Thursday, August 27, 2009
"that until the philosophy which holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and permanently discredited and abandoned; that until there is no longer any first-class and second-class citizens of any nation; that until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes; that until the basic human rights are equally guaranteed to all, without regard to race -- until that day, the dreams of lasting peace and world citizenship and the rule of international morality will remain but a fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained: Speech by H.I.M. HAILE SELASSIE I - California 28th February 1968
The main issue in present-day political struggles is whether society should be organized on the basis of private ownership of the means of production (capitalism, the market system) or on the basis of public control of the means of production (socialism, communism, planned economy). Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individual's life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management. There is no compromise possible between these two systems. Contrary to popular fallacy there is no middle way, no third system possible as a pattern of a permanent social order. The citizens must choose between capitalism and socialism or, as many Americans say, between the American and the Russian way of life. — Ludwig von Mises, Bureaucracy 
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 Free the Drug Users and Tax Resisters Too by Jacob G. Hornberger If we’re going to let federal officials who have violated federal criminal statutes against torture off the hook, then why shouldn’t drug users and tax resisters be pardoned at the same time? After all, what the drug users and tax resisters have done pales in comparison to what the torturers have done. If the torturers are permitted to go scot-free, then the drug users and tax resisters deserve to be freed as well. Let’s compare the respective crimes. The torturers have initiated force against other people in violation of federal criminal statutes. That force has sometimes caused terrible damage to the victims, including physical injury, psychological disorder, and even death. There are those who say that since the torture was done to terrorists, the torturers should be let off the hook. But there are two big problems with that justification. First, while the people who have been tortured have been accused of terrorism, none of them has ever been convicted of the offense. Even the CIA and the military acknowledge that the suspected terrorists they have labeled as “enemy combatants” in the “war on terrorism” are entitled to a trial to determine whether they are in fact guilty of what they have been accused of. That’s what those kangaroo military tribunals are all about — to create the appearance that a fair trial is being held to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Under America’s system of justice, all people accused of a crime are presumed innocent. That presumption continues to operate continuously up to the point that a person is convicted of the crime with which he is charged. Thus, the torturers have tortured people who have never been convicted of a crime, neither in federal court nor by a kangaroo military tribunal — people whose presumed innocence has never been altered by a criminal conviction. In fact, many of those people whom the government labeled as “enemy-combatant terrorists” have been released by the government without any trial whatsoever, not even before a kangaroo military tribunal. That constitutes fairly strong circumstantial evidence that they were, in fact, innocent. So, in violating federal criminal laws against torture, the torturers have severely harmed or killed people who have never been convicted of a crime, people whom the law presumes are innocent of the crime that the CIA or the military accused them of, many of whom were ultimately released without a trial by the authorities. Second, even if a person is convicted of terrorism, whether in federal court or by a kangaroo military tribunal, where is the morality in torturing him at that point? There isn’t any. That’s in fact why our American ancestors, through the Bill of Rights, expressly prohibited federal officials from inflicting cruel and unusual punishments on people, including people who had been convicted of federal criminal offenses. Now, compare the federal crimes of drug possession and tax evasion. Many of the people who have been convicted of violating those federal criminal statutes are sitting in a federal penitentiary, possibly for the next several years or even the rest of their lives. Yet, what force did they initiate against other people? Answer: None. Unlike the torturers, they haven’t employed force that has resulted in physical or mental damage against anyone or caused the death of anyone. In fact, the only damage that drug users have caused is to themselves and possibly their families. Is that a valid reason for keeping them incarcerated? Why shouldn’t that be their personal business and the business of their families? What business does the state have punishing them for having engaging in purely self-destructive conduct? Do we permit the state to do the same with respect to alcoholics or tobacco users? In principle, it’s really no different with respect to tax resisters. They too haven’t initiated any force against other people that has resulted in mental or physical pain or death. All they’ve done is evade taxes, a purely peaceful act. Why should they be facing years in jail for that? While Switzerland treats tax fraud (e.g., false documents) as a crime, it does not treat tax evasion as a criminal offense. When people are caught evading taxes, the Swiss government’s remedy is limited to a civil proceeding in which the government seeks payment of the back taxes plus penalty and interest. Their belief is that tax evasion is not a matter for criminal penalties, only civil ones. If we’re going to let the torturers off the hook, then isn’t it only fair to let the drug users and tax resisters off the hook too? If the torturers aren’t going be punished for inflicting severe pain or even death in violation of federal criminal statutes, then the drug possessors and tax resisters, who haven’t initiated force against anyone, deserve no less.
