Bring Back 76

Lincoln hero or villain?

2010-04-22T13:42:00.003-04:00

Many Tenth Amendment Resolutions have been passed by State legislators across the nation. These resolutions are non-binding in that they are not laws, just resolutions. The importance may be difficult for those of us who have been educated in the public school system to appreciate. The view that the States had the right, or power to nullify Federal Laws they view as unconstitutional, was a widely held belief. Thomas Jefferson's famous "Kentucky Resolution of 1798" was written in response to the "Alien & Sedition Act". This act imposed criminal penalties for criticizing government officials, and was a clear violation of the First Amendment.

The main idea is that the States created the Federal government for limited and clearly defined purposes. The first part of Jefferson's "Resolution" states:

"1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress."

State vs Federal power has been an ongoing debate in the history of this nation. In the USA of today most believe that the Federal Government always has the final word of what is Constitutional. But how did this happen? How did an ongoing battle over power just get laid to rest? Well most scholars will tell you something like "the states rights issue was settled at Appomattox." What they are saying in effect is "might makes right". But does it? To understand the issue facing the nation back in 1860 and for insight to the current 10th amendment movement lets look at the "Hero" honest Abe.

Take a look at Lincoln's words during his First Inaugural Address:

I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.

That "will" is important as it is can be taken by the South as a direct threat of force.

His view of contract law may be correct but what of the use of force? If you contract to have a guy build you a house and he reneges on the terms, may you legally use force against him? You may sue and be entitled to the term of the original contract, maybe even damages, but can you go to his house and steal his property as payment? At best by the legal view presented by Lincoln he would have had to settle this contract dispute in court. Not by marching troops South.

He said this at the very beginning of the his speech

" Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
'Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.'"

I do not see a line that said: "Unless i feel there are folks who are in insurrection in which case i will burn, pillage, and rape the entire south."

Lincoln goes on to say this:

"Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism."

How is this view correct in light of the fact that the Union itself was formed through secession from the British?

Then in this same speech he says:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or theirrevolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

(so much for his previous statement of "It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination")

Talk about a good word-smith lawyer politician....He ignores our history to suite his view of secession then plainly claims the people have the right to go into revolution and overthrow the Government!!!

So if they south wanted to overthrow the Union and create the Confederacy then Lincoln would be OK with that. if they wanted to create a separate nation then in Lincoln's view he had the duty to "put down the insurrection". But who would decide what acts were those of revolution which is a right Lincoln acknowledges, and those of insurrection? Would not a revolution by necessity, start as insurrection?

Lincoln's own Constitutional theories were contradictory. The south saw him (rightfully IMO) as just a lawyer who worked for the Rail Roads, that would continue the rape of the South by Northern industrialist. Here was a guy who was employed by the largest industry in the Country at that time. It would be similar if we had the leaders of the largest financial institutions elected to high positions of power and then they told us how they only needed to hurt us for the "good of the country" (wait a min, i think that is exactly what is happening!!! DOH!!).

The South had already started seceding at the time of this speech. Jefferson Davis had already been elected the President of the Confederacy. knowing that re-read this:

"I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary."

In what manner could his "rightful masters" show authority to direct him to the contrary? The North wanted no part of a war. The Norths reaction to subscription proves as much. The South was in the process of "altering or abolishing their ties to the Federal Government and laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Based on these facts, what more could the "masters" do?

It is also interesting that Lincoln used the analogy of a husband and wife when referring to the Union. he said:

"A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this."

Well lets for a second take a look at the analogy in reverse. A union by definition is voluntary.

If a women decided to get a divorce and the husband refused to allow that, would they still be in a Union? Can a union exist when held together by force?

Lincoln changed this nation in one HUGE way, and it was not the "freeing" of the slaves. He established a precedent that no State could exercise independence without the Federal Governments approval. "The states rights issue was settled at Appomattox.", but prior to the "War of Northern Aggression" (AKA Civil War) States often nullified what they felt were unconstitutional Laws, now we have a system where all Federal power is considered "above" state authority. This has directly lead to our republic becoming an Empire that claims to be a democracy.

Now there are some out there who will tell you that States rights are nothing more then a way for racist to enact Jim Crow laws. Look into history to see if they are correct. You may find that that view is selective history. There is no disputing the fact that proponents of Jim Crow claimed states rights/ Nullification. It was also used to by certain States to nullify the "Fugitive Slave Act". Some of the most vocal abolitionist supported States rights and nullification.

Lincoln said this in that same Inaugural Address:

"I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional."

Compare that with Jefferson's resolution.

The founders feared centralized power above all else. The idea that the States would be independent was put in place to prevent the centralizing of power. The Civil War combined with the direct election of State Senators firmly established the States as nothing more the satellites of the Federal Government. If the Federal government is allowed to determine the lengths of their power we do not have a limited Constitutional Republic as our founders intended. Today's renewed interest in States Rights is a good sign. If we ever want to return to a limited Government who's sole concern is protecting the rights of individuals we must rediscover our history.

-J. Avitabile

link to Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

Counter-terrorism team launches in Westchester NY

2009-10-01T11:53:00.004-04:00

Taken from the North County News

WHITE PLAINS — Westchester County residents and visitors may notice some unusual police activity in the southern part of the county this evening, Sept. 29, as police for the first time deploy a highly visible Hercules Team as part of ongoing counterterrorism initiatives in Westchester.

The decision to use Hercules Teams in Westchester was not made in response to any specific terrorist threat. It is a new initiative of Counterterrorism Zone 3, which includes all police departments in Westchester, and has been planned for some time, according to Kieran O’Leary, spokesman for the Westchester County Department of Public Safety.

The chairman of Counter-terrorism Zone 3 is Chief Louis Alagno, of the Mount Pleasant Police Department.

Comprised of specially trained and heavily armed police officers, the Hercules Team will begin paying unannounced visits in the weeks and months ahead to a range of locations in Westchester from transportation hubs to busy shopping areas. The goal of the Hercules Team is to provide an additional, and unpredictable, layer of security to key locations in Westchester where people congregate.

A Hercules Team comprised of officers from the Mount Vernon Police Department, the Yonkers Police Department and the Westchester County Department of Public Safety will visit a number of different locations this evening.

“People should not be alarmed when they see the Hercules Team tonight or at any point in the future,” County Executive Andy Spano said. “These officers are being deployed as part of an overall strategy to deter those who would do us harm. It is one more way that law enforcement in Westchester is working to keep our communities safe.”

Good thing they are "Heavily Armed" to deal with the terrorist ground offensive that threatens our individual liberty so much...

Open Letter To Jacob G. Hornberger

2009-09-18T12:06:00.010-04:00

Recently I read this article on a favorite website. I respect the author very much and wanted to reply to his piece. So I sent him this email:

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your article posted today at Lewrockwell.com. I found it very informative. I hope you are able to take a few minutes to read this email. I am not expert on the attacks of 9/11, and fully agree that our foreign policy produces significant “blowback”. I hope your comments on the evidence are open to discussion. I am not attempting to convince you of anything. Your comments though, seem to indicate that the official story is the most plausible to you, or rather that the “truthers” are unable to "make their case”.

“…simply isn’t convinced by the evidence that the Truthers have produced to make their case. Personally, this is the category I fall into. “

I too felt the same way as you for years. That is until I asked some simple questions about the event. A detailed article explaining why the evidence you have seen is not convincing would be helpful to others like me. In my opinion the evidence to support the official story is the thinnest of all. There is no one that can fully explain how WTC 7 collapsed at freefall speeds into its own footprint towards the path of most resistance. The 9/11 commission ignored the topic all together. AT this point 6 out of 10 commission members have publicly stated that the commission was lied to and mislead by NORAD, the Pentagon, and the White House. Those who understand Operation Northwoods, have already crossed one of the most important roadblocks to truth, that is the idea that our own government could do such a thing.

Fear of being labeled a “truther” is large hurdle for most to jump. Over the years 9/11 “truthers” have been labeled “kooks” and “nut jobs” by the main stream media. You may recall a certain Congressmen who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 that was also referred to as a “kook”. This constant reference to people who have questioned the official story has worked well to convinced the general public to ignore the issue, less they be called a “kook”. But the evidence exists, parts of which seem to be irrefutable.

Our Government and our World took a turn for the worst as a result of that day’s events. It is a fact that most of the legislation like the US PATRIOT ACT was drafted years prior to 9/11, and only able to pass into law because of the events of that day. It was used as an excuse to invade two countries. Over a Million lives have been lost as a result. Based on these facts, do you not think that a thorough review of 9/11 is a good idea?

