But if you are so moved, don’t wait too long. This country has only until the next “terrorist” incident until the velvet glove comes off the iron fist Congress gave to the President and the Executive Branch of Government when it passed the three anti-American Acts I’ve listed above.

The only reason these extra-constitutional authorities are needed, according to President Bush, is for Americans to temporarily relinquish their constitutional freedoms, to allow the harsh measures necessary for the Federal Government to be able to act in a unilateral manner, to find those people responsible for Germany’s (oops, I meant America’s) troubles to bring them to (German) justice.

It sounds very familiar to me, but then I read history books.

Oh yes, if you are still sound asleep, good night.

Noblesse oblige; Veritas vos liberabit

© 2007 J.O.E. American Foundation – All Rights Reserved

 

 

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

 

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

 


 


These series of articles by J.O.E. American are written by a current elected official in a fairly high position. Person’s name and state in which this person is currently serving is withheld for fear of retribution. Joe American was honorably discharged from the US armed forces, and served as a law enforcement officer. Anyone wishing to send Joe American a letter may send it to the following address, and if possible, we will try to forward those letters.NewsWithViews.com
c/o JOE American
P. O. Box 370
Merlin, OR. 97532



 

Home

http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe1.htm

The Death of Freedom, Part 1
http://www.newswithviews.com/American/joe.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Congress Grants Bloggers Rights? No, NOT ALL BLOGGERS!

August 10, 2007 Leave a comment


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts

Congress Grants Bloggers Journalistic Rights (Free Flow of Information Act–Protected Sources)
Womnibus Blog ^ | 8/9/2007

Posted on 08/10/2007 9:12:48 AM EDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts

