How Much Law Creates Totalitarianism?

In a recent debate with a bunch of RINOs on RepublicanOperative, I have taken to burning them. I refuse to tolerate any such totalitarianism anymore, especially from conservatives anymore.

So, what makes a law a form of totalitarianism? If it is implemented to reduce or to out-law behavior per the term of behavior thereof, that is totalitarianism. If a law is implemented because the majority think it should be, without the backing of common logic, it is totalitarianism.

If such laws are based on ethical codes, it is totalitarianism. A law should be a law to prevent one man from infringing on the rights of another, THAT is what our forefathers wanted. They did not want some filthy theocratic government, they did not want hereditary rulers, and they definitely did not want a big government capable of sustaining the average person.

While they were by no means perfect, and definitely were wrong on some issues.

So in conclusion, get over yourselves.

George Tiller's Assassin

This post is likely to be unpopular, so don't read on if you're easily offended.

Chances are more likely, as with the abortion bomber, this man will not even be a 'Christian' in title. Yeah, and some more conspiracy... but not something I'll make this post into.

As far as I'm concerned, I won't condone or condemn this assassin's actions. I dare not call him a murderer, as murdering is the taking of another's life in cold-blood, and has no honor. What he did may have been evil, but just necessary.

It isn't the fact that George Tiller performs or advocates abortions, it isn't the fact that George Tiller makes money off of it. But the fact he advocates, promotes, and performs late-term abortions.

But to those who tell everyone else to "judge not, lest ye be judged" and yet condemn this man that killed George Tiller should look at their own reflection in the mirror for the biggest hypocrites. You support abortion when a fetus can't defend the self, yet you condemn killing when a man can defend the self.

Freedom of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

Obama's Nominee: Judge Sonia Sotomayor - Racist or not?

In our first fight for a new SCOTUS nominee, Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. It is possible people change in the course of months and years, and to say they don't would be arrogant on any part.

So, what makes this nomination so wrong? Well, let's begin with why Obama nominated her and for what reasons.

*Obama said he nominated her because she saved baseball.

*Obama wanted to pick someone who "demonstrates empathy" as well as "has a common touch..."

Well, whether or not she saved baseball has nothing to do with being a Supreme Court justice. When it comes to being a Supreme Court judge, it shouldn't be about whether or not someone shows empathy or a common touch. If you want representation, you have a Congress for that.

The judicial system isn't about personal feelings, and the Supreme Court being the supreme court it is, should have no room for nominating someone on how anyone feels. We need strict constitutionalists, people that abide by the U.S. Constitution and current law.

But here we are, where Obama is nominating someone not because of whether or not she follows the constitution, but because she's a Hispanic Woman. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against her as a Hispanic or a woman (of course, someone reading this will claim I'm racist anyways, no matter what unless I completely embrace this candidate).

Personally, I didn't expect much better from Obama, I especially did not expect him to nominate someone who goes by the U.S. Constitution, but I did expect him to nominate someone not as hardcore to the left as this nominee.

I just hope that if she is successful in becoming a SCOTUS justice, she'll do the right thing. It's obvious that Obama will be successful, unless there's still enough moderates in the Democrat party not bought out by the likes of European socialist George Soros.

Obama's SCOTUS Nomination

   As a first generation American of an American father that married a Polish woman who learned English in order to take her Citizenship test in English, and ,having passed, became an American citizen when I was 3 years of age, I would like to say:

   ...that I am in complete agreement with President Obamas choice of  "whats her name" for the Supreme Court. In considering her, not only does she represent a lot of 'Hispanic' votes but I also understand the needs of all 'Hispanics' in my country that are presently accused of having an 'illigal status' and of the 'draining our social systems', to their being freed from this discrimination and recognize their right to free legal representation in the Courts, especially the Supreme Court.

    I would further agree with the appointment of a Gay or Lesbian Choice next. Not only because of the votes they would bring with them, but I believe that it would be considered discriminatory to not allow their represention also, especially in the Supreme Court.

    To this, I further agree to the Choice of someone of Isamic faith after that. Not necessarily because of the vote they represent, but to show the world that we don't discriminate against those that seek to destroy our great nation, with their representation in the Supreme Court.

    Or an Atheist, so with their represetation we can fill the void created by the removal of Christian Values.

    Or, someone of the news media in recognition of the outstanding job they are doing, reporting the views of the Government and not necessarily those to the better interest of the American People.

     Or a murderer, child molester or rapest, because the legal system they will represent created them and with their appointment, the system will be admitting and assuming accountability.  

     Or, as ridiculous as it might be, I would agree to the appointment of someone that would represent all those that for life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, have paid the price with blood from their wounds or deaths; sweat from their hard work by their adherence to a work and religous ethic that established this country who now constiute the Moral Majority; and the tears presently being shed by those that see the death of a great nation.These, that have no voice nor representation by the present legal and political system.