I respect your opinion greatly, as you are responsible for waking me up to the ideas of liberty. Your voice is needed to help wake up others. To dismiss “truthers” without explanation, to even refer to those who do not trust the governments story as ”truthers”, is a way to stifle open debate and further strengthens the “official” story. Even if that is not your intent, that is the result. If someone claimed that the Keynesians’ economic theories are correct regarding the Great Depression, folks like you would want more information to back up such a statement. Why is 9/11 any different? There is a mountain of evidence available to those willing to look. Short sales on airline stock, inconsistent NORAD response times, burn temperatures, changes to standard shoot down procedures, eyewitness testimonies, peer reviewed papers, and on and on. The “coincidences” that had to happen to allow the official story to be true are overwhelming.

The political price of becoming a “truther” is more burdensome than excepting the official story. If “truthers” are “conspiracy theorist” then those who believe the official story are “coincidence theorist”. In the end the truth will be known. I wish I could dismiss “truthers” as easily as you, then too I wish more people could dismiss Keynesian economics as they do “truthers”! Thank you for your time. Looking forward to your response.

_______________________________________________________

For those interested in 9/11 I suggest doing a little questioning. I started with "these people who think 9/11 is an inside job are crazy, and I bet I can prove it!"

Jeff Avitabile

The Essence of Government

2009-08-04T14:29:00.000-04:00

by Doug Casey

The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitable he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is apt to spread discontent among those who are.

~ H.L. Mencken

I give a good number of speeches each year. For some time I’ve asked audiences a question: "What useful purpose does the US government serve?" I do that not to be challenging or provocative, but to actually find out if anyone else can think of a useful purpose the government serves. The question at fist shocks, then amuses and then perplexes almost everyone because it is both so obvious and outrageous that no one ever thinks of asking it. Most people accept the institution of government because it has always been there; they have always assumed it was essential. People do not question its existence, much less its right to exist.

Government sponsors untold waste, criminality and inequality in every sphere of life it touches, giving little or nothing in return. Its contributions to the commonweal are wars, pogroms, confiscations, persecutions, taxation, regulation and inflation. And it’s not just some governments of which that’s true, although some are clearly much worse than others. It’s an inherent characteristic of all government.

The essence of something is what makes the thing what it is. But surprisingly little study of government has been done by ontologists (who study the first principles of things) or epistemologists (who study the nature of human knowledge). The study of government almost never concerns itself with whether government should be, but only with how and what it should be. The existence of government is accepted without question.

What is the essence of government? After you cut through all the rhetoric, the doublethink and the smokescreen of altruism that surround the subject, you find that the essence of government is force. And the belief it has the right to initiate the use of force whenever expedient. Government is an organization with a monopoly, albeit with some fringe competition, on the use of force within a given territory. As Mao Zedong said, "The power of government comes out of the barrel of a gun." There is no voluntarism about obeying laws. The consent of a majority of the governed may help a government put a nice face on things, but it is not essential and is, in fact, given with any enthusiasm.

A person’s attitude about government offers an excellent insight into their character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another; they offer a practical insight into how he views humanity at large and himself in particular.

There are only two ways people can relate in any given situation; voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism, but government is viewed as somehow exempt. It’s widely believed that a group has prerogatives and rights unavailable to individuals. But if that is true, then the Ku Klux Klan, the Irish Republican Army, the PLO – or, for that matter, any group from a lynch mob to a government – all have rights that individuals do not. In fact, all these groups believe they have a right to initiate the use of force when they find it expedient. To the extent that they can get away with it, they all act like governments.

Terrorists, Mobs and Governments

You might object that the important difference between the KKK, IRA, PLO or a simple mob and a government is that they aren’t "official" or "legal." Apart from common law concepts, legality is arbitrary. Once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the "laws" of governments and the ad hoc proceedings of an informal assemblage such as a mob, or of a more formal group like the KKK, boils down to the force the group can muster to impose its will on others. The laws of Nazi Germany and the USSR are now widely recognized as criminal fantasies that gained reality on a grand scale. But at the time those regimes had power, they were treated with the respect granted to any legal system. Governments become legal or official by gaining power. The fact that every government was founded on gross illegalities – war or revolt – against its predecessor is rarely an issue.

Force is the essence of government. But the possession of a monopoly on force almost inevitably requires a territory, and maintaining control of territory is considered the test of a "successful" government. Would any "terrorist" organization be more "legitimate" if it had its own country? Absolutely. Would it be any less vicious or predatory by that fact? No, just as most governments today (the ex-Communist countries and the kleptocracies of the Third World being the best examples), demonstrate. Governments can be much more dangerous than the mobs that give them birth. The Jacobin regime of the French Revolution is a prime example.

Is the State Necessary?

The violent and corrupt nature of government is widely acknowledged by almost everyone. That’s been true since time immemorial, as have political satire and grousing about politicians. Yet almost everyone turns a blind eye; most not only put up with it, but actively support the charade. That’s because although many may believe government to be an evil, they believe it is a necessary evil. (The larger question of whether anything that is evil is necessary, or whether anything that is necessary can be evil, is worth discussing – perhaps in another forum.)

What, arguably, makes government necessary is the need for protection from other, even more dangerous, governments. I believe a case can be made that modern technology obviates this function.

One of the most perversely misleading myths about government is that it promotes order within its own bailiwick, keeps groups from constantly warring with each other and somehow creates togetherness and harmony. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of the truth. There’s no cosmic imperative for different people to rise up against one another – unless they’re organized into political groups. The Middle East, now the world’s most fertile breeding ground for hatred, provides an excellent example.

continue reading

Chuck Norris is Getting it!

2009-07-14T16:28:00.003-04:00

Back in March of this year the pro-wrestler Glenn Jacobs (A.K.A. "Kane") wrote An Open Letter To Chuck Norris where he asked Chuck to abandon his support for the Fair Tax and instead support the End The Fed movement. Yesterday, Chuck posted an article on WorldNetDaily called "A Force of One: the Federal Reserve".

After reading Chuck's article, it is clear that he no longer will be pushing for a "Fair Tax". The Banksters should know Chuck Norris is not one to be taken lightly. They say under that beard is another fist, waiting to strike!!!

I don't know if it was Glenn Jacob's letter that pushed Norris to learn more about the Federal Reserve, but it is nice that we have another patriot on our side.

-J. Avitabile

Sleep easy

2009-07-06T12:02:00.003-04:00

So I wake up this morning to read that Obama and Medveded have agreed to a path to an arms deal. Man...talk about relief. I am so angry I cant even make jokes. The Russians? We are wasting time talking to the Russians about decreasing the amount of arms we both have. What the fuck is wrong with this world. We have the worst economic collapse in the history of the world going on right now, there are 2 active wars we are fighting, plus the global war on terror. Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, North Korea is shooting of missles like its the home run celebration at the new Yankee Stadium and our fearless leader is in Moscow talking to the Russians about Nuclear Arms Proliferation? Did I miss something? I thought that problem went away about 20 years ago. Next you will hear Obama call for the Berlin Wall to come down. I mean come on. Quit wasting our time and get something done.

Now that I think about it, this is a great policy, maybe his best. After all it is the only thing he has done that hasnt cost the taxpayers 100s of billions of dollars. So maybe I was too quick to judge. Good job Barak. Thanks for doing something that wont either bankrupt us or devalue the American dollar.

-Hamertek

Life, Liberty, and Property Are Inseparable

2009-07-02T13:25:00.002-04:00

Written by Tom Mullen

The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property; and the end why they chuse and authorize a legislative, is, that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power, and moderate the dominion, of every part and member of the society: for since it can never be supposed to be the will of the society, that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure, by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.

- John Locke[1]

Life, liberty, and property were the central, inalienable rights that formed the foundation of the great experiment in self government called the United States of America. The founders of our country never broke apart this sacred triumvirate, because each one of these rights is inextricably bound to the other. No one of these three can exist without the other. Moreover, when all three are secured, it is almost impossible for injustice to exist. Wherever one does find injustice, one invariably finds a violation of one of these three basic rights at its root.

While it is certainly true that today the rights to life and liberty are grossly violated in innumerable ways, they are nevertheless at least spoken of by our politicians. However hypocritically, they at least say that they value life and liberty, even as they pervert those sacred rights as justification for their wars and plunder.

Yet, they never even hypocritically evoke the right to property. No journalist ever challenges them based upon it, and honestly, most average Americans don’t talk about it either. As a principle, property has vanished from our consciousness. However, as all of the great philosophers throughout history have understood, there is no right to life or liberty without property. In fact, property is part and parcel of life itself.