In a move that diminishes the legal distinctions between bloggers and journalists, on Aug. 1 a congressional panel voted to protect journalists from having to reveal their confidential sources — and specifically included professional bloggers in the measure.
While casual and hobby bloggers will not benefit from the newly revised Free Flow of Information Act, those that earn either all or part of their income from blogs will be able to enjoy the same protections as their journalist counterparts. Bloggers, many of whom consider themselves journalists whether or not they’re officially recognized as such, feel that they should be entitled to the same rights and protections as reporters and applauded the measure as a step in the right direction.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts
~~~~~~~~

Note:
GyG Response #7….

“Hmmm…
It always just boils down to…$$$, doesn’t it!
Shouldn’t matter whether or not the individual makes a buck on it or not—it’s the rights of the individual that counts, not the price or lack thereof!”

7 posted on 08/10/2007 11:51:13 AM EDT by gunnyg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1879193/posts

**********

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Cracks In The Constitution

August 10, 2007 Leave a comment

 

NEWS YOU WON’T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

“Cracks in the Constitution”

A Review By Stephen Lendman

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18143.htm

08/08/07 “ich” — – Ferdinand Lundberg (1905 – 1995) was a 20th century economist, journalist, historian and author of such books as The Rich and the Super-Rich: A Study in the Power of Money Today; The Myth of Democracy; Politicians and Other Scoundrels; and the subject of this review – Cracks in the Constitution.

Lundberg’s book was published twenty-seven years ago, yet remains as powerfully important and relevant today as then. Simply put, the book is a blockbuster. It’s must reading to learn what schools to the highest levels never teach about the nation’s most important document that lays out the fundamental law of the land in its Preamble, Seven Articles, Bill of Rights, and 17 other Amendments. Lundberg deconstructs it in depth, separating myth from reality about what he called “the great totempole of American society.”

He does it in 10 exquisitely written chapters with examples and detail galore to drive home his key message that our most sacred of all documents is flawed. It was crafted by 55 mostly ordinary but wealthy self-serving “wheeler dealers” (among whom only 39 signed), and the result we got and now live with falls far short of the “Rock of Ages” it’s cracked up to be. That notion is pure myth. This review covers in detail how Lundberg smashed it in each chapter.

The Sacred Constitution

Lundberg quickly transfixes his readers by disabusing them of notions commonly held. Despite long-held beliefs, the Constitution is no “masterpiece of political architecture.” It falls far short of “one great apotheosis (bathed) in quasi-religious light.” The finished product was a “closed labyrinthine affair,” not an “open” constitution like the British model. It was the product of duplicitous politicians and their close friends scheming to cut the best deals for themselves by leaving out the great majority of others who didn’t matter.

The myths we learned in school and through the dominant media are legion, long-standing and widely held among the educated classes. They and most others believe the framers crafted a Constitution that “powerfully restrained and fettered” the federal government and created “a limited government (or a) government of limited powers.” It’s simply not so because through the power of the chief executive it can do “whatever it is from time to time” it wishes. In that respect, it’s no more precise and binding than The Ten Commandments the Judaic and Christian worlds violate freely and willfully all the time. Even so-called “born-again” types, like the current President, do it, along with Popes, past and present, and the former Israeli Sephardi chief rabbi, Mordechai Eliyahu, who advocates mass killing by carpet bombing Gaza to save Jewish lives.

The “supreme Law of the Land” here deters no President or sitting government from doing as they wish, law or no law. The Constitution is easily ignored with impunity by popular or unpopular governments doing as they please and inventing reasons as justification. Lundberg is firm in debunking the notion that America is a government of laws, not men. It’s “palpable nonsense of the highest order,” he said. Governments enacting laws are composed of men who lie, connive, misinterpret and pretty much operate ad libitum discharging their duties as they see fit for their own self-interest.

It was no different in 1787 when 55 delegates
(privileged all) assembled for four months in the same Philadelphia State House, where the Declaration of Independence was signed 11 years earlier, to rework the Articles of Confederation into a Constitution that would last into “remote futurity,” as long as possible, or until others later changed it. None of them were happy with the finished product but felt it was the best one possible under the circumstances and better than nothing at all.

The document is “crisply worded” and can easily be read in 20 to 30 minutes and just as easily be totally misunderstood. The sole myth in it is stated in its opening Preamble words: “We the people of the United States….do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” In fact, “the people” nowhere entered the process, then or since.

At its beginning, “the people” who mattered were established white male property owning delegates and members of state ratifying conventions who rammed the ratification process through, by fair or foul means, in the face of a “largely indifferent and uncomprehending populace” left out entirely. They were elected to do it by eligible and interested while males comprising only from 12.5 – 15.5% of the electorate at the time. Women, blacks, Indians and children couldn’t vote and many or most qualified voters didn’t bother to and still don’t. The process, and what it produced, showed “Democracy operatively is little more than a fantasy.”

The American revolution was nothing more than secession from the British empire changing very little with one-third of the colonists favoring it (not upper classes), one-third opposed (mainly upper classes) and another third indifferent to the whole business. From then to now, the country is no nearer “government by the people” than under monarchal or autocratic rule. The latter types rule by application or threat of force whereas sovereign people are manipulated by other means with naked force held in reserve if needed.

Lundberg explained the minimum function of government, ours or others, should be to insure the public welfare is being broadly served. It’s stated in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 that “The Congress shall have power to….provide for….(the) general welfare of the United States” – the so-called welfare clause. Lundberg let scholar Herman Finer (with more detail on his ideas below) dispel the notion from the constitutional flaws he found and some of the many “social and political evils” he recounted as a result through the middle 20th century decades – rampant crime, unsafe streets, lack of justice, political corruption, dishonest police, racketeering labor officials, corporate fraud in pursuit of profits, raging unresolved social problems and lots more. Only government can address these issues and unless it does successfully it fails. Our is a long history of failure overall with only feeble attempts to fix things.

Lundberg reviewed popular misconceptions about the Constitution saying so many are embedded in the American psyche it’s hard knowing where to begin. He noted the document is called “The Living Constitution” saying, in fact, it’s “whatever government does or does not do” or uses in whatever way it wishes. The Constitution defines itself as the “supreme Law of the Land” in Article VI, Section 2 which it is and includes all amendments, enacted statutes and treaties made with the concurrence (not ratification) of the Senate. The people are left out of the process entirely with Lundberg saying “government of the people, by the people and for the people” is a “nonexistent entity. The people don’t govern either directly or through ‘representatives.’ The people are governed.”

In sum, although the Constitution served many of the purposes its designers and supporters envisioned, in light of the majority populace’s great expectations of it, “it has been, quite plainly, a huge flop.” That’s made clear below.

“We the People”

Lundberg destroys the romanticism and enthusiasm felt today about the Constitution and the revolt against Great Britain preceding it. He began by reviewing the establishment of state constitutions at the time and the enactment of the Articles of Confederation adopted by the Second Continental Congress November 15, 1777 with final ratification March 1, 1781. None of these events had electoral sanction. “They were strictly coup d’etat affairs, run by small groups of self-styled patriots many of whom bettered their personal economic positions significantly” from the revolution and events before and after it took place. Despite what’s commonly taught in schools, most people opposed the Constitution when it was ratified. So by getting it done anyway, the framers (with the conservative Federalists spearheading the effort) went against the will of the people they ignored and disdained.

It wasn’t easy, though, as only by promising amendments did it happen. The anti-Federalist opposition demanded and got the “oft-hymned” first ten amendments, commonly known as the Bill of Rights. In fact, they “made no great difference,” and did little to dilute the 1787 document. More on that below.

Lundberg explained that most anti-Federalists weren’t particularly happy either with the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. These men were mostly privileged property owners (all white, of course) squabbling over the means to get pretty similar ends and having a generally hostile attitude about the majority population overall. In other words, everyone was not considered “We the people,” which is how radical English Whigs felt and whose traditions colonists adopted. “The illiterate and underprivileged (elements) were not much considered” with the “people” again being the privileged male property owners in charge of everything and out only for their own self-interest.

Lundberg cited voting patterns earlier, up to his time, and clearly now as well, to explain how people are left out of the political process. Whether franchised or not, most don’t vote in presidential elections and even fewer show up for congressional, state and local ones. It indicates the will of the people needs considerable qualifying because most of them aren’t interested, don’t want to bother, don’t think it matters, don’t understand the whole process, and decide to opt out and act like nothing’s going on. “Although repugnant to ideologists of democracy,” Lundberg stated, “this conclusion is quite true.”

In sum, the relevance of this to the Constitution is that its opening words are meaningless window dressing. They neither add nor detract from the document which served as a “screen and launching pad for practically autonomous, freely improvising politicians (like any others in the world)….the gentry….sustained (in whatever their endeavors were) by the constitutional structure” they created for their own self-serving purposes.

What the Framers Thought

This section covers who these men were below as well as more about them in the section to follow. Here, first off, the record needs to be set straight about what these very ordinary men (contrary to popularized myth about them) thought about their creation we extoll today like it came down from Mt. Sinai. In fact, it was the result of wheeling and dealing in likely smoke-filled rooms the way deals are cut today with lots of real and figurative smoke to go along with the usual mirrors. When they finished in September, 1787, there was no joy in Philadelphia. The framers disliked their creation, some could barely tolerate it, yet most signed it.

They understood its defects, that it was full of holes, thought it was the best they could do under the circumstances, felt it was a mess, but, nonetheless, believed they could live with it for the time being, hoping it wouldn’t come back to bite them. Lundberg said they likely “kept their fingers crossed.” One other thing was clear, though, despite “crowd-titillating campaign oratory” about their creation ever since. Not a single framer suggested “a sheltered haven was being prepared for the innumerable heavily laden, bedraggled, scrofulous and oppressed of the earth.” On the contrary, they intended to keep them that way showing not a lot is fundamentally different then than now, and the so-called founders were a pretty devious bunch, not the noble characters we’ve been taught to believe.

As already explained, the deal got done with the usual kinds of wheeling and dealing, and, in the end, a lot of opponents being won over by agreeing to tack on the so-called Bill of Rights that was deliberately left out at first. The dominant elements behind the convention were what today are called nationalists. More precisely, they were “centralizers who were continental and global in their thinking.” The opposition consisted of “localists,” later called “states-righters,” who preferred a decentralized government. The “centralizers” wanted a single or central national capital run by superior people by their definition – the rich and better-connected regardless of ability. Men like John Adams and John Jay (the first High Court chief justice) felt government should be run, in Adams’ words, by “the rich, the well born, and the able.” There was no disagreement on that notion.

There were no populists in the bunch, no anti-property party, and even the most vocal civil libertarians, like Jefferson and George Mason, were slave-owners. Washington, for his part, contributed no pet constitutional ideas other than wanting to protect the new nation from drifting toward disunion which, in fact, happened with the outbreak of the Civil War in
1861. Lundberg described him as “the very top dog of the Philadelphia accouchement (the constitutional birthing process).” He understood the key reason for adopting a flawed document, no matter how bad it was or how the framers felt about it. Accepting it was the way to prevent disunion and resulting confusion that might have prevailed if public consideration entered the equation to become accepted policy and law.

Conflicting ideas of concern at the time visualized three central governments consisting of the New England states, middle Atlantic ones, and those in the South with likely new entries to follow in the West. The framers worried this arrangement might cause endless bickering and wars as well as rivalrous agreements and arrangements with other countries. In one stroke, the Constitution produced a united front against an ever-encroaching Europe and internal struggles.

Lundberg spent much time on who the founders were this review can only touch on. It’s enough just to put a few faces on a group of crass opportunists who today are practically ranked along side the Apostles. But who’s to say those few were any better than others of their day the way myths are constructed and passed on through the ages unchallenged in mainstream thinking. And don’t forget that, in his first term, George Bush might have been aiming for sainthood by claiming he got his orders directly from God who told him to “strike at Al-Queda….and then…. to strike at Saddam.” Even the framers didn’t claim that type heavenly connection.

They did have Lundberg’s focus beginning with Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s wartime aide-de-camp, first Secretary of the Treasury and acknowledged leader of the Federalists. Here’s what this noted man thought of the Constitution in 1802. In a letter, he called it “a shilly shally thing of mere milk and water (and) a frail and worthless document.” This is from the man, more than any other in Philadelphia, who was its most articulate and passionate champion. Franklin, too, had doubts as the grand old man, but mere enfeebled figurehead at the convention, who also signed the final document. He was against two separate chambers, disapproved of some of the articles and wanted others that weren’t included.

Then there’s James Madison miscalled “The Father of the Constitution,” which he expressly repudiated and a year later wrote “I am not of the number if there be any such, who think the Constitution lately adopted a faultless work…..(It’s) the best that could be obtained from the jarring interests of the states….Something, anything, was better than nothing.” Madison’s disaffection went even further, in fact. At the convention, he was an ardent “centralizer,” but 10 years later he reversed himself by aligning with those wanting to recapture more state power. He also spent most of his life disagreeing with the way the document he helped write was used.

Lundberg covered a few other framers most people know little or nothing about but played their part along with the better known ones. They included men like Nicholas Gilman from New Hampshire, William Pierce and William Few from Georgia, Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney from South Carolina, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris (no relation) and James Wilson from Pennsylvania, Jonathan Dayton from New Jersey, and James McHenry from Maryland.

Of the total 55 delegates attending, 39 signed and 16 didn’t, but doing it or not was just a pro forma exercise as only the states had power to accept or reject it. None of the framers believed the Constitution was the glorious achievement people ever since were led to believe – quite the opposite, in fact, but most still went along with it as better than nothing. The nation’s second and third Presidents, Adams and Jefferson, were abroad and didn’t attend the convention although Adams was considered the leading constitutional theorist at the time. His views had weight and were strong ones. Lundberg noted for the rest of his life until 1826 he consistently criticized the document in private correspondence.

Jefferson overall was just as unhappy. Until it was added, he objected to the omission of a Bill of Rights. He also disliked the lack of any requirements for rotation in office, especially the office of the presidency he wished to be ineligible for a succeeding term. In 1801, he was involved with others proposing a menu of changes to strengthen a document he believed was flawed. He also didn’t think any constitution could survive the test of time, unchanged forever, able to meet all legitimate needs, and as a consequence wanted a new convention every 20 years to update things and fix obvious problems.

Lundberg felt Jefferson and Adams’ main objection was they had no part in writing it or were even consulted on what should go in it. They had a point. Adams, as noted, was the leading constitutional theorist of the time and Jefferson (in Lundberg’s view) was the most consummate politician in the nation’s history, but by no means its best President.

The convention ended September 17, 1787 “in an atmosphere verging on glumness.” Delegates signing it were just witnesses to the actions of state delegations, not as individual endorsers, and despite their public approval, nearly all had “inner qualms.” James Monroe from Virginia, a future President, was one of them. He voted nay with 15 others that included important figures like George Mason, Elbridge Gerry and Edmund Randolph.

Southern delegates were won over for ratification by strengthening chattel slavery. The Constitution forbade the federal government from emancipating slaves until Lincoln acted in a meaningless 1862 politically motivated Executive Order. It wasn’t until Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and enough states ratified them, that the law changed freeing the slaves and giving them nominal rights they never, in fact, had in the South at least for another
100 years. Lundberg noted the “slavocracy was not terminated….for moral reasons; it committed suicide for political and economic reasons, blinded by simple greed and vaingloriousness, and long after slavery was abolished in most places elsewhere.”

Who the Framers Were

Lundberg asked: “Who were these men about whom so many
(unjustifiably) have rhapsodized? Fifty-five in total showed up in Philadelphia in 1787 out of 74 authorized by state legislatures. A fourth of them stayed only briefly, another quarter checked in and out like tourists, and no more than five men carried most of the discussion with seven others playing “fitful” supporting roles.

Further, they didn’t, in fact, come to write a new constitution. They were congressionally authorized only to propose amendments to the prevailing Articles of Confederation. Little did they all know in May what would emerge in September, or maybe the ones who counted most did.

Of the 19 non-attending delegates, 11 wanted nothing to do with the affair, were opposed to it, distrusted it, and thought it rigged from the start. The other eight had various excuses – illness (political or real), focused at home with other business, not having their travel expenses covered, and reluctant to make such a long trip to be away from home and hearth for months.

Of those showing up, 33 were lawyers, 44 present or past members of Congress, 46 had political positions at home, including seven as former governors and five high state judges. These were men of note and economic means who promoted their own financial interests and parallel activity in government. In a word, they were movers and shakers or as Lundberg called them – “wheeler dealers.”

He described the group as a “gathering of the rich, the well-born and, here and there, the able (with that quality being the exception).” Washington and Robert Morris were reputed to be the richest men in the country with property holdings in most cases being their main component of wealth at the time along with slaveholdings on it. Directly or indirectly as lawyers or principals, these men were an assemblage of “planters, bankers, merchants, ship-owners, slave-traders, smugglers, privateers, money-lenders, investors, and speculators in land and securities” – essentially a group of powerful figures not much different from their counterparts today. With a few exceptions, Lundberg said they’d now be called a “Wall Street crowd.”

In their mind, “The clear aim of the Constitution was to launch a system that would protect, and enable to flourish, the general interests there represented.” With Great Britain removed, a vacuum was created. The Constitution, with a new government, was created to fill it restoring the same essential British commercial and financial system under new management, or as the French would say, everything changed yet everything stayed the same. Republican government simply removed British monarchal wrappings to operate pretty much the same way. Lundberg quoted Daniel Leonard saying “Never in history had there been so much rebellion with so little real cause” and so little change following it. As for the ingredients of the Constitution, Lundberg explained nearly all of them could have been “stamped with the benchmark ‘Originated in England.’ Only the mixture was different.”

Further, 27 delegates were future members of Congress, two were future Presidents, one a future Vice-President, one a Speaker of the House, and five future High Court justices. They produced a Constitution generated along predetermined lines by the government itself by “a small self-selected elite at the center of government affairs.” They did it in deliberately general, vague, ambiguous language, the product of consummate self-serving insiders. The “people” were nowhere in sight then or for the later future amendment ratifications, all of which were done solely by similar-minded self-serving later officials for their own political purposes. It’s always been that way from the beginning, of course, and is strikingly so today.

Lundberg then reviewed the political background and record of the delegates starting off with the elder statesman in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin, the wisest of the bunch. In 1787, he was an octogenarian, attended as a mere figurehead, signed the final document, but was too enfeebled to address the convention at its end, so he enlisted a friend to read his rather notable and prescient remarks to the others saying:

“I agree to this Constitution with all its faults….I think a General Government (is) necessary for us (and) may be a blessing….if well-administered; (I “farther” believe that’s likely) for a Course of Years
(but) can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall have become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” Imagine such a dark prophecy at the nation’s birth by a man who never met George Bush but was wise enough to know he’d arrive sooner or later. Franklin today would surely say “I warned you, didn’t I.”

Other notable signers were less insightful, or if they were, didn’t let on. Two of them, John Dickinson and William Johnson were members of the 1765 Stamp Act Congress. Six others were members of the mainly conservative First Continental Congress of 1774 – Thomas Mifflin, Edmund Randolph, George Read, John Rutledge, Roger Sherman, and George Washington.

Other important attendees were Elbridge Gerry, Roger Sherman, George Mason, John Langdon, Robert Morris, Gouverneur Morris (no relation) and William Livingston. Lundberg called Langdon, Livingston, Randolph, Rutledge and R. Morris political power bosses or power-brokers of their day, and Robert Morris was known to his friends and enemies as the “Great Man.” He was the unmatched financial giant of the era with Lundberg saying “his brain would have made two of Hamilton” and that his economic and political power at the time were unrivaled matching that of the House of Morgan in the early 20th century combined with New York’s Tammany Hall.

According to Lundberg, however, this was no “all-star political team” compared to other more distinguished figures not there – Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, John Jay, John Hancock, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Rush, Paul Revere, John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry and many others. Apart from two notables, Washington and Franklin, as well as Robert Morris, few later became prominent nationally. In 1787, Madison and Hamilton
(Washington proteges) were virtual unknowns.

Lundberg noted nothing on record shows this assemblage to have been extraordinarily learned, profound in their thinking or even unusually capable. Only 25 attended college, and “the one man who held the convention together by the mere force of his presence”….Washington, never got beyond the fifth grade. Franklin was mostly self-taught and Hamilton was a college dropout his first year. Robert Morris, the JP Morgan of his day, and George Mason also never attended college. Of the 25 college attendees, only Madison, Wilson and G. Morris were contributors of note.

In point of fact, colleges in those days were quite rudimentary and graduated students at a much earlier age, often as young as 16, and a bright student could master the law for a degree in a matter of weeks the way Hamilton did. The same was true in England at the time with Oxford and Cambridge not then considered distinguished educational centers as they are now.

Most of the attending delegates also had military backgrounds, but writing about them kept that information secret. Lundberg stressed it saying “the gathering took on the complexion of the general staff of the war of the revolution.” Why not, the boss himself was there, Washington, along with his leading officers. In all, 27 delegates served under him in the war. He knew them, most of the others, and all of them stood in awe of him as a larger than life figure. He was “always the nonpareil,” assured he’d be the new nation’s uncontested first president. He had no party affiliation, ran unopposed twice and got all the votes for two terms in a process more like coronations than elections.

He and the other delegates came to Philadelphia, assembled, did their work and went home in many cases to pursue “their eclipse.” Lundberg explained “As a collection of supposedly highly sagacious men, the post-convention careers of the framers raise a big question mark.” Ten went bankrupt or became broke, several were involved in financial scandals, two died in duels, one became a shattered drunkard, two “flittered” with treason, one was expelled from the Senate, one went mad, others quarreled bitterly among themselves about politics and interpreting the document they created, and most switched political sides for convenience in their subsequent quests for office. Washington himself, likely died from medical malpractice, the victim of a bloodletting procedure, after he took ill, when he needed all he had.