    Please, in your youth and wisdom, understanding that what you establish today will determines the world you and your children will live in for a very long time, consider your values to determine what liberties you want to enjoy. As parents, we can't change what we have or have not done, to ensure your continued freedom. What we can do though, is share with you whats been passed down from generation to generation, the history of the freedoms we have enjoyed.

Why does the economy fail when government intervenes?

As I wrote as an essay for this week's homework assignment:

Why the Economy Fails when The Government Intervenes?

In this supposedly modern-age, if we are to fix the economy where it stands, then we need to ask ourselves why the economy continues to fall. Is it because of the lack of regulation, as everyone wants to put the blame on? Or could it be something far more complex, something that people don’t want to admit to? I dare say as the face of opposition, it is the latter, rather than the former. As a member of the Objectivist school of thought, my only goal here is to at least make people think about the economic crisis from whence it stands.

In the early 20th century, Woodrow Wilson (illegally by many accounts) ratified a progressive Income Tax, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Along with the creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), almost as perfectly outlined by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, effectively exacerbating the honest individual, not the one that doesn’t care about his lowly position; the individual that has become enlightened about his labor and knows it’s worth. As an income tax naturally removes money from the labor of individual, it being progressive means a higher tax-rate as wages increase, reduces the incentive to work/labor.

In the middle of the early 20th century, the economy had taken a slight turn, some would say for the worst after Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1929(-1933). Theoretically, the Wall Street Crash of 1929 caused the Great Depression. By the time FDR became president, the private market was in a self-fixation process according to many economist standards. By the same standards, FDR’s NDP ( New Deal Policy) would put the economy in worse shape in the long run than it was already, with the only event to pull America out of a complete collapse was the advent of World War II.

During JFK’s term, after he signed into law one of the largest and a historical tax-cut, the economy quickly boomed. But it slowly lost ground, as once Jimmy Carter became president the economy fell into a recession. Due to Carter’s policies with the oil companies (windfall tax, embargoes, profit control), people did in fact have to wait hours on fuel for their vehicles, and many people even lost their jobs. Since an economic boom is not always the immediate effect, this continued until Reagan’s term in the 80’s begun to shine on the economy. Under Reagan, the global debt of the U.S. had gotten worse, not due to Reagan but the opposing majority refusing to compromise. It was because of this, there was a boom in the dot-com market as we know it today, which was well underway by the time Clinton had entered office.

Nearing the end of the Clinton administration (1999-2000), the economy once again begun to spiral downward; things got worse until the tragic events of 9/11 occurred. Meanwhile, the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) as signed into law by Jimmy Carter created a false identity of a housing market boom. The intentions behind the creation of the CRA, were to make it easier for people to afford owning a new home. As companies wanting to compete, they would be blackmailed by the indirect jurisdiction and influence of the CRA. In reality, the law itself forced banks under direct jurisdiction to lower their qualifications of who they can and cannot loan out to.

By the end of the Bush administration, as a result of numerous factors but mainly pointing to the CRA, the economy tanked. He signed into law during the last year of his term three major bills that would affect not only the local economy but the Global Economy. The first bill known as “Economic Stimulus Act of 2008”, the second known as “Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008”, and the infamous TARP (Troubled-Asset Relief Program) bill. Yet, after all this the economy not only didn’t recover but got worse.

Even now, under the Obama administration the economy continues to tank, despite Wall Street’s early attempt at a rallying cry at the end of the 2008 election. For example, while the automobile manufacturing company, General Motors, has become synonymous with government-assistance, it has yet to pick up the pace. Compare that with Ford Motors, which while not having received government-assistance has begun to recover from the crisis.

In other countries, there is similar proof. The United Arab Emirates, where there has been virtually no government interference on any level, lived an economic boom for the 90’s and up until the 2007-present global economic crisis. Europe, whose economy has never effectively recovered from the Great Depression of the 30’s-40’s, is almost entirely nationalized by their respective governments. In Asia, we have the Chinese, where it has perhaps been the most evident as well, we can see that as the government involved itself less and less in the private market, they became more economically powerful. Meanwhile, in Japan, when they tried to create more Yen (their national currency), it tanked to the bottom just as did any other country that has ever attempted to create more national currency to pay off their debts, and with each economy dying

So, why does the economy fail when the government intervenes? Actually, let me ask that another way, what exactly drives economic development? Historically speaking, economic booms are created when it is the people themselves that have the options to build as they wish. But with their labor being penalized, the options are reduced, as an individual that knows his labor and thus the labor of his worth is going to learn to do less work for better money. Furthermore, the government making us all equal gives no one an incentive to learn on their own which makes everyone worse off.