What is property? It is that which an individual rightfully owns. Included among every human being’s property are his mind, his body, his conscience, and his actions. Every act of mind and body undeniably belongs to the actor, including that act which he engages in more than any other: his labor. To deny someone’s right to ownership of his mind, body, or labor is to make him a slave.

It is labor that allows each individual to sustain his existence and pursue his happiness. All consumption must be preceded by production. Production can only be achieved through human labor. In fact, there is no way for an individual to pursue any goal, whether material, intellectual, or spiritual, without exertion. Even the search for God requires an intellectual and spiritual effort – it cannot commence without labor.

For most of us, the bulk of our labor is devoted to providing the basic necessities of life for ourselves and our children. Some portion of it also provides the extras – the toys, the vacations, or the dining out that enriches our lives and adds to our happiness. A further portion is devoted to study, prayer, or just simple reflection – the quest for meaning and purpose in our lives. None of these things are possible without labor; our labor provides them all. Every item in every store is the product of someone’s labor. Every phone call you make is made possible by someone’s labor. Healthcare is someone’s labor, as is education.

However, the actual effort of mind and body is not the most precious aspect of labor. If human beings were immortal, we could afford to spend our labor and its fruits indiscriminately, consuming as much as we wished and providing anything to anyone who asked it of us. If a shoemaker were able to make shoes for the rest of eternity, then certainly there would not be a bare foot on the face of the earth. If the land developer were immortal, we would all live in a mansion.

However, we are not immortal, and it is this fact that places such a premium on our labor. Our labor is not just composed of the exertion of mind and body that is necessary to produce some good or service. That exertion happens over time, the hours or days of the laborer’s life. Every hour of our labor is an hour of our life from a limited supply which cannot be replenished. Whatever we have produced with our labor now contains that portion of our life which we have sacrificed to produce it.

So, when human beings trade their goods or services with one another, they are really trading pieces of their lives. If they have exchanged their labor for money with an employer or customer, that money now contains some part of their lives – a part that can never be reclaimed. That is why the same verb is used for both money and time – both are “spent” in exchange for some benefit. Both also represent each individual’s means of self determination.

Therefore, it is impossible to call a person free if he does not own his labor and all the product of his labor. It is only through his labor that he can provide better food, clothing and shelter for himself and his family, send his children to better schools, or realize the leisure time necessary to grow intellectually and spiritually. His labor is his means to determine the course of his life. Without self determination, there is no liberty.

Furthermore, to deny a human being ownership of his labor is also to deny his right to life itself. Since his labor is his means of sustaining his existence, once his right to ownership of his labor is denied he lives only at the arbitrary whim of whoever has claimed ownership of it. For such a person, life is now a privilege granted by someone else, rather than a right.

To the founders of the United States of America, all of this was self evident. When one reads the writings of Samuel and John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, or Locke, one finds one word that is used many times more often even than liberty: property. Recognizing property as nothing more than the individual’s labor and/or the product of his labor, the founders placed the protection of property as the very highest priority of government. In fact, they often stated that it was the only priority of government. While no high school history book or Hollywood biopic even hints at this fact, merely reading the words of the founders for oneself puts any debate on this point to rest.

Let us apply this concept to a contemporary issue. The unambiguous statements in the Declaration of Independence that all human beings have unalienable rights and that government’s sole purpose is to secure them should absolutely beg at least one timely question from most Americans today. Why did the founders not provide for the right to health care? Why did they not establish Medicare or Medicaid? Given a whole system of government whose purpose was to secure individual rights, why was this right so glaringly overlooked?

Of course, the answer to that question is that the founders recognized that health care was not a right. Health care, like every other good or service, is someone’s labor. No one but the laborer can have a right to it. To say that people have a right to health care is really to deny the health care provider a right to his own life, for it is impossible for both he and his patient to have a right to ownership of his labor. It is no less a crime to forcefully rob the health care provider’s fee from a third party (the taxpayer), for that simply denies the taxpayer’s right to his own life. In either case – whether the health care provider is forced to treat the patient for free or a third party is forced to pay the bill – someone’s labor, some part of someone’s life, is being stolen from him. This is the specific crime that government exists to defend its citizens against. By instead committing this crime, government becomes the most grotesque absurdity imaginable.

This is not to imply that we are at some sort of crossroads because President Obama and his pet Congress are closing in on expanding government healthcare. We came to that crossroads decades ago and quite undeniably took the wrong road. Until our philosophy changes and we recognize that retirement benefits, health care, research grants, corporate subsidies, investment in alternative energy – all money, goods, and services – are really pieces of someone’s life that cannot be seized from them without their consent (not even by majority vote), we will never restore the liberty that we have lost. Instead, we will continue to be the most pitiable form of slave, not bound to one master, but to everyone.

When a fellow human being offers to buy your product or hire you for your services, he has paid you the highest compliment imaginable. That person has offered a piece of his life to you in exchange for something that you have to offer, which is itself a piece of your own life. He is saying that you have value and that what you offer is worth hours or days of his life that he can never reclaim. This consensual interaction between free people is the most beautiful aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every improvement in the quality of human life that has ever occurred throughout history.

Conversely, when a fellow human being points a gun at you and demands that you provide him with some good or service, he commits the most egregious crime imaginable, short of pulling the trigger and ending your life at that moment. For in reality, he is really stealing a piece of your life that you can likewise never reclaim. He may be committing this crime because he wishes to increase his wealth without earning it, or he may desperately needwhatever he takes from you, but it is the same crime nonetheless. This interaction is the most evil aspect of civil society and has been responsible for every war and human misery that has ever occurred throughout history.

Government can only be organized to fulfill one of two purposes: to protect your property or to take it from you - for whatever purpose government or its constituents deem fit. There is no third choice. To organize society around competing groups stealing from one another is to create a society whose citizens exist in a perpetual state of war with one another – for the use of force to obtain another’s property without his consent is the definition of the state of war.

Such a society cannot endure indefinitely. Ours has come to the beginning of its inevitable end. Countless empires throughout history – some much more preeminent in their worlds than we are in ours – have disintegrated for exactly the same reason. We can still choose justice over injustice but our philosophy must change. We must again institute a government that secures our rights, rather than annihilates them in the attempt to provide us with the property of others.

This will not happen by any act of government itself. Whether we elect a liberal or a conservative, we will never achieve different results by continually electing different people or parties but asking them to do the same thing – provide us with the property of others. It must be the people who change their philosophy and then demand that government assume its appropriate role according to that philosophy. Our government ultimately gives us what we ask for. For the past century, we have increasingly asked it to make us slaves, seduced by the siren’s song of comfort and security without responsibility. This can only be provided to each of us at another’s expense and can only be provided to others at ours. Once we reject the idea that we can claim a right to another human being’s life, the chains that bind us will be broken. Then, it will matter not who makes our laws.

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

[1] Locke, John Second Treatise of Government Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Indianapolis, IN (1980) Pg. 111

Thank you Tom for permission to re-post your work here.

yes WE can.....

2009-06-25T15:05:00.001-04:00

It's becoming painfully obvious to anyone willing to turn off the Main Stream Media and do a little reading that the current administration is working against the best interest of the American people. This is not a rant against Obama in particular or Democrats in general. In fact, like most, I thought there was no way one could do more damage to the American Experiment then our previous President. We are trapped by a Federal Government that sees no limits to their power and a two party system that work together to expand that power. Leaving "We the People" and more importantly you the Individual in a difficult situation.

When the government increases in size and power, it is at the expense of individual liberty. When will we wake up to this fact and curb the growth of government while we still can? My concern is that it has already grown too big, and the nation is now too dependent to reverse this trend. Writing letters to our congress requesting that they limit their power so as to expand ours is not a likely solution. Some of my fellow citizens seem all too happy that the Federal Government has taken more control of their lives. Some want even more power handed to the "Nanny State". Calls for universal health care are growing louder and is down right scary. Those who wish the government provide them with free health care are some of the most well meaning , and naive folks out there. The US Government has provided free health care to Veterans and American Indians for years...how's that working out? That may be a simple argument but that's all that's needed to see the flaws in the proposal. If you saw a construction company build a house next door to you, and it was awful looking and shabby and the roof leaked and the siding blew off, would you hire them to fix up your house? Another thing to consider is not what we are gaining, but what we are loosing. When the Government is put in charge of determining what doctor you should see, or what procedure they will pay for, what you want does not matter. Anyone who has had to deal with today's HMO's, Doctors and insurance can attest to this problem right now, everyone is a decision maker except the patient!!! Do you honestly believe that the government is able to step in and make it run smoother? The more I learn about the current health care system, the more I see government as the problem as it is. If you are an employer who is dishing out huge amounts a month to provide your employees with health care, what are you going to do when the Government offers free health care?