Other framers began dying off as well, a number of them right after the convention and at ages considered very young today for some. Robert (JP Morgan) Morris went bankrupt speculating in public lands and securities, owed millions as a result, served three and a half ignominious years in debtors’ prison, and died broke in 1806. Other framers also speculated and lost heavily in their financial dealings.

Hamilton was one of the few Philadelphia delegates to achieve a notable post-convention record as Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury and Federalist Party leader. Noteworthy as well was Gouverneur Morris, no relation to Robert. Finally, there was James Madison who was neither the Constitution’s father or its indispensable or principle source. He, in fact, had no original or unique ideas to bring to the convention. In this respect, he was like all the others.

Madison did perform a hugely important function as an “amanuensis,” dutifully and painstakingly recording the convention proceedings in what historians today call an accurate and complete stenographic record, the best available. It was not until 1840 that it became public after Congress bought it from his estate. He documented what Lundberg called “startling” – that the convention delegates were “a group of men intent upon securing various special economic interests” and weren’t the “philosophically detached cogitators they had been held up in propaganda to be.”

Madison’s report shattered the view that these men came together to devise the best possible government. From the start, they knew what they wanted (at least the key ones there) and set about getting it. Madison was also a powerful advocate on the convention floor of widely discussed views. Unlike the others, he had no considerable property or means, but he lived to age
85, outlasted all the other framers, and served as the nation’s fourth President. In total, eight delegates at most can be considered weighty. The rest were “routine or parochial or both,” and that conclusion is astounding for a group of 55 leading men of the day who “participated in the formulation of a reputed deathless document” and are revered in classrooms and society as larger-than-life icons.

The Gorgeous Convention

Lundberg stared off saying “The constitutional convention of 1787, an historical event of first-class importance, was itself an entirely routine, utterly uninspiring political caucus….it produced absolutely no prodigies of statecraft, no wonders of political
(judgment), no vaulting philosophies, no Promethean vistas.” In point of fact, as already stressed and repeated, what happened contradicts all we’ve been “indoctrinated from ears to toes” to believe that’s pure nonsense. Lundberg called the main fantasy the popular conception that the Constitution is “a document of salvation….a magic talisman.” The central achievement of the convention, and a big one,
(at least until 1861) was the cobbling together of disparate and squabbling states into a union that held together tenuously for over seven decades but not actually until Appomattox “at bayonet point.”

As mentioned above, the delegates came to Philadelphia merely to amend the unwieldy Articles of Confederation so what it did was, “strictly viewed, illegal.” The finished product emerged as an amalgam of the existing Maryland, New York and Massachusetts constitutions dating respectively from 1776, 1777 and 1790, the latter one written almost entirely by John Adams in a few days. Even though he was abroad in London at the time, the finished Constitution was largely the product of his earlier work. Of those attending, no individual theorist dominated proceedings, but two dominant personalities held things together as its “living core.” Without the force of their presence, Lundberg explained, the whole process “would almost surely have foundered.”

Those men were George Washington, the larger-than- life victorious general of the revolution, and “Great Man” Robert Morris, the JP Morgan-type figure who later went bust because even financial whizards can succumb to excess greed. Gouverneur Morris also was prominent in the proceedings while Madison and Hamilton, as already explained, were virtual unknowns.

Lundberg called the convention “very much a prefabricated group affair” with internal differences over concentrating power in the President or Congress. Then, there were the “tight nationalizers, those generally wanting a national government, and lastly in the minority “states-righters” believing no state power should be surrendered to a federal authority. “As for flat-out democrats,” said Lundberg, “there were none in sight.” In terms of what they achieved, he called it “Old Wine in a Fancy New Bottle” with a new name under new management. The purpose of the convention was to gain formal approval for what the leading power figures wanted and then get their creation rammed through the state ratification process to make it the law of the land. On that score, and after much wheeling and dealing, they achieved mightily.

The convention began in May, went on through three phases for 120 days, and concluded in September after dozens of parliamentary-type votes to postpone, reconsider, amend, etc. with a document produced and turned over to a committee of detail in late July. The final phase ran from August 6 to September 17, nine states were needed for ratification with the larger, more populous ones, granting concessions to the small ones to win the day.

Several scenarios or plans were proposed, one of which was the Virginia Plan envisioning a central national government with a bicameral legislature that, of course, was adopted. All the plans were “strongly rightist” or conservative. Members of the lower house were to be elected by the people and those in the upper body by members of the lower one. That became the law and stayed that way until the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, allowed the people of each state to elect their own senators.

Also proposed was a chief executive, a national judiciary with a Supreme Court at the top, and provisions for admitting new states with republican governments in them all. In addition, the finished Constitution included proposals for amendments and much else including terms of office and staggered elections to prevent too many officials being unseated at the same time. The final product was what one academic observer called a “bundle of compromises” from beginning to end.

Lundberg described the delegates as “flinty hard-liners, determined to have their way, never to yield on anything substantial….willing to make purely political compromises (over) the means of carrying on government (but) adamantly resistant….when it came to (its) ends.” Those were primarily economic and social, and those were left as they were when ties with Great Britain were cut.

Thinking then was much like today with provisions in the Constitution targeting the discontented. Congress was empowered to raise revenue through taxation, always hitting the less advantaged hardest. It was authorized to borrow money without limit meaning the people would have to service the debt. It was given power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce assuring the rich their interests would be served, and much more. In sum, the document created “was the means by which the traditional establishment….was re-establishing itself” leaving out of the mix the interests of the “common man (who) in point of fact was going to be allowed to remain….common (with) the Constitution, contrary to political blarney (offering) him no bonuses for it.”

Lundberg titled one sub-section: “Down with the People.” In it, he caught the mood of the delegates as expressed by Roger Sherman of Connecticut who said “The people should have as little to do as may be about the government.” Elbridge Gerry then denounced the evils stemming from “the excess of democracy,” and debating delegates drubbed democracy and “the people” repeatedly. That’s how Alexander Hamilton saw things in his view of “mankind in toto (being) wholly depraved” disagreeing with Thomas Paine’s notion of government being depraved and people being inherently good. Paine wasn’t a delegate so he had no input into the proceedings and couldn’t argue against the central interest of property as a requirement for voting and holding office.

Even Jefferson accepted this idea but hated the word enough to use another expression for it in the Declaration of Independence he authored. His substitute language for “property” was “the pursuit of happiness,” meaning the same thing. While Jefferson abhorred that “word,” the attending delegates (Madison and Hamilton among them) found it their “favorite
(one), often brought to the fore as a matter of deepest concern.” Also brought up was the “minority,” but not “any minority or all minorities. It was the minority of the opulent.”

The far-sighted among them foresaw a bonanza coming from the revolution that came about when the states passed confiscation acts, putting properties up for sale at bargain prices, still only affordable to the affluent. It sounds very much like the way corporate predators planned to pillage and plunder Iraq and have done a pretty good job of it.

There was also plenty of graft to go around, again just like in Iraq and at home as well. Lundberg noted “the other big bonanza of the revolution was the trans-Allegheny domains in which patriot speculators made and lost fortunes.” The well-off had their eyes on thousands of parcels of land and buildings wrested from their lawful owners. They also wanted to assure that never happened to them.

Then there was the ratification process itself that turned out to be a tussle as soon as the Constitution was sent to Congress. Lundberg reviewed the arduous give and take process of compromise that finally got the document passed by 13 states with three others rejecting it.

This was when adopting the Bill of Rights made the difference. The ones adopted in the first 10 amendments weren’t for “the people,” nowhere in sight, but to provide them to property owners who wanted:

– prohibitions against quartering troops in their property,

– unreasonable searches and seizures there as well,

– the right to have state militias protect them,

– the right of people to bear arms, but not the way the 2nd Amendment is today interpreted,

– the rights of free speech, the press, religion, assembly and petition, all to serve monied and propertied interests alone – not “The People,”

– due process of law with speedy public trials, and

– various other provisions worked out through compromise to become our acclaimed Bill of Rights. Two additional amendments were proposed but rejected by the majority. They would have banned monopolies and standing armies, matters of great enormity that might have made a huge difference thereafter. We’ll never know for sure.

Lundberg stressed the importance of the amendments adopted. Without them, the movement for a second convention likely would have prevailed that might have derailed the whole process or greatly changed the Constitution’s structure. That possibility had to be avoided at all costs and was by this compromise that had nothing to do with granting rights to “The People.”

Government Free Style

Lundberg destroyed the popular myth of a government constrained by constitutional checks and balances. In fact, it can and repeatedly has done anything judged expedient, with or without popular approval, and within or outside the law of the land. In this respect, it’s no different than most others able to operate the same way and often do. It’s done through “the narrowest possible interpretations of the Constitution,” but it’s free to “operate further afield under broader or fanciful official interpretations” with history recording numerous examples.

Many presidents operated this way. Lundberg noted Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Wilson, T. and F. Roosevelt, Jackson, could have named Lincoln, and didn’t know about Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton and, most of all, GW Bush when his book was written.

A key point made is that “government is completely autonomous, detached, in a realm of its own” with its “main interest (being) economic (for the privileged) at all times.” In pursuing this aim, “constitutional shackles and barriers (exist only) in the imaginations of many people” believing in them. Regardless of law, custom or anything else, sitting US governments have always been freelancing. They’ve been unresponsive to the public interest, uncaring about the will and needs of the majority, and generally able to finesse or ignore the law with ease as suits their purpose. As Lundberg put it: “forget the mirage of government by the people,” or the rule of law for that matter, with George Bush only being the most extreme example of how things work in Washington all the time under all Presidents.

Lundberg went on to explain the Constitution effectively confers unlimited powers on the government. He cited Article I, Section 8, Sub-section 18 allotting to Congress power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution….or any department or officer thereof.” It’s up to government, of course, to decide what’s “necessary” and “proper” meaning the sky’s the limit under the concept of sovereignty. The power of government is effectively limited only “by the boundaries of possibility.” Special considerable powers are then afforded the President, dealt with in a separate section below, and another on the Supreme Court.

Lundberg explained how the “three divisions of the American government operate under the immoderately celebrated system of checks and balances” with the framers believing too much power in the hands of one person or group of persons was a potential setup for tyranny. Lundberg believed the theory was false, used the British model to make his case, but he never met George Bush who might have given him pause.

In Britain, the legislature and executive are inextricably linked, a single House of Commons runs the government, the upper House of Lords is only advisory, the courts can only apply the law the legislature hands them, all laws passed become part of the constitution, and new elections are generally called if a sitting government loses a vote of confidence.

In the British parliamentary system, the government consists of a committee of the House of Commons called the Cabinet presided over by a prime minister elected by his party members. He and all cabinet members are elected members of parliament (MPs) and can be voted in or out in any general election with all members standing at the same time. It’s a vastly different and much fairer system overall than the convoluted American model even though, in theory, a British prime minister has much more control of the parliament than a US president has over the Congress with two parties and numerous disparate interests.

In practice, many US presidents get their way, despite the obstacles, and George Bush gets nearly everything he wants, takes it when it’s not offered, and hardly ever faces congressional objection. The section below on the power of the presidency shows how the Constitution makes it so easy to do with Presidents, like Bush, taking full advantage on top of all the enormous powers he has under the law.

Britain has another interesting feature unheard of in Washington that would be refreshing to have. Once a week, there’s a question period when the prime minister and his cabinet are held to account by the opposition and must answer truthfully or pretty close to it, at least in theory. Also, theoretically, a minister is supposed to face certain expulsion if an untruth stated is learned. In the US, in contrast, Presidents routinely lie to Congress, the public and maybe themselves to get away with anything they wish. They face no penalty doing it, under normal circumstances, with exceptions popping up occasionally like for Richard Nixon’s serious lying and smoking gun evidence to prove it and Bill Clinton’s inconsequential kind that was no one else’s business but his own.

Lundberg then reviewed the labyrinthine US system the framers devised under the Roman maxim of “divide and rule” as follows:

– a powerful (and at times omnipotent) chief executive at the top;

– a bicameral Congress with a single member in the upper chamber able to subvert all others in it through the power of the filibuster (meaning pirate in Spanish);

– a committee system ruled mostly by seniority or a by political powerbroker;

– delay and circumlocution deliberately built into the system;

– a separate judiciary with power to overrule the Congress and Executive;

– staggered elections to assure continuity by preventing too many of the bums being thrown out together;

– a two-party system with multiple constituencies, especially vulnerable to corruption and the power of big money that runs everything today making the whole system farcical, dishonest and a democracy only in the minds of the deceived and delusional.

This is a system under which Lundberg characterized the US electorate – left, right and center – as “the most bamboozled and surprised in the world” and leaves voters “reduced to the condition of one of Pavlov’s experimental dogs – apathetic, inert, disinterested.” It got Professor J. Allen to say “A system better adapted to the purpose of the lobbyist could not be devised,” and that remark came long before the current era with things in government totally out of control leading one to wonder what Lundberg would say today if he were still living and commenting.

Court Over Constitution

Article III of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court saying only: “The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Congress is explicitly empowered to regulate the Court, but, in fact, the Court “seems to regulate Congress.” Lundberg believed it was to allow those unelected on it to be blamed for unpopular decisions getting them off the hook. Congress, if it choose to, has the upper hand, and even Court decisions on various issues only apply to a specific case leaving broader interpretations to other rulings if they come.

As for the common notion of “judicial review,” it’s unmentioned in the Constitution nor did the convention authorize it. This concept is derived by deduction from two separate parts of the Constitution: In Article VI, Section 2 saying the Constitution, laws, and treaties are the “supreme Law of the Land” and judges are bound by them; then in Article III, Section
1 saying judicial power applies to all cases implying judicial review is allowed. Under this interpretation of the law, appointed judges theoretically “have a power unprecedented in history – to annul acts of the Congress and President.”

Lundberg then reviewed some notable examples of judicial power, first asserted in the famous Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. It established the principle of “judicial supremacy” articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall meaning the Court is the final arbiter of what is or is not the law. He set a precedent by voiding an act of Congress and the President. It put a brake on congressional and presidential powers, theoretically, but Presidents like George Bush act above the law by ignoring Congress and the Courts and usurping “unitary executive” powers claiming the law is what he says it is. He gets away with it because the other two branches do nothing to stop him.

In 1776 and at the time of the convention, few in the country believed in judicial review with theoreticians like Madison and James Wilson zealously opposed to it. They wanted legislatures and the executive to be the sole judges of their own constitutional powers. Lundberg then said “Judicial review….is just one of the usages of the Constitution that sprung up in the course of jockeying among the divisions, personalities and factions of government.”

Lundberg then reviewed numerous other notable Court cases, including the shameful Dred Scott decision when claimant Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom on justifiable grounds and lost due to the tenor of the times.

A few others were:

– Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 that stabilized the law of property rights, especially regarding contracts for the purchase of land;

– Dartmouth College v Woodward in 1819 with the Court holding charters of private corporations were contracts and as such were protected by the contact clause;

– McCulloch V Maryland also in 1819 with the Court ruling a state couldn’t tax the branch of a bank established by an act of Congress;

– Gibbons v. Ogden in 1824 when the Court upheld the supremacy of the United States over the states in the regulation of interstate commerce;

– Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 with the Court affirming discrimination in public places;

– a number of cases, including US v. EC Knight Company in 1895, in which the Court vitiated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 while at the same time keeping “hot on the trail of labor unions” as conspiracies in restraint of trade in violation of Sherman in Loewe v. Lawler in 1908;

– Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad in
1886 when Court reporter JC Bancroft Davis wrote what the Court refused to refute, thereby granting corporations the legal status of personhood under the
14th Amendment with all rights and benefits accruing from it but none of the obligations. In this writer’s non-legal judgment, this decision above all others, adversely changed the course of history most by opening the door to the kinds of unchecked corporate power and abuses seen today. It stands as the most far-reaching, abusive and long-standing of all harmful Court decisions now haunting us.

Lundberg ended this chapter with a section titled “The Corporate State” citing what’s pretty common knowledge today in the age of George Bush. The US is a corporate-dominated society run by near-omnipotent figures within and outside government. They believe in an “individualistic economy,” with the law backing it, based on the inviolate principles of free private enterprise, with them in charge of everything for their self-interested gain. In a zero-sum society, it means their benefits harm the rest of us, and that’s pretty much the way things are today with things far more out of control than when Lundberg wrote his book.

Even so, his comments pre-1980 observed how giant corporations arose “under the ministering hand of government officials, especially in the courts (and there emerged) wealthy dynasties of successful corporate intrepreneurs, insuring a line of (future) Robber Barons.” With the Constitution forbidding “the granting of titles of nobility,” corporate titans, in fact, had all the “material substance pertaining to European nobility (making) Money per se….ennobling in the American scheme.”

Gross disparities in income and personal wealth, far more out of proportion now than three decades ago, are largely the result of these earlier events with government and business conspiring to make them possible. Earlier, and especially now, “successful wealthholders in almost every case had an omnipotent lever at their service: the government, including Congress, the courts and the chief executive.” The constitutional story comes down to a question of money and money arrangements – who gets it, how, why, when, where, what for, and under what conditions. Also, who the law leaves out.

This story has nothing whatever to do with guaranteeing, as they say, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; establishing justice; upholding the rule of law equitably for everyone; promoting the general welfare; or securing the blessings of freedom for the general public unconsidered, unimportant and ignored by the three branches of government serving monied and property interests only, of which they are part.

This was how it was when the Constitution was drafted, it stayed that way through the years, and is written in stone today with Lundberg concluding “It seems safe to say (this way of things) will never be rectified.” Never is a long time, hopefully on that count he’s wrong, but how insightful and penetrating he was on the constitutional story he revealed equisitely so far with more below, beginning with the crucially important next section. George Bush will love it if someone reads it to him or this review.

The Veiled Autocrat

Lundberg’s dominant theme here is that the US President is the most powerful political official on earth, bar none under any other system of government. “The office he holds is inherently imperial,” regardless of the occupant or how he governs, and the Constitution confers this on him. Whereas under the British model with the executive as a collectivity, the US system “is absolutely unique, and dangerously vulnerable in many ways” with one man in charge fully able to exploit his position. “The American President,” said Lundberg, stands “midway between a collective executive and an absolute dictator (and in times of war like now) becomes in fact quite constitutionally, a full-fledged dictator.”

A single sentence, easily passed over or misunderstood, constitutes the essence of presidential power. It effectively grants the Executive near-limitless power, only constrained to the degree he so chooses. It’s from Article II, Section 1 reading: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Article II, Section 3 then almost nonchalantly adds: “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed” without saying Presidents are virtually empowered to make laws as well as execute them even though nothing in the Constitution specifically permits this practice. More on that below.

Lundberg said the proper way to understand the Constitution is to view it as a “symphony” with big themes being like separate movements. Theme one in Article I, Section 1 says “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” Theme two is the dominant one on the Executive in Article II, Section 1 cited above. The final movement or theme three deals with “The judicial power.”

Lundberg then continued saying “to understand the inner nature of the United States government (the key question is) What is executive power? – aware all the time that it is concentrated in the hands of one man.” He also reviewed how Presidents are elected “literally
(by) electoral (unelected by the public) dummies” in an Electoral College. The process or scheme is a “long-acknowledged constitutional anomaly.” They can subvert the popular vote, never meet or consult like the College of Cardinals does in Rome to elect a Pope, so, in fact, its use is “a farce all the way.”

Now to the issue of executive power covered in Section
2. It’s vast and frightening. The President:

– is commander-in-chief of the military and in this capacity is completely autonomous in peace and a de facto dictator in war; although Article I, Section 8 grants only Congress the right to declare war, the President, in fact, can do it any time he wishes “without consulting anyone” and, of course, has done it many times;

– can grant commutations or pardons except in cases of impeachment. Nixon resigned remember before near-certain impeachment;

– can make treaties that become the law of the land, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate (not ratification as commonly believed); can also terminate treaties with a mere announcement as George Bush did renouncing the important ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union; in addition, and with no constitutional sanction, he can rule by decree through executive agreements with foreign governments that in some cases are momentous ones like those made at Yalta and Potsdam near the end of WW II. While short of treaties, they then become the law of the land.

– can appoint administration officials, diplomats, federal judges with Senate approval, that’s usually routine, or can fill any vacancy through (Senate) recess appointments; can also discharge any appointed executive official other than judges and statutory administrative officials;

– can veto congressional legislation, with history showing through the book’s publication, they’re sustained 96% of the time;

– while Congress alone has appropriating authority, only the President has the power to release funds for spending by the executive branch or not release them;

– Presidents also have a huge bureaucracy at their disposal including powerful officials like the Secretaries of Defense, State, Treasury and Homeland Security and the Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department;

– Presidents also command center stage any time they wish. They can request and get national prime time television for any purpose with guaranteed extensive post-appearance coverage promoting his message with nary a disagreement with it on any issue;

– throughout history, going back to George Washington, Presidents have issued Executive Orders
