Tea Party acitivists should be proud, America is waking rapidly. A new CNN poll shows Americans are becoming increasingly skeptical of the Federal Government and it’s intent towards people rights and freedoms. Well you think so? The Tea Party was founded on fidelity to the Constitution and loosely on Glen Beck’s 9/12 project, values and first principles.
Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.
The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: Only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and nearly seven in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.
It has been many moons since sitting down at a tea-party with my little friends (at the time), although it is that type of comity and friendship that brings people together in times like these.
Governor Schwarzenegger’s remarks about the Tea-Parties disappearing are not hard to believe. The reason is because people think that this is a one-time frustration with the system, and as most humans (and Americans) operate, that frustration soon goes away (or we become complacent).
However, it would be great to prove the people wrong who think that the Tea-Party movement will just “go away.” The reason is that the movement is not about politics – it is about our RESPONSIBILITY as Americans, as constituents, and as consumers. It is about EVERYTHING, and because WE THE PEOPLE are the foundation of this great Country, we cannot just “stop” when things look good. We must continue to be vigilant, and never go back to the complacency that got us here in the first place.
How do you organize a Tea Party? Well, we keep the grass-roots activism alive, you support grass-roots organizations, and you support local media outlets that are dedicated to the cause. And, you don’t stop. Ever.
ISPs must snoop on subscribers or face being sued by content owners
By Paul Meller | Brussels | 21 February, 2010 Computerworld
The US, Europe and other countries including New Zealand are secretly drawing up rules designed to crack down on copyright abuse on the internet, in part by making ISPs liable for illegal content, according to a copy of part of the confidential draft agreement that was seen by the IDG News Service.
It is the latest in a series of leaks from the anticounterfeiting trade agreement (ACTA) talks that have been going on for the past two years. Other leaks over the past three months have consisted of confidential internal memos about the negotiations between European lawmakers.
The chapter on the internet from the draft treaty was shown to the IDG News Service by a source close to people directly involved in the talks, who asked to remain anonymous. Although it was drawn up last October, it is the most recent negotiating text available, according to the source.
It proposes making ISPs (internet service providers) liable under civil law for the content their subscribers upload or download using their networks.
To avoid being sued by a record company or Hollywood studio for illegally distributing copyright-protected content, the ISP would have to prove that it took action to prevent the copyright abuse, according to the text, and in a footnote gives an example of the sort of policy ISPs would need to adopt to avoid being sued by content owners:
“An example of such a policy is providing for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscriptions and accounts in the service provider’s system or network of repeat offenders,” the text states.
Terminating someone’s subscription is the graduated response enacted in France last year that sparked widespread controversy. The French law is dubbed the “Three Strikes” law because French ISPs must give repeat file sharers two warnings before cutting off their connection.
Other countries in Europe are considering similar legal measures to crack down on illegal file-sharing. However, EU-wide laws waive ISPs’ liability for the content of messages and files distributed over their networks.
European Commission officials involved in negotiating ACTA on behalf of the EU insist that the text being discussed doesn’t contradict existing EU laws.
“There is flexibility in the European system. Some countries apply judicial solutions (to the problem of illegal file-sharing), others find technical solutions,” said an official on condition he wasn’t named.
He said the EU doesn’t want to make a “three strikes” rule obligatory through the ACTA treaty. “Graduated response is one of many methods of dealing with the problem of illegal file-sharing,” he said.
He also admitted that some in the Commission are uncomfortable about the lack of transparency in the ACTA negotiations.
“The fact that the text is not public creates suspicion. We are discussing internally whether the negotiating documents should be released,” he said, but added that even if it was agreed in Brussels that the documents should be made public, such a move would require the approval of the EU’s 10 ACTA negotiating partners.
The participating countries are the US, the E.U., Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.
In a separate leak that first appeared on blogs last week, the European Commission updated members of the European Parliament on the most recent face-to-face meeting between the signatory countries, which took place in Mexico at the end of last month.
According to that leak, the internet chapter of the treaty was discussed, but no changes to the position suggested by the US last fall were agreed.
“The internet chapter was discussed for the first time on the basis of comments provided by most parties to US proposal. The second half of the text (technological protection measures) was not discussed due to lack of time,” the memo said, adding:
“Discussions still focus on clarification of different technical concepts, therefore, there was not much progress in terms of common text. The US and the EU agreed to make presentations of their own systems at the next round, to clarify issues.”
The Commission official refused to comment on the content of the leaked documents.
The next meeting of ACTA negotiators will take place in New Zealand in April.
Corus’ steelworks at Redcar, near Middlesbrough, “Teesside Cast Products”, is to be closed (”mothballed” is the euphemism). It is Britain’s last great steelworks and an essential national resource. Without it, we are at the world’s mercy.