This is not just about health care. If it was just that issue, i would not be as concerned as I am. It is about the proper role of Government. This country was founded on the principle that the Government is evil. At worse it's a Tyrannical Despotism, at best it's a Necessary Evil. Notice that even in it's best form it's still evil! Our founders knew this. They structured the Federal Government with this in constant view. There was a major debate over the inclusion of the Bill of Rights. The debate was not about if they should or should not include the Bill of Rights for their value, but rather was it necessary to even state what the founders and the people knew to be understood. The Constitution only grants specific powers to the Federal Government. It was written for the purpose of creating and chaining down a Federal Government. Before the ink was dry on our new Constitution some went right to work "interpreting" the document. I always found that to be an interesting concept..."interpreting" the Constitution, is it written in German or something? Now through the magic of "interpretation" we have a Federal Government that can do anything imaginable. Is this what the founders intended?

It's time for Americans to rediscover our lost history. The history we were taught in school is insufficient in providing the understanding needed to maintain a free society and a properly functioning Republic. In fact I'll go as far to say that the history lessons we receive from Government funded schools is purposely misleading about the proper role of government. Only when we have a well informed citizenry will we truly be able to secure the blessings of Liberty.

-- J. Avitabile

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
~ Mark Twain

Glenn Greenwald's "Most Important Issue"

2009-05-28T09:38:00.007-04:00

I read Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com almost everyday. It is refreshing to see topics that most media ignore. It is also nice to read an intelligent, well thought out article, and Greenwald does this with the best of them.

Recently I came across an article written by Jeremy Scahill(see below post), documenting torture at Guantanamo that is still taking place under the Obama administration. While this may be of no surprise, it is important. You may remember that President Obama on his first days in office wrote a series of executive orders, among them was one that banned "enhanced interrogations"(a.k.a. torture) of detainees. This article painstakingly documents how torture is still the norm or SOP(standard operating procedure) of Gitmo. If this is the case, then CIA black sites are most likely still in operation. The media, and the base of supporters who elected Obama, seem to be ignoring this issue. Maybe they think if they ignore it it will go away.

I am simply amazed that a blogger like Greenwald who has been covering Gitmo and related executive abuses for so long could simply not mention this report. All this at a time when the national media was debating what should be done with the detainees after closing Gitmo. The president announced a new system of "preventative detention" which is the equivalent to thought crime. Still not a word about this report or it's implications to future thought criminals.

Greenwald, who i admire, often suggests folks write congressmen and pressure Obama and others on issues that are important to the future of this country. So after a week or so of reading Greenwald's work and seeing no mention of this report, I was prompted by his often given advice of applying pressure to those who I wanted to influence. I wrote a few lines in the "comment" section of his blog, inquiring about why he has not yet discussed it and what he thought. After a few other commenter's suggested I write my own blog (how little they know), I finally came across Greenwald's response. And Here it is:

"There is never any such thing as The Most Important Issue. There are always many important issues. People who don't move beyond the adolescent stage of self-absorption always think that whatever issue they are most interested in at any given moment is, by definition, the Most Important Issue.

Every week, there are a whole slew of extremely important issues I never write a word about. For one thing, like everyone else, I only have a finite amount of time and energy and can't write about every important issue. I can't possibly write about all the important issues.

Beyond that, there is a whole slew of reasons why I may not write about even a very important issue: maybe I'm not aware of it; maybe I have nothing worth saying about it; maybe I'm ambivalent about it; maybe I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to write about it; maybe I think others are already writing everything there is to say about it; maybe I think there are more constructive ways to spend my time; maybe the topic just doesn't interest me much; maybe I'm not in the mood to write about it, etc. etc.

Imagine if I had spent last week writing about this Gitmo issue instead of what I wrote about -- how many people would be here saying: "Obama proposes indefinite detention and you have nothing to say about it??? Are you in the tank now for Obama?" -- or: "Obama nominates someone who is going to be on the court for the next 30 years and could swing the balance of power on all executive power issues and you have nothing to say???," etc.

No matter what issues I choose to write about, there will always be people who think that the issues I selected are unimportant and that I'm ignoring the Most Important Issue. I appreciate -- and rely on -- constructive suggestions about what topics to cover. I frequently follow those. But I don't appreciate petulant complaints that the topic I choose to write about -- the one that is interesting or important to me - isn't interesting to someone else. Who cares? There are 43 million blogs on the Internet. When the bloggers who I read focus on something that doesn't interest me, I just go read something else. I don't write to them telling them to focus on what interests me instead." -- G. Greenwald

My response:

Glenn

Your Blog is always pointing out what others write, and how they ignore blatant hypocrisy. You have repeatedly praised Obama's executive order banning the use of "enhanced interrogation". You always say you will judge Obama on his action not his words.

You did judge him on his words...granted it was his written word. Now it has come to light that the actions taken are contradictory to the words. NOT a peep from you.

This is just important to me...I am self absorbed. Well, you have no one to thank but yourself. You turned me on to this stuff. Pretending that this is just a minor issue that only concerns me is simply not the case. Your own writing shows how important this issue is. If these orders are nothing more then for show, then what things do you have left to point to to praise Obama?

I thought i let it go yesterday,then i read you ranting response about how

"Imagine if I had spent last week writing about this Gitmo issue instead of what I wrote about -- how many people would be here saying: "Obama proposes indefinite detention and you have nothing to say about it???"

well imagine you write about indefinite detention and fail to mention that those detained may be tortured!

Talk about hypocrisy....you then write:

"But I don't appreciate petulant complaints that the topic I choose to write about -- the one that is interesting or important to me - isn't interesting to someone else."

You do this to others all the time. I can't count the amount of post you have done where you are breaking down what others have written and complained about the content. Your rant is obviously searching for a good reason to avoid the topic.

Make it about me..not about the issue.

"I may not write about even a very important issue: maybe I'm not aware of it; maybe I have nothing worth saying about it; maybe I'm ambivalent about it; maybe I don't think I'm knowledgeable enough to write about it; maybe I think others are already writing everything there is to say about it; maybe I think there are more constructive ways to spend my time; maybe the topic just doesn't interest me much; maybe I'm not in the mood to write about it, etc. etc."

How does any of those above reasons apply to this issue? You mean to tell me that your not aware of this? Or ambivalent to it? If this is truly your reasons for not addressing this issue...maybe it is time to read another blog.

and to all you "leave Glenn alone, get your own blog" types...

I will and I do"

--Jeff Avitabile

Little Known Military Thug Squad Still Brutalizing Prisoners at Gitmo Under Obama

2009-05-27T16:19:00.001-04:00

The 'Black Shirts' of Guantanamo routinely terrorize prisoners, breaking bones, gouging eyes, squeezing testicles, and 'dousing' them with chemicals.

by Jeremy Scahill

As the Obama administration continues to fight the release of some 2,000 photos that graphically document U.S. military abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, an ongoing Spanish investigation is adding harrowing details to the ever-emerging portrait of the torture inside and outside Guantánamo. Among them: "blows to [the] testicles;" "detention underground in total darkness for three weeks with deprivation of food and sleep;" being "inoculated ... through injection with 'a disease for dog cysts;'" the smearing of feces on prisoners; and waterboarding. The torture, according to the Spanish investigation, all occurred "under the authority of American military personnel" and was sometimes conducted in the presence of medical professionals.

read the rest of the article

An Open Letter to Chuck Norris

2009-05-20T23:08:00.001-04:00

by Glenn Jacobs

Dear Chuck,

Like so many others, I have a great deal of respect for what you have accomplished in your life. You are the epitome of the American Dream; rising from a troubled childhood to the heights of international celebrity. While you and I may not agree on many political issues, I believe that you are sincere in your concern for the future of the American republic.

However, I think you miss the mark with your support of the Fair Tax. Yes, the current federal income tax system is immoral, invasive, and represents a form of slavery (resting on the premise that individuals are not entitled to the fruit of their labor), but eliminating one tax and replacing it with another is never a good idea.

Besides, we have bigger fish to fry. While taxes are certainly an important issue, it is not the taxes we see that are our greatest worry at this point. The tax we should be concerned about is the one that we don’t see.