(EOs) although the Constitution “nowhere implicitly or explicitly gives a President (the) power (to make) new law” by issuing “one-man, often far-reaching” EOs. However, as Lundberg explained above, the President has so much power he’s virtually able to do whatever he wishes, the only constraint on him being himself and how he chooses to govern.

– George Bush also usurped “Unitary Executive” power to brazenly and openly declare what this section makes clear – that the law is what he says it is. He proved his intent in six and a half years in office by subverting congressional legislation through his record-breaking number of unconstitutional “signing statements” – affecting over 1132 law provisions through 147 separate “statements,” more than all previous Presidents combined. In so doing, he expanded presidential power even beyond the usual practices recounted above.

– Presidents are, in fact, empowered to do almost anything not expressively forbidden in the Constitution, and very little there is; more importantly, with a little ingenuity and a lot of license and chutzpah, the President “can make almost any (constitutional) text mean whatever (he) wants it to mean” so, in fact, his authority is practically absolute or plenary. And the Supreme Court supports this notion as an “inherent power of sovereignty,” according to Lundberg. He explained, if the US has sovereignty, it has all powers therein, and the President, as the sole executive, can exercise them freely without constitutional authorization or restraint.

In effect, “the President….is virtually a sovereign in his own person.” Compared to the power of the President, Congress is mostly “a paper tiger, easily soothed or repulsed.” The courts, as well, can be gotten around with a little creative exercise of presidential power, and in the case of George Bush, at times just ignoring their decisions when they disagree with his. As Lundberg put it: “One should never under-estimate the power of the President….nor over-estimate that of the Supreme Court. The supposed system of equitable checks and balances does not exist in fact (because Congress and the courts don’t effectively use their constitutional authority)….the separation in the Constitution between legislative and the executive is wholly artificial.”

Further, it’s pure myth that the government is constrained by limited powers. Quite the opposite is true “which at the point of execution (reside in) one man,” the President. In addition, “Until the American electorate creates effective political parties (which it never has done), Congress….will always be pretty much under (Presidents’) thumb(s).” Under the “American constitutional system (the President) is very much a de facto king.”

Lundberg cited examples such as Franklin Roosevelt, considered one of the nation’s three greatest Presidents along with Lincoln and Washington. He “waged (illegal) naval warfare against Germany before Pearl Harbor.” During the war, he stretched his powers to the limit and functioned as a dictator. Truman atom-bombed Japan twice gratuitously and criminally with the war over and the Japanese negotiating surrender. He also went around Congress to wage a war of aggression on North Korea when its forces attacked the South after repeated US-directed southern incursions against the North. Lyndon Johnson attacked North Vietnam February 7, 1965 using the contrived August, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution as justification even though there was none. The examples are endless, Presidents take full advantage, and nearly always get away with it.

The only thing Presidents can’t do, in theory, is openly violate the law. But since he can interpret it creatively, it’s up to Congress and the High Court to hold him to account, and that rarely happens. Nixon was forced to resign to avoid impeachment because there was smoking gun evidence on tape to convict him on top of his being roundly disliked making it easier to act. But what he did overall wasn’t unusual except that he paid the price for it.

As Lundberg put it, “highhandedness, unpalatable doings (and) scandals” are part and parcel of politics from top to bottom in the system at all levels of government. Jethro Lieberman showed this type behavior “is a steady occupation at every level of government” in his pre-Watergate book – “How the Government Breaks the Law.” At the executive level, he showed government proceeds “pretty much ad libitum outside the stipulated rules at all levels.” In other words, the nation was always infested with Nixons at all levels, but most got away with their offenses and today that’s truer than ever.

As for impeaching and convicting a President for malfeasance, Article II, Section 4 states it can only be for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Based on the historical record, it’s near-impossible to do with no President ever having been removed from office this way, and only two were impeached, both unjustly.

Lundberg quoted John Adams on this issue saying he was right believing it would take a national convulsion to remove a President by impeachment, it hasn’t happened up to now, which is not to say it never will with no President more deserving of the “distinction” than the current sitting one who almost makes Richard Nixon look saintly by comparison. It’s long past the time to smash the inviolate notion of presidential invincibility, and given the growing groundswell, it could happen against all odds. If it does, it will be a first, and if he were still living, it would also make Lundberg rethink his final comment on the subject that it’s “virtually impossible to remove a President
(and) His security in office….is but one facet of his power.” Still remember, an exception, when it happens, only proves the rule, so Lundberg’s assessment is still valid.

Presidential power since WW II is also reinforced by their own private army through the vast US intelligence apparatus and much more. The CIA is part of it and today functions mainly as a presidential praetorian guard and global mafia-style hit squad operating freely outside the law as a powerful rogue agency backed by an undisclosed budget likely topping $50 billion annually. And since January, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security functions as a national Gestapo about as free to do as it pleases as CIA that also operates outside its mandate on US soil along with the equally repressive FBI. They mainly target disaffected political groups and individuals publicly standing against government policies with enough influence to make a difference.

The Risks in One-Man Rule

Lundberg quoted noted political scientist Herman Finer
(1898 – 1969) again reinforcing what’s covered above that “there is (virtually) no limit to the Chief Executive’s power.” In six and a half years in office, George Bush proved he was right and then some. Finer, even in an earlier less complex era, portrayed the President as overweighted with responsibilities while having enough concentrated power in his hands to make irresponsible, rash or dangerous decisions with potentially immense repercussions.

Finer proposed a way to improve the presidency by relieving one man of more responsibility than anyone can handle alone and minimize incompetency or villainy at the same time. His idea was for a collective and supportive leadership formed around the President, including a cabinet of 11 Vice-Presidents elected in combination with the chief executive every four years.

The framers structured the government to frustrate and confuse the electorate. They did it through staggered elections to avoid a clearly visible line of authority as well as maintain a continuity of governance whatever else the public might prefer. Finer wanted to correct these kinds of faults in the current system. He also understood that Presidents are plucked out of almost anywhere because of their perceived electability, not from their ability to govern effectively in an office enough to overwhelm anyone no matter how able and dedicated.

His idea was for Presidents and Vice-Presidents to be required to have served in either house of Congress a minimum four years to learn how Washington operates that can be quite different from a state or the military where former generals of note, like Dwight Eisenhower and others, went on to become very ordinary or failed Presidents. Only George Washington was the exception proving the rule, and being a new nation’s first President (governing a population smaller than Chicago today) was quite different from how things are now.

Finer also wanted the President and his cabinet to sit in the House of Representatives to make them more visible and responsible like the British model. His main concern was that too much responsibility lay with one man, with too much power to discharge it, and far too often that man turns out to be incompetent, venal or both. Under the present system, the President is near-omnipotent, operates in secrecy, is most often the wrong one chosen, and is able to spring surprises at will, often with potentially disastrous implications like today under George Bush.

He was also concerned about Presidents having secret ailments, impediments or becoming seriously ill enough to be unable to govern yet still be able to retain the power of the office. Woodrow Wilson was a case in point as he suffered a severe stroke and paralysis on his left side 17 months before his second term of office expired. His principle biographer said he was “either gravely ill (his last year in office) or severely incapacitated at the time the country needed his leadership most.”

Wilson never should have been allowed to run at all as it was known seven years earlier he was a bad health risk. He did it because the information was concealed from the public even though Wilson himself thought he might die at any moment, was blind in one eye, suffered episodes of depression, dyspepsia, colds, headaches, dizziness and feelings of dullness and numbness in one hand the result of diseased nerves. In short, he was a physical and emotional basket case running the country and unable to do it much of the time and not all late in his second term.

Franklin Roosevelt is another prime example. At age
39, eleven years before being elected President, he was stricken with what was thought to be polio and was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. Yet, he kept his condition secret and (before the age of television) was never photographed in a wheelchair in public. In his third term, he was advised not to run for a fourth time because of his health. He did, of course, and won, but in 1941 his blood pressure was high and rising, his heart was enlarged, and he suffered from congestive heart failure from which he finally expired in April, 1945. By early 1944, he was in marked decline and a dying man.

With the most calamitous war in history in its late stages and the power of the chief executive most needed, Lundberg described FDR as “a burned-out matchstick” barely able to function. It showed in some of his irrational decisions at the end. Yet, he was still in charge as commander-in-chief and the most powerful leader on earth as the war in Europe and Asia still raged, and he alone was calling the shots.

With future Presidents just as vulnerable to serious health problems, Lundberg’s view was as the presidency is now structured, “the American people are sitting on a bomb….likely to explode (unexpectedly) at any moment.” The problem, he said, isn’t just about an imperial presidency, but an “anarchic,” “wild-cat” or “Protean” one under which “anything can happen.” Drawing an analogy to a modern-day corporation, he explained the obvious. No large publicly-owned corporation would ever operate this way. It would never put its chips on a single person or “choose its chief executive (as) nonchalantly as does the United States.”

Wilson and Roosevelt weren’t the only Presidents who served in office while experiencing serious illness. Eisenhower suffered two heart attacks along with other health problems, and Kennedy “was a walking bundle of ailments” with much of it concealed. Lyndon Johnson, as well, was in trouble from the start, suffered a massive heart attack before winning national office, and (unknown to the public) was never judged physically or mentally sound while President.

His actions proved it and give pause to what may be afflicting George Bush, kept secret from the public. A disastrous six and a half year record conclusively shows this man is unfit to serve in the nation’s highest office or in any responsible capacity. Because he’s there taking full advantage, all humanity is held hostage to what’s coming next at the hands of a venal, incompetent and possibly mentally unbalanced or deranged US chief executive.

For all the above-stated reasons along with the examples just cited, Finer believed the office of the President was ill-structured and should be drastically changed for the betterment of the country (and all humanity). As far as achieving any of what he proposed or any other type broad brush makeover of the system, Lundberg believed it’s near-impossible. Doing it would involve amending the Constitution and in a wholesale way. With certain opposition in enough states, there’s almost no chance these type changes can happen.

How did this happen, and were the framers at fault, Lundberg asks? To some degree, but not entirely. It’s pure fantasy to imagine any group of men, even if they’d been the most talented and far-sighted, could have met in 1787 to produce a Constitution, elaborate, detailed and ingenious enough to “anticipate and provide for every facet and contingency of the nation” that would eventually encompass 50 states and grow to a diverse population exceeding 300 million. It was impossible then and now everywhere. Furthermore, they made the amending process extremely hard to do even though it was subsequently accomplished 17 times after the Bill of Rights was added to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.

At a much simpler time, the framers didn’t understand that governments fundamentally act in their own self-interest whatever the law says. The Constitution complicates it for them by consisting of a “set of incomplete prescriptions, ostensibly frozen in time except as subject to an almost impossible amending process.” So to get around the problem or ignore it, governments function ad libitum with one man at the top calling the shots even though this isn’t what the framers had in mind.

So all the “patriotic praise….heaped upon the Constitution in schoolbooks….is simple nonsense, pap.” How well the country is served at any time depends on the pure luck of the draw to get a really first-rate capable leader as President. It rarely happens, and Lundberg cites only the three example of Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. None of the others matched them, and far too many were abysmal failures or worse with one candidate just cited standing out prominently as the overwhelming choice for the worst and most dangerous ever.

On top of all the other flaws and faults, “the people” were deliberately and willfully left out of the process proving “democracy is not recognized in the Constitution,” shocking as that notion is to most people reading these words. Lundberg had hopes, however, that a future time would come that would embrace constitutional improvement on a significant scale. As he put it, this document, “as it stands, is by no means the system the United States is ultimately fated to embrace (forever). For there is a great deal of room for improvement – a great deal” (indeed, and then some).

A Renewed Call for a Second Convention

With the need so much greater now than 30 years ago, in the age of George Bush, it’s time we went about the process Lundberg advocated in the title of this section. Doing it, however, is infinitely harder than achieving relatively simpler amendment tinkering here and there, even though Article V allows for such a procedure. With everything in mind from what’s covered above, it’s easy to believe, whatever the Constitution allows, convening a convention for constitutional change is near-impossible given the way the country is now run, by whom and most importantly for whom – the immensely powerful monied interests sitting in corporate boardrooms running the country, the world and our lives.

They’ve got everything arranged their way, it’s taken decades to get it, they engineer elections to get the best “democracy” they can buy, and it always turns out that way, more or less. The bankers and Wall Street even own the Federal Reserve giving them the most powerful instrument of government – the right to print and control the nation’s money supply and charge interest on it. By so doing, the government (and the public) must pay interest on its own money that wouldn’t happen if it printed its own as Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says only the government can do.

It relinquished that power when Woodrow Wilson betrayed the public by signing the most disastrous piece of legislation in the nation’s history willfully after Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act in the dead of night December 23, 1913 with many of its members away for the holiday and most others unaware of what, in fact, they were signing.

Today, with a virtual stranglehold on state power, in league with Democrat and Republican governments in their pockets, why would corporate giants ever give up what took so long for them to get. They never will, Lundberg knew it, too, and said the chance for real change from a second convention “is almost nil….if
(these pages) have shown anything, (it’s clear as day) the government (backed by the power of money) controls the Constitution,” not the other way around or “the people” either, left out completely from the start.

Lundberg didn’t say it but surely believed achieving the kinds of democratic changes he wanted would have to come from the bottom up. Only an aroused public, en masse and undeterred, fed up with the state of things and committed can make it happen. Impossible as it seems, history at times surprises, and if it does this time, it will be the greatest one ever….and not a moment too soon.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net .

Also visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com  and listen Saturdays to the Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com at noon US central time.

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  Comments (23) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18143.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

We Are The Enemy

August 10, 2007 Leave a comment

NEWS YOU WON’T FIND ON CNN

  Send Page To a Friend

We Are The Enemy By Marcus Karr

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18144.htm

08/08/07 “ICH ” – — It has scarce escaped the notice of the wise, that this, our precious land of liberty, is sinking swiftly into tyranny. The executors of the American coup d’etat have been hacking at the Head of State the Constitution since the inauguration of the Republic: bruising it here and there, breaking the skin on occasion, or, if failing to cause lasting damage, then at least drizzling bits of venom and acid spittle. Yet since the new millennium these efforts have been redoubled and intensified, to the effect that large chunks of flesh are now flying everywhere; and lo! we find our glorious Head hanging tenuously, tenaciously by mere strands of tissue. It is only a moment now before the damned thing is torn clean off.

How elegantly simple and effectively deceptive the method of revolution really is! All it takes is to convince the people of a serious and imminent threat, and then, with panic and fear sown in their hearts, they will hand over their liberties without thought or hesitation. The ‘serious and imminent threat’ of the hour, which is naught but hallucinated menace, has heretofore been of the strange and external variety: ‘They’ are ‘over there’, where we must meet them with courage and conviction, lest ‘they’ come ‘over here’ once again, and do us real harm. This myth has served its purpose well enough – we are occupying Iraq, after all but it has nearly run its course. For the people are developing a tolerance for falsehood, and the only cure is a larger and more potent dose. Next time, as we shall see, the threat will not come from far off places. Rather, it will be from right within our midst, and the old myth will be supplanted by newer and far graver forms.

Do you doubt that I tell the truth? For verily I say to you: the next attack on this soil will come from allies of the antiwar movement. It will come from those who use the Internet to communicate and mobilize. It will come, dare I say it, from those who entertain conspiracy theories to try to explain the world. The next terrorists, in short, will be indistinguishable from you and me. And because of that sad and scary fact, it will be necessary for our saviors in the New Federal Government to come down, like angels in the time of Judgment, to weed out the unfaithful and throw them into the fire.


Now why on earth do I spew such madness? Quite obviously it is because I am mad. For these eyes have seen it written (1), that the President has given himself authority to ‘block the property’ of those American residents who hamper ‘stabilization efforts in Iraq’. Can this possibly be the product of a sane mind? Certainly not! – for it is apparent to all that These eyes have seen it written, again (2), that the terrorists ‘exploit the Internet’ to disseminate ‘conspiracy theories’ and bolster recruitment. But I must have hallucinated this in a dream state, because I searched all over for the popular websites – I meant to send them a nasty letter – and yet I couldn’t find a single one! (I was, however, assured and assuaged to remember that our sworn protectors are ever vigilant ‘against the emergence of homegrown terrorists within our own Homeland as well’.)


Mine eyes have seen it written, further (3), that in the event of another national emergency – like Hurricane Katrina or September 11 – ‘the President shall lead…the Federal Government’ and ‘coordinate’ the judicial and legislative branches as he sees fit. I knew deep in my heart that this could not be so, for my civics teachers etched there long ago, that the three branches of government were created separate and co-equal. Still, my psychosis only continued to deepen, for I imagined that a Representative on the House Committee on Homeland Security asked the White House for details on these post-emergency plans – and he was denied! Clearly this could not happen in reality, for the President is a good Christian man, and everyone knows that only the guilty have something to hide. Besides, I thought I heard the Representative say, ‘Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right’ (4) – and that is straight out of Bizarro World!


Now at this point my poor demented brain really took a turn for the worse. For I thought I saw a Top Secret document smuggled out of Iraq (5), which reported on the ‘serious potential of dissident American groups rising up against constituted authority’, due to ‘growing dissatisfaction with the course and conduct of the war in Iraq, the chronic inability of Congress to deal with various pressing issues and the perception of widespread corruption and indifference to public needs’. All that bit about popular dissatisfaction I admit might have some grounding in actual fact – but an honest-to-goodness uprising?! A scattered, disaffected, atomized, and demoralized populace. . . organizing spontaneously into a serious threat to the status quo? ‘Pure nonsense!’ squeaked the last vestiges of my rational mind. And yet the vision went on.


The document I saw purported to outline the proper methods for a ‘counter-insurgency’ in these United States, and first among the imperatives listed as necessary for a successful operation was the ‘establishment or reestablishment of a “legitimate government”‘. Upon seeing that very phrase, I realized that my illness must be one of those unique schizo-affective sorts, since my hallucinations were not random and irregular but marked by a coherent internal consistency: for the ‘reestablishment’ of government was precisely what I had earlier imagined the President to implement in the event of a national emergency!

But the parallels did not stop there. For I saw also in the document that it would be prudent to ‘execute cordon and search operations’, to ‘screen and document the population’, and to ‘detain personnel’. That last item really caught my attention, since expected ‘overcrowding in police jails’ would necessitate the occupation of ‘key facilities’ such as ‘prisons and other places of detention’. ‘Detention’, a-ha! The word triggered my recollection of a nightmarish psychotic episode from long ago, in which a Halliburton subsidiary was awarded a Department of Homeland Security contract to build detention facilities in the event of (among other things) a national emergency (6). Thankfully such things belong squarely in the realm of fantasy, for doubtless it is true that American exceptionalism grants us immunity to the lessons of history.


Doubtless, too, it must be true that you have grown tired of my rambling crazy talk by now. So let us return to the real world for a moment. It is an established matter of fact that the terrorists will strike again, and quite possibly very soon. We know this because of the ‘gut feelings’ of our Director of Homeland Security (7); we know this because a former Senator has stated that ‘between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen’ (note the declarative mood) (8); we know this because political operatives are openly saying that ‘all we need is some attacks on American soil’ for the President and the war to be better appreciated (9); we know this because US airports have recently been warned of terror ‘dry runs’ and ‘dress rehearsals’ (10); and we know this, above all, because it is common sense and conventional opinion, plain and simple.

To all you sober-minded, clear-headed, and responsible observers, then – to all those, in short, who are not crazy like me – I would like to pose a simple question. When the moment of truth finally arrives – when catastrophic disaster finally strikes this once-fearless nation – to what incredible lengths will our President and his Administration go. . . to uphold the Constitution, and to protect us? NOTES

1. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html

2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nsct/2006/sectionV.html

3. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

4. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118489654058910.xml&coll=7

5. http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2720.htm#004

6.  http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7B62C8724D-AE8A-4B5C-94C7-70171315C0A0%7D&dateid=38741.5136277662-858254656

7. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/15/230035.shtml?s=lh

8. http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=bd02aa0e-7953-414b-89ff-64db473685bc

9. http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Arkansas_GOP_head_We_need_more_0603.html

10. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/airport_terror_warning

Click on “comments” below to read or post comments

  Comments (13) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us
if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18144.htm

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Congressman: Minnesotans ‘Screwed Us’

August 10, 2007 Leave a comment

Some of the comments are pretty interesting. For example: “Civil War? It may not be called that, but the mood is building and the means is there. People are just plain fed up and they can congregate on the Internet to plan their offensive. It doesn’t have to be a war of weapons unless…….The rule of law has become mere suggestion in the government and the will of the people is all but ignored completely. Tick-Tock Congress. Tick-Tock.”

Yep, and what a glorious day that will be!!!

thegunny, 419

editor@flyoverpress.com

http://www.flyoverpress.com

~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~

Government Executive
GovernmentExecutive.com

Header

Congressman: Minnesotans ‘Screwed Us’
By Tom Shoop | Wednesday, August 08, 2007  |  11:36 AM

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., isn’t one of those people waxing rhapsodic about the need to help our fellow citizens in need after last week’s 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis. On the contrary, according to this report in the Wilkes-Barre, Pa., Times Leader, he thinks the $250 million bill Congress passed to rebuild the bridge was a taxpayer ripoff because it exceeded the normal $100 million limit for emergency relief projects.

The folks of Minnesota “discovered they were going to get all the money from the federal government and they were taking all they could get,” Kanjorski said at an economic summit at the University of Scranton. They used the tragedy “to screw us,” he added.