GOOGLE 'CAMPAIGN FOR LIBERTY' TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE LINKS FROM THIS EMAIL August 26, 2009 Dear Friend of Liberty, Make no mistake: there's a strong, unrelenting push to destroy what remains of private health care in this country. And now congressional leaders are attempting to overcome their scheme's plunging approval numbers by manipulating Ted Kennedy's death to create support for a “legacy” health care bill. Our representatives and senators are eager to get back to Washington and away from the tremendous grassroots opposition to health control. Which means it's time for us to turn up the heat. Click here to get contact information to write, call, and fax Congress to express your outrage at their plans to finish taking over what remains of private health care. And be sure to sign our "Stop the Government Health Care Scheme" petition. Health control propagandists claim that we are defending the status quo of a "failed" private sector by opposing their latest scheme. However, their bill cements the status quo in health care: continuing (and expanding) government intrusion. Protectionist regulations have decimated competition in health insurance at the local level, and the vast, complex tax code has subsidized employer-provided high cost health care. The FDA, in the name of consumer protection, has restricted the supply of drugs from home and abroad. And individuals are barred from shopping across state lines for health insurance. Watch this YouTube video (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=24061) to see a ER physician describe how the government obstructs the supply of health services. Does any of that really sound like the free market at work to you? Government-manipulated health care is bankrupting this country. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are drowning in tens of trillions of dollars worth of unfunded liabilities and red ink, yet the response from Congress is to propose more 1,000+ page bills that will move our health care system perilously close to other nations' statist care. You know as well as I that this unfair plan is doomed to be a fiscal nightmare comparable to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that Congress-created HMOs are notorious for denying care to control spiraling costs. Our nation has seen enough big government schemes, especially in medicine. President Obama is right about one thing: it's time to take action. It's time to let the free market work. COPY AND PASTE THIS LINK (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/hr3200action.php) for contact information for the House and Senate in order to demand real reform. In addition to contacting your representative and senators, be sure to campaign hard for health freedom at your local townhall meeting. Urge your representative to fight to allow individuals to shop across state lines for insurance, curb the authority of the FDA to prevent Americans from going outside the country for cheaper medications, and enable individuals to purchase their own health insurance without being taxed for doing so. Tell Congress to give Americans control over their health care by giving them control over their health care dollar via tax credits and deductions similar to those outlined in Congressman Ron Paul's Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act (HR 1495). Ask your congressman to protect privacy rights by allowing patients and physicians to opt-out of any government-mandated or funded system of electronic health care records, and to repeal the federal law creating an "unique patient identifier" by adopting the policies contained in Congressman Ron Paul's Protect Patients and Physicians Privacy Act (HR 2630). In the meantime, we can push for reform of our respective state's competition-destroying mandates on private insurers. These simple, common-sense reforms would immediately alleviate the costs of health care without adding to the exploding national debt. And if you are able, please donate to Campaign for Liberty today so that we can educate Americans on a true free market health care system and defeat this latest health control scheme. Don't let the proponents of Obamacare sell you on the notion that we need the government to save us from the mess that government made. Click here to demand that Congress support legitimate health care reform! In Liberty, John Tate President P.S. Campaign for Liberty is committed to fighting this health control scheme and Congress' other attempts to further shred our Constitution, but we can't do it without your continued support. Please contribute to Campaign for Liberty today to ensure we can not only defeat big government's plans for our lives, but also champion the principles of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Five Part series of articles Go to the list of links for the five articles to start at the first one Credit to Goldmelter for the link http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14839