Corus is owned by Tata Steel of India. Recently, Tata received “EU-carbon-credits” worth up to £1bn, ostensibly so that steel-production at Redcar would not be crippled by the EU’s “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”. By closing the plant at Redcar – and not making any “carbon-emissions” – Tata walks off with £1bn of taxpayers’ money, which it will invest in its steel-factories in India, where there is no “carbon-emissions-trading-scheme”.
On April 18th 1775 At the start of the War of American Independence, US patriot Paul Revere rode from Charleston to Lexington, warning people that British troops were advancing….
Liberty Candidates are letting us know that we need to win our American Independence back with Sound Money, Constitutional Government, Individual Liberty, a Free Market and Non-interventionist Foreign Policy.
Great Patriot Money Bomb for Liberty Candidates
April 18, 2010
♦ Candidates with this symbol have been endorsed by Retake Congress
♣ Candidates with this symbol have been endorsed by LibertySlate 10 (Republican Liberty Caucus)
♥Candidates with this symbol have signed the 10th Amendment Pledge 10 4 2010
® Candidates with this symbol have been endorsed by RogueOn.org
**about donating to people with a paypal account: If your candidate uses PayPal and you don’t have a PayPal account, don’t feel as though you are forced to open one. Look for the link on the left side of the PayPal page that says, “Don’t have a PayPal account? Use your credit card or bank account.” There will be a link that says “Continue” next to that. This is your easy way to donate directly from your credit card to your favorite candidates.
Alabama
♣♦Paul Lambert – Congress 6th District http://www.votelambert.org/
Roy Moore – Governor http://www.moore2010.com/?page_id=14
Arizona
Nick Coons – Congress 5th District http://www.nickcoonsforcongress.com/contribute/donate.php
♦♥Jim Deakin – United States Senate https://www.jimdeakin.com/donate.php
Barry Hess – Governor http://www.hessforgovernor2010.com/index.html
♥Hugh Kealer – Governor https://hughkealer.com/Home_Page.php
♣Brian Miller – Congress 8th District http://brianmillerforcongress.com/
Bruce Olsen – Governor http://www.az4therepublic.com/
California
♦Michael Benoit – Congress 52nd District http://www.michaelbenoit.org/donate.php
♥♣♦John Dennis - Congress 8th District https://www.completecampaigns.com/public.asp?name=DennisJohn&page=1
Bill Hunt – Orange County Sheriff http://www.billhuntforsheriff2010.com/
®♥Chelene Nightingale – Governor http://www.nightingaleforgovernor.com/pages/donate.htm
Dale Ogden Governor http://www.dalefogden.org/
Jeff Takada – Congress 11th District http://www.takada2010.com/support/
Colorado
Rob McNealy – Congress 6th District http://www.robmcnealy.com/donations/
Connecticut
♦Dan Reale – Congress 2nd District http://www.realedealforcongress.com/Donate.html
♣♦Peter Schiff – United States Senate https://secure.qgiv.com/cps_donors/index.php?key=secommittee
Florida
♦Eddie Adams Jr. – Congress 11th District https://secure.donationreport.com/donation.html?key=KX9CVEQVOALF
♥John Annarumma – Congress 6th District http://www.johnannarumma.com/
Karl Dickey – Palm Beach County Commissioner http://www.karldickey.org/contribute.htm
♥Francisco Rodriquez – House of Representatives District 83 https://secure.yourpatriot.com/ou/francisco/331/donate.aspx
Roger Shealy – House of Representatives District 29 http://www.shealy2010.com/support.html
John Wayne Smith – Governor http://johnwayne4gov.com/index.php
♥Thomas K. Snider – Congress 12th District https://www.digitaldonation.com/donate.aspx?campid=1343
♦♥Alexander Snitker – United States Senate http://snitker2010.com/
♦♥Troy D. Stanley – Congress 4th District http://www.stanley10.com/stanley_for_congress_004.htm
Georgia
Shane Coley – State Senate 47th District http://www.shanecoley.us/support.html
Chuck Donovan – United States Senate http://donovanforsenate.com/Donate
♥♦Michael Frisbee – Congress 13th District https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/index.asp?guidRegistration=58575E58
♥Ray McBerry – Governor http://www.georgiafirst.org/governor/makeacontribution.shtml
♣Valerie Meyer – Congress 8th District http://www.valerieforcongress.com/contribute.html
John Monds – Governor http://www.votemonds.com/donate.html
Idaho
♣Chick Heileson – Congress 2nd District http://www.votechick.com/home.html
Illinois
Joe Bell – Attorney General http://www.joebell2010.com/
Julie Fox – Comptroller http://foxforcomptroller.com/index.html
Alton Franklin – United States Senate http://www.alton4us.org/
♥Lex Green – Governor http://electlex.com/donate.php
♣Josh Hanson – Secretary of State http://joshhanson2010.com/donate/
Michael Labno – United States Senate http://www.labno4senate.com/page2.html
♥♣David Ratowitz – Congress 5th District https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeFederal.asp?guidRegistration=58575759