At the same event, Kanjorski declared that we’re not just living through a seemingly endless era when people lack confidence in the performance of the government. No, he said, we’re the brink of civil war. “I’m in fear for the survival of the republic,” he said. “People want to get their deer rifles out and go to the barricades.”

I haven’t seen any barricades lately, but maybe I’m just not looking hard enough.

Comments

This guy must have run for office unopposed. Pennsylvanians must be really proud.

Anonymous  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  08:28 AM


Well Rep.Kanjorski maybe you should look at WHO builds Interstate highways. And then get off you Duff and repair them.

MAC  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  08:11 AM


Civil War? It may not be called that, but the mood is building and the means is there. People are just plain fed up and they can congregate on the Internet to plan their offensive. It doesn’t have to be a war of weapons unless…….

The rule of law has become mere suggestion in the government and the will of the people is all but ignored completely. Tick-Tock Congress. Tick-Tock.

Robert M.  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  07:08 AM


You can be sure if the Bridge was one over the Susquehanna River in Kanjorski’s town he would be right up there seeking funds. What a joke.

Barbra Bronsberg  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  07:05 AM


Do you trust the government completely?

If not, how much do you trust the government?

Stephen C  | Thursday, August 09, 2007 |  05:20 AM


Looks like Congressman Kanjorski has accurately assessed the climate of the electorate. I got my rifle(s)

Advocator  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:40 PM


I don’t think it is fair to blame the people of Minnesota for what the Congress appropriated. If there was any screwing going on, it was the politicos that are having their convention there in the near future and they do not want to be inconvenienced by the absence of a bridge. Of course the Demo’s don’t want to be shortchange either. This way they can ensure the folks that they helped rebuild their bridge. Gotta be good for a few votes, don’t ya think. Amazing how you can approve billions for fighting a phony war, but if we spend our tax dollars in this country, somehow that’s screwing congress.

TGB  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:33 PM


Has the Congressman got both oars in the water? Now I know why the country is in the state its in, one of our (I assume) elected officials thinks helping Americans in need can be classified as “screwing us”. The Congressman needs to change parties. He fits right in with the Neo-Con fascist.

Greg Mackey  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  03:28 PM


runaway spending with no end in sight. Someone has got to say it; just can’t believe a Dem said it. just wish the rest of the rulling elite would wake up and smell the asphault.

mike  | Wednesday, August 08, 2007 |  02:58 PM



Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

The Essence of Liberty #119, The Libertarian Manifesto…

August 10, 2007 Leave a comment


http://www.flyoverpress.com
editor@flyoverpress.com

The Essence of Liberty: Part 119

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Part I: The Libertarian Creed

Chapter 2: Property and Exchange
The Nonaggression Axiom

The central axiom of the libertarian creed is the “nonaggression axiom.” “Aggression” is synonymous with invasion and is defined as the initiation of force or violence (or threat thereof) against the person or property of another.

Everyone has the absolute right to be “free” from aggression. This implies that the libertarian stands for “civil liberties”�e.g. the fundamental rights to speak, publish, assemble, and even engage in “victimless crimes” which are not “crimes” at all. The libertarian definition of “crime” is a violent invasion of someone’s person or property. The State itself is guilty of true crime on a massive scale. For example, conscription is slavery and war (especially modern total war) is mass murder. Both are aggressive acts against persons and property. These positions are currently considered “leftist.”

On the other hand, the libertarian position opposes any invasion of or government interference with private property rights or the free-market economy. It favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange. In short, it is a system of “laissez-faire capitalism.” These positions would be considered “extreme right wing” on the current political scale.

But there is no inconsistency in these positions. In fact, it is virtually the only consistent position from the standpoint of individual liberty. The left is inconsistent by opposing the violence of war and conscription and, at the same time, supporting the violence of taxation and government control. By the same token, the right is inconsistent by advocating for private property and free enterprise while, at the same time, favoring war, conscription, and the outlawing of noninvasive activities that it judges to be immoral.

Throughout all of history the State has been the most dominant aggressor against all of these rights. It is universally allowed to commit acts that would generally be considered immoral, illegal, or criminal if committed by anyone else. The general moral law applies to everyone. The libertarian refuses to give moral sanction to the State’s reprehensible crimes, for example: mass murder, which it calls “war,� enslavement, which it calls “conscription.” and forcible theft which it calls “taxation.” Even though the majority may support such practices they are still not legitimate.

Indeed, as the child in the fable pointed out, the emperor has no clothes. But, throughout history he has been provided with a set of pseudo-clothes by the intellectual class. In the past they clothed the State and its rulers in divine authority. In more recent times, these “court intellectuals” have convinced the public that what the government does is for the “common good” or the “public welfare.” This is a fraudulent way of gaining public support for the State. The fact is that whatever services the government presumes to provide would be supplied much more efficiently and morally by private enterprise.

All governments exist through exploitation of the citizenry. Take for example the institution of taxation: Its very existence sets up a class division between the exploiting (the rulers) and the exploited (the ruled). Among all the individuals and organizations in society, only the government acquires its revenues through coercive violence. If anyone but the government tried to levy a “tax,” it would quickly be identified as banditry. The task of the court intellectuals is to mystify the process in a way that will induce the public into accepting the State. In return, they receive a share in the power and pelf.

Next Previous

Copyright �2004, FlyoverPress.com

Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

�Gunny� LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he �simply got tired of living a life of crime.�

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL http://www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

� Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Gunny G: One Real Candidate, and…

August 9, 2007 Leave a comment

One Real Candidate… and A Buncha Bums–Don’t Screwup Again USA!

http://www.ronpaulstamp.com/
Click-Above For The Ron Paul Stamp…

www.spreadtheword2008.com

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Gunny G: On Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines!

August 9, 2007 Leave a comment

Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines!
http://tinyurl.com/2f8g3q

Marines ARE Soldiers!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/dickg/soldier.html

Here’s the way one Army retired Sergeant Major puts it…

“Every Soldier, a term I use here as representative of all branches of the Armed Forces of the United States, knows his purpose and his potential sacrifice. Yet, he Soldiers on each day.”
Ref
http://jdpendry.com/2007/07/04/independence-day/

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************


Who Killed Congressman Lawrence Patton McDonald?

August 8, 2007 3 comments

http://tinyurl.com/29wxsv

http://tinyurl.com/29wxsv

Who Killed Congressman
Lawrence Patton McDonald?

The State Department Cover-Up Of KAL Flight 007
By Todd Brendan Fahey
8-29-03

http://tinyurl.com/29wxsv

It is a story that no one wants to talk about anymore.

Neither by ideological colleagues Congressman Bob Stump (R-AZ) and former Senator Steve Symms (R-ID), nor from any quarter of the State Department: the assassination on September 1, 1983, of a United States Congressman aboard a passenger airliner at the hands of Soviet fighter jets. A southern Democrat lawmaker, who was also jointly Chairman of the John Birch Society and President of Western Goals Foundation, both famously anti-Globalist/anti-communist organizations, and who had announced to his advisors in the weeks prior to his death that he would be seeking the Presidency of the United States–as a conservative Democrat–in 1988. A cousin of WWII hero General George S. Patton, and who had inherited Patton’s mountain of anti-Soviet Intelligence records; who had organized a private Intelligence network which threatened to rival that of the CIA–at once commanding, polished on-the-stump and movie-star handsome: …the kind of man who could seriously derail the Presidential aspirations of George Herbert Walker Bush, the elder.

Such is the story of the late-Congressman Lawrence Patton “Larry” McDonald–former U.S. Naval Reserves flight-surgeon-turned-lawmaker-turned Presidential hopeful. In death, even, for the Establishment’s purposes, the most dangerous man in America.

Read more…

The Essence of Liberty #117 – Why do we need a new movement to reclaim America?

August 8, 2007 Leave a comment

The Essence of Liberty: Part 117

Compiled and Summarized by

Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume

Summary of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard

The complete book is available for download at: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Chapter 1: The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Resistance to Liberty

The modern libertarian movement is rooted in the legacy of the American Revolution. But what happened? Why do we need a new movement to reclaim America?

First, it is important to remember that classical liberalism was a profound threat to the political and economic interests of the ruling classes. There had been three revolutions (the English, American and French). But, the victories in Europe were only partial. The ruling classes managed to maintain their landed monopolies, religious establishments, and warlike foreign policies. They also managed to keep suffrage restricted to the wealthy elite. However, the economic and political interests of the mass clearly lay in individual liberty.

By the early 19 th century laissez-faire forces were known as “liberals” and conservatism had began as an attempt to undo the classical liberal spirit of the revolutions. By the end of the century, conservatives realized that their cause was doomed if they persisted in calling for repeal of the Industrial Revolution (and its rise in the living standards for the masses) and their opposition to the widening of suffrage.

So, the Old Order shifted gears and jettisoned their opposition to industrialism and democratic suffrage. The new conservatives substituted duplicity and demagogy for their old contempt of the masses. They snowed the masses with the line, “We, too, favor industrialism and a higher standard of living. But, to accomplish that, we must regulate industry, substitute organized cooperation for competition and, above all, we must substitute war, protectionism, empire and military prowess for peace and free trade.” Big government, rather than minimal government, was required for all of these changes.

Out of this the New Right fashioned a collectivism based on “war, militarism, protectionism, and the compulsory cartelization of business and industry.” This consisted of a huge network of controls, regulations, subsidies, and privileges, which forged a partnership between Big Government and favored elements in big business. But, something had to be done about the “proletariat.”

Until the late 19th century, workers favored laissez-faire and the free competitive market. But the New conservatives weakened their position by shedding crocodile tears about the “condition of the industrial labor force.” Then finally, in the early 20th century, the new conservative “corporate state” incorporated trade unions as junior partners to big government and big businesses in the new statist decision-making system.

This New Order was really nothing but a modernized, dressed-up version of the ancien régime. Thus, t he ruling elites had to perform a gigantic con job on the deluded public (a con job that continues to this day). The existence of every government depends on the consent of the public. But, a democratic government must engineer such consent every day. And to do so, the masses “had to be convinced that tyranny was better than liberty, that a cartelized and privileged industrial feudalism was better for the consumers than a freely competitive market, that a cartelized monopoly was to be imposed in the name of antimonopoly, and that war and military aggrandizement for the benefit of the ruling elites was really in the interests of the conscripted, taxed, and often slaughtered public. How was this to be done? “

The intellectual classes in all societies determine public opinion. Despots and ruling elites have always had much greater need for the services of intellectuals than have peaceful citizens in a free society. Up until modern times these services were usually provided by churchmen. The Church informed its deluded charges that the king ruled by divine right and, in return, the king funneled tax revenues into the coffers of the Church. (Hence, the importance of separating Church and State.)

But, for modern times, the new conservatives had to forge a new alliance between intellectual and State—one with secular intellectuals rather than divines. This re-forging came in two parts. In the early 19 th century stress was placed on the virtue of tradition and irrational symbols in order to gull the public into continuing to go along with privileged hierarchical rule and the worship of the nation-state and its war-making machine. Then, in the latter part of the century, “science” was adopted. This was a “science.” that required rule of the economy and society by “experts.” In exchange for spreading the message, the new intellectuals were rewarded with jobs and prestige as apologists, planners and regulators.

To insure their dominance of over public opinion, Western governments seized control of education through public schools and compulsory attendance laws. Furthermore, this insured that teachers and professional educators would be one of the biggest vested interests in expanding statism.

One of the ways these intellectuals did their work was to change the meaning of old labels. For example, laissez-faire libertarians had long been known as “liberals” or “progressives.” But the new statist intellectuals appropriated the terms for themselves and, they were also able to appropriate the concept of “reason” as well. They also tarred their opponents with the charge of being old-fashioned—they even pinned the name “conservative” on the classical liberals.

The growth of socialism was another reason for the decay of classical liberalism. Socialism is a confused, hybrid movement, influenced by both liberalism and conservatism. From the classical liberals it took acceptance of industrialism, glorification of “science” and “reason,” and a rhetorical devotion to peace, individual freedom, and a rising standard of living. Further, it topped the classical liberal adherence to democracy by calling for an “expanded democracy” where “the people” would run the economy.

From the conservatives it took a devotion to coercion and the statist means for achieving these liberal goals. It would install rule by scientists and workers of everyone else—or more accurately rule by politicians, bureaucrats and technocrats in their name. The goal was equality or uniformity of results. It would create a new privileged elite in the name of achieving this impossible equality.

It tried to achieve the liberal goals (which can only be achieved through liberty) by using the old conservative means of statism, collectivism, and hierarchical privilege. The ultimate outcome was, of course, unprecedented despotism, starvation, and grinding poverty.

The worst thing about socialism was that it outflanked the classical liberals “on the Left.” It allowed the liberals to be put falsely into a confused middle-of-the-road position with socialism and conservatism as the polar opposites. But this happened only because classical liberals had allowed themselves to decay from within.

Next Previous


Copyright ©2004, FlyoverPress.com


Jimmy T. LaBaume, PhD, ChFC is a full professor teaching economics and statistics in the School of Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, TX. He does not speak for Sul Ross State University. Sul Ross State University does not think for him.

Dr. LaBaume has lived in Mexico and spent extended periods of time in South and Central America as a researcher, consultant and educator.

“Gunny” LaBaume is a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War and Desert Storm. His Marine Corps career spanned some 35 years intermittently from 1962 until 1997 when he refused to re-enlist with less than 2 years to go to a good retirement. In his own words, he “simply got tired of living a life of crime.”

He is also currently the publisher and managing editor of FlyoverPress.com, a daily e-source of news not seen or heard anywhere on the mainstream media. He can be reached at jlabaume@sulross.edu.

Permission is granted to forward as you wish, circulate among individuals or groups, post on all Internet sites and publish in the print media as long as the article is published in full, including the author’s name and contact information and the URL www.flyoverpress.com.

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com


*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.


HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS


Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership


AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.


The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

 

 

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.

FSMs Must Reads

August 8, 2007 Leave a comment

Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey: Upcoming Terror Strike on U.S. ‘Very Real’
By The Editors
In a recent interview, former CIA Director and FSM Advisory Board member R. James Woolsey asserts that terrorists have America in their crosshairs now more than ever.

The Sickness That Is Wahhabi Islam
By Adrian Morgan
Wahhabism, a strict and primitive form of Islam, is the rule of law in rich and influential Saudi Arabia. FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan gives us an enlightening tutorial on its history, as well as some of the more alarming practices of this growing sect. This is a must-read.

Are We Losing the Propaganda War in Our Schools?
By Tom McLaughlin

FSM Contributing Editor Tom McLaughlin informs us of a disturbing trend of favoritism toward Islam in the classroom.

Liberals Endorse Hypocrisy as a Second Language
By Gabriel Garnica
In this wickedly facetious new commentary, FSM Contributing Editor Gabriel Garnica covers the gamut of liberals’ double-talk, ranging from their own pseudo-religion of socialism to an apparent belief that freedom of speech applies only to that which they endorse.

Walking on Eggshells: Bigfoot and Trans-Atlantic Paralysis
By Nicholas Guariglia Has the pernicious virus of self-abnegation become so pervasive in Western civilization that we have become paralyzed in the face of the worst dangers ever to threaten humanity? Read what FSM Contributing Editor Nicholas Guariglia has to say about this trend.

Exposing the Mythology of ‘Multiculturalism’
By The Editors
From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But hold on: results from a new study challenge this theory.

Congress Selects Back Door Program for Illegals
By Sher Zieve
This 110th Congress, touted by Speaker Pelosi as “the most transparent, ethical Congress in U.S. history,” has a 3 percent approval rating. FSM Contributing Editor Sher Zieve explains why they hold the lowest rating in history.

Election 2008 – YouTube, Daffy Definitions and Trophy Wives
By Walter Anderson
FSM Contributing Editor Walter Anderson has another colorful report on the latest election news, including the recent CNN YouTube debate between Democrat candidates, word of an unusual political prediction, and whether we should worry about trophy wives.


Yesterday’s Must Read Articles 

Previous Must Read Articles

About Ron Paul

August 8, 2007 Leave a comment
 
LewRockwell.com
Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Ron Paul


DIGG THIS

Articles about Ron Paul

Articles by Ron Paul

Audio/Video by Ron Paul

Books by Ron Paul

Books Recommended by Ron Paul

Ron Paul T-Shirt

Search Breaking Ron Paul News on LRC Blog

 
Articles about Ron Paul on LRC

A Wise and Prudent Foreign Policy
Rick Fisk on Ron Paul’s.

The Instruments of Tyranny
Ron Paul is right about the police state, says John W. Whitehead.

Ron Paul vs. the Empire
Steven LaTulippe on what’s at stake.

The Good News Is Everywhere
For Ron Paulians, that is. Article by Karen Kwiatkowski.

Ron Paul, Thomist
Clay Rossi on the ancient philosophical battle against the neocons.

Degreasing the Pig
Gary North on Ron Paul and the presidency.

The Long Haul
Scott Sutton on Ron Paul’s future.

Those Paul Poll Numbers
James Ostrowski picks them apart.

Ron Paul vs. SOX
Jennifer Haman on the one public official to understand economics.

Ron Paul’s VP
Linda Schrock Taylor has a suggestion.

Ron Paul Is Cool
Robert Murphy on strategic voting among Republicans.

Libertarians, Murder, and Ron Paul
Max Raskin responds to Randy Barnett.

I Know Who ‘None-of-the-Above’ Is
Trevor Bothwell on Ron Paul.

No Patronizing, No Sloganeering
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on Ron Paul.

Who Speaks for the US Military on Iraq?
The presidential donation figures show it’s Ron Paul, says William Marina.

Pro-War ‘Libertarianism’ vs. Ron Paul
Justin Raimondo on Randy Barnett’s Wall Street Journal attack.

The Ron Paul Revolution
What every marketer can learn from it. Article by Marnie L. Pehrson.

A Choice, Not an Echo
Justin Raimondo on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul Defends Natural Rights
On guns, for example. Article by Timothy Finnegan Boyle.

A Self-Organizing Complex System
Richard L. Sanders on the Ron Paul campaign.

What’s Up With Ron Paul’s Poll Numbers?
Rick Fisk on polling methodology and politics.

Ron Paul Leads in the Polls
Of those who have heard him speak. Article by Jennifer Haman.

Ron Paul and the Lying Opinion Polls
Lasse Pitkaniemi, a political scientist in Finland, on why they’re biased.

Homeland Security Responds to Ron Paul
George Gould on what they might say (but didn’t).

Straws in the Wind in New Hampshire
Jack Kenny on Ron Paul.

The Honor of Ron Paul
To know him is to love him, says Joseph Sobran.

The Fed Becomes a Campaign Issue
For the first time since 1913? Bill Haynes on Ron Paul.

The Tao of Ron Paul
Jeff Bryan on ancient libertarian wisdom from China.

Only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich
Opposed the empire’s planned genocide, says Arthur Silber.

The Iowa Crime
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on the latest developments in the exclusion of Ron Paul.

The Attempt To Exclude Ron Paul
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on the Iowa cabal.

The Ron Paul Revolution
A halftime report from James Ostrowski.

George Will Ridicules Ron Paul
And loves Giuliani. Time to jettison “conservatism,” says Joseph Sobran.

Ron Paul Is the Gandhi of Our Time
And the empire will not stand against him.

Ron Paul, the Non-Condescending Intellectual
Zack Pelta-Heller on why he’s earned so much respect.

What Ron Paul Means to America
Karen De Coster on making us think.

A Conversation With a Most Unusual Man
Charles Davis talks to Ron Paul.

The Neocons and Us
Burton S. Blumert on the ideological landscape.

And Then They Ignore You Again…
Eric Phillips on Ron Paul and the CNN debate.

The Remnant and Ron Paul
Butler Shaffer on the shape of the future.

Ron Paul Rocks Bigwigs
James Pinkerton on altruism and genuine belief.

The Patriotism Smear
Ron Paul dissents from authoritarian government.

The Real Reason They Hate Us
Bill Barnwell eavesdrops on the terrorists.

Ron Paul’s Answer Terrifies Them
Jacob G. Hornberger explains why.

Will the Republicans Destroy Themselves?
Before they destroy America? Article by Paul Craig Roberts.

Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves
Bob Murphy on Ron, Rudy, and gasoline prices.

The Neocons Are Through
Thanks to Ron Paul, says Paul Mulshine.

Principled Paul
Bill Steigerwald on the man who’s driving the Republican power-elite crazy.

Guilty Blue Pleasure
Liking Ron Paul. Article by Justine Nicholas.

Why Are They Lying About Ron Paul?
Cliff Kincaid on the MSM and friends.

Ron Paul on Peace and Freedom
Lew Rockwell on his foreign policy.

Thanks, Rudy
Tim Swanson on evidence and claims.

The Man Who Would Be Duce
Charley Reese on Giuliani the fake.

Ron Paul Rocks!
Karen Kwiatkowski on speaking truth to power.

Giuliani Unveils His New Terrorism Strategy
If they hate us for our freedom…. Article by Max Raskin.

Not an Empire
Brian Wilson on a foreign policy of freedom.

Glenn Beck Hates Ron Paul
Of course. Article by Eric Phillips.

Do Conservatives Hate Their Own Founder?
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on Russell Kirk (and Ron Paul).

By All Means, Eliminate the Guy Who’s Right
Patrick J. Buchanan on the debates.

The Man Who Roiled Republican Politics
And knocked out Giuliani. Article by Jacob Hornberger.

Fight the Slavers
Will Grigg on John Edwards, Ron Paul, and the draft.

Giuliani Is Right To Be Outraged
How dare Ron Paul suggest that people get angry when bombed. Article by Thomas Eddlem.

Ron Paul Violated the Rules
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on The Man.

Blaming Uncle Sam Last
Michael Tennant on Ron Paul and US foreign policy.

Defeat the Media Clones
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on the big-media shrouding of Ron Paul.

Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton
James Ostrowski on the great unknown.

Ron Paul
Will he be the candidate of the Christian Right?

The Revolutionary Candidate
Thomas E. Woods, Jr., on Ron Paul.

Audio/Video by Ron Paul

Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy(video)

Patriotism (video)

Rep. Ron Paul on War, Peace, and the News Media (video)

The Iraq War Funding Bill (video)

The Scandal at Walter Reed (video)

The Neoconservative Empire (video)

3000 American Deaths in Iraq (video)

My Years With Alan Greenspan(audio)

Gold or Tyranny(audio)

The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective (video)

The Gold Standard: An Austrian Perspective (audio)

The Trouble With Washington (audio)


Ron Paul T-Shirt

$14


Books by Ron Paul

   

Articles by Ron Paul on LRC

Fear
Ron Paul on big government’s best friend.

Exposing the True Isolationists
Ron Paul on the protectionists and warmongers.

Muzzle the FDA
Ron Paul on protecting health freedom.

Globalism
Ron Paul on what it means, and what it should mean.

Bring Our Troops Home Now
Ron Paul on why the Democrats are also wrong.

Hans F. Sennholz, RIP
Ron Paul remembers a great economist.

Defend the Constitution
Ron Paul on the dangerous presidential signing statements.

The Spirit of Independence
Ron Paul on how to recover it.

Missing in the Stem-Cell Debate
The rights of taxpayers.

Ron Paul Against Aggression
And lying war propaganda to justify it.

Hollow Victory
Ron Paul on earmarks.

The Ron Paul Economics Library
Here’s where to start.

Ron Paul’s Summer Reading List
What you need to know.

Stop Procrastinating
Get out of Iraq.

The Immigration Compromise
It’s a sell-out, says Ron Paul.

The Patriotism Smear
Ron Paul dissents from authoritarian government.

How To End the War
Ron Paul has a moderate plan.

Expensive Security Theatre
Ron Paul on another DC fraud.

Crazed Hate Crime Laws
They threaten freedom.

The Path Out of Iraq
First, Congress must admit its crime of giving the Executive war-making power, says Ron Paul.

Guns vs. Crime
Ron Paul on the massacre that could have been stopped.

Where’s the Exit?
Ron Paul on the one easy step in getting out of Iraq.

The Answer to Racism
Liberty, not government, says Ron Paul.

The Most Dangerous Monopolist