In order for an individual to make firewood or furniture out of a tree, he needs the tools to carve a tree. If an individual is going to use tools to make firewood or furniture, he needs the knowledge to do so. But, why should an individual attempt to learn when he can have something for free? Or for that matter, if an individual is restricted from what he can make with a tree, then why should he do anything? So if the individual is able to gain knowledge, he will be able to use the necessary tools, whether it be to make firewood, furniture, or a house. This leads to a major cause in economic booms; the individual would then be able to be independent of the government as well having an incentive to set up shop selling manufactured goods.

Not everyone can specialize in the same thing nor would it be efficient or productive, and yet why should everyone work doing something forced on them? So there needs to be an incentive for individuals to work in different areas, whether or not it is for the love of money, love of the game, or even their own moral code. Regardless of which reason, the factors remain the same. How can one expect an economy to get better when the government gets involved? It is for these reasons we see economies failing after government intervention: no one has incentive to learn, no one has incentive to specialize, and no one has incentive to live up to giving others when the government can do these things for them. But then again, should the government hire these people, the government would have to pay much more than any private entrepreneur would, as the individual is going to know his labor’s worth. And thus, another problem arises: the government having to pay more money to its own employees, it then would need to tax more, or spend less, which we know will not be the case by historical example.

Introduce technology into the equation, which once introduced makes everyone’s job easier, at the same time also kills many jobs. If the people that lost their jobs know they can complain to the government to make results, they will. And if successful, then the government will either regulate the market by subsidizing those who continue to work the old-fashioned way, or banning X/Y companies by creating laws on how something is to be made. But, if people knew they could not manipulate the government, they will compete by either learning to adapt to the new technology or devote ideas to new markets.

For another factor, a government that is believed to have the right to intervene will lead to the government over-taxing rich people, and as the wealthy become over-taxed, they will be in a position to move elsewhere. Should the wealth leave the country, as there was an exodus of rich people in the 70’s-80’s from Europe to America, then the people of that country are left in a horrible position, as well the government. The only remaining options for a government are to either tax everyone or remove its own hands from the economy.

In conclusion, there are numerous factors as to why an economy fails when the government intervenes, but they all come down to one thing and that is the Individual. That same individual that has built the economy is the same individual that determines whether or not the economy remains to stand in pride or fall in humiliation. When the government begins to restrict what an individual can or cannot due in his own space as well beyond the space of another individual that initiates the lack of incentive, and more importantly the penalization of labor. If the people can come to terms of accepting that a government has the “right” to enhance each individual’s health, to feed the hungry, or to make labor, then there is no incentive for the righteous to give to or create charity; and even could prevent the progression of technology as it would be known to get penalized in itself.

U.S. Journalists Jailed in Foreign Countries

Two U.S. journalists recently jailed in North Korea, their crime? If only we knew, but quite frankly it's probably a case of.... idiocy, on part of North Korea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8015730.stm

Then here's the U.S. journalist jailed in Iran for "spying" - what kind of lowly excuse is that?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/19/iran-america-journalist-sentence

Where exactly is the ACLU's out-spoken nature now? Where are the people who rallied against Bush for their liberal freedoms? I mean, we're not even talking about foreign citizens in either case. They are each American citizens, afterall. Or does freedom of speech only apply to Communists, Pedophiles, Terrorists, and those who report lies?

We should be able to expect our journalists, reporters, commentators, and anyone else that fills a similar role to freely commute into other countries. That and much more, of course; the very fact our expectations say otherwise just goes to prove the problem with those regimes. I mean, it's not even like we'd be demanding free access to government programs - or perhaps it is?

In any case, there's good reason why our forefathers practically founded the freedom of the press. Without the freedom of the press, there would be no watchdog over the government and they (the government) could do as it chooses.

So my question is, why do we allow for this? Should we as Americans not be outraged at these things? Or not even just as Americans, but freedom-loving human beings? Such a rhetorical question, and my answer is exactly that, we should be outraged. Not just because we're Americans, but because we are freed.

Carrie Prejean - A Brave Lady in a Mindless World

This title is no joke. I'm saying it right now, Miss California is a brave lady for standing by her convictions, principles, and integrity.

It doesn't matter whether or not you agree or disagree. What matters is whether you will stand by your convictions and principle, or forsake your integrity. Miss California, Carrie Prejean, did exactly that. If you don't agree with her principle, that's fine. But we can agree to disagree.

Perez had no right to say what he said. Absolutely disgusting. He should be ashamed of himself, and anyone with an ounce of integrity would if they said that. Would you like it if someone just called you a dumb b-*ch because of your views? I didn't think so. So, why couldn't he have the slightest bit of respect for such a lady to stick by her beliefs without telling you to go to hell for being a homosexual, or is that not good enough?