Edward Rutledge – Lt. Governor https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/index.asp?guidRegistration=575D5B56
Randy Stufflebeam - Governor https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeState.asp?guidRegistration=5D595856
Indiana
Darrell Dillard - State Representative District 70 http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=1545&page=cand
♥♣♦Rachel Grubb – Congress 3rd District http://www.rachel4congress.biz/search/label/Donate
♥Kristi Risk – Congress 8th District http://kristiriskcongress.com/donations.htm
Kentucky
®♣♦Rand Paul – United States Senate https://www.randpaul2010.com/donate/
Ronnie Smith – Gallatin County Sheriff http://ronniesmithforsheriff.com/
Maryland
♦♥♣Collins Bailey – Congress 5th District http://baileyforuscongress.com/donate.php
♣Robert Broadus – Congress 4th District http://www.justiceandliberty.us/donate.html
♦Joe McArtor – Congress 1st District http://www.mcartorforcongress.com/
Joe Seehusen – State Senate 42nd District https://www.joeformaryland.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1
Massachusetts
Kamal Jain – Auditor http://kamaljain.com/donate/
Minnesota
Tim Utz – House of Representatives District 50-A http://www.timutzforhouse.com/donate.htm
Mississippi
Joe Tegerdine – Congress 4th District https://secure.qgiv.com/cps_donors/index.php?key=jtcongress
Michigan
♣Linda Goldthorpe – Congress 1st District http://www.lindaforcongress.com/contribute
Missouri
♣Paul Curtman – State Representative 105th District http://www.paulcurtman.com/Volunteer_Donate.html
Jonathan Dine – United States Senate http://votedine.com/
Bob Parker – Congress 8th District http://www.electbobparker.com/contribute.html
Nevada
William Hols – State Assembly District 34 http://www.williamhols.org/
Edward G. Klapproth – Congress 1st District http://www.edklapproth.org/
New Hampshire
Jenn Coffey – State Representative District 6 http://www.jenncoffey.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_jdonation&view=donation&Itemid=65
Cameron DeJong – State Representative District 9 http://www.camstaterep.com/donate.html
New Jersey
William Kern – Congress 1st District http://kernforcongress.com/contribute.asp
New Mexico
♥♣♦Adam Kokesh – Congress 3rd District https://kokesh.netboots.net/contribute
New York
Logan Bell – Congress 24th District http://www.bell2010.com/
♦Chris Cantwell – Congress 1st District http://voteforcantwell.org/component/content/frontpage.html
Warren Redlich – Governor http://wredlich.com/ny/donate/
Anthony Tolda – Congress 2nd District http://anthonytolda.com/donations.html
North Carolina
Dr. Mike Beitler – United States Senate http://www.beitlerforussenate.org/
Glen Bradley – State House District 49 http://www.glenbradley.net/donate/toGlen10.html
♦♣Dr. Dan Eichenbaum – Congress 11th District http://drdan4congress.com/donate
Ohio
♥Jacob Dawson – State Representative 86th District http://www.dawson4you.com/pb/wp_629ce7d4/wp_629ce7d4.html
Steve Linnabary – United States Senate http://www.linnabary.us
♥Kurtis Liston – House of Representatives 44th District http://www.listonforliberty.org/?page_id=71
♦David Ryon – Congress 15th District https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeFederal.asp?guidRegistration=5A5D575D
Oklahoma
♥Randy Brogdon – Governor https://contribute.randybrogdon.com/
♣Nathan Dahm – Congress 1st District http://www.nathandahm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=128&Itemid=115
♣♦RJ Harris – Congress 4th District https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeFederal.asp?guidRegistration=585B56
♣Howard Huchen – Congress 2nd District http://www.houchenforcongress.com/payment.html
Oregon
®♥♣♦Jaynee Germond – Congress 4th District http://www.germond2010.com/donate
®♥♣♦Delia Lopez – Congress District 3 http://www.dlopezforcongress.com/contribute.htm
Pennsylvania
Dan Frank – Congress 16th District http://www.danfrankforcongress.com/Contribute.html
Scott Pigeon – Congress 18th District http://scottpigeon.com/donate
♣Pat Sellers – Congress 6th District https://www.fundraisingbynet.net/fbn/contributeFederal.asp?guidRegistration=575D5D5C
♦Jake Towne – Congress 15th District http://towneforcongress.com/
Douglas Walters – State Representative 93rd District http://walters4pa.com/?page_id=148
South Carolina
Bill Connor – Lt. Governor South Carolina http://www.servingsouthcarolina.com/
Christina Jeffrey – Congress 4th District http://christinajeffrey.com/
♦Mike Vasovski – Congress 3rd District https://vasovski.netboots.net/contribute
Tennessee
Daniel Lewis - State House District 53 http://statehouse53.lewisdt.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54%3Acontribute&catid=35%3Aabout-daniel-&Itemid=1
Texas
Will Bratton – House of Representatives District 59 http://www.willbratton.com/campaign/make-a-donation/
Jeff Daiell – Governor http://www.jeffdaiell.com/donate
Rick Donaldson – Agriculture Commissioner http://www.rickdonaldsonfortexasagriculturecommissioner.com/