Ron Paul on the Federal Reserve.

The Big Book of Crimes
Ron Paul on the 2008 federal budget.

Making Iraq Even Worse
Ron Paul on the Democrats.

War Is the Enemy of Freedom
Ron Paul interviewed by Michael Shank.

Dr. No on More War Funding
No, says Ron Paul.

Don’t Blame the Market
For the housing bubble, says Ron Paul.

The Original American Foreign Policy
Ron Paul on why it’s still the right one.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms
Even (especially?) in DC.

The Scandal of US Foreign Policy
And the scandal of Walter Reed.

The Coming Meltdown
Of “entitlements.”

What the Fed Is Doing to the Economy
Ron Paul on Bernanke’s mischief.

The Neoconservative Empire
Stop the war, stop threatening war, and bring the troops home now. Article by Ron Paul.

Stop!
Ron Paul advises President Bush.

More War Spending
And more, and more.

Stop Glorifying Political Power
It’s the enemy of the rule of law, says Ron Paul.

Everybody Supports the Troops
Let’s move on to the real issues.

Monetary Depreciation and Killing
Ron Paul on inflation and war finance.

More Articles by Ron Paul

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page<iframe scrolling=”no” src=”http://ad-adex3.flycast.com/server/iframe/Antiwarcom/LewRockwell/123456&#8243; frameborder=”0″ marginheight=”0″ marginwidth=”0″ height=”60″ width=”468″ hspace=”0″ vspace=”0″></iframe>

<p _implied_=”true”></p>

 

Find this article at:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/rp-everything.html

Click Here to Print
SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close
 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

 

setTimeout(‘showLayer();’,200);

Republicans Not Pleased Withe Their Options

August 8, 2007 Leave a comment

 

“…The Republicans on the other hand can’t find a quorum of registered voters who are excited about any of the GOP candidates thus far—least of all the liberal media-ordained and left-promoted GOP frontrunner and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani who trails California psychologist Dr. Mark Klein and libertarian Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in most of the grassroots straw polls in Iowa. ( Klein does not show up in the “official” Washington Post-ABC News poll which considers only the media-blessed candidates as viable since they know from 1912 that only those candidates who “get press” get elected.) A recent very unscientific Drudge poll showed Ron Paul leading the pack with 35% of the vote. Trailing him were:…”


Republicans Not Pleased Withe Their Options

 

 

By Jon Christian Ryter

August 8, 2007

NewsWithViews.com


http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon184.htm

Moderate Democrats—whose voices are drown out by the far left (and who would prefer someone like former US Sen. Zell Miller [D-GA] or even Joe Lieberman [I-CT] instead of either Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] or Muslim-born and raised Barak Obama [D-IL] (who is in tactical denial about his Islamic roots) as the party’s standard bearer in 2008)—are as unhappy about Hillary Clinton’s attempt to hijack the Democratic nomination a year before the primaries as the Republicans are about the prospect of having only a couple of short-winded “sprinters” but no long distance runners in the race for the White House.

This spells disaster for conservatives in 2008. Unless rank and file right-of-center Christians and social conservatives align behind a Republican candidate and avoid the pitfalls of throwing their vote away on a third party spoiler as they did in 1992 and 1996, the Democrats will not only win the White House in 2008, they will increase their seats in the House and Senate—perhaps to the extent of giving them a veto-proof Congress if GOP Congressmen and Senators continue to back President George W. Bush’s illegal alien amnesty program and the North American Union. (A veto proof Congress requires a super-majority of 290 aligned Congressmen and 67 aligned Senators.)

Clearly, the money barons and merchant princes who have carefully orchestrated every national election in the United States since 1912 and preordained the winners like symphonic maestros, appear to have already decided the next president will be a Democrat. Only, it won’t be Hillary Clinton who jump-started the primary season a year early in an effort to steal the nomination before the money barons picked their candidate—whom, she wisely surmised, would not be her. Nor will it be the Sheik of Illinois who will not escape his Muslim roots when the winnowing of candidates begins in earnest—particularly if al Qaeda is successful in launching another attack in the United States before the 2008 election.

The Republicans on the other hand can’t find a quorum of registered voters who are excited about any of the GOP candidates thus far—least of all the liberal media-ordained and left-promoted GOP frontrunner and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani who trails California psychologist Dr. Mark Klein and libertarian Congressman Dr. Ron Paul in most of the grassroots straw polls in Iowa. ( Klein does not show up in the “official” Washington Post-ABC News poll which considers only the media-blessed candidates as viable since they know from 1912 that only those candidates who “get press” get elected.) A recent very unscientific Drudge poll showed Ron Paul leading the pack with 35% of the vote. Trailing him were:

Rudy Giuliani—26%
Mitt Romney—20%
Tom Tancredo—5%
Mike Huckabee—4%
John McCain—3%
Tommy Thompson—3%
Duncan Hunter—2%
Sam Brownback—2%

The Drudge poll reflects the view of 65% of the respondents. That means, 45% of those polled either voted for someone else, or for “none-of-the-above.” In the official Washington Post-ABC News poll, which reflects the opinion of 98% of the respondents, Ron Paul takes 2%. Former US Senator Fred Thompson—who has not officially joined the race—comes in third with 13% of that straw poll.

Mitt Romney—26%
Rudy Giuliani—14%
Fred Thompson—13%
Mike Huckabee—8%
John McCain—8%
Sam Brownback—5%
Tom Tancredo—5%
Ron Paul—2%
Others—6%
No opinion—11%

Surprising, potential GOP voters in Iowa, when asked by the Washington Post-ABC News pollsters which of the Republicans running for post position in the Iowa caucus was most qualified to hold the office of President, 22% of them picked the former mayor whose only political experience was managing one city, while ignoring the full measure of experience of three governors, three US Senators and two congressmen. If job titles were scholastic degrees, a mayor would be construed to be a high school graduate, a US Congressman would be the equivalent of having a bachelor’s degree and a US Senator or governor would have a master’s degree. A senator who also served as a governor would be equivalent to a doctorate. Rudy Giuliani is not any more qualified for the job of President of the United States than any other working class stiff in America. As President, Rudy will never rise above “America’s Mayor.” Rudy’s a likable guy who was hand-picked by the liberal media as the best “designated loser” for 2008 since whomever he runs against—unless the Democrats find a mayor to run against him—he loses. In other words, put Mike Bloomberg at the top of the Democratic ticket and Giuliani wins.

Conservative Americans flipflop almost weekly on their choice of the person they would most likely vote for President simply because they aren’t satisfied with any of them. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who has been campaigning harder in Iowa than any other GOP candidate, is currently the front runner there even though Iowans believe Giuliani would be a stronger and more decisive leader. Most of those who support Giuliani mistakenly believe he played a major decision-making role in safeguarding New York after 9-11. He did not. While he was kept in the loop and profited greatly from the political photo ops, the action taken in New York after 9-11 was federal in nature and originated in Washington, DC or Albany, not New York City. Giuliani was merely the beneficiary, not the originator.

Throw former US Senator Fred Thompson into the mix and he comes out the winner everytime. Head-to-head, his numbers dwarf both Romney and Giuliani. Yet, when you examine the personal views of conservative voters one thing becomes obvious—almost 40% of them are dissatisfied with the “main course” candidates being foisted on them by the president-makers. In June, Giuliani, who has been watching the numbers in Iowa, decided he could not afford to compete in the Iowa Caucus because if he lost there, he will pretty much be out of the 2008 Presidential race.

Thompson’s a real person. Perhaps a little gruff around the edges, he’s a real life version of Arthur Branch, the role he created on the NBC hit, Law & Order. Dr. Ron Paul, a practicing OB-Gyn, is a real person, too. He doesn’t have Thompson’s rough edges—or his charisma. He is, however, just as outspoken. But Dr. Paul is speaking out on subjects better left to the far right talk jocks like Aaron Russo, Alex Jones and Michael Savage. The Libertarian Party’s candidate for President in 1988, Ron Paul sounds more like a fringe candidate in an aluminum foil cap than a 10-term Republican Congressman from Texas. It is this controversy that has caused Ron Paul’s exclusion from televised debates with the other GOP candidates in Iowa. In addition, he has been dropped from all of the mainstream media presidential polls. The question being raised about Paul’s standings is: was he dropped from the poll tallies because he dropped below the threshold needed to measure his standing? On the surface, the Drudge poll would seem to refute that argument, since it suggests that Dr. Paul is leading the pack by a healthy margin of 9% over Giuliani, his closest rival. However, a Newsweek poll taken at the same time shows Dr. Paul with only 2% support in the polls—precisely the same position he held in June.

Why the discrepancy? Because the Newsweek poll was a real poll. The Drudge poll was not. Newsweek pollsters sample a database that is representative of views of the nation. The pollsters call the individuals in the sample and elicit their opinion on a subject. The results give a fairly accurate snapshot of what the general public is thinking at that moment. When a Ron Paul fan finds the Drudge poll, he or she immediately emails everyone on his or her email list and tells them to go to Drudge and vote for Ron Paul. It’s not a scientific poll and the results do not accurately reflect the view of the voter spectrum—it reflects the views of those committed to the Congressman and it therefore skewers the results—and the integrity—of the “survey.” Polls are accurate only when they cannot be manipulated by either the pollster or the respondents.

Most of the initial support going to Thompson came from Sen. John McCain’s camp when his campaign staffers began jumping ship in June. McCain [R-AZ] made the mistake of supporting Bush’s amnesty plan, open borders and the North American Union. Almost overnight his voter appeal dropped to 8%. Now its at 7% and it’s still tanking as McCain scrambles to stay alive by becoming a foe of amnesty and open borders.

Any Republican Congressman or Senator or any Democrat in a border State who supports amnesty for illegal aliens, citizenship for illegals, open borders or anything that smacks of an American version of the European Union will be fired by the voters in 2008. When McCain—who won a 4th term in 2004 with 77% of the vote—runs for reelection in 2010, he will likely be defeated. If J.D. Hayworth (former AZ-5th District) is smart, he will take McCain on in 2010. If he does, he will knock McCain out in the primary.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a former church pastor, and Sen. Sam Brownback, a Roman Catholic, are both social conservatives. Huckabee and Brownback were leading among evangelical Christians early on, but support from the Christian right has shifted to Romney, who is a Mormon. While Huckabee is polling well in Iowa with all voters, Romney now polls about 25% with Christians. Huckabee trails at 17%, followed by Thompson, a Protestant and Giuliani, a Catholic. Brownback’s support has dropped to about 7% along with Tom Tancredo who is also a professing Christian. Brownback should be out of the race by Labor Day. If he folds up his tent and goes home, his supporters will likely flock to Tancredo who will then become a much more viable candidate. A Romney-Tancredo ticket would likely galvanize the right and could win against either Hillary or Al Gore, Jr. who is poised to enter the race when Hillary makes her first major gaffe. Gore would have already entered the fray, but he wants to make sure he’s not stuck with Hillary as a running mate.

The unsettled views of conservative voters, and their fickleness towards the Republican candidates indicate that conservatives don’t have a candidate they are comfortable with yet. It also explains why Republican donors are hanging on to their money, and why Democrats are out-raising Republicans by 50% or more. The left is satisfied that their candidates have broad enough coattails to not only win the White House, but they will also increase their majorities in both Houses of Congress next year.

A recent CNN poll indicated that roughly a fourth of all registered Republicans—up from 14% in June—have no idea who they will support as the standard bearer of their party. In other words, they vote “none of the above.” All of the “undecided” are self-described Christian conservatives. Most of them would likely flock to former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore who dropped out of the race because he could not raise enough money to stay in.

Sadly, as Ron Paul’s star fades, his followers—who have skewered the strength of his appeal with grass roots supporters through polls that allow his fans to vote repeatedly—will try to convince the Congressman he can win as a third party candidate. Dr. Paul will likely become a third party spoiler. And, as he peels GOP votes from the right, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg—who has a good chance of becoming the Unity candidate—will drain the Rockefeller Republican votes from the left and, even with a war raging in the Mideast, it will all but guarantee a presidential win for the Democrats—unless the GOP is able to find another Ronald Reagan who can hold the Rockefeller Republicans, the Christian right (which sat out the midterm election in 2006 in protest of Bush’s amnesty and open borders), and capture the Blue Dog Democrats who voted Reagan into office twice, Bush-41 once and Bush-43 in 2000.

What are the uncommitted Republicans looking for? An honest man who will keep his word to the voters. They don’t want an establishment politician. That bodes well for Fred Thompson. They want a president who will reject any notion of amnesty for illegal aliens, and seal the borders. That bodes well for Tom Tancredo. They want a man who will protect them against another terrorist attack like 9-11 and, although it shouldn’t, that bodes well for Rudy Giuliani. They want a man who will peel back the laws that intrude on civil rights and protect the 1st and 2nd Amendments. And, that bodes well for Ron Paul. Put them all together and you have Reagan.

And, in the stark reality of politics, when the dust settles—if Thompson is not able to ignite the patriotic firestorm that unites the Christian conservative right—the 2008 run for the White House will be a race between two men who are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the other relay runners to tire themselves out and be forced to pass the baton on to them: Al Gore, Jr. and Newt Gingrich. In a Gore-Gingrich race, Al Gore becomes the 44th President of the United States and fulfills his own 2000 prophecy when he said, “I am destined to be the leader of the free world.”

 

© 2007 Jon C. Ryter – All Rights Reserved

[Read "Whatever Happened to America?"]

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale


Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website.

E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ryter/jon184.htm

**********

GyG: Some Thoughts About Guns…

August 7, 2007 Leave a comment

http://www.texashuntfish.com/flexiforums/thread.cfm?pid=28507

(GyG: See Also:)
http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-plagiarism.html

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people
exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm,
as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to
negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single ##### guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only
true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.


**********

Why I am always armed

By

Smokey Briggs

It was a cool Wednesday afternoon in November. The sky was overcast and it was beginning to drizzle with a promise of real rain later. I was a few months into my 13th year, attending 8th grade at Sam Houston Junior High in Irving, Texas.

We got out of school early because it was Thanksgiving, and I was walking home wearing a brown jacket with a backpack full of books, my football pants and practice jersey slung over my shoulder to be washed.

I was kicking bottles thrown on the side of the road to amuse myself as I walked the mile or so from the school to home along Walnut Hill Lane. That’s a nice part of Irving. Nice new buildings and apartments. Nice people. Middle class.

The first thing I heard was a car screeching to a halt. It was a big, rusty, blue, four-door sedan of late ’60s vintage. A Buick, I think. The doors popped open. All four of them. And somebody yelled, “There he is!” I jerked my head over my shoulder to see who they were talking about. We had only lived in Irving for a couple of months and I knew nobody.

One guy was tall with zits and lot of permed, curly hair. The rest were a blur. Mr. Curly Hair jumped out with a baseball bat. Somebody else had a length of thick chain. My brain was in overdrive as it tried to figure out what the hell was going on. There was about 20 yards between them and me. The four started running at me. That’s when I realized who “he” was. He was me. They were running at me.

It’s funny how time compresses and slows all at once when you are in a situation like that. In the next few seconds I comprehended, I made a decision, and I acted on the decision. I now know that it took them less than a few seconds to cover the ground between us. Not a lot of time.

Up to that point in my life, I had never experienced real violence. Schoolyard fights, yes. Fighting for my life? No. Maybe it was just the realization that I could never out run them. I did not try to run. I balled up my fists. I swung. Looking back it was probably a pitiful attempt to defend myself. And then there is just a whirl of motion and pain and brief moments of clarity in my memory bank.

I wish I could say I made a good accounting of myself. Later I was horribly ashamed that I don’t even know if I landed a single lick. Looking back, at 41, I now realize how silly it is to think a 110-pound 13-year-old could do much of anything against four grown, or nearly-grown, men. Not with his fists. Not when they were armed with bats and chains. I realized with horror that I was in deep trouble. I couldn’t breathe. I later figured out my lack of air was from the wind being driven out of my lungs by the blow that also cracked ribs.

I was being thrown, or shoved. They bum rushed me into the creek/drainage ditch that ran along the road. The creek was a 10-foot gash full of trees and brush that stood as reminders that this had not long before been rolling North Texas farm land. I played in that creek bed a lot back then as I was a transplant from the country and that trickle of water and stand of defiant trees were a comforting reminder of home for a displaced country boy.

We were in the ditch now. My world was a spinning blur of leaves and blows. Somewhere deep in my brain I wondered why they were pulling me into the ditch. Somebody was holding me. I couldn’t really move. I saw the bat coming. It arched around in slow, slow motion. Mr. Curly Hair was swinging it. I tried to jerk my head away. No luck, I guess, because that’s the last thing I remember.

I woke up drowning. Well, “woke up” are not quite the right words. Some deep instinct forced me to roll over and pull my head out of the rising water of the creek. I sputtered water and coughed. Damn, I hurt. My vision was blurry and squinty. My ribs were on fire. Every shallow breath was misery. And my head was a pounding drum of pain.

It was raining pretty hard, I think, and I was soaking wet and cold, and then I started coughing up the water I had sucked into my lungs. That was fun. I passed out again but not till I managed to turn my body around so that my head was further up the slope.

I woke up. It was getting darker. This time I recovered my senses. Things were still pretty confused, but I figured out I needed to get home. “Somebody might start worrying,” I remember thinking. Funny – the thoughts that go through your head, especially when you have a first class concussion. There was a lump on the side of my head, just up from the temple, the size of my fist. I crawled/staggered home with lots of stops to rest and recoup. Cars whizzed by. People looked up. Nobody said, or did, anything.

As I lay in the hospital bed with the Irving Police Officer taking the report I had one of those crystal clear moments of understanding – when the bad guys come, you are on your own. The police probably will not be there, and you better not bet your life that a Good Samaritan is going to come to your aide. It is up to you to defend yourself. I vowed I would never be that helpless again. Never.

In about ten seconds I had gone from happy 8th grader looking forward to four days off, to damn near dead. The doctor commented that had the bat connected with my skull an inch lower it would have hit my temple and probably killed me.

Those four could have done anything they wanted to me in that ditch. Murder. Rape. Whatever.

I was lucky I guess. All I received was a beating. I do not know to this day why they chose me. Was it mistaken identity? A gang initiation? Just for fun? I don’t know.

I do know this: That was the last day of my life that I walked out the front door without a weapon in my possession. I have been armed ever since. Legally or illegally, I have always carried a weapon. Something, anything, that would help equalize the odds.

Years later, I came to understand that not only is your defense up to you, but it is also a God-given right. You have a God-given right to protect yourself. No loving God could create us without that right. It is an individual, inalienable, Right. The possession and use of weapons is part of that right. A right to defend yourself is meaningless when you are confronted with superior numbers and weapons. Unless you too are armed.

Firearms in all their variety are the best inventions of the human brain when it comes to self-defense. Pistols, rifles and shotguns all have a place. These are the tools of personal self-defense. These tools let 80-year-old grandma’s, 50-year-old heart patients and 18-year-old women protect themselves from aggressors who are bigger and meaner and better armed. Without a gun, many of us are simply an easy victim. With a gun, we are a threat.

Why is it that criminals do not pick cops to rob or rape? Why don’t they pick rifle ranges as cool places to ply their trade? Why is violent crime always lower in areas where men and women regularly pack the tools of self-defense? Because criminals need easy victims, that’s why. Laws that attempt to strip away the right of self-defense are simply evil.

Monday, an armed man shot and killed 32 students at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Last year pro-self-defense forces tried to get the Virginia legislature to allow concealed carry holders to carry on tax-funded college campuses. The bill died, in part to lobbying by Virginia Tech administrators. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious that the bill would not pass: “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.” Mr. Hincker, with no respect intended, I say you are an idiot. The blood of these 32 people is on your hands, and the hands of all those who think like you.

Would a single armed person have prevented every death? Probably not. But he or she would probably have prevented some of them. Many of them, probably. They would have had a chance.

And what if two or three or five of those kids had been armed and capable of exercising their God-given right to defend themselves against evil? We will never know, because Virginia Tech and the Virginia state legislature decided that the campus should be a place where killers and rapists know that most likely, all of their victims will be unarmed.

The real murders of these kids reside in the Virginia General Assembly, in the administration offices of Virginia Tech, and in every home of every voter that supports such idiocy. The administrators of Virginia Tech should be held criminally accountable for these murders.

They killed these kids; just as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow.

Folks, it’s time to quit coddling victim disarmament people. Arguments for so-called “gun control” make a mockery of all logic and common sense. Arguing with these people is useless. If they had the sense God gave a retarded duck they could not hold the belief that disarming the good people will somehow disarm the evil people. If they want to walk around unarmed, that is their decision. I do not feel the need to force them to defend themselves. But they have no right to interfere with the right of other men and women to defend themselves. None.

And, if our society is so mentally and morally corrupt that the victim disarmament crowd becomes a voting majority and tries to force the rest of us to become unarmed victims, it will be time to oppose them by any and every means. I would rather fight them with my guns rather than hand my guns in and wait for the day those four gentlemen in the blue car show up on my family’s doorstep. There is simply too much at stake not to.

http://www.flyoverpress.com/Latest.htm

Smokey Briggs, at the vanguard of the struggle for liberty, is the editor-publisher of the Monahans News and the Pecos Enterprise. He may be reached at smokey@pecos.net

FlyoverPress.com can be contacted at editor@flyoverpress.com

*Note: We hold no special government issued licenses or permits. We don’t accept government subsidies, bailouts, low-cost loans, insurance, or other privileges. We don’t lobby for laws that hurt our competitors. We actively oppose protectionism and invite all foreign competitors to try to under price us. We do not lobby for tariffs, quotas, or anti-dumping laws. We do not support the government’s budget deficits: we hold no government or agency securities.

HOME

E-mail

To Subscribe to our daily e-mail alert service, send an e-mail with the word “subscribe” on the subject line.

OUR SPONSORS

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.

Professional Firearms Training at its finest.

Private and Descrete

Liberty Knows No Compromise

Protecting Liberty Through Private Firearms Ownership

AMERICAN LAPEL PINS & EMBLEMS, INC. has a large selection of patriotic lapel and hat pens, embroderied patches, badges, and service awards.

They also do custom work and can make just about anything. Your own pin complete with your logo or motto.

Visit their site.

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.

Military Manuals and Correspondence Courses

Infantry, Armor, Recon, Special Forces, Seals

Weapons; Tactics; Security; Intelligence; Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare

We also carry a selection of unusual, outrageous and even banned books

Liberty Knows No Compromise

© Flyover Press All Rights Reserved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A NATION OF RIFLEMEN
http://www.alabamaservicerifleteam.com/id15.html
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SMALL ARMS AT PEARL HARBOR
http://tinyurl.com/2qc5j6
~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Second Amendment Isn’t About Hunting, It’s About Keeping Our Government In Line When All Else Has Failed To Do So.”
http://tinyurl.com/2ln2ca

“Like all informed Second Amendment supporters, I don’t trust any politician who claims support for that amendment and then goes on to relate how much he/she stands up for the rights of hunters as if the rights of hunters were what that amendment is all about. We know why the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights. The Founders left us a clear paper trail including the following succinct statement from Tench Coxe: “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed in the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (emphasis added).”

http://tinyurl.com/2ln2ca
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Freedom Watch

August 7, 2007 Leave a comment

Via:

editor@flyoverpress.com

http://www.flyoverpress.com