Perez cries about representation, ok fine. But here's the kicker, even President Obama agrees: homosexuals should not be allowed to be married. And if I recall correctly, even Elton John says no to homosexual marriage and homosexuals should go along with secular unions.

Don't like people being able to disagree with you? Fine, but Cuba is down there by Venezuela. But that kind of attitude doesn't even deserve to fly in an eagle's yard. She should be praised for sticking to her integrity, to her principles, to her convictions; especially for not telling anyone else to go to hell or they're wrong for disagreeing.

And even after all that, Miss California appeared on "Your World w/ Neil Cavuto" and told Perez Hilton that she still loves him as a friend. She talked about how we're all different and no one is the same. If that isn't good enough, then what is? Anyone want to put out what we must consider to be "good enough"? I mean if you really think it isn't good enough that she condemned no one, that she didn't tell anyone what to do in their own bedroom, that she still loves Perez Hilton as a neighbor or friend, then damn straight you BEST HAVE AN ALTERNATE IDEA!!!

Media Discrediting Tea Protests

I came, I saw, I watched it.

As recent as yesterday, even today, the mainstream media continues to discredit those of us who want to stand up against big government and spending. They try to bribe us, they try to demonize us, and everything else to discredit us.

And  yet this is the same media that wants to get bailed out!? No wonder their ratings keep falling. CNN, MSNBC, ABC - it doesn't matter. Are they even businesses any more? This is a rhetorical question. The fact is, they should be businesses-but don't act like it. They act like nothing more than nonprofit/political organizations to promote their left-wing agenda.

People, we need to demand better accountability out of each and every corporation, and especially the members of the media that are supposed to watch out for the public, and as by extension the individual. Vote not with just your mouth, but with your money. Quit watching such media outlets, and let them know you will not tolerate their lack of coverage!

We know on April 15th, there were so-called "reporters" (everyone knows a reporter is supposed to REPORT the news, not comment on it) trying to break up protests across the country. Why? Why would they want to do this? Because they're not news reporters, at all.

If they were news reporters, wouldn't it make sense for them to... oh, report on the news? Why doesn't the media report on how some companies that received a bailout are trying to give the money back to the federal government? Or how Obama is refusing to allow any company to pay the feds back? How come we don't hear about how Spain has reported that green jobs don't work as well as they appear? Or how come we never hear about crooks in the Obama administration but yet everyone took a shot at Bush every chance they got?

Of course, we could go on all day how these things don't even get reported, or if they do-they only get played down-when they are what should be on the frontpage.

But let me go back to April 15th, those of us protesting at these tea parties were being called tea-baggers by the mass media. I'm not going to post the definition of a tea-bagger is, so use Google if you don't know what it is (I just don't think that it needs to said here), but it is in every way a derogative term. What is going on? If someone doesn't agree with you, that's reason enough to demean them?

I'm no fan of equating Obama with Hitler, either. But for that matter, I don't believe for a second any conservative or libertarian would equate Obama with Hitler. Yes, I do equate Obama with Marx. Why? Because I see little difference in their policies. Furthermore, even if a private person chooses to demean someone there's difference between that and what a reporter does. As I said earlier, a reporter is paid to report the news - not to be the news, not to make the news, and sure as hell not paid to fantasize about the news.

Now then, let's look at commentators like Keith Olbermann. It certainly is his right to commentate as he sees fit. But even for a man of Keith's statute, there is no excuse for acting like a child. As a matter of fact, it is important for any man of respectable statute to act respectful of both sides. Yet, here we are and here Keith is, calling the tea-bag protestors "tea-baggers".

Well to end this, I am posting my opinion, and I have blatantly challenged Mr. Olbermann in an email he should have read by now. But to that reporter that claimed freedom has nothing to do with taxes, you're wrong: taxes take freedom away; and your attempts to bribe a protestor are fail. I know if I were your manager, I would have you fired in a heart-beat.

April 15th, 2009 - Tax-Day Protest

Today was a beautiful day. Not because it was sunny outside here, not because it was calm. But because, We the People, protested. Once I get emailed, I'll be able to post some images in my blog about today's protest here in Savannah, GA, at least between our march to the court house and city hall.

According to Savannah News, attendance was from 1k to 2k between 11am and 1pm.

People were rightfully angered across the country. I say rightfully, because some people are blaming the wrong groups instead of the government before today.

Indeed, people are realizing the error in Obama. Not just Obama, but the Socialist agenda in our country.

My personal experience was most uplifting, too. It was a peaceful protest. I even had fun, but more importantly I helped others in the process. Not having my own sign, I held up other people's signs during the march. I bought water for a few people I was with, which felt good. I started up a few rally cries, not all successful but I think they'll become memorable for future runs. I walked for at least 5-6 miles, and stood up for more than 5hrs, and I'm even tired, yet I still feel good about it all. (This all also despite my so-called "disability", my stomach surgery, and other medical conditions.)