Brian Drake - Constable Bexar County Precinct 2 http://drake4constable.wordpress.com/contribute/
Dr. Robert Lowry – Congress 23rd District https://drlowryforcongress.netboots.net/contribute
®♥Debra Medina – Governor https://secure.piryx.com/donate/g79TEURR/medinafortexas/
♦♥John Jay Myers – Congress 32nd District http://www.johnjaymyers.com/index-8.htm
♣Ron Paul – Congress 14th District http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/contribute.html
♣Joe Petronis – Congress 10th District http://donate.petronisforcongress.com/donate.asp
♣Stephen Schoppe – Congress 21st District http://tools.schoppe.us/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=1
Bryon Severns – Congress 6th District http://bryonseverns.com/
David Smith – Congress 2nd District http://www.dsmithforcongress.com/Default.aspx
Joseph Spencer – House of Representatives District 130 http://spencerfortexas.com/contribute.html
♦Steve Susman – Congress 22nd District http://stevesusman2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/donate-with-paypal
Mike Taylor – Congress 18th District http://www.miketaylor18.com/index.html
Fred Weider – Congress 22nd District http://www.johnwieder.com/
♣Bruce West - Congress 8th District http://www.brucewestforcongress.com/default.html
Utah
♣Mike Lee – United States Senate https://www.mikelee2010.com/donate
James Williams – United States Senate http://www.voteforjameswilliams.com/index1.html
Virginia
♥♦Douglas Hutchinson – Congress 2nd District https://hutchforcongress.netboots.net/contribute
®♦♣Michael McPadden – Congress 5th District http://mcpaddenforcongress.netboots.net/contribute
® Jim Trautz – Congress 10th District https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=29473
Washington
David Hedrick – Congress 3rd District http://www.davidwhedrick.com/Contribute-1.htm
Craig Williams – United States Senate https://votewilliams2010.netboots.net/contribute
Wisconsin
Michael Krsiean – Congress 3rd District http://www.krsieanforcongress.com/support.html
♣Terri McCormick – Congress 8th District http://www.mccormickdonations.com/
Tim Nerenz – Congress 2nd District http://timnerenz.com/donate-to-the-campaign-for-us-house-representatives
Rick Richard – State Senate 15th District http://www.voterickrichard.com/issues.html
Rob Taylor – United States Senate http://www.robtaylorforsenate.com/donate.php
Ed Thompson – State Senate 31st District https://www.wisgopsenate.com/donations/?key=20
More early spring windows today, the grey gloom lifted a little on London on Wednesday so I popped out to see what some of my favorite stores had in their windows.
I was glad to see the tribute to Alexander McQueen in Liberty’s windows but a little perplexed by their depiction of Stella McCartney’s underwear, see what you think?
Alexander McQueen RIP - so sad
Strange display in Liberty windows for Stella McCartney underwear
Zara red, white and blue babies at home window
Shop window full of babies for Gap
Anthropologie florals inspired by their Magpie collective chandeliers
Ralph Lauren Caribbean shack at the children's store
Selfridges uplifting slogans for hard times
My favorite motto from Selfridges spring windows for 2010
Here is the amendment, which purports to protect parental rights and, on a glance actually appears to do so.
Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Sections one and three are very good, and would appear to protect the rights of parents to train up their children according to the dictates of their conscience.
However, look again at section 2:
Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Notice how it does not make an exception for the life or abuse of the child, but for “governmental interest.” This amendment would give, for the first time, Constitutional authority for the government- federal, state or local- to seize ANY child for ANY reason. Section 2 with the nebulous terminology “governmental interest” effectively makes sections one and two non-existent.
Considering the current congress and president’s obsession with “hate crimes” is it really that far fetched for such a administration, or a succeeding one, to deem a “governmental interest” in ensuring that children do not grow up with “divisive” and “disruptive” intolerant views on sexuality and gender identity, or perhaps “backwards and antisocial” views on private property and capitalism? This amendment, under the right regime, could be used to enact a defacto ban on home or private schooling if it was decided that such activities do not serve the “highest order” of the government’s interest.
This amendment must be opposed at all levels
This amendment, if added to the Constitution will deal a severe blow to parental rights, surrendering a great portion of parental authority to the government.
Here is the official explanation of this section from the amendment’s website, parentalrights.org:
SECTION TWO
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SUMMARY: While parental rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.