As long as the Federal Reserve System retains the monopoly power to issue currency, it really doesn’t matter what the tax system is. Theoretically, the Fed can print all the money the government needs and we will be taxed through the loss of purchasing power of the dollar. This is going to become more and more evident as the federal government grows to unprecedented proportions. The crisis that we are witnessing now pales when compared to the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare. The only way for the government to deal with them is to inflate the debt away.

The Fed is an unconstitutional institution. According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress is empowered to "coin money and regulate the value thereof." In 1913, Congress delegated that authority to the Fed. This action in itself is questionable as it would seem that a constitutional amendment would be required for Congress to delegate authority with which it is specifically vested.

The issue, however, is even bigger than that. It is no accident that these powers were included in a clause which grants Congress the authority to "fix the standard of weights and measures." That is because the dollar itself is not money; it is a measure of money. Money, according to the Framers, was gold and silver. Congress is simply empowered to standardize the dollar as a measure of precious metal – traditionally, 1/20 of an ounce of gold.

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to create money or to regulate the value of the dollar by manipulating the money supply. The power which the Fed claims to posses under congressional mandate – the power to create money – never existed in the first place.

As Thomas Jefferson predicted, the Fed’s monopoly on the issuance of currency is enslaving America. Most insidiously of all, we are being enslaved with our own productivity. The law has been perverted into an instrument of plunder. All these bailouts are really reverse wealth redistribution as taxpayer money is lavished on political capitalists. In addition, the Fed is backstopping trillions of dollars of losses in the commercial banking sector. Where are the Fed and the government getting all this money? What the government cannot expropriate or borrow will be created out of thin air by the Fed, expanding the money supply and ultimately causing price inflation.

Inflation is most pernicious tax of all. It destroys savings by devaluing the monetary unit. It distorts the price signals on which entrepreneurs rely to make decisions about how best to meet customer demand, choking the economy with waste and inefficiencies. It punishes the poor since they receive the new money only after prices have already risen, if they receive the new money at all. And worst of all, very few realize who is to blame for these problems.

Inflation is the politician’s best friend. It allows him to promise his constituents all sorts of goodies seemingly for free. When the bill comes due in the form of higher prices, the politician can blame greedy businessmen or OPEC sheiks. In reality, the trail leads back to the government profligacy.

Some will say that the Fed is an independent agency and is therefore not subject to political caprice. Balderdash. The Fed works closely with the President to implement monetary policy. In addition, the folks at the Fed are people just like you and me. Who wants to take the blame when the economy takes a downturn as it inevitably will if the Fed contracts the money supply? Why not just keep the printing presses cranking and let your successor deal with the consequences? That is what Alan Greenspan did and he was heralded as a god; don’t you think that that may have gone to his head?

The problem with central banking is not whether the central bank is run by private interests or the government. The problem is that it is controlled by people, people who answer to political pressure and not market forces. For this reason (as well as many others), central planning never works. The Fed – America’s central bank – is simply central planning under a different name.

The only way for the American people to restore their freedom is to take back control over their money. We must eliminate legal tender laws and break the Fed’s monopoly on currency. If the government is going to be involved in monetary affairs at all, we must reinstate a gold standard in order to limit its ability to inflate.

Chuck, you have never backed down from a fight, and this fight will be an epic. The people who think that they run this country are not just going to give up. Just like Nicholas Biddle, they will do everything possible to stay in power, even threatening to destroy the economy. The truth is that the economy is being destroyed right now and the only way to save it is to allow the free market to work.

There is a movement in America which, although it is still in its nascent stages, is causing the Establishment to tremble. It is a movement which promises to smash the shackles of the central bank and liberate Americans from the clutches of power-mad politicians and their corporate cronies.

Chuck, forget about the Fair Tax and add your voice to our battle cry.

END THE FED!!

March 21, 2009

Glenn Jacobs [send him mail] is the actor and wrestler Kane. Visit his blog.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

We Are the 'Enemy of the State'

2009-05-19T10:18:00.000-04:00

From its very infancy, our government has made a vital part of its existence the theft of property that belongs to others and the demonization of those who would resist, or those who see the state for what it really is. From the American Indian to the veterans who have fought the state’s illegal wars, resistance to, or speaking out against the criminality of the state will bring down the full force of the state’s wrath, up to and including elimination.

Henry Clay, whose protégé was Abraham Lincoln, said of the American Indian, " The Indians' disappearance from the human family will be no great loss to the world. I do not think them, as a race, worth preserving." Clay saw the Indian as an impediment to the desires of the state: acquisition of the lands possessed by the American Indian.

Clay’s beliefs and political goals led to the forced relocation of Cherokees from the mountains of Tennessee, North Carolina, and Georgia to Oklahoma during the winter of 1838. Over 20,000 Cherokees were dragged from their homes, which were then plundered and burned. They were force marched, most of them barefooted, to Oklahoma during the dead of winter. Over 4,000 Cherokees died on this march. To the Cherokees it became known as the "Trail of Tears."

Abraham Lincoln would instigate, promote, and conduct a war that would consume the lives of more than 600,000 Americans. The purpose of the war was not to abolish slavery, as is claimed by idolaters of the state, but to secure the property of citizens of the South, a confiscatory seizure of their monies known as the Morrill Tariff. Lincoln would reveal his intention to invade the South to secure these monies and his lack of concern for slavery in his First Inaugural Address.

continue reading this artical....

"Francisco's Money Speech"

2009-04-29T09:23:00.001-04:00

The following is an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged, © Copyright, 1957, byAyn Rand.

"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor--your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions--and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made--before it can be looted or mooched--made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss--the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery--that you must offer them values, not wounds--that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade--with reason, not force, as their final arbiter--it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability--and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money--and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich--will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt--and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard--the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money--the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion--when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing--when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors--when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you--when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice--you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood--money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves--slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being--the self-made man--the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose--because it contains all the others--the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity--to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice--there is no other--and your time is running out."

Newspapers Subsidies

2009-03-11T21:46:00.001-04:00

So guess who is gonna be lining up for their share of the bailout? Tribune Media, The New York Times and other giant newspapers. It turns out that they are in horrible financial shape. Of course they wont really talk to much about that, but it turns out that newspaper subscriptions are at an all time low. Huh, strange. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that by the time I get my morning gazette, I have seen the news on my favorite 24 hour cable news station, but I have also read about it all over the web, including an obligatory trip to Wikipedia (no one wants the truth anymore) and probably blogged about it. Plus when I watch the TV news there is no reading involved and if I do read it on the web then I don't have to worry about getting nasty newsprint on my fingers. Now, I will say for disciplining the dog (Sorry Harley) nothing works better then a good old fashioned New York Post but that's about it.

So I say either adapt, or die. Its Darwin at its finest. Now, I know that's cold but I believe that giving money to these media companies is a very dangerous idea. I mean these are the people who are molding public opinion. Do you really feel comfortable with trusting our politicians to honestly and fairly dispense tax payers money to these companies? I surely do not. A bailout would essentially create state owned newspapers. Sounds a little scary doesn't it? Also the newspapers would be afraid to criticize whomever was in elected office out of fear that they would not receive government funding. It would makes today's slanted news look like campaign commercials.

What you need to understand about newspapers, tv news shows and online media outlets is that they like Walmart are a business. The more people that buy their papers, and watch their programs and visit their websites, the more money they make. Think about it, you really think that news people are above sensationalizing stories for ratings. Dan Rather passed off a fake story about President Bush during his reelection campaign. It was a disgrace and ended up costing Dan his career (and rightfully so). So do you really think that these people can be trusted with taking money from the government and not being biased in the process? They are the ones who are rooting for disaster anyway. Ironically the worse things get, the better it will be for them. That means they are rooting against us, rooting against America. Kind of puts a chill down your spine. After all they have tremendous influence over what we think and how we act and yet they benefit from our downfall? Yikes.

So I will say what I always say, I believe in a free market. I dont believe that we should be bailing anybody out. Sink or swim, thats what I always say. If you are unable to make it, then you have been extincted. Time to evolve into something that works.

The Forgotten Right

2009-02-04T10:53:00.000-05:00

by Tom Mullen

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

– John Adams (1787)[1]

It is starting to become apparent to even the most disinterested observer that something much bigger than even a worldwide recession is happening. The seeds of revolution have taken root. Iceland led the way by taking to the streets to force regime change through peaceful demonstration. The French are currently protesting en masse against their government’s bailout of the banking system. One would be naïve to think that these are isolated incidents. It is apparent that these are just early warning signs of a worldwide cauldron that is about to boil over, catalyzed by the financial and economic cataclysm that will plunge untold millions into poverty and desperation.