This must not be a one-hit wonder, either. We do need to keep at it, no matter what others want to say. Yes, the media will try to discourage us, and even claim we're illegit and paid-for by the likes of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Obama will claim he feels for us as he already tried. No, a single person can not change the future, but if you keep multiplying/adding 1 and 2, you get a big number. This, my friends, is how grassroot organizations begin. 

Like previously said, "It is wrong to think that belief in freedom always leads to victory; we must always be prepared for it to lead to defeat. If we choose freedom, then we must be prepared to perish along with it."

"Democracy and freedom do not guarantee the millennium. No, we do not choose political freedom because it promises us this or that. We choose it because it makes possible the only dignified form of human coexistence, the only form in which we can be fully responsible for ourselves. Whether we realize its possibilities depends on all kinds of things — and above all on ourselves."

Congressman Warns Mexico More Dangerous than Iraq, Could Become Failed State

CNSNews.com - Congressman Warns Mexico More Dangerous than Iraq, Could Become Failed State

(CNSNews.com) –  At a House of Representatives hearing on federal law enforcement’s response to the violence along the border between the United States and Mexico, Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) said there is more danger in that region than in the Middle East.
 
“Mexico is more dangerous than Iraq,” Culberson said. “There were more deaths in Mexico than there were in Iraq.”
 
But David A. Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego, who testified at the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, disagreed with the comparison.
 
“I don’t think that’s a fair characterization,” Shirk said, adding that he believed there were 7,000 civilian deaths in Iraq in the previous year and 6,000 in Mexico.
 
He also denied Mexico’s drug wars could be compared to those in Columbia, saying that during the height of the drug battles in that country the death toll was 100 in 100,000 whereas Mexico’s death rate is 10 to 15 to 100,000.
 
“It would have to get 10 times as bad (in Mexico),” Shirk said.
 
More than 7,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico since January 2008.
 
An analysis by CNSNews.com, published earlier this month, showed that the odds of a civilian dying in Ciudad Juarez in the Mexican state of Chihuahua was three times more likely than a civilian dying in Baghdad.

(Continued on linked webpage.)

Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows

CNSNews.com - Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows

(CNSNews.com) - Every “green job” created with government money in Spain over the last eight years came at the cost of 2.2 regular jobs, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job, says a new study released this month. The study draws parallels with the green jobs programs of the Obama administration. 

President Obama, in fact, has used Spain’s green initiative as a blueprint for how the United States should use federal funds to stimulate the economy. Obama's economic stimulus package,which Congress passed in February, allocates billions of dollars to the green jobs industry. 

But the author of the study, Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said the United States should expect results similar to those in Spain: 

"Spain’s experience (cited by President Obama as a model) reveals with high confidence, by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would have created,” wrote Calzada in his report: Study of the Effects on Employment of Public Aid to Renewable Energy Sources.

Obama repeatedly has said that the United States should look to Spain as an example of a country that has successfully applied federal money to green initiatives in order to stimulate its economy.

“Think of what’s happening in countries like Spain, Germany and Japan, where they’re making real investments in renewable energy,” said Obama while lobbying Congress, in January to pass the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. “They’re surging ahead of us, poised to take the lead in these new industries.”

“Their governments have harnessed their people’s hard work and ingenuity with bold investments — investments that are paying off in good, high-wage jobs — jobs they won’t lose to other countries,” said Obama. “There is no reason we can’t do the same thing right here in America. … In the process, we’ll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

Included in the stimulus package, for example, was $4.5 billion to convert government buildings into high-performance green buildings.

According to the Calzada’s study, Spain is a strong example of the government spending money on green ideas to stimulate its economy.

“No other country has given such broad support to the construction and production of electricity through renewable sources,” says the report. “The arguments for Spain’s and Europe’s ‘green jobs’ schemes are the same arguments now made in the U.S., principally that massive public support would produce large numbers of green jobs.”

But in the study’s introduction Calzada argues that the renewable jobs program hindered, rather than helped, Spain’s attempts to emerge from its recession.

“The study’s results show how such ‘green jobs’ policy clearly hinders Spain’s way out of the current economic crisis, even while U.S. politicians insist that rushing into such a scheme will ease their own emergence from the turmoil,” says Calzada. “This study marks the very first time a critical analysis of the actual performance and impact has been made."

Pat Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, a free market group, told CNSNews.com that the study’s conclusions do not surprise him. He added that the United States should expect similar results with the stimulus money it spends on green initiatives.

“There is no reason to think things will be any different here,” Michaels said. “In the short run you have to ask who is doing the hiring, and in the long run how efficient is it to have people serving technology such as windmills. We are creating inefficiencies.”

Michaels also said he was not surprised by the study’s finding that only one out of 10 jobs were permanent.