Notice that the summary they provide includes specific examples: abuse/neglect. “Governmental interest,” while it COULD mean those things, cannot be logically or honestly claimed to be limited to those things. We are talking about politicians that have difficulty interpreting easy to understand phrases as “right to bear arms.” They will have a heyday with “governmental interest.” Just look what they’ve done with the commerce clause:
“…demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person…”
Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.
Yes, it is called due process. Life liberty or property shall not be taken without due process, regardless of the “governmental interest.” This amendment does not provide any such “heightened burden of proof,” merely that the government thinks its interest in the child is greater than the parent’s and is not being served by the parents. It sets a very low bar, and leaves parental rights at the mercy of liberal bureaucrats and other social engineers.
“…of the highest order and not otherwise served.”
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that “the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): “All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests”), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government “must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end”), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): “To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.
Again, this amendment does not spell out what “governmental interest” actually means, and leaves the door open to great federal abuse of this newly codified interest. The focus on religious practice here readily suggests that section 2 could be used to remove children from christian or other families that believe homosexuality or other behaviors are immoral and against God. The reason that would be cited is a “governmental interest” of the highest order in “promoting diversity and inclusiveness” and fostering a “tolerant society.”
We tend to read into a bill that we want to like those things that would make it likable. The reality of this would be amendment is that it opens the legal door to massive federal interference in the rights of parents to raise their children. And as far as the “UN Convention on the rights of the child,” Section 2 of this amendment makes section 3, professing to forbid treaties undermining parental authority moot- if said treaty is “in the utmost interest of the Government.”
This Amendment, as well as the UN Convention on the rights of the Child must be opposed by all who love freedom and want to raise up their children according to the laws of nature and Nature’s God.
A few points of clarification might be in order for those wondering what the fuss is all about in the contrast between the modern and the postmodern (and the amodern, which is really what we ought to be about).
The modern world view takes its perspective from the foundational works of the European Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. One of its characteristic features is often referred to as the Cartesian duality, or subject-object split, in which we (the subjects) enter the previously-existing objective world as blank slates who deal with reality by adapting to the facts of existence (which are God-given in the full Christian version). Many Marxists, feminists, and postmodernists see modernism as a bastion of white males in positions of political and economic superiority oblivious to the way their ideas were shaped by their times, and happy to take full advantage of their positions for their own gain.
Postmodernism takes a variety of forms and has not yet really jelled into any kind of uniform perspective; in fact, it might not ever do so, as one of its few recurrent themes has to do with the fragmentation of thinking and it local dependence on the particular power relations of different times and places. That said, a wide variety of writers trace out the way we are caught up in the play of the language games that inevitably follow from the mutual implication of subject and object. Subject and object each imply the other in the way language focuses attention selectively and filters out 99% of incoming stimuli. Concepts originate in metaphors that take their meaning from the surrounding social and historical context, and so perception and cognition are constrained by the linguistic or theoretical paradigms dominating the thoughts and behaviors of various communities. We cannot help but find ourselves drawn up into the flow of discourses that always already embody the subject-object unities representing in speaking and writing.
When we choose discourse over violence, we do so on the basis of a desire for meaning (Ricoeur, 1974), of an inescapable attraction to the beautiful (Gadamer, 1989, 1998), of a care that characterizes the human mode of being (Heidegger, 1962), of a considerateness for the human vulnerability of others and ourselves (Habermas, 1995), of an enthrallment with the fecund abundance of sexual difference (Irigaray, 1984), of the joy we experience in recognizing ourselves in each other and the universal (Hegel, 2003), of the irresistible allure of things (Harman, 2005), or of the unavoidable metaphysical necessity that propositions must take particular forms (Derrida, 1978).
All violence is ultimately the violence of the premature conclusion (Ricoeur, 1974), in which discourse is cut off by the imposition of one particularity as representative of a potentially infinite whole. This reductionism is an unjustified reduction of a universal that precludes efforts aimed at determining how well what is said might work to represent the whole transparently. Of course, all reductions of abstract ideals to particular expressions in words, numbers, or other signs are, by definition, of a limited length, and so inevitably pose the potential for being nonsensical, biased, prejudiced, and meaningless. Measures experimentally justifying reductions as meaningfully and usefully transparent are created, maintained, and reinvented via a balance of powers. In science, powers are balanced by the interrelations of theories, instruments, and data; in democracy, by the interrelations of the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government. Just as science is continuously open to the improvements that might be effected by means of new theories, instrumentation, or data, so, too, are democratic governments continuously reshaped by new court decisions, laws, and executive orders.