~~~~~~~~~~

STAMP OUT FASCISM

Ron Paul Stamp

In order to create a media blitz that every local TV and radio station will report on, we are supporting an initiative to “STAMP OUT FASCISM” on 9/11. Get your Ron Paul stamp and start stamping every thing in sight! The goal is to create such a wave of materials in circulation with the “Ron Paul for PRESIDENT” message. Media sources will have no choice but to report on the phenomenon. Thus, giving Dr. Paul the exposure he needs to be recognized. Stamp it all, money, envelopes, bills, foreheads, but do it all together! (Note: it IS completely LEGAL to stamp your money) Order your RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT stamps by clicking here: http://www.specialpayments.com/affiliates/jrox.php?id=82
**************************
“Well, the big story — Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2008. You know why I think she’s running? I think she finally wants to see what it’s like to sleep in the president’s bed.”

–Jay Leno

*************************
“I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution … or have failed their purpose … or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty, and in that cause I am doing the very best I can.”

- Barry Goldwater
*************************
‘Surveillance society’ warning on data sharing; Public ‘unaware’ of threat to rights
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/fdf57d8c-4458-11dc-90ca-0000779fd2ac.html
Big Brother in the Big Apple
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070807/COMMENTARY/108070010
The Police State, Municipal Division
Justine Nicholas on cameras and Noo Yawk.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/nicholas/nicholas37.html
Judge orders release of reports on ’04 surveillance
Centers around activists at Republican National Convention in New York City
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07police.html?ei=5065&en=68f23cb5fb151efb&ex=1187064000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
GOOGLE MAPS redraw the realm of privacy in S California
As street-level photos are added to the site, fears of intrusion arise.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-google7aug07,1,5407348.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
Ron Paul’s Wise Foreign Policy
by Rick Fisk
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html
Ron Paul Delivers the Best Moment in the GOP Debates
http://laist.com/2007/08/06/ron_paul_delive.php
Ron Paul For President 2008 – Bumper Stickers
http://www.ronpaulpresident2008.com/?gclid=CNCBwuSns4wCFRAkggodiXuTSg
Grassroots Granny
http://grassrootsgranny.com/
Independent America First Party of TN
www.iafptn.com


Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines

http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/

(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!

http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069

Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!

http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html

**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

Who do you think won the Republican debate?

August 7, 2007 Leave a comment

Via:

http://www.flyoverpress.com
editor@flyoverpress.com

The following info comes from “Freedom Watch”. I don’t know anyting more on the subject (or on Michael Goza). Yet, if the information’s totally factual, then Josef Goebbels is alive and well and working in the United States.
M
If, by some outside chance of a miracle, the man did happen to win, he would not last as long as JFK.