While I applaud the peaceful demonstrations going on in France and Iceland, I also recognize that they are premature. As did Americans in the last election cycle, these Europeans are demanding “change.” However, also like Americans in the last election cycle, they have failed to first answer the crucial questions, “From what? To what?” They have not looked within to assess who they are, what their society is, and what they want it to be. Therefore, they run the risk of simply replacing one oppressive tyranny for another.

Likewise, we will never regain our freedom in America until we address the fundamental problem in our society. I say “the problem,” because at the root of all of what we perceive as a myriad of problems, including the police state, the welfare state, the warfare state, the military industrial complex, the Wall Street oligopoly, the high cost of healthcare and education – everything – there is one philosophical problem that ultimately leads to them all: the repudiation of property rights.

It is likely difficult for most 21st century Americans to absorb this statement, based upon the fact that they have been told now for generations that property is about greed, that accumulating property is oppression, or even that “property is theft.” However, let us look back at the philosophers who inspired our founders and see what they have to say about property. Of course, as I have written here, the primary philosophical basis for the American Revolution came from Locke. What did Locke have to say about the purpose of government?

““The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.”[2]

Certainly this statement must be startling to most 21st century Americans, who believe that they are supposed to look to their government to fight unemployment, manage the economy, ensure access to healthcare, promote democracy abroad, and pursue a myriad of other ends outside of protecting property. Surely, Locke has over-emphasized property rights here, has he not? Certainly he is alone in his simplistic assessment of the role of government, is he not?

He is not. In seeking guidance on how to construct our government, the American founders also looked to the ancients, particularly the Roman Republic. There, we find Cicero writing,

“For the chief purpose in the establishment of constitutional state and municipal governments was that individual property rights might be secured. For, although it was by Nature's guidance that men were drawn together into communities, it was in the hope of safeguarding their possessions that they sought the protection of cities.”[3] [emphasis added]

The conditioned response of Americans today is to view these ideas as a defense of one class of people at the expense of another. We have been trained to associate “property” as a concern of the “property class,” or in more common American terms, “the haves,” as opposed to the “have nots.” This is a great deception that has lead directly to our ruin. In fact, it is the poor and those of modest means for whom property rights are most important. It is they who, not possessing significant material wealth, must all the more jealously guard the property that they do have. In the end, however, we are all property owners when one considers the most fundamental, most important property of all: our labor itself.

We learn from Locke that all property has its roots in labor. In order to survive, man must work to produce the means of his survival. This is true for people no matter what their financial circumstances. The doctor, the lawyer, the construction worker, the janitor – yes, even the Wall Street financier – must sell his efforts to his fellow man in order to acquire the means of his survival. Therefore, whoever has control over the individual’s labor has control over the individual’s life, and control over the individual’s future. If I steal all of your possessions, you can acquire more. However, if I appropriate your labor, I own all of the property you can ever or will ever acquire. This is an undeniable reality that we have lost sight of, to our peril.

America was founded upon the idea that each individual had an unqualified right to the fruits of his labor.[4] This more than anything was what the founders meant when they spoke the word “liberty.” It was the extent to which this right was respected that made America different than every other society in history, before or since. This was the great secret that made America the engine of prosperity and innovation that it was. This is what made America the land of opportunity to change one’s lot in life. It was this right that gave birth to the American dream.

However, we no longer hold this right up above all others. Instead, we have become a society that is based upon competing groups seeking to plunder each other via the force of government. The rich plunder their neighbors with corporate bailouts, subsidies, and regulatory fascism. The middle class plunder their neighbors with Social Security, Medicare, and criminal unions. The poor are forced to accept legal plunder that they do not want and which provides them with the most miserable quality of life, when the stolen capital that underwrites it could employ them all if it weren’t seized from its rightful owners. Of course, these examples are only the tip of the iceberg; there is much, much more. Virtually every political movement in America is based upon a promise to provide its followers with other people’s property.

This scenario is neither unprecedented nor has it been unrecognized by the great lights of liberty. Bastiat wrote,

“Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter — by peaceful or revolutionary means — into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.”[5]

This vision of Bastiat’s has become reality in America. However, it cannot go on forever. Fortunately for humanity, a society based upon legal plunder is ultimately unsustainable. Just as respect for property rights provides the means to prosperity, violation of them leads to poverty and want. As force replaces voluntary exchange, productivity decreases, and subsequently more force is required to plunder even more. This cycle repeats until society is reduced to an authoritarian nightmare, the first signs of which are becoming apparent in the former “land of the free.” If the people wake up, the nightmare can end. If they continue to slumber, the nightmare can get much, much worse.

This is the great truth that we must rediscover before any revolution can be successful. Before we commit to “change,” we must answer the questions, “From what? To What?” The answers to those questions must be “from a nation of looters to a nation of free individuals who acquire property in the only civilized manner: via voluntary exchange." We must reject the use of force as the means to pursue our happiness, and renew our faith in freedom. Once this great work has been accomplished, let the revolution begin.

Check out Tom Mullen’s new book, A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. Right Here!

[1] Adams, John A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787)
[2] Locke Second Treatise Ch. IX, Sec. 124
[3]Cicero, Marcus Tullius De Officiis Book II Chapter XXI
[4] “Individuals” who were included in the system. Of course, the founders recognized but did not remedy the obvious contradiction to this inherent in slavery.
[5] Bastiat, Frederic, The Law

Live Free or Die.....

2009-02-03T12:15:00.001-05:00

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

WOW worth a read....I hope other states do the same...

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Nine

A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 1, Article 7 declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled; and

Whereas the Constitution of the State of New Hampshire, Part 2, Article 1 declares that the people inhabiting the territory formerly called the province of New Hampshire, do hereby solemnly and mutually agree with each other, to form themselves into a free, sovereign and independent body-politic, or State, by the name of The State of New Hampshire; and

Whereas the State of New Hampshire when ratifying the Constitution for the United States of America recommended as a change, “First That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised;” and

Whereas the other States that included recommendations, to wit Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island and Virginia, included an identical or similar recommended change; and

Whereas these recommended changes were incorporated as the ninth amendment, the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, and the tenth amendment, the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, to the Constitution for the United States of America; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring:

That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress; and

That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, slavery, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore all acts of Congress which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; and

That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated, rather than the use be destroyed. And thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press:” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press: insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals. That, therefore, all acts of Congress of the United States which do abridge the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, are not law, but are altogether void, and of no force; and

That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction; and

That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, which shall have as its charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States; to assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this State is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the General Government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non foederis), to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this State, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them: that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism -- free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this State does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on acts not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this State in considering acts as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States, not merely as the cases made federal, (casus foederis,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories; and

That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conferences, at any times or places whatever, with any person or person who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of the General Court; and

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

Buy Buy Buy Buy Bye?

2009-01-27T23:02:00.019-05:00

Everyone keeps talking about how bad things are in the economy. They talk about slumping sales, they talk about how consumer confidence is at an all time low, they say no one is buying cars, no one wants to buy a house, I even heard that porn sales are down. But I am here to tell you that things are not nearly as bad as people are making out to seem. Apparently these economists have not heard about the abundance of high quality, free porn on the internet. Anyway if these so called experts are wrong about porn, what else are they wrong about. Well I am here to fill you in on what is really going on out there. So hold on, strap in and lets get this party rolling.

The other day I was listening to the news and I heard an expert say with a sigh "well I guess Americans will just have to live at their means.". I heard this and I screamed Eureka (if only I was in a bathtub)!! I got it. I figured out what had happened. Those SOBs. You know what they did, they tricked us. They gave us access to easy credit and sold us a ton of shiny goods. We never stood a chance, all the promises of buy now pay later. Dont worry about the future, just keep consuming. Its all good, you have been preapproved, no payments for 12 months. Just keep buying dont worry you can always open up another line of credit. Before we knew it we were out spending money we didnt have and getting ourselves deeper into debt. Hey, they even told us to refinance our homes and pull out the equity and buy jet skis. How could we say no. We couldnt, not with the mounds of cash being layed at our feet. And what did this do? What was the result of this? Gourment specialty stores, electronic megaliths and so many freaking Starbucks, I thought Juan Valdez had become president. Now we are saying, enough is enough. We are tired of having 20 grand in credit card debt and not being able to pay it off. What do you say to the guy who owes 450,000 on a house worth half that? Well at least you have a nice TV, it will look great in your apartment?