An essential idea here is that all thinking takes place in signs; this is not an idea that was invented or that is owned by postmodernists. C. S. Pierce developed the implications of semiotics in his version of pragmatism, and the letters exchanged by William James and Helen Keller explored the world projected by the interrelations of signs at length. The focus on signs, signification, and the play of signifiers does not make efforts at thinking futile or invalidate the search for truth. Things come into language by asserting their independent real existence, and by being appropriated in terms of relations with things already represented in the language. For instance, trees in the forest did not arrive on the scene hallmarked “white pine,” “pin oak,” etc. Rather, names for things emerge via the metaphoric process, which frames new experiences in terms of old, and which leads to a kind of conceptual speciation event that distinguishes cultural, historical, and ecological periods from each other.
Modernists interpret the cultural relativism that emerges here as reducing all value systems to a false equality and an “anything goes” lack of standards. Unfortunately, the rejection of relativism usually entails the adoption of some form of political or religious fundamentalism in efforts aimed at restoring bellweather moral reference points. One of the primary characteristics of the current state of global crisis is our suspension in this unsustainable tension between equally dysfunctional alternatives of completely relaxed or completely rigid guides to behavior.
But the choice between fundamentalism and relativism is a false dichotomy. Science, democracy, and capitalism have succeeded as well as they have not in spite of, but because of, the social, historic, linguistic, and metaphoric factors that influence and constitute the construction of objective meaning. As Latour (1990, 1993) puts it, we have never actually been modern, so the point is not to be postmodern, but amodern. We need to appropriate new, more workable conceptual reductions from the positive results produced by the deconstruction of the history of metaphysics. Though many postmodernists see deconstruction as an end in itself, and though many modernists see reductionism as a necessary exercise of power, there are other viable ways of proceeding that remain to be explored.
The amodern path informs the trajectory of my own work, from the focus on the creation of meaning in language to meaningful measurement (Fisher, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2010b), and from there to the use of measurement and metrological networks in bringing human, social, and natural capital to life as part of the completion of the capitalist and democratic projects (Fisher, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010a). Though this project will also ultimately amount to nothing more than another failed experiment, perhaps sooner than later, it has its openness to continued questioning and ongoing dialogue in its favor.
References
Derrida, J. (1978). Structure, sign and play in the discourse of the human sciences. In Writing and difference (pp. 278-93). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2000). Objectivity in psychosocial measurement: What, why, how. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 4(2), 527-563 [http://www.livingcapitalmetrics.com/images/WP_Fisher_Jr_2000.pdf].
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2003a, December). Mathematics, measurement, metaphor, metaphysics: Part I. Implications for method in postmodern science. Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 753-90.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2003b, December). Mathematics, measurement, metaphor, metaphysics: Part II. Accounting for Galileo’s “fateful omission.” Theory & Psychology, 13(6), 791-828.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2004, October). Meaning and method in the social sciences. Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences, 27(4), 429-54.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2005). Daredevil barnstorming to the tipping point: New aspirations for the human sciences. Journal of Applied Measurement, 6(3), 173-9 [http://www.livingcapitalmetrics.com/images/FisherJAM05.pdf].
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2009, November). Invariance and traceability for measures of human, social, and natural capital: Theory and application. Measurement (Elsevier), 42(9), 1278-1287.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2010a). Bringing human, social, and natural capital to life: Practical consequences and opportunities. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11, in press.
Fisher, W. P., Jr. (2010b). Reducible or irreducible? Mathematical reasoning and the ontological method. Journal of Applied Measurement, 11(1), 38-59.
Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.) (Rev. ed.). New York: Crossroad (Original work published 1960).
Gadamer, H.-G. (1998). Praise of theory: Speeches and essays ( Foreword by Joel Weinsheimer, Ed.) (C. Dawson, Trans.). New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Habermas, J. (1995). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Harman, G. (2005). Guerrilla metaphysics: Phenomenology and the carpentry of things. Chicago: Open Court.
Hegel, G. W. F. (2003). Phenomenology of mind (J. B. Baillie, Trans.). New York: Dover (Original work published 1931).
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row (Original work published 1927).
Irigaray, L. (1984). An ethics of sexual difference (C. Burke & G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Latour, B. (1990). Postmodern? no, simply amodern: Steps towards an anthropology of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 21(1), 145-71.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1974). Violence and language. In D. Stewart & J. Bien (Eds.), Political and social essays by Paul Ricoeur (pp. 88-101). Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life – physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production – in other words, individuality, liberty, property – this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.
Yes, my fellow Americans, there can be reason to hope for our republic. It is going to require a change to our beloved Constitution, which won’t be easy, but we can do it if we raise our voices in unison and make our elected officials feel the power of this nation which rightfully belongs to us, its citizens.
“It is a maxim with me, that every man employed in a high office by the people, should from time to time return to them, that he may be in a situation to satisfy them with respect to his conduct and the measures of administration” (Anti-Federalist, Melancton Smith, June 25, 1788 in a speech before the New York State Convention debating the ratification of the Constitution).