thegunny, 419
~~~~~~~~~~~

Media Cover Up After Iowa Debate

From: michaelgoza@bellsouth.net

Compatriots,

Would you like to know just how scared to death neo-con republicans, democrats, and the controlled mainstream press are of Ron Paul? Just take a look at the poll below which was taken last night from the ABC News website. This morning I pull up this very same website to find the comments below. They declare Romney the winner and totally ignore the fact that Ron Paul totally dominated in the polls. They did not even mention the name of Ron Paul.

For those that still believe the press has any credibility this should be a wake-up call.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Michael Goza

Now that the debate’s over, it’s time to consider the winners and losers.

Who do you think won the Republican debate?

Ron Paul
27,948

Mitt Romney
3,723

Rudy Giuliani
2,839

Nobody won. I’m voting Democratic.
2,670

Nobody. I’m waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich to enter the race.
2,568

Mike Huckabee
2,350

Sam Brownback
992

Tom Tancredo
661

John McCain
630

Tommy Thompson
388

Duncan Hunter
373

Total Vote: 45,142

POLL: Strong Iowa Presence Lifts Romney, But Republican Enthusiasm is Low
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3444367&page=1

Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
http://www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
http://www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
http://www.pinsandemblems.com


**********
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen On Other Sites!
**********
THE “G” WEBLOG @N54
By R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
(Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog)
Previous/Numerous GyG Posts Below!!!!!
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
Go To: Gunny G’s Sites/Forums/Blogs!
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/gunnyg/sites3.html
**********
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
**********

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

‘A Plot To Rival 9/11′

August 7, 2007 Leave a comment

  ‘A Plot to Rival 9/11′ : Deadly Details Behind the Airline Liquids Ban (Video)
By The Editors

There is much that the public does not know about the liquid explosive threat to U.S. airlines that would have killed Americans by the many thousands. Read here and view this video so that you can learn why many of our nation’s defenders at DHS lost sleep over this one.

Is Our Decency Our Weakness?
By John W. Howard FSM Contributing Editor John Howard asks whether our devotion to tolerance has morphed into a weakness, which augurs ill for our survival.

The Declining Pacifism of Germany and Japan: a Good Thing? (Part One of Two)
By Tom Ordeman, Jr. The global war against terrorism has changed international relations worldwide. Many nations are restructuring their military and defense postures. In this informative analysis, FSM Contributing Editor Tom Ordeman, Jr., defines alterations in German and Japanese policies.

Toward Terror-Free University Investment (Part Two of Two)
By Dr. Candace de Russy In the second of a two-part series, FSM Contributing Editor Dr. Candace de Russy discusses the necessity of universities divesting their funds as a way of blocking Iran from financing its nuclear ambitions and other terror activities.

Is this Really a Hate Crime?
By Jason Rantz
Liberal activists often are permitted to indulge in vandalism, hate speech and intimidating behavior without consequence, while conservatives are punished for similar acts. Read why FSM Contributing Editor Jason Rantz says the Pace University story is a model for this hypocrisy.

Ignorance Is Bliss…Or Is It?
By Nancy Salvato
FSM Contributing Editor Nancy Salvato uses the central themes from “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” to illustrate one of the left’s insidious plan to silence conservatives.

Racism Charge No Reason to Apologize
By Bob Parks
It seems as though every other day, there is a Muslim somewhere demanding special treatment in our schools, in our fields, on the job, or in public places. FSM Contributing Editor Bob Parks responds to arguments coming from liberals who cry “racism” whenever conservatives mention this issue.

Hyperbolic Posturing
By Geoff Metcalf A high ranking Pakistan government official recently expressed “grave concern” that U.S. presidential candidates would use unethical tactics against Pakistan to win the election. FSM Contributing Editor Geoff Metcalf explains why political hyperbole jeopardizes national security.

Warlocks and Eloy – Are Americans Headed for a New Slavery?
By J. R. Dieckmann
How are Americans safer than we were before our government outgrew its minimalist origins and became the money-grubbing behemoth it is today? FSM Contributing Editor J.R.Dieckmann sounds the alarm in this insightful commentary.

Announcing our New Military Robot – Swords (Video)
By The Editors
Meet the latest and greatest weapon in America’s arsenal for the War on Terror!


Yesterday’s Must Read Articles 

Previous Must Read Articles




     
   

August 7th
Views and News

Click Here

 

BOLD-ASS, IN-YER-FACE GUBMINT!!!!!!!!!!

August 7, 2007 4 comments

BOLD-ASS, IN-YER-FACE GUBMINT!!!!!!!!!!

I posted this one the other day under its correct title–but it’s so On Target that I have to run it by yez all agin!
DickG
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tyranny that encroaches upon our liberties and steals our God-given rights is no longer being incrementally established or veiled from the conscious. The agents of a new order stand boldly before us. They flaunt their power and spit in our eye daring us to resist, and are increasingly emboldened by the cowardly response that they perceive…….
http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim28.htm
by Sheriff Jim Schwiesow, Ret.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

CONSCRIPTED INTO A NEW WORLD ORDER BY TYRANTS

By Jim R. Schwiesow

August 5, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim28.htm

“A tempest of tyranny and treachery blows across the land, a mantle of suppression settles upon us with stifling weight. Demons incarnate tread upon our freedoms. Our liberties are sacrificed to gods of a new order. By their command riders of the dragon steal our dignity. The inglorious slaves of a tyrannical master smother the spirit, and the hot breath of evil pursues us and deadens our souls. No patriot deliverer lifts us from the abyss; no righteous mortal exempts us from delusional pursuits. We are damned to extinction and doomed to oblivion by the corrupt and the depraved that have, with our commendation, consigned us to a hell of the devil’s making. Such is the fate of the faint-hearted many at the hands of a perfidious few.”

In my last article, “The Setting Up Of The Devil’s Kingdom On Earth” I applied a Biblical perspective to the coming to pass of a new world order of the devil’s design. Those who are in the world, but not of the world understand that the fate of the world, and that of the United States, rests neither with the present god of this world who calls the nations his own nor with his human disciples. Though his evil falls upon us and his mentored prevail against us, he, and they, are not the arbiters of our fate, the ultimate destiny of the world, this nation, and every soul upon the earth rests with the Son of the most-high God; the creator of the heavens and the earth and of everything in and upon them.

We petition for redress of the afflictions upon us in all the wrong channels, and we look for a savior in all the wrong places. Since our pleadings are sown to the wind we reap the whirlwind. The powers that have brought these adversities upon us are not going to deliver us from that of their own making.

The tyranny that encroaches upon our liberties and steals our God-given rights is no longer being incrementally established or veiled from the conscious. The agents of a new order stand boldly before us. They flaunt their power and spit in our eye daring us to resist, and are increasingly emboldened by the cowardly response that they perceive.

Columnists write of a coming dictatorship and of a looming fascist control of our nation, they contend that the formation of the same is fast upon us. The truth is that it is already here, we are firmly clutched in the treacherous claws of an established totalitarian regime of fascist design. We just have not recognized it in its present guise. I submit that that we are under the rule of a fully established fascist consortium, a consortium with a shared commonality of mind, a consortium of agents dedicated to the final destruction of the pitiful vestiges of a once gallant Republic, a consortium of which George W. Bush is the head.

With increasing rapidity the president comes before a malleable media, which documents the treachery at hand, and signs into law that which abolishes another of our freedoms. The grinning congressional co-conspirators who draft these aberrations of the Constitution at his behest surround him and their faces reflect how great we are looks of smugness. The Constitution is enshrined and showcased to the world as a monument to freedom, but the principles thereof are spat upon and maligned. The courts give lip service to it, the congressional people quote from it to deceive the electorate, and the president totally ignores it. All of which forces one to ask, what good is it? When the president discounts it, and when the politicians and courts prevail against the God-given freedoms that it defines, it becomes no more than a dead document written by long dead patriots. The principles thereof, like those of the Bible, have been cunningly rationalized away by the devil’s disciples who rule over this spiritually fallen nation.

The last vestiges of a once great Republic are being washed away by the depredations of the unrighteous purveyors of new world doctrines. When the Republic breathes its last the obituary will read: This nation, plundered by the treasonous acts of its public officials, did not expire from natural causes; it was murdered with malice aforethought. The apologists who continually alibi for the assassins of the Republic call those who write columns such as this alarmist and question their patriotism. True patriots give their allegiance to truth, liberty and justice, and not to murderously treacherous systems of government.

Fascism is defined as a system of rule by an authoritarian hierarchical government. Conversely a Republic is defined as a political system governed by the people through democratically elected representatives. It is an established fact that our government now rules over the people with an iron fist and a tyrannical whip and extracts forcibly from them the fruits of their labor. The people have yielded to a corrupt institutionalized two-party system that severely limits their voting options and serves only the interests of monied internationalists. All of which should be a clue. A fascist regime governs unilaterally and suppresses the will of the people with dictatorial decrees and oppressive laws, despite protestations to the contrary by the apologists for our corrupt leaders and a denial by the weak-willed serfs of this nation, we are in fact being ruled over by a fascist regime.

The people of this nation should be aware of the deadly intent of President George W. Bush, and of those in government who mentor him, to destroy those who stand in the way of his wars for dominance and his destruction of those who refuse to submit to his international bullying. His executive orders have made that abundantly clear. He may not be the sharpest stick in the bundle, but he has the cunning and treachery of the devil himself. His memory is long; the polyps were in his colon and not in his brain. He has taken up the cause that his daddy started and was unable to finish. Saddam was finished off by the trickery and deceit of the two Georges. That a devious and treacherous man such as Saddam could be bested and destroyed by the likes of this pair is testimony to their guile and their single-mindedness of purpose. They are assassins par excellence. Mr. Ahmadinejad should be warned; he is not fooling with a rational being, or with a man of conscience. He is tangling with a fascist despot who has demonstrated that there are no constraints upon his power to war and to destroy, and one who will not let the will of the people get in his way. He is a deluded egotist who believes that he is divinely guided to rain destruction upon those who oppose him. It is the case of one despot against another, but George Bush holds all the aces. And those aces are unequalled in the history of mankind in regard to weaponry.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s Iran is not a match and he should not delude himself into thinking that he has a chance to prevail should he allow George W. Bush to suck him into war. He should also know that Mr. Bush is completely uninhibited in regard to restraints, constitutional or otherwise, upon his power to war indiscriminately, and that his inventiveness in fabricating justification for war has no equal. A word to the wise should be a sufficient warning to those who have natural resources, such as oil, which are coveted by this administration.

For more on the reign of tyrants over the nation use this link to access a column by, Paul Craig Roberts.

© 2007 – Jim R. Schwiesow – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa.

Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals.

E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net

Web-Site: http://www.sheriffjimonline.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim28.htm

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

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

The Enemies of Free Speech…

August 6, 2007 Leave a comment

The enemies of free speech are on the march–Part 8
Start thinking the way we order you to–or else


Wes Vernon

Wes Vernon
August 6, 2007


The president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) has written a threatening letter to a scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) warning him to stop publicly criticizing the theory that global warming is a threat to the planet, or risk the end of his reputation.

Implicit in the message: Shut up or you will be destroyed.

The threat

A July 13 letter from ACORE President Michael T. Eckhart to Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis did not mince words:

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar,” Eckhart graciously wrote. “If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and a charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”

CEI does not dispute the existence of climate change. However, it differs sharply from the enviro alarmist community (such as ACORE) as to the causes and the imminence of the threat.

In a hearing July 26, Senator James Inhofe, ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, confronted Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson with the letter. ACORE is an EPA member.

Johnson replied that statements like this “are of concern to me,” and promised to look into the matter.

Senator Inhofe, who has taken his share of flak for his intrepid exposures of the “global warming,” fraud knows firsthand the backlash from those who don’t want to hear any dissent. His colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer — the new chairman of the committee — gaveled him down when the Oklahoma senator tried to pose a question to the alarmist-in-chief Al Gore. After all, Mr. Gore has arrogantly proclaimed “the debate is over,” so woe be unto anyone daring to (gasp!) question him.

Just a private little note, senator

Eckhart wrote Inhofe a letter the next day complaining that his threatening letter was just “private jousting” and that “[n]one of this was intended for the public.” Further, Eckhart protested, “I am embarrassed to have the private e-mail given to the public, and wish your staff had inquired with me before conducting a hearing.”

We will not go into detail here as to whether a direct threat in writing qualifies as “a degree of private jousting.” Nor will we elaborate on the widespread understanding that when you commit anything to paper or e-mail, you should do so on the assumption that it may be made public. Someone from the “Harvard community” ought to be smart enough to understand that.

Moreover, Myron Ebell — CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy — tells me that Eckhart has previously written or otherwise communicated with CEI concerning this matter ever since Lewis bested him in a TV debate on global warming, and this may be what really sticks in his craw. He defines Eckhart’s letter to Lewis as “essentially blackmail.” Lewis firmly believes what he says and, adds the CEI director, “has the facts to back it up.”

Union of Concerned Propagandists

The most active group seeking to stifle dissent on global warming is the infamous Union of Concerned Scientists, whose findings are reliably of the “we’re-all-going-to-hell-in-a-handbasket” variety. As Ebell charged in an article he co-authored for Capital Research Center, UCS has for almost four decades “manipulated the high reputation of ‘science’ to serve the low ends of politics.”

Concerned about what?

Last year, UCS launched an all-out attack on Exxon Mobil for its contributions to so-called “front groups” who oppose Al Gore’s alarmist agenda. In so doing, the political attack dogs disguised as “scientists” compared Exxon to the cigarette companies.

The federal government spends $2 billion (with a b) each year on its Climate Science Change program. Exxon’s annual contribution expenditure of $2 million (with an m) is chicken feed by comparison.

Aside from that, what is the real issue that causes the UCS to be “concerned?” Perhaps it is “concerned” that — an all-too-willing media echo chamber notwithstanding — the public may come to realize that UCS’s scientific credentials, to put it charitably, are rather thin. It gets its money from powerful anti-free enterprise foundations and from Hollywood stars who apparently believe their celebrity status bestows upon them the gift of genius.

The UCS has a long history of alarmism, not only on global warming, but other issues as well, always in sync with extreme anti-growth environmentalism. It is highly partisan, and its senior staff is made up of politically liberal policy wonks from Washington more than the scientific community. You want to be a “concerned scientist?” They’ll be happy to take your money. Just send them $35 and you’re in.

The big guns weigh in

Last year, Senators John D. Rockefeller IV (D-West Va.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) wrote an open letter to Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson urging him to end his company’s support of “climate change denial front groups.” Further, they warned that “an American scientific group” would soon be attacking Exxon for its contributions.

You get one guess as to the name of that “scientific group.” (No coaching from the audience, please). Since UCS has open membership, for all we know, any of its “concerned scientists” could be an off-the street nut case or worse, let alone a properly-credentialed “scientist.”

Thus, not for the first time has the Stalinist mentality infected the hallowed halls of the United States Senate. (See this column The enemies of Free Speech are on the March — Part 5: The Senate Censorship Politburo,” Sept. 10, 2006.)

Clearly, there was an implied threat in the Rockefeller/Snowe letter. As CEI’s Ebell put it to me, “Typically senators and congressmen do not write letters to private entities telling them what to do because they have power over a number of issues that affect those private entities.” And he added, “It looks like [they're saying] if you don’t do this [stop the contributions], any bill that’s before Congress that affects you, we’re going to make sure you get it in the neck.”

And from the media

For years, there has been within the mainstream media an “act alike, do alike, think alike” peer pressure. The global warming debate has carried that culture to a new and more troubling level.

Heidi Cullen, who hosts a weekly Weather Channel program called The Climate Code, advocates that broadcast meteorologists who do not go along with the “alarmist” global warming point of view be stripped of their scientific certification.

Nobody died and made this woman the ultimate authority of who is and who is not fit to exist in the meteorologist profession. But the Stalinist thought-control mentality never bothers with such trifles. Others in the media have compared global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers and suggested they be treated as traitors and that they be charged before Nuremberg-style war crimes trials. Why stop there? Thirties-style Moscow show trials, anyone?

But in fact, skepticism abounds

One hopes that one highly-decorated French geophysicist is safe from Heidi’s gendarmes.

Claude Allegre is also a former French government official and an active member of France’s Socialist Party. Until September of 2006, Monsieur Allegre was a believer in man-made catastrophic global warming. Not anymore. Further study and more recent findings have made him a skeptic.

He now says that “the prophets of doom on global warming have a lot on their plate in order to make our countrymen swallow their certitudes. He also accused the alarmists of being motivated more by a desire to line their pockets. “The ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people” he said.

60 Canadian scientists have joined the skeptics, declaring, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto [the global warming treaty] would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

These are mere samples of the growing skepticism in the scientific community — adding to the ranks of the many scientists who never did buy into the alarmism in the first place.

No one in the U.S. Senate has done a more exhaustive study on this issue than Senator Inhofe. He has cited scientific studies showing that climate change is nothing new; the accuracy of computer predictions is doubtful; global cooling in fact may be on the horizon; the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing; to the extent there was global warming in the 1990s, it stopped in 1998; Alaska is cooling; the oceans are cooling; light hurricane seasons and early winter have become more common; the National Academy of Sciences has found “unsupportable” Al Gore’s “hockey stick” claim that the 1990s was the hottest decade in 1,000 years; and polar bears are not going extinct. (On the latter point, see this column “Your safety vs. the enviro lobby,” Jan. 11, 2007)

To sum it up

The Stalinists who would shut up the skeptics are looking more ridiculous by the day. Senator Inhofe puts it this way; “The American people are fed up with media for promoting the idea that [Al Gore] represents scientific ‘consensus’ that SUVs and the modern American way of life have somehow created a climate emergency — that only United Nations bureaucracies and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve it. [The] publicity and grant seeking global warming alarmists and their advocates in the media [have] finally realized that the only ‘emergency’ confronting them is their rapidly crumbling credibility, audience and bottom line.”

How’s that for an “inconvenient truth”? Hopefully, those who agree with it and say so won’t be hied off to the gallows.



Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.

© Copyright 2007 by Wes Vernon
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070806

Print E-mail Subscribe RSS Digg this


The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Alan Keyes, RenewAmerica, or its affiliates.

(See RenewAmerica’s publishing standards.)



Previous articles by Wes Vernon:

Click here for more articles

Columns archive

(Click here.)

Protecting Ron Paul, the Rest of the “2nd Tier” and America

August 6, 2007 Leave a comment

The Republicrats would rig an election? Nawww, tell me it ain’t so. That’s something only the Demopublicans would do. lol

thegunny, 419

http://www.flyoverpress.com

editor@flyoverpress.com

~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.GiveMeLiberty.orgwww.GiveMeLiberty.org

August 5, 2007

Protecting Ron Paul, the Rest
of the “2nd Tier” and America

Citizen Vigilance Essential


As things stand today, about 60 citizen camera crews and about 200 citizen volunteers are needed to conduct a “citizens’ exit poll” to double check the easily rigged Diebold electronic voting machines which the Iowa GOP intends to use to “count” the vote at the Ames, Iowa Straw Poll on August 11, 2007 – just a week from now. 

If you can possibly attend and/or donate to help with this “citizens’ exit poll” – see the action items at the end of this update – but first: 

Picture this:

Next Saturday, from 10 am to 6 pm, more than 25,000 residents of the State of Iowa will arrive on the campus of Iowa State University in Ames. They will be 18 years of age or older. They will be there to choose one man from a list of eleven men as their choice to be the next President of the United States of America.

At one of 60 vote stations they will receive a paper ballot. They will pencil in an oval next to the candidate of their choice. They will enter the paper ballot into a machine that will scan the entire ballot and record the vote. After voting, each voter will place a thumb into a container of purple ink.

After scanning each ballot the machine will deposit the ballot into a “black box” within the Diebold machine. At 6 pm each machine and black box are transported to a centralized “tabulation” room. The door to the room will be closed to the public.


(continued…)

Click Here To Access the Full Update

L for Liberty !

Donate and receive the full record of the GML 2007 conference.

23 powerful speakers, 20 hours of compelling video
including banquet speakers and video of the “V” White House protest + bonus support materials!
On (2) DVD-ROM discs.

Click here to obtain the GML 2007 record on DVD-ROM

Watch the preview  Cable connection    Dial-Up connection 

Our Home Page is www.GiveMeLiberty.org

Add Yourself To Our e-Mail List
Delete Yourself From Our e-Mail List

The Landmark Right-To-Petition Lawsuit
and Operations of the WTP Foundation
are Funded Solely By Your
Generous Support.

 

We The People Foundation For Constitutional Education
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, New York 12804
http://givemeliberty.org/


To send an email to Bob Schulz, click here:
mailto:bob@givemeliberty.org


Think secession!

Support our sponsors:

Options for Homeland Defense, Inc.
Quality Firearms Training
www.optionsforhomelanddefense.com

The Warrior’s Press, Inc.
Military Manuals & Correspondence Courses
Outrageous and Banned Books
www.warriorspress.com

American Lapel Pins & Emblems, Inc.
Lapel & Hat Pins, Badges, Patches
www.pinsandemblems.com

ARE AMERICANS BLACKMAILED WITH “IMMINENT TERRORISM”?

August 6, 2007 Leave a comment


ARE AMERICANS BLACKMAILED WITH “IMMINENT TERRORISM”?

Patrick Briley
August 6, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick46.htm

Large groups of suicide terrorists, newly and specially trained by AlQaeda and the Taliban, have been sent to the US and England for terror attacks in the near future according to the report ABC News Exclusive: Suicide Bomb Teams Sent to US. ABC News has further reported that the National Intelligence Estimate and Homeland Security Department (DHS) documents reveal AlQaeda is preparing a “spectacular terror attack” in the US this summer. See Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror ‘Spectacular’ Planned.

It is clear that US authorities have publicly stated and believe that Al-Qaeda is renewing efforts to sneak terror plotters into US:

“Al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment, the Associated Press has learned.”

FBI and US intelligence officials have told the national news media that AlQaeda is bringing Iraqi insurgents to attack inside the US. The FBI also has now said it is investigating Iraqis being smuggled into the US from Mexico for over a year. See Al-Qaida likely to [Use Iraqi Contacts] to attack [in the] US, intel says and FBI: Iraqis Being Smuggled Across the Rio Grande.

Given the latest intelligence reports of Iraqi insurgents being smuggled in for AlQaeda attacks in the US, there is a significant possibility that the spectacular attacks planned for this summer or within 90 days could be done not only by AlQaeda and Taliban terrorists but also by or with the assistance of Iraqi insurgents coming across US borders and by or with the assistance of Iraqi terrorists already in the US. The FBI has said there are Iraqi terrorists sleepers already here who came to the US after the first Gulf War.

So why aren’t Bush and Chertoff enforcing the borders against illegal aliens that include AlQaeda and Taliban suicide terrorists and Iraqi insurgents that AlQaeda says they want to use to attack the US?

So why is Bush persecuting US Border patrol agents who do their job to protect our borders?

So why is Bush trying to lure US Border Patrol agents to Iraq by offering them more money to go to Iraq rather than police US borders against Iraqis, AlQaeda and Taliban being smuggled in to the US?

So why has Bush already halving and then eliminating by 2008 the numbers of National Guard troops sent to protect the US border with Mexico? See Guard numbers on border to be halved [end entirely by Sept. 2008]

Bush’s and Chertoff’s inaction and their diminishing US border protection capabilities against these most recent credible and known threats from AlQaeda and Taliban terrorists and Iraqis insurgents is further indication that Bush is intentionally not adequately protecting the US and instead is allowing the potential for terrorism to blackmail US citizens for more police state powers and to advance world government and the NAU. For more evidence of this and a more in depth discussion of the reasons why see Using Terrorists To Establish World Government and Chertoff Created Terror Pretexts For U.S. Police State

Amazingly, Bush and Chertoff and Robert Mueller have not moved against AlQaeda members in the US because they have publicly claimed there is no evidence of AlQaeda cells in the US. However, this is seriously brought into question by public statements of a US General and the former IG of DHS. See US General: Al-Qaida Making New Cells in US [Contradicts What White House, DHS, FBI Say].

Last year the IG of DHS, Clark Kent Irvine said that the Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, refused to move against 1000 known AlQaeda agents in the U.S. on a list provided by the CIA because Mueller claimed they had not yet committed terrorist acts. Irvine was quoted in the article London plot not Osama’s encore; PREPARING BIGGER STRIKE IN U.S. Mueller’s reason for inaction rings hollow because he and the FBI know these AlQaeda sleepers could commit terror acts and can (and should be) legally be taken off the streets now because they are already committing crimes such as drug trafficking, tax evasion money laundering raising, money for terror organizations (in the Patriot Act) and using property and insurance scams.

The article FBI: Iraqis Being Smuggled Across the Rio Grande also reported: “This May, the Bush administration pledged to resettle 7,000 Iraqi refugees here by the end of the year.”

What guarantee do we have that these Iraqis brought to the US by GW Bush will be adequately screened in case some are terrorists? The last large number (4000) of Iraqis brought to the US by HW Bush and Clinton after the 1991 Gulf War were not adequately screened by former CIA director James Woolsey and these Iraqis committed rapes, murders and robberies. As late as 2005 the FBI told the national media that Iraqi terror sleepers were already in the US and included Iraqis brought to Oklahoma City (OKC) and to the US after the first Gulf War in 1991.

Some of these Iraqis were part of a terror super cell still in OKC known to the FBI. The OKC cell is a super cell because its members also include members of terror organizations Hamas, AlQaeda, AlFuqra, and AlFatah who, along with Iraqis, can still assist in future AlQaeda attacks. The active terror super cell still in OKC was set up in the late 1980s by Iraq and Dr. Ihsan Barbouti and the Muslim Brotherhood with the knowledge of the FBI and CIA at a time when Robert Gates and the CIA were involved in transferring US WMD technologies and materials to Iraq and Iran. One of these Iraqis, Al Hussain Hussaini, helped McVeigh in the OKC bombing. For more on the OKC super cell criminal enterprise and terror network in Oklahoma see chapters in the book The Oklahoma City Bombing Case Revelations (PDF version or HTML Version) and articles at the book website, OKC903.com.

The FBI under Robert Mueller and Bush have refused to move against this OKC super cell even when FBI agents have been presented solid evidence and documents by an attorney and others associated with the intelligence community.

Bush and FBI deliberate inaction against Iraqi, Hamas, AlQaeda and AlFuqra terrorists in the OKC super cell and Iraqis already in the US from the first Gulf War and currently being brought to the U.S. is another indication that Bush is intentionally not adequately protecting the US from the most recent credible and known threats of AlQaeda plans to use Iraqis for attacks in the US. Instead Bush is allowing the existence of the OKC super cell and Iraqis already in the US to blackmail US citizens for more police state powers and to advance world government and the NAU.

In the article American Islamic Groups Named by US Prosecutors in Plot To Fund Hamas Terrorists (also found here), Holy Land Foundation (HLF), the Council on Arab Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) were identified as three unindicted co-conspirators in a current federal trial in Dallas involving illegal funding of Hamas terror activities. The Director of CAIR, Nihad Awad, is on trial with other HLF defendants and has been directly connected by FBI testimony as working for Hamas terrorists and Sami Al Arian while also meeting GW Bush when Bush was governor of Texas. See Holy Land Foundation Trial: CAIR director attended Hamas Terror meeting.

CAIR officials have refused to condemn Hamas by name after Hamas carries out bombing attacks. Yet, according to this article, Muslim sensitivity training for 45,000 airport workers:

“Washington-based CAIR also has regular meetings with the FBI and Justice Department. In fact, FBI case agents complain the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board. CAIR in the past has cried racism and bigotry when the bureau has moved unilaterally with investigations and raids in the community…… CAIR has conducted ‘sensitivity’ and cultural training with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE under DHS) and with the military.”

Robert Mueller, Condi Rice, and Michael Chertoff are pro Saudi Wahhabbism Islamophiles who protect and use CAIR for GW Bush activities to help promote and establish world government and to blackmail the American people with the potential of terrorism into accepting police state powers

NAIT is funded by Saudi Wahhabbists and its Director Mujeeb Cheema lives in Tulsa Oklahoma. Members of the CIA and National Security council who were close associates and assistants of HW Bush set up Cheema in business in Tulsa. See Pakistani Muslim Leader Identified by OKC Bombing Informant Has Backing of Investors Connected to NSC, CIA, Bush, Lenzner, Iran Contra, Mujahidin, BCCI, U.S. WMD Transfers to Iraq.

Bush family attorneys, Akin and Gump, ran the escrow account for HLF. Wealthy Saudi billionaire banker, Khalid Mahfouz, was a HLF board member and financed the Bushes in Arbusto and Harken energy. Even though MSNBC has reported that Khalid Mahfouz Continues AlQaeda & Hamas Funding for Saudis, Mahfouz has aggressively used British lawsuits to sue US book authors Rachel Erhenfeld (Funding Evil) and Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr (Alms for Jihad) who have written about Mahfouz ties to Hamas and Muslim terror funding. Mahfouz protestations of innocence in England’s liberal courts are seriously brought into question by a September 13, 2001 report by France’s foreign intelligence agency, revealing that Bin Mahfouz was known to be one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of AlQaeda’s Osama bin Laden. The report also claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services had knowledge of this. See Legal Terror: Bush Backer MAHFOUZ Sues to Destroy Two Books Exposing Muslim Terror Funding.

Despite this information, Bush and the DOJ have protected Akin and Gump along with Khalid Mahfouz and kept them from being indicted and prosecuted in the HLF case. The connections of the Bushes to the involvement of Mahfouz, Nahwad, Cheema, AlArian, CAIR, and NAIT in the HLF terror funding case for AlQaeda and Hamas terrorists is another indication that GW Bush is allowing terrorism activities to blackmail US citizens for more police state powers and to advance world government and the NAU.

One of the members of HLF, an Oklahoma doctor, Ahmed Agha from Ponca City, is also named on the federal government’s list of unindicted co-conspirators for the HLF case.

Dr. Agha’s involvement with HLF is a potentially significant development given the recent connection of US Muslim doctors to the AlQaeda orchestrated London and Glasgow fire bombings. Some of these American doctors are believed to be helping AlQaeda plan and carry out attacks in the US. See UK al Qaeda [doctors] bomb plot investigation extends to Toledo, Ohio. Also AlQaeda is infiltrating America as medical patients. Since HLF supported Hamas and since Hamas has strong ties to AlQaeda, there is the possibility that Dr. Agha could help these Muslim US doctors and/or patients wanting to carry out an AlQaeda attack in the US.

Another former Oklahoman, Mufid Adulqadir, is also on trial in Dallas for the HLF case as a top HLF and Hamas fundraiser. Abdulqadir worked at the Oklahoma Department of Transportation at the time and has been linked to members of the OKC terror super cell. NAIT, Mujeeb Cheema, Hamas and HLF members such as Dr. Agha are also believed to have ties to members of the OKC terror supper cell. Last year, the FBI was notified in person and by memo by an attorney of concerns of Dr. Agha’s and Abdulqadir’s involvement in HLF and possibly with the OKC super cell. An FBI investigation was thwarted when FBI Director Robert Mueller reassigned FBI agents who had been looking into the matter with the attorney.

The protection of the OKC super cell and the intentional avoidance of an investigation Dr, Agha’s ties to potential terrorist doctors/patients and to HLF terror funding is another indication that GW Bush is allowing the potential for terrorism to blackmail US citizens for more police state powers and to advance world government and the NAU.

© 2007 Patrick Briley – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Patrick Briley is a Navy Viet Nam era veteran who served on a Polaris ballistic missile nuclear submarine patrol in the Pacific. His Polaris submarine patrol in far East Asia near China was historically significant and exceptionally dangerous.

His Naval service was from 1968 to 1976 during the Viet Nam era. He was a battalion commander of his Naval ROTC unit and a Midshipman on board the ballistic missile submarine, SSBN 624, the Woodrow Wilson. He was chosen to serve under Admiral Rickover as a project engineer at Naval Reactors near Washington DC. Patrick Briley started research and investigation into terrorist attacks after the Oklahoma City bombing.

Patrick submitted his findings concerning the OKC bombing and the 9-11 attacks in briefings to high-level staff for the Senate Judiciary and Senate and House Intelligence committees, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and the 9-11 Commission.
E-Mail: pbriley@yahoo.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick46.htm

**********

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

WHY EFFORTS TO RECALL PELOSI WILL FAIL

August 6, 2007 Leave a comment

WHY EFFORTS TO RECALL PELOSI WILL FAIL

By: Devvy
August 6, 2007

© 2007 – NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd293.htm

“From Dan Rather’s five-minute 1988 televised report on computerized vote fraud. Mr. Rather asked computer expert Howard J. Strauss of Princeton University: “Realistically, could the fix be put on in a national election?” Mr. Strauss responded, “Get me a job with the company that writes the software for this program. I’d have access to one third of the votes. Is that enough to fix a general election?” Strauss also said, “When it comes to computerized elections, there are no safeguards. It’s not a door without locks, it’s a house without doors.”

Frustration in this country is growing faster than the latest bumper crop of poppy seeds in Afghanistan. The whole litany of abuses against we the people are presented and dissected every day in this country by articulate, informed, highly intelligent writers from all walks of life, many with impressive academic credentials, many from hard working Americans who have done their research and are very afraid of what’s just over the horizon. Dr. Steven Yates’ recent column is a fine example. Citizen activism is at an all time fever pitch and the federal machine, like a cornered rabid dog, is watching and waiting for the right moment to strike. It’s not an option for the global elitists who run this country via control of the 50 state governors, Congress and White House, to allow we the people to not only expose their evil agenda, but to actually stand up and fight.

And, fight we must, but we need to expend our time and energies into efforts that will bring results. I’ve received several emails from individuals who are actively trying to gear up recall efforts against Marxist Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress. From their lips to God’s ears, except the U.S. Constitution does not allow recall of Congress; the Founding Fathers felt the ballot box would oust any sewage that needed dumping. Little could they imagine how electronic voting machines would end up stealing our elections since the 1960s. Many will recall the fierce battle over states passing term limits back in the 1990s. Recall the “Republican Revolution” back in 1994 and the “Contract with America” sold by serial adulterer and liar, Newt Gingrich, who was caught on tape exposing how he fooled desperate Americans fed up with a Democrat majority in control of Congress for 40 years:

“House Speaker New Gingrich has admitted that a hidden motive behind his ‘Contract With America’ two years ago was to control the large and stridently conservative freshman class that was expected to come into the house with the 1994 mid-term elections. ‘Nobody fully understand this,’ Gingrich explained in confidential tapes obtained by Roll Call, ‘but if you think of the Contract with America, it was, in fact, a training implementation document masquerading as a public relations device…It was designed as a training implementation document for the freshmen when they arrived…It was guaranteed that from election day through April, early April, that the House Republican Party would have to behave in a deviant manner from what it would morally be expected to do.”

Newt Gingrich is a slick, deceitful political animal. The so-called Contract with America was a lie, a farce. Do folks remember that a corner stone of the Contract With America was term limits? It was a lie, a gimmick. A scant few months into their new power high, the Republican controlled House defeated four different versions of a required constitutional amendment to change the U.S. Constitution. Corrupt veteran Republicans joined hands with the Democrats to make sure it went down in flames. The ‘Contract with America’ was nothing more than a slick piece of butcher paper that ended up meaning nothing. The Republicans outspent the Democrats in their 12 years of “power” against we the people.

The Democrats have simply picked up where the “conservative” Republicans left off courtesy of the last pretend election, which in reality, gave us back the same Congress. With the exception of 26 House seats and a few in the counterfeit Senate, the same Republicans who didn’t get the job done for the past 12 years and have destroyed the Bill of Rights, are still in Congress this term (2007/2008) right along with career Democrat parasites: Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman, Harman, Abercrombie, Conyers, Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Rockefeller, Levin and Sarbanes. Allegedly, the American people rehired the same crooks they supposedly took power away from in 1994!

The American people were desperate to stop the destruction of the Democrats while they controlled Congress back in 1994. They went for a promise of term limits. They went to the polls in numbers to get “conservative” Republicans elected to take back power, stop the destruction of this republic and get term limits into the Constitution. What did we the people get? Massive spending and since 911, a Republican controlled Congress that all but nullified the Bill of Rights and U.S. Constitution like a hungry paper shredder. Don’t expect the Democrats to get rid of all these unconstitutional laws put on the books since 911.

In May, 1995, as most of us predicted, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down wishful thinking by ruling states cannot set term limits for members of Congress. While I am 100% for states rights, always have been, a constitutional amendment is required to effect this change in the U.S. Constitution. I highly recommend you read these two items regarding term limits:

U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al. Report for Congress – Recall of Congress

If you know of any groups or organizations out there who are undertaking recall efforts to boot these crooks and thieves out of Congress, please let them know that while we wish we could, it is simply time and resources wasted.

Speaking of Congress, how typical of these show boaters to jump on a tragedy and pass legislation literally within hours to “fix it.” Congress hasn’t found time in 94 years to introduce legislation to abolish the privately owned Federal Reserve, but look what they did within 48 hours for future votes:

Congress OKs Bridge Money August 3, 2007/Associated Press
“WASHINGTON — The House and Senate voted Friday to direct $250 million to rebuild the Minnesota bridge that was destroyed in this week’s deadly collapse. But another vote in the House is needed Saturday after the Senate amended the measure to switch the source for some of the money. Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said the “technical amendment” could end up adding another $5 million to the package.

“All of us are struck, deeply within our souls” by the collapse, said Rep. Jim Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat who chairs the House Transportation Committee, before the House unanimously passed the legislation. The committee’s former chairman, Alaska Republican Don Young, noted that he had sought $375 billion in the last six-year transportation bill, but Congress had to settle for about $90 billion because of opposition from the Bush administration.” Other lawmakers also called for more funding for transportation. The local congressman, Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, praised the bipartisan response, saying, “Even though we have strong differences of opinion, when tragedy strikes America, we have no Democrats, we have no Republicans.”

And: “President Bush planned to visit the bridge site on Saturday, and the White House released a text of his weekly radio address in which he offers Minnesotans encouragement as well as federal money…….” The legislation would waive the $100 million federal limit per state for emergency relief funds, authorizing $250 million for rebuilding the bridge. The money itself still needs to be appropriated by Congress in future legislation. Oberstar pushed the bill through his committee on Thursday. The state’s other seven members all signed on as co-sponsors, and its two senators, Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Amy Klobuchar, introduced companion legislation.”

Opposition from Bush? Say it isn’t so! In August, 2005, I wrote this column about the transportation bill just passed by Congress and signed into law by Bush:

“On Aug. 10, 2005, at a well-crafted photo op, Bush signed the $286.5 billion transportation bill at a Caterpillar facility in Montgomery, Ill., promising jobs – the big carrot. During the 2004 pretend election cycle coverage on the tube, a middle-aged man up in Ohio yelled into the microphone of a reporter, “This election isn’t about Vietnam, it’s about jobs.” There are two problems here, though: (1) There is no money to pay for this $286.5 billion appropriation and (2) the federal government is not supposed to create jobs – except under a communist system.”

Less than two years ago, Congress voted to write another $286.5 BILLION dollars in hot checks to create jobs in the transportation sector; Bush signed it. Now that the Democrats are in “power,” Bush has opposed such spending? No, he hasn’t; the bottom line is they’re all liars writing hot checks for future votes. The day that bill was signed into law by Bush, the people’s treasury – overdrawn by Congress writing hot checks – was $7,883,572,311,422.86. That’s just under $8 TRILLION dollars – all of it borrowed with the interest slapped on the backs of us, our children and grand children. On July 30, 2007, Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, asked Congress to raise the debt ceiling limit, again, so Congress can continue writing hot checks – $12 BILLION BORROWED dollars this month will go to this unconstitutional, failed nation building in Iraq.

Please note above the statement: “The money itself still needs to be appropriated by Congress in future legislation.” You see? A tragedy happens, politicians come out of the woodwork for their photo ops, hurriedly let it be known to voters how they feel their pain, promise money to fix the problem so they’ll be seen as the good guys, but the promised money doesn’t exist because it would be done in future legislation and it will have to be borrowed! What a way to run a country. Not everyone is falling for this BS. Terri Hall, Founder/Director of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom (TURF) had this to say in a press release, August 3, 2007, while the gab fest was going on in DC:

Minnesota bridge tragedy causes citizens to cry foul Collapse due to frivolous earmarks, starving the gas tax & diverting funds AWAY from roads/bridges

“San Antonio, TX. August 3, 2007 – Citizens against the push for privatizing & tolling our highways in order to address our Nation’s aging infrastructure see the Minnesota bridge tragedy as a transportation wake-up call. “It’s criminal that our politicians passed a highway bill in 2005 that funded a $223 million bridge to nowhere in Alaska instead of retrofitting this heavily traveled bridge on one of America’s most heavily traveled inter states,” fumes an incensed Terri Hall, Founder/Director of Texans United for Reform and Freedom (TURF). “We have serious misplaced priorities in this country and politicians who are derelict in their duties.”

“The 2005 federal highway bill (SAFET-LU) had 6,000 earmarks for frivolous Congressional pet projects taken from our gas taxes at a time when the Bush Administration was pushing the privatization & tolling of our highways saying new taxes were necessary to address congestion and aging infrastructure. By design, they want to DOUBLE TAX toll the traveling public to plug their own leaky boat. “What we have are politicians who are now blaming the taxpayers for NOT giving them enough of our money to pay for infrastructure when, in fact, it is they who have habitually pilfered and diverted billions from both federal and state gas tax funds which has caused our infrastructure to fall into disrepair. Now they are guilty of needless loss of life. Truly blood is on their hands,” reflects Hall.

“In Texas, twenty-five percent of fuel taxes are diverted to public schools and another 5% to things that don’t relate to highways. The Texas Legislature has diverted $10 billion from the state highway fund in the last 20 years alone while also defrauding taxpayers into thinking the only way out of our infrastructure woes is to now toll us for what our taxes have already built and paid for and to sell our highway system to the highest bidder while STILL failing to keep our bridges and highways safe. “Let the revolution begin! The public WILL rise-up to boot these politicians out of office if indictments don’t do it first. Heads need to roll rather than to come after us for tolls,” remarks Hall.”

Be sure to read the links in Terri’s press release above. They are an eye opener. Texas has real warriors spearheading organizations that are getting things done and I hope you’ll become part of them if you live in our great State. Freedom is not a spectator sport. However, Terri’s dream of booting out these corrupt politicians can only come true if there are no electronic ballot machines used in the 50 states of the Union. There are a lot of good people out there working to see they’re junked:

“Paper ballots for California! Secretary of State announces de-certification/re-certification plans for e-voting systems. Debra Bowen Announces DRE (Touch-Screen) Machines to be Used

“In a dramatic late-night press conference, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen decertified, and then recertified with conditions, all but one voting system used in the state. Her decisions, following her unprecedented, independent “Top-to-Bottom Review” of all certified electronic voting systems, came just under the wire to meet state requirements for changes in voting system certification. Bowen announced that she will be disallowing the use of Direct Recording Electronic (DRE, usually touch-screen) voting systems made by the Diebold and Sequoia companies on Election Day, but for one DRE machine per polling place which may be used for disabled voters. The paper trails from votes cast on DREs manufactured by those two companies must be 100% manually counted after Election Day. DREs made by Hart-Intercivic are used in only one California county and will be allowed for use pending security upgrades.” Full article here.

I shipped by request 700,000 copies of my Blind Loyalty booklet on vote fraud from 1998 to mid-2004 when I retired it; I profited not one penny. I like to think my Blind Loyalty booklet has helped efforts to stop the stealing of our elections. Congress has allocated more than a BILLION DOLLARS on these voting machines for the states; see link below. Every penny borrowed from the central bank (FED). We will pay on the interest and pass the compounding interest on to our children, grand children and their children, but the crash will come before those generations. And for what? Tens of millions of dollars in legal challenges and candidates who didn’t legally win an election, but the machines have served the shadow government well. The only way to ensure your agenda (world government) is advanced, is to make sure the 50 state governors, Congress and the White House will do your bidding by getting elected and reelected. There are a few exceptions in Congress, but if you fully comprehend the big picture, you know what I’m saying is true.

Vote fraud:

1, The Globalization of Electronic Election Theft
2, Most vote machines lose test to hackers (7.28.07)
3, $1.3 Billion in Election Equipment Upgrade Money Unspent
4, Is that bell tolling for Diebold’s election business?
5, Diebold disclosed e-voting key on website
6, Here’s how these two systems steal your political privacy
7, Hundreds of Illegal Aliens Registered to Vote in Bexar County (Call ICE!)
8, Video: My speech on vote fraud
9, Vote fraud columns index
10, Scottish elections scuppered by e-counting meltdown
11, Pasco uses touch screen voting machines
12, Georgia E-Voting: Illegal and Unconstitutional
13, RFK: Rove ‘Should Be In Jail,’ Not In Office
14, Significant Court Victory in Pennsylvania
15, MD Senate, House vote to scrap $65m e-voting system

© 2007 – NewsWithViews.com – All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country, ran for Congress and is a highly sought after public speaker. Devvy belongs to no organization.

She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party. Her web site (www.devvy.com) contains a tremendous amount of information, solutions and a vast Reading Room.

Devvy’s website: http://www.devvy.com

Before you send Devvy e-mail, please take the time to check the FAQ section on her web site. It is filled with answers to frequently asked questions and links to reliable research sources.
E-mail is: devvyk@earthlink.net

http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd293.htm

**********

*******************
The “G” WEBLOG @N54
by R.W. “Dick” Gaines
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302
Formerly Gunny G’s…Weblog
See Numerous Previous Posts @ Below Link…
http://www.network54.com/Forum/135069
*************************
PERSONAL WEBLOG By Dick G–
NOT ENDORSED BY ANYONE/ANYTHING
OTHER THAN MYSELF!
*****
News-N-Views, Military, History, Politics, Controversial, the Unusual, Non-PC. etc.,
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking…
Articles Not Usually Seen…Elsewhere
*****
Request “ADD” To My E-Mail List…
GunnyGATgmail.com
**************************

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,073 other followers