“That doesn’t surprise me,” said Michaels. “When we see how imperfect wind energy is and how expensive it is to maintain -- I think many of those jobs will become impermanent here in the U.S. as well.”

Inquiries for comment to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Center for American Progress were not answered before this story went to press.

Unsure Who is a Communist?

As taken from Karl Marx's "The Communist Manifesto":

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to communism.

We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries, the following will be generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into [b]cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Originally written by my old man...

As explained to me by my dad, this is a piece he wrote back when I was only six years old (1989-1990). It was so good, I felt I'd share it here. Enjoy!

“The majority is not silent, the government is deaf”…. So read the first and only bumper sticker I ever owned some years ago.

    My childhood memories are shared with Patrick Henry, Paul Revere, George Washington and Davy Crocket. I even remember the Alamo. Later, I graduated to Heinlein, Bradbury and Ann Rand.

    As age, intellect and xperience formed the alliance to become philosophy, I began to realize that the views of the government were not necessarily those of my own. Regardless, as I matured I allowed my deepest loves to be my God and my country, America.  No mater what part of the world I was in, I was always proud to say “ I am an American”.  Even now, at the end of a broadcast day and the national anthem is played, I get teary eyed and Goosebumps.

    Good memories, good philosophies and all the right values…or so I thought.

 

 

     Well my friend… not so. Everywhere I turn I’m being told different;  told that the values and dreams I have about God and country are now old fashioned and politically incorrect. Told that they have been replaced.

    Replaced with a newer world political consciousness defined by its newer and more politically correct vocabulary, with politically accepted words such as world order, world politics, Europe and Japanese currency with adulations to the United Nations.

    Politically accepted inferences declaring our “form” of government to be the major contributing cause of America’s most “pernicious” problems.

    Politically accepted predictions about the American labor market becoming a world service industry.

    Politically accepted humorists about America becoming the worlds largest third world nation.

 

    To this barrage of “Politically correct American negativity”…I have one thing to say; I don’t buy any of it!

 

    Not for one minute. The values I have and share with others calling themselves Americans IS correct! And yes…these values do make some people uncomfortable:

 

    Uncomfortable to those that are selling America for profit and have created our “pernicious problems”, not our form of government. What once was a traitor is now a business man involved in the world trade market. What once was called xploitation is now called a secured allegiance and foreign assistance.

 

    Uncomfortable to those responsible for a judicial system that condones the theft and molestation of our children. An educational system that’s tolerant of illiteracy. And those responsible for the rape and pillaging of our social security system.

 

    Uncomfortable to those in our legal and medical professions whose oaths can be found printed on either side of a one dollar bill.

 

    Uncomfortable to those whose morals are so repulsive and repugnant that’s its shared by few, but have access to funds to finance credible campaigns to convince you otherwise.

 

    Uncomfortable to those in position of power and control over the printed and public media with the scruples of a dog, that believe that their wealth and position puts them above the stench of filth they have created.

 

    Uncomfortable to those in position of power in our government and political arenas that are lying, cheating and stealing their way to personal wealth,

By xploiting the American dream, our rights, our freedom, our constitution, our very souls.

 

    And last….uncomfortable to those who find more comfort from sitting in their lazy boy recliners, than defending its eventual repossession.

 

    Uncomfortable? They should be…because as Americans we want our country back.

 

    We have fought you before on foreign soil and won. We have overcome communism, Watergates and impeachments. We can if necessary, rise to the occasion, this time on our home soil and as American –Prevail.

 

This I believe

Thomas

An American

Who is at the root of the problem, AIG or the politician?

We have come to a point in U.S. History, where like various other points in history the politicians are trying to get the people to blame a corporation, which for all intensive purposes made a wrong decision. Why is it automatically AIG to take the blame?

Did not Edward Liddy get appointed because of the government?

Did many of us not speak out against using taxpayer dollars to bailout AIG and many other companies?

Did we not tell the president, as well as Congress, that not only could it happen but it would?

I am being rhetorical, as the answer to these questions is a simple... YES!

People are calling for death threats against AIG? What about the politicians who went along with all of this? Actually, why are people calling for death threats anyways? Aren't we living in America where there's better alternatives than killing one-another? Americans must not be barbarians, not now-not ever.

Yes, people need to be responsible. But killing the AIG CEO is not going to work, and as much as some of us would like to kill all these politicians-that won't work anyways. Nor will taxing AIG's bonuses work, and for that matter not only will it solve absolutely nothing, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.. as any tax that targets only a specific group of persons or person.

What would solve the problem? Not like we can UNDO the bailout since it's already been signed into law. We can however VOTE WITH OUR MONEY, OUR WORDS... what? Am I serious? I am dead serious. We can vote companies like AIG out of business by closing our wallets to them, and we can vote Congress out of their jobs. Maybe not this year, but definitely by 2010.