Last week I opined that were our Anti-Federalist forefathers to return to our republic today and survey the disgraceful state into which it has fallen as a result of the entrenchment of those occupying seats of power in the House of Representatives and Senate, they would sadly shake their heads and proclaim, “We tried to warn you.” They were all too aware of Lord Acton’s maxim, “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Although our Congress and President have yet to obtain absolute power (though their insidious tentacles are stretching out in that direction), the first half of that statement is precisely what the Anti-Federalists attempted to persuade their Federalist brethren as the reason for the need to institute term limitations in the newly proposed Constitution. Consider the statement made by the Anti-Federalist writer Brutus in his essay published on November 29, 1787 regarding what the people had a right to expect regarding the character of those who would serve in the new Congress:
“They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service;….”
To this sentiment Madison and the other Federalists readily agreed; yet they went further in that they actually believed such men would step forward to be the leaders of the new nation. In fact, in The Federalist Papers Number 54, Madison went so far as to state the exact opposite of what the Anti-Federalists had expressed in their writings:
“A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them. This remark is no less applicable to the relation which will subsist between the House of Representatives and the Senate.”
This is an interesting statement and admission by one of the leading Federalists of that day. First, he admits to the likelihood that there will be those who will be reelected repeatedly and will hold office for a considerable time. However, we now see his error in judgment was in that he only perceived that such would true in the case of “a few of the members.” Today instead we see men and women elected over and over again until they have spent the larger part of their adult lives in either the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both, and that the “few” are those who are new to those bodies. Furthermore, Madison was of the opinion in direct opposition to that of the Anti-Federalists that I have quoted in the previous three posts, that there was a greater danger of the newly elected officials to fall into the traps of corruption than those who had been in service for a greater period of time (although he admitted that “perhaps” those long in service might be tempted to avail themselves of the perks of their offices).
In stark contrast to Madison was the opinion of the Anti-Federalist from Massachusetts, John DeWitt, who wrote the following in the Boston American Herald on November 5, 1787:
“It cannot be doubted at this day by any men of common sense, that there is a charm in politics. That persons who enter reluctantly into office become habitated, grow fond of it, and are loath to resign it. They feel themselves flattered and elevated and are apt to forget their constituents, until the time returns that they again feel the want of them. They uniformly exercise all the powers granted to them, and ninety-nine in a hundred are for grasping at more. It is this passionate thirst for power, which has produced different branches to exercise different departments and mutual checks upon those branches….
Thus habituated to power, and living in the daily practice of granting favors and receiving solicitations, he may hold himself completely independent of the people, and at the same time ensure his election. If there remains even a risque, the blessed assistance of a little well-distributed money, will remove it….
“… but some of the members, perhaps a major part, will hold their seats during their lives. We see it daily in our own Government, and we see it in every Government we are acquainted with, however many the cautions, and however frequent the elections.”
As I have asked in the previous posts, I now repeat – as you survey those who populate our Congress today, who “got it right” – Madison and the Federalists, or the Anti-Federalists? I believe the answer is obvious, and thus leads to the question, what are we to do now? How can we fix this deplorable situation? This question and problem have but three possible answers and solutions:
The ballot box;
Amending the Constitution; or
Armed rebellion.
I have listed these three options in the order of preference and ease of accomplishment. The first is not only the most preferable of these options but also the one argued for by the Federalists and the option that was set in place within the Constitution. Plainly stated, we should educate ourselves and elect those men and women during these “frequent elections” who are of a mind not to go to Washington to carve out a long career for themselves, but rather who desire to serve for a reasonable period of time and then to relinquish their seat of power to one to follow after them. As easy as this sounds we know that such is not as easy as it appears. Today, elections turn on “sound bites”, cleverly produced and polished television and radio advertisements, having the “right connections” with the “right people”, and being given favored exposure by the media. Not enough of our fellow citizens put forth the effort to delve into the matters troubling our republic and the background of those putting forth their agendas to solve these problems to make election-imposed term limitations a likelihood.
Since this first option has proven to be a disappointment to keeping men and women from becoming the aristocratic body that the Anti-Federalists foreboded, the second option is to put in place the very term limits as a part of the Constitution for which they pleaded during the ratification debates. Making such amendments was provided for in Section V of the Constitution, and as was expressed by George Washington in his farewell address at the end of his second term as our nation’s first president in 1796, it is our right to do so: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.”
As the debate raged during the Constitutional Convention over how to amend the proposed new Constitution, a compromise was reached when Madison set forth the wording of what was incorporated as these opening words of Article V:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress:”
In reading this it becomes readily apparent of just how daunting a task it is to amend our Constitution, and such is how it ought to be. Since 1789 over 5,000 bills have been proposed to amend this magnificent document of liberty, yet only thirty-three have ever made it through this gauntlet of ratification, and one of them, the eighteenth, was subsequently repealed by the twenty-first. The fact that the eighteenth amendment dealing with the prohibition of alcoholic beverages proved to be unwise and therefore in need of rejection, shows just how sobering a task it is to undertake the amending of the Constitution. Such a step must only be taken after very careful and due deliberation of the situation that is sought to be remedied and that all other means of resolution have proven themselves to be unfruitful and impotent. Such, I think, is where we find ourselves today in the matter of the limitation on the terms of our Representatives and Senators.