Monday, August 24, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Gary North's REALITY CHECK Gold's price: http://www.GaryNorth.com/snip/300.htm The Federal debt: http://www.GaryNorth.com/snip/544.htm To subscribe to this letter: http://www.snipurl.com/subscribenow Issue 885 August 21, 2009 WHO WILL INHERIT YOUR MONEY WHEN YOU DIE? "Tell me what country I will die in. I will never go there." Men do not like to think about their inheritance. That's because of the word "die." This is why they delay writing a will. A will is like a road map to the border of the final country. "I will never go there." But they will, with or without the map. Everyone knows this, but almost everyone who has not been diagnosed with a fatal disease assumes that he has at least five more years to live. For 4.9 years, this assumption is incorrect. Some men hire a lawyer to draw up a will for them (cheap or free). The lawyer names himself as the executor (retirement income). Other men hire a lawyer to draw up a living trust or revocable trust ($2,000 for computerized boilerplate). One way or another, someone will inherit. The capital will be used by someone else for his purposes. Most men think that their children will extend their posthumous legacy. Why should they believe this? Because they never ask themselves these questions. 1. Do my children think the way I do? 2. Why should they think the way I do? 3. Do I think the way my father did? 4. Do their spouses think the way I do? 5. What is the evidence that they do? 6. Are my children good with money? 7. What is the evidence that they are? 8. Are their spouses good with money? 9. What is the evidence that they are? 10. Will the money be worth anything? 11. What is the evidence that it will be? The government understands inheritance far better than most parents do. The government has determined that it will impose an inheritance tax. Rich men hire lawyers to devise ways around the inheritance tax. Less rich men think they will beat the inheritance tax altogether. That is for rich men to worry about, they think. They are wrong. So are the rich men. THE REAL INHERITANCE TAX The inheritance tax is to governments what the red cape is to a matador. It focuses the victim's attention away from the sword. The inheritance tax begins to be collected early. It is collected by a special team of tax collectors. Like all tax collectors, their salaries are paid for by the taxpayers. The government has purchased specially designed tax- collection vehicles, comparable to Brinks or Loomis armored cars. We see them on the road nine months a year. They are painted yellow. When their red lights are flashing, don't pass them. I have written about them here. http://lewrockwell.com/north/north278.html Government officials, unlike parents, understand that the secret of inheriting enormous wealth is to persuade the heirs to spend the money your way, not the deceased's way. The money is merely capital. The crucial factor is the will. Human will. This is why, in every nation, the government requires attendance at schools. It then taxes people to fund these schools. The handful of schools that it does not fund it regulates. The schools that it does not regulate are so few in number that the government ignores them. This strategy was spelled out in detail by the scholar who is sometimes called the father of American central planning: Lester Frank Ward. His 1883 book, "Dynamic Sociology," presented the program. First, destroy all private education. Second, force parents to send their children to tax-funded schools. Third, filter out all objectionable ideas in the textbooks and classrooms. Ward hated inequality. He hated inequality in intelligence. He wanted to equalize intelligence. He had a plan to do this. The system of private education, all things considered, is not only a very bad one, but, properly viewed, it is absolutely worse than none, since it tends to increase inequality in the existing intelligence, which is a worse evil than a general state of intelligence would be. (Vol. 2, p. 588) Society, through the State and through the public schools, must place teachers in charge, and these teachers must be independent of three groups: "parents, guardians, and pupils." (II, p. 590) PARENTS SURRENDER CONTROL At some point, parents surrender control over the content of their children's education. Some parents hold out longer than others. Normally this takes place when the child reaches the age of six. Compulsory attendance laws take over. The parent must either send the child to a tax-funded school that his taxes pay for, or send him to a private school, or educate the child at home. The first decision is easy and uncontroversial. The second is expensive in terms of money. The third is expensive in terms of the mother's time. If she works outside the home, she must quit in order to stay home and teach her children. The father bows out at this point. He is only rarely involved in the education of his children. Farmers were the last to surrender this freedom in the late 19th century. Only Old Order Amish fathers still teach their sons today, at least after the sons graduate from the eighth grade. The states allow them to go home at this age. It took a Supreme Court case to give the Old Order Amish this exemption. ("Wisconsin v. Yoder," 1972). The second decision -- putting the child into a private school -- is rarely resorted to. The parents assume that the school system is trustworthy, at the prevailing price. The parents at this point surrender to the New York City-based textbook publishing companies. This is where New York and Washington take control over the inheritance. The goal is simple: to shape the agenda of the children. If they can do this, they gain the inheritance. The money flows down government-approved channels. For over a century, they have gained this inheritance. This is by far the longest-term plan that the New York/Washington axis has -- the true axis of evil. In Great Britain, it is one city: London. In France, it is one: Paris. In Germany, it is one: Berlin, and in Japan it is one: Tokyo. In Russia, it is one: Moscow. This system has led to the so-far unbreakable control over the West by bureaucrats. The heirs cannot think apart from a series of slogans. These slogans place limits on the terms of political discourse. These limits channel the forces of politics down approved paths. The debates take place within a framework that does not threaten the Powers That Be. It allows different factions of these powers to gain temporary control. Let us consider a few of the more widespread slogans. These are inculcated in the textbooks, the state-accredited classrooms, and the media. 