Not only that, but President Obama is still to blame just as easily for this as he is for his broken promises. Yet today, he gave another speech about lobbyists. Obama may have some good speeches, but unless he turns around YESTERDAY... they're all broken promises by the moment his mouth opens. Alas, I degressed.

The senator that called for seppuku on part of the AIG employees, should be utterly ashamed of himself. And the people who are sending AIG death threats, are no better themselves. You're supposed to be Americans, yet this is how you're going to talk!? I'll be straight up: it does remind me of the people in the middle east who applauded the 9/11 attacks.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we should call for the AIG CEO's resignation as well as anyone else responsible for the bonuses directly, but THIS IS NOT the way a member of Congress should act, and not the way Congress should be acting at all, and most importantly people are being blind about who to blame.

Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It

Obama Signs Law Banning Federal Embryo Research Two Days After Signing Executive Order to OK It
Friday, March 13, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - On Wednesday, only two days after he lifted President Bush’s executive order banning federal funding of stem cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos, President Barack Obama signed a law that explicilty bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

The provision was buried in the 465-page omnibus appropriations bill that Obama signed Wednesday. Known as the Dickey-Wicker amendment, it has been included in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services every fiscal year since 1996.

The amendment says, in part: "None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death."

Found in Section 509 of Title V of the omnibus bill (at page 280 of the 465-page document), the federal funding ban not only prohibits the government from providing tax dollars to support research that kills or risks injury to a human embryo, it also mandates that the government use an all-inclusive definition of “human embryo” that encompasses any nascent human life from the moment that life comes into being, even if created in a laboratory through cloning, in vitro fertilization or any other means.

“For the purposes of this section,” says the law, “the term ‘human embryo or embryos’ includes any organism … that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.” (The entire verbatim text of Section 509 of the omnibus spending law is reprinted at the bottom of this article.)

At a widely publicized White House ceremony on Monday, President Obama signed his own executive order lifting an executive order that President Bush had signed in 2001. While allowing federal funding of research involving embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created from embryos that had already been destroyed, Bush's 2001 order denied federal funding to research that required the killing of any additional embryos.

“For the past 8 years, the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), to fund and conduct human embryonic stem cell research has been limited by Presidential actions,” said the order that President Obama signed Monday. “The purpose of this order is to remove these limitations on scientific inquiry, to expand NIH support for the exploration of human stem cell research, and in so doing to enhance the contribution of America's scientists to important new discoveries and new therapies for the benefit of humankind.”

The order went on to say: “The Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary), through the Director of NIH, may support and conduct responsible, scientifically worthy human stem cell research, including human embryonic stem cell research, to the extent permitted by law.”

Thanks to the Dickey-Wicker language in Section 509 of the omnibus bill, the "extent permitted by law" will continue to forbid federal funding of research that even puts embryos at risk.

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush's administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill--vetoed by President Bush--that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker. 

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,'' The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

"Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at," Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. "That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed."

Douglas Johnson, spokesman for the National Right to Life Committee, said in a press release Monday that President Obama’s executive order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryo-destroying stem cell research “set the stage” for an effort to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“This sets the stage for an attack on the Dickey-Wicker law, which since 1995 has been a provision of the annual appropriations bills for federal health programs,” said Johnson. “Any member of Congress who votes for legislation to repeal this law is voting to allow federal funding of human embryo farms, created through the use of human cloning.”

In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.

“And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society,” said Obama.

A bill sponsored in the last Congress by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) would specifically permit federal funding of research using human embryos that are created by cloning and kept alive for no more than 14 days so that their stem cells can be extracted. Federal funding of this type of research is prohibited by Dickey-Wicker.

Researchers are interested in cloning human embryos for prospective stem cell therapies because it might help overcome the problem posed by a patient's immune system, which rejects stem cells derived from another person but might accept stem cells if they are taken from an embryo cloned from the patient himself.

On Tuesday morning, The New York Times carried an editorial calling on Congress to repeal Dickey-Wicker.

“Other important embryonic research is still being hobbled by the so-called Dickey-Wicker amendment,” The Times editorialized. “The amendment, which is regularly attached to appropriations bills for the Department of Health and Human Services, prohibits the use of federal funds to support scientific work that involves the destruction of human embryos (as happens when stem cells are extracted) or the creation of embryos for research purposes.”

“Congress should follow Mr. Obama's lead and lift this prohibition so such important work can benefit from an infusion of federal dollars,” The Times said.

The next day, President Obama signed H.R. 1105, the “Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009,” which includes the Dickey-Wicker language. Unless Congress passes and President Obama signs new legislation to repeal Dickey-Wicker, it will now be the law of the land at least through September 30, when this fiscal year ends.