What do I think? I think this disappearing credit is good for America. If it means that 300 Starbucks have to close, so that we can get out of debt then so be it. I think the coffee at the corner gas station is still better then that frufru coffee they sell and its 1\4 the cost. I heard Circuit City was going out of business, you know what I said? I said Good!! Now I can get a cheap TV. These vampires who have been bankrupting America one flat screen at a time are now in trouble and they want us to feel bad. Oh boo hoo poor big corporation. I think its a great time to be a consumer, I mean everything is on sale. They couldn't sell water in the desert right now. Everywhere I go I see sales signs. What a great time to be a consumer. You want a car, shit the dealer will come to your house every week and wash your car for you. Now thats what I call consumerism. When Linens and Things went belly up last fall, I swooped in an outfitted my next 5 kitchens for pennies on the dollar. Oh yeah!! They say its bad, I say its a great time to be a buyer. Finally its a buyers market... Hooray!!

Look, it was unrealistic to assume that our economy would continue to grow and to never shrink, but that is exactly how our economy was engineered. As long as we kept consuming at a feverish pace everything would be ok, but you know what thats impossible. Even an alcoholic will take a day off every few years. And thats what happened, and whether it was the booze that disappeared (loose credit) or us who no longer had an appetitte, the result was the same. Economic collapse. To be honest it is not that bad, this is natural. Our economy had grown too large due to greed. Greed on our part to get the things we couldn't afford, and greed on the lenders who saw a potential for a buck, to greed on the huge super stores who hawked their goods. But now, we are all paying the price. Americans are deep in debt, banks are failing and stores are going out of business, but its OK because soon things will settle back down again. Consider this our 25 year hangover. We need the economy to shrink, it was too big. It had become unsustainable. The Fed can try everything raise interest rates, print more money, bankrupt America, destroy you, eat your children (sorry got away from me for a second) eventually this house of cards was going to come tumbling down.

So what does this mean? It means that things are good then they are bad then they are good again. Things happen in cycles. Or even more accurate, whats good for one, is bad for another. Today, is our day, the day of the consumer. All this negative talk does is to scare people into not buying. I say harrumph to that. Go out and spend. Buy stuff, its really cheap now and very affordable, but please dont get in over your head. Lets be smart about this and lets take advantage of the lowered prices and abundance of goods. Remember its a buyers market right now, and I dont know how long it will last so, I guess what I am saying is to go out and stock up and buy stuff on the cheap, and take advantage of the sales and get that green sweater you have been eyeballing. Cause remember just because its a buyers market today doesnt mean that it will be that way for long.

If Jefferson were Here

2009-01-09T11:13:00.002-05:00

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate & equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inherent and inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness: that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organising it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations pursuing invariable the same object, envinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present government is a history of repeated injuries & usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the States. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world:

They have created an Imperial Presidency, allowing the Executive more powers then a King

They have waged aggressive unconstitutional war on foreign nations under false pretenses.

They have set up domestic propaganda programmes to deceive the public

They have systematically kidnapped, tortured, and killed innocent people in our names

They have transported people to far off lands for pretend offences

They have suspended our most fundamental laws, including, but not limited to, habeas corpus,right to trial by jury, & right to question your accuser or form a defense

They have confiscated our property for the benefit of the elite

They have colluded with bankers and money manipulators to deprive us of our wealth through the deception of inflation

They have formed free speech zones in an attempt to distance dissent

They have created vast bureaucracies in violation of our Constitution

They have created ex-post facto laws for the benefit of a few and at the expense of all

They have pursued a course of global empire, expanding government and contracting liberties

They have brought standing armies to our shores to police the people in violation of the law

They have refused the people the right to sound money as mandated by the Constitution

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Government, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the People of the united States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of this Country, solemnly publish and declare, That these united States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Current Federal Government, and that all political connection between them and the Ferderal Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

End Of America

2008-10-21T11:40:00.001-04:00

A day that will live in infamy

2008-10-03T14:51:00.007-04:00

Today our House of Representatives voted for the bailout of Wall Street. They had previously rejected it on Monday. The Senate took the bill added an additional 150 billion in earmarks, passed it, and sent it back to the House. The polls showed public opinion at an amazing 50-1 in opposition to this bill, yet it still passed! When the Founders of this country declared independence from England, they stated why they had to break away in a list of grievances. Some things written in this declaration are strikingly relevant today. Among the grievances listed were:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

We are all going to experience the loss of purchasing power through inflation. That is a hidden tax that we all pay and we pay it for the benefit of the banks. Most don't understand how it happens, and if they did, would not consent. In 2006 Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which allows for permanent detention of "enemy combatants" without ever having to press charges. No contact with your family or a lawyer and certainly no trial by jury, all this on the say so of one man, no probable cause needed. The CIA has openly admitted to the use of extraordinary rendition. We currently live in a Country that, has "free speech zones", allows warrentless wire tapping of our phone calls and emails, tortures people, and has taken away habeas corpus. Our most important rights as free people are being gutted from our Constitution.

So here we are faced, we are told, with an economic meltdown. We are being told that we must give unprecedented power to unelected officials. The fear-mongering on this issue has been great. Every major "leader", including the President, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve Chairman, both presidential nominees, the leader of both parties in both the House and the Senate, all have claimed the sky will fall if Congress does not act immediately. In spite of the warnings the American people in record numbers contacted Congress to tell them NO, DO NOT PASS A BAILOUT. Some polls showed as high as 200-1 against this bill. So Congress goes ahead and passes the bill, and not only passes it, but adds on an additional 150 billion of taxpayer money in giveaways to special interests. The people's message to congress seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

After listing all of the grievances the colonies had, Jefferson wrote this:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

When will we come to this conclusion again?

--Jeff Avitabile

Step In The Right Direction

2008-09-29T23:14:00.002-04:00

Today the House of Representatives rejected TARP, the $700 billion bailout proposed by treasury secretary Henry Paulson and favored by Bush and bipartisan congressional leaders alike, and all I hear from the mass media is that we are in dire circumstances now! Albeit, I agree we are in bad times, but let’s take a minute to look at what would have unfolded as a result of the bill being passed. First off, the economy would worsen as a result of the number of foreclosures and job losses that will continue to rise. This would be inevitable seeing that this poorly conceived plan mentioned nothing to regulate against it. Come to think of it, it doesn’t mention much, only that it needs $700 billion (kind of scary to think this is the only idea that they can come up with). With no plan in place to avoid this crisis in the future than what’s the point! Instead of calling it the “trillion dollar crisis” it will be called the “two trillion dollar crisis” down the road. Next on the list, what’s in it for the dollar? I’m not talking about inflation (this time, next article) which already has taken a heavy toll on our economy, but rather the affect that wall street investors will have when they again start to focus on negative interest rates, account deficits and ever increasing banking problems (Wachovia just made the list). The dollar will retreat even farther turning inflation into hyperinflation or worse. In fact the dollar has already begun to retreat, falling somewhere in the area of 5% since its mediocre rally that only lasted about two in a half months. So what can be done in place of this rushed proposal? I hate to just bitch about the problem and not offer any solutions. After reading an anonymous email that is also posted on this blog, it got me thinking. It talks about the $85 billion that had been used to bailout AIG being instead given to the taxpayers. Not such a bad idea in my book. Alright, maybe not so much to the extreme of the email (even though it’s still better than Paulson’s plan), but giving part of that money to hurting homeowners in order to pay part of their mortgage can go a long way. This would help preserve the value of these mortgage backed possessions and add a certain degree of liquidity to the market. It would also mean keeping these taxpayers in their homes where the economy needs them! A friend of mine only a short time ago told me his house recently devalued because the guy next to him had to foreclose. Scary stuff! To come to the point people, I’m fed up with hearing what the overly rich have for solutions. Let’s hear what the majority has to say! I always love to hear what you the “Mob” has for ideas, so feel free to post your ideas in the comments section below. Let’s follow the constitution for a change; it’s there for a reason!

--Charlie Mullen

You have to love this idea

2008-09-26T19:36:00.005-04:00

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to all Americans as a 'Dividend'. To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals a hefty '$425,000.00'.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'Dividend'. Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25.5 Billion right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife have $595,000.00. What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family? Pay off your mortgage - 'housing crisis solved' Repay college loans - 'a great boost to new grads'. Put away money for college - 'it'll be there' Save it in a bank - 'create money to loan to entrepreneurs'. Buy a new car - 'create jobs'. Invest in the market - 'capital drives growth'. Pay for your parent's medical insurance - 'health care improves'. Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company. If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling down. If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+. As for AIG - liquidate it and Sell off its parts. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up. Here's my rationale. We deserve it and 'AIG doesn't', we were not invited to the last 10 years of 'party time' bonuses And remember, The this plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

-anonymous email
received and posted by Jeff Avitabile

This is a funny email, makes me want to do the math on the 700 Billion!!!