1. FDR saved capitalism from itself. 2. It is better to have a little inflation than a depression. 3. Deficits don't matter. 4. We owe it to ourselves. 5. Society's great complexity requires government planning. 6. If the government did not take action, poor people would starve. 7. Society needs a government-supplied safety net. 8. The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say. 9. The solution is more education. 10. Everybody deserves. . . . 11. Everyone should pay his fair share. 12. Criminals should pay their debt to society. 13. There oughta be a law. Not one of these is true. All are either actively promoted by the public or at least grudgingly accepted. The conservatives love this one. "Criminals should pay their debt to society." This is the first judicial step toward tyranny. It denies justice to the victim. It substitutes the State for the victim. The injured party is not the victim; rather, it is the State. The State therefore must tax the injured party to incarcerate the criminal. Think "disinheritance of the victim." What did Moses say? If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up [in], and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double (Exodus 22:1-4). This was a system of restitution. The thief owed his victim. If he could not pay, then he was to be sold into slavery and the sale price given to the victim. This is exactly what the U.S. Constitution authorizes. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction (13th Amendment). Were you taught this in high school? For that matter, were you taught that the United States are plural Constitutionally? The text says "any place subject to their jurisdiction." Filtered? Yes. "The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say." True or false? With respect to "Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls" -- consuls? -- true. However, "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make" (Article III). Were you taught this in high school? Or was this information filtered? These judicial matters are not hidden. They are in plain sight. The Constitution is short and highly specific. These matters are right in front of our collective noses. But our collective noses no longer can conduct the famous smell test. When you walk into a stranger's house, you can smell it. When you walk into your own, you can't. The bureaucrats have employed a kind of ideological incense to keep the heirs from smelling confiscation in the air. Over time, even the parents no longer smell something fishy. This is part of the most brilliant inheritance tax scheme of all time. It is working all over the world. There is a model for it. We find it in the Bible. And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king (Daniel 1:3-5). When was the last time you heard a sermon on this passage, where the pastor identified the contemporary Babylonians and the contemporary Hebrews? As I like to say, "the one will be the first." The larger the congregation, the less likely the sermon. The Apostle Paul spoke to the king in whose court he was accused. "For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely: for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner" (Acts 26:26). The State's inheritance program is not openly revealed, but the institutional foundation of it has not been hidden in a corner. It is open. The victims defend it, for if they did not defend it, they would be faced with the personal cost of escaping from it. CONCLUSION R. J. Rushdoony had little patience with conservatives who complained about high taxes. "They have tithed their children to the State, and then they complain against how much the government is costing them." He thought all such tax protests would come to nothing. Well, not nothing, exactly. Mass inflation. We live in a world where the tax collector is a matador. "Keep your eye on the red cape." Conservatives think they are making progress when they say, "No, no; keep your eye on the red ink." Keep your eye on the yellow buses. ------------------------------------------------------ The Daily Reckoning is a free, daily e-mail service brought to you by the authors of the NY Times Business Bestseller "Financial Reckoning Day", "Demise Of Dollar", "Empire Of Debt", and "Mobs, Messiahs and Markets". To learn more or subscribe, please visit our website here: http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/XA0/YOM/DMQ/AQ/AUdX+g/LF8m ------------------------------------------------------ Our writers and contributors also welcome your questions and comments. Simply reply to this e-mail with the word 'Question' or 'Comment' in the Subject of your reply ------------------------------------------------------ Are you having trouble receiving your Daily Reckoning? You can ensure its arrival in your mailbox by whitelisting The Daily Reckoning here: http://clicks.dailyreckoning.com//t/AQ/XA0/YOM/Bsw/AQ/AUdX+g/evfx