The text of Section 509 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, reads as follows:

SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

Petition against Iran's human rights record

Tortured political prisoners in Iran in need of immediate help!

We the undersigned endorse this petition supporting human rights for and condemning the physical or mental torture of political prisoners in all the prisons in Iran.

In April 2007, as an activist spokesperson passionately fighting for the rights of 19 political prisoners, I publicly criticized lack of effort of international committees on his behalf on Fox TV.

Later in Summer of 2007, I came to know a few people from UN and Amnesty who explained their work in simple terms most people would like to hear it.

Most people, including me, agree the UN and Amnesty International don't do much because we seldome see the positive results from our petitions. Unfortunately the Amensty and UN do not have the power to enforce the international laws to which Iran is signatory but chooses to ignore. UN officials in Geneva assure me that they are well aware of the mental and physical torture political prisoners are enduring daily and that Mr. Olson, the UN rapporteur, has make repeated appeals but there is not much that either of the international agencies can do to save Ayatollah Boroujerdi or anyone else in Iran.

UN and Amnesty International officers point out the sad-but-true reality that their hands are tied. They can only remind but cannot force the Iranian regime to abide by their international contract prohibiting torture of dissidents. Amnesty has not been able to visit Iran since 1979 and UN visitations have been denied since 2003.

I asked UN officers what can be done to save this and other voices who will loose their lives in the next few months. They answer that the only way seems to be the media and politicians who can sway Iran by denying resources it needs.

Please sign this petition knowing you can sign under a suiter name, and also use your first name only. Please sing it and also forward this page to your politicians, to your friends in high power and let them know that at least 2 men in Iran are about to loose their lives.

This petition will only be sent to UN & Amnesty International and your e mail addresses will never become public.

I urge you to help. Please forward it to your friends and family,and to your connections in high places and ask them to help. Ask your congressman and women, ask your politicians for help. Because without them, UN and Amnesty can only write actions to remind of the Iranian regime what should they do, but never be able to enforce them of any action. We need to work together to bring Iranian regime down. We can't do it if we work seperatly.

Ghazal Omid

Dimmed future or true change?

As of a couple weeks ago, President Obama of the United States of America has signed and authorized a bill that will effectively print more than $1 trillion dollars. Is this really the change we're supposed to believe in? Devaluing the dollar even more? I thought America voted for something else, not the 3rd term of the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

Or is the change... that Americans want to use the Euro or Yen? Rhetorical question, as no one voted Obama for the issues, unless they were a Socialist anyways. Obama was elected because Americans wanted change for the sake of change, not change because America needs it.

Let me reiterate that, America did and still does need change. But this is not change, it is only more of the same insanity that has hounded America for almost a century now. I will give credit where it is due, Obama did a good job with the deception. He really didn't have to do anything to begin with though. We can thank the GOP for this. Instead of bringing on Republicans who really are Conservative, we have had nothing more than controlled-opposition running the Republican party, instead of getting back to their roots of true conservatism as our forefathers practice, the GOP instead elected more liberalism ever since Reagan left office.

Does it make any difference? No. People were so far-up-their-butts interested in change that not even George Washington could've prevented Obama from winning.

So regardless, as we cannot change the past or present our only alternative is to change the future. We cannot change one-another's mind everso easily in reality.... can we? The cynical realist in me is saying things must get worse before they get better, for that is the natural order of this world we live in.

For every action, there is consequential reaction.

Perhaps, people will wisen up. That's the optimist realist in me. But again, we're humans. We never learned that fire could hurt without putting our hand into the fire. Yet, as it is human nature and while we tell children based on our experience how the fire can hurt, they still feel the need to learn on their own.

Such is dilemna. And since we know the dilemna, and only tyranny regulates one's stupidity. Yet, we can provide an alternative to the status quo as it stands here and now. Just as there is the light that shines through the darkness, and we must understand the darkness to realize there is light, we can still change what hasn't happened; we can understand the problem... not only can we understand the problem, we must understand the problem to fix the future... not only for our own sakes, but for the future of mankind; not only for the future of mankind, but to prove that man is more reliable than even the angels themselves!

The problem is that many have done a horrible job at educating both ourselves and those around us, with what the proper alternative really is. People need to wake up, quit being so interested in a collective self-absorption, and actually learn to be individuals as well as responsible adults. In other words, learn to grow up and think for the self.

That is true change.

I want my tarp!

Clinton's foundation got millions from Saudis, Gates

Former President Clinton published a list of donors to his foundation Thursday to help clear the way for his wife to become secretary of state.

read more | digg story

Top Saudi cleric: OK for 10 year old girls to be wed [WTF?]

The debate over the controversial practice of child marriage in Saudi Arabia was pushed back into the spotlight this week, with the kingdom's top cleric saying that it's OK for girls as young as 10 to wed. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

read more | digg story