Have You Had Enough?

2008-09-26T18:17:00.001-04:00

Bailouts, Bailouts, Bailouts, or should I say WMD’s, WMD’s, WMD’s. Or how about Patriot Act, Patriot Act, Patriot Act. We’re seeing it over and over again people. More fear mongering from our fearless leaders in order to frighten us into giving them what they want unchecked. They used fear of WMD’s in order to start an unconstitutional war in Iraq; they used fear of terrorism to take away our civil liberties and now they are using fear of a financial meltdown to procure new bailouts by using taxpayer funds. The new bailout in the neighborhood, if you haven’t already heard, also happens to be the largest bailout in U.S history. It’s called TARP, short for Troubled Asset Relief Program which treasury secretary, Henry Paulson proposed as a way for government to take debased mortgages off the loans of our nations “corrupt” institutions. Not to mention, if passed it's going to cost you and me about $2,500 each, and that's not including the multibillion bailouts of the last few weeks. More bailouts are sure to come. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of this shit! I can’t afford to pay for these assholes mistakes over and over again, can you? (So much for the administrations so called "stimulus package". You know, the one released a few months ago in which we each received a check for $600 on average. I guess that was just a loan with an interest rate of about 24% attached to it. A lot of good it did for the economy. I work for a fortune 500 billion dollar company and can damn well tell you that if I made a mistake that cost the business even the tiniest fraction of money that these MORONS are losing, I wouldn’t be rewarded for it. I’d be out on my ass before I realized what happened. I apologize for the language, but that’s what happens when people try and scare me. I get pissed off! Imagine yourself back in grade school and the class bully says “Give me your lunch money, it’s for your own good.” What would you do? Give him the money so he can get wealthy. Hell no, you beat the shit out of the bully (or hire a bigger bully to do it for you)! Same situation people, we are Americans and we don’t take that kind of shit from anybody. So why are we taking it now? If you haven’t already done so, read the passage by Charley Reese called The 545 people responsible for all U.S woes. It’s a brief must read for all of us. It’s time to take care of the bully!!
In short, if the establishment has taught me anything, it’s that it does a great job of scaring you and me into submission. If fear is the only thing that moves you to action, than that’s what I’ll use as my tool. More rants to come soon, prepare to be scared shitless!

--Charlie Mullen

Who will Bail Us out?

2008-09-23T09:25:00.010-04:00

by Jeff Avitabile

The economic events of the last couple days should be understood by every American. Our money, our liberties and our well being are all at stake. Unfortunately, our major media outlets are not reporting both sides of the story. Recent polls have shown the vast majority of Americas are against bailing out Wall Street, but to listen to most commentators this bail-out "must be done". The standard reasons are being shouted from every pundit, "if they don't bail them out it will lead to a greater collapse, that will cause more harm." No one seems to know where they are getting the Trillions of dollars they are committing, and no one seems to care. I bet if people understood that the money comes from the purchasing power of our dollars, they would make it a point of becoming more informed. And if most realized that the money they are giving up through inflation, goes directly to the pockets of the bankers that caused the problem, there would be revolution. We are seeing the largest heist in the history of the world, and being told that giving up this money is in our best interest. Only a knowlagable citizenry is capable of ending this scam. It's a shame that we have been through this before in our history and have been warned. Do yourself and your family a favor and learn about fractional-reserve banking, and the Federal Reserve System. FYI, the Federal Reserve is the 4th Central bank the US has had, all the previous ones were disbanded. We as a people need to get informed or we will suffer from our own ignorance. Here are some quotes that have come to mind in the last few days.

"I have faith in the people...The danger is, in their being misled. Let them know the truth and the country is safe."
- A. Lincoln

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be. . . . The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."
-Thomas Jefferson

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency... the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property, until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
-Thomas Jefferson

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
- Henry Ford

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors"
-Plato

“A Nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
- Edward R. Murrow

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Police State and what it means to you

2008-09-12T19:34:00.015-04:00

What is a police state? (Thank goodness for wiki!)

"The term police state is a term for a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population, potentially by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional republic. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement"

In light of the most recent Government bail-out of mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie one has to consider that we are fast approaching the point of no return. Consider that 800 protesters were arrested last week at the Republican National Convention, and 400 the week before at the DNC. Among them journalist and peaceful demonstrators. We will see how many charges result in the massive police actions. Add in the fact that raids were conducted on several homes to basically discourage protesters from demonstrating resulting in hundreds detained and only 7 charged. One of the houses raided was occupied by journalist, who make it a point to film police misconduct, and who had won acquittals for over 400 protesters at the 2004 RNC.

We know that the NSA has a secret wire tapping program, used to spy on millions of Americans illegally. (check that, the Congress made a law making it legal...so much for 'no ex-post facto laws') The CIA uses torture to obtain information. The Pentagon had a secret propaganda program used to disseminate Government talking points to millions of Americans, which directly lead to an unconstitutional war in Iraq. There is no difference between what our Executive has become and monarchy. The Real-ID Act is on our doorsteps.

(This Act requires that all Americans carry an ID card issued by the Federal Government. The card will be used to store personal information including, but not limited to, sexual orientation, political views, buying habits, medical information, travel habits, and of course financial records. The Government has stated that there would be no limitations on the private sector to require the ID. This means, if the corner store wants to scan your card to sell you eggs, then you best have your card! It will just be a matter of time that this voluntary action by stores to scan the card turns into a mandatory requirement.)

Before too long it will be "papers, papers please!"

The Democrats, being pushed by the medical industry, would like to usher in Government health care for the masses. When we socialize the health care in this country what will be left that the government does not control? What industry has the government ever successfully ran?

So what does it all mean? What will be the breaking point? Will there be a breaking point? That is the question that hunts me. All these things are happening around us plain to see, if you care to look. My hope is that the "Sleeping Giant" awakes and shakes off the fleas before it is too late.

--Jeff Avitabile

Lipstick Gate! Are you freaking Kidding Me@!%^@!%

2008-09-11T15:44:00.008-04:00

Echoing the sentiments of Glenn Greenwald (minus the “Obama should do this” theme that GG is so fond of)

As a Country we face more problems that pose a serious risk to our republic then ever before. So in light of all the issues facing this great nation, (war, economy, loss of civil liberties, etc…) what has the media decided to discuss for the last two days?

Lipstick on pigs!!

I am sure this discussion is what most Americans want to hear….

The best part is that in Obama’s response he says “enough is enough” and then continues to address the “situation” for several more minutes, and never gets around to saying anything with substance. The issues are non existent. I hope they make an appearance at some point…but I won’t hold my breath.

--Jeff Avitabile

The American Majority

2008-09-11T11:40:00.008-04:00

Ron Paul held a news conference yesterday (9/10) to announce he will not support either of the establishment's candidates (McBama), but instead would like to throw his support behind anyone else!

In a bold move Dr. Paul put the good of the country before the good of any political connection, something that politicians rarely do these days. He was accompanied by major Third Party candidates, Ralph Nader who is running as an independent, Chuck Baldwin who is on the Constitutional Party ticket and Cynthia McKinney running for the Green Party. Dr. Paul declared that:

"The coverage of the presidential election is designed to be a grand distraction. This is not new, but this year, it’s more so than ever.
Pretending that a true difference exists between the two major candidates is a charade of great proportion. Many who help to perpetuate this myth are frequently unaware of what they are doing and believe that significant differences actually do exist. Indeed, on small points there is the appearance of a difference. The real issues, however, are buried in a barrage of miscellaneous nonsense and endless pontifications by robotic pundits hired to perpetuate the myth of a campaign of substance.
The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice. The real goal of the campaign is to distract people from considering the real issues."

It was one hell of a statement and may have been one of Dr. Paul's most passionately delivered speeches. I suggest everyone checking it out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ1l0E4kZQ4&feature=user

Dr. Paul also laid out the points that all these canidates agree on and pledge to support. You can check that out here.
The candidates present all delivered great talking points and are also worth listening to.

This is the message that needs to be spread!!!!

Read the rest of Ron's statement here

--Jeff Avitabile