That being the case, then, how does this Article empower us to accomplish this task? There are two basic approaches to the process. One is for Congress to initiate a proposal for amendment, the other, the clause which was inserted due to pressure brought to bear by the Anti-Federalist George Mason, allows for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention (like the one that framed the Constitution) for the express purpose of amending it.
In the first instance the process begins when a member (or a consortium of members) of either the House or Senate proposes a bill in their respective chamber and persuades a minimum of two-thirds of their colleagues in both bodies to approve the resolution. As we have seen most recently, acquiring a two-thirds approval by one body, much less both, is indeed a daunting task – especially when what is being proposed is a limitation of the terms of those who must vote in favor of it! Once this hurdle has been overcome, the proposed amendment is then sent to the all of the States of the Union for them to approve. The states have the option to either vote in favor of the proposal by their state legislatures, or to approve it by means of a state convention called for that purpose. Only when three-fourths of the states have given their consent does the amendment then become part of the Constitution. Although the Article authorizing this process does not impose a time limit, it has been the practice in recent times for Congress to set a deadline for the states to either approve or reject a proposed amendment once Congress has approved it. You may recall that this was true in the case of the so-called “Equal Rights Amendment” which was approved by Congress and sent to the states on March 22, 1972 but with a seven year time limit for ratification, which it failed to meet.
The other option is even more daunting and has never been successfully achieved since the adoption of the Constitution, which is to require Congress to call for a Constitutional Convention whenever two-thirds of the state legislatures call upon them to do so. This is not as desirable of an option for those of us who are “Strict Constitutional Originalists”, as it is unclear as to the limits that such a convention would operate under. Scholarship is divided over whether such a convention would have to be limited to just a consideration of the grievances to be addressed that prompted the call for the convention, or whether such a convention would be open to any and all causes that delegates would wish to promote. If such a convention were to be an open one, then there is no limit as to the mischief that could come about and the harm that could result from unwise changes to the Constitution (as evidenced again in the hastily passed eighteenth amendment).
The only other option open to us is the least desirable of all for it is the option of last resort and the most difficult of all, as it would involve much harm, upheaval and even bloodshed. This option is for citizens who have had enough of the oppression wrought by these fascist leaders to rise up and forcibly remove them from office in order to return us to the foundation laid by both our Federalist and Anti-Federalist forefathers. That we have the unalienable right to do so was expounded by Jefferson in our Declaration of Independence in as much as it served to justify our nation’s first revolution against tyranny:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and 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, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yet this right as expressed by Jefferson is the cause for a tension between our two precious composites that make up the bedrock of our republic – the Declaration and the Constitution. I say this because in Article I, Section 8 the Constitution counteracts this right:
“The Congress shall have Power to…provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions….”
Clearly, an attempt to require our elected officials in Congress to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution or face removal by force would amount to an insurrection, and the Declaration notwithstanding, would be cause for the armed forces of the nation to be brought to bear against those so trying to restore the liberty and freedom promised by these two documents, resulting in much pain and suffering.
That we one day may be left with only this last alternative no one may tell, but in order to not find ourselves in this distressful and desperate situation it is imperative that we exert as much effort and energy as possible with the first two of the three options I have outlined. That this will not be an easy task I readily confess, as we are asking those who have become drunk with their own prestige, power and importance to willingly remove themselves from such a position by approving a bill that would amend the Constitution to limit their terms of office. Our efforts and energy then must be directed at bringing as much constant pressure upon those in Congress to do just that, and if they resist, to seek out and find those among us who would be so willing to approve such a measure and elect them to office.
As I stated in the opening of this essay, yes, there is hope for change – a change back to our founding principles by instituting term limitations upon those elected to Congress, but this hope can only be realized if all who love freedom and liberty and our great republic will stand united and follow through on the approach I outlined above. The clock is ticking my fellow Americans and the time for action is now. May God help our efforts and favor our beloved republic once more with the unalienable gifts of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
Here we go again. Another veteran is being told that the America he fought so bravely to defend no longer exists. This is a local issue for Mountain Republic and any support you all can show Tom would be greatly appreciated. I will be in attendance at the meeting on February 23rd and will provide a first hand report of the outcome.
——————————————————————————————————-
“We’re counting on public support”
Tom Soike (pronounced soy-key) gave $3,500 from his small family inheritance for the purchase of a family bench at the then proposed Veteran’s Memorial. The Memorial was constructed and one bench was not inscribed. It was Mr. Soike’s family bench.
To date, Mr. Soike has been unsuccessful in getting El Dorado County officials to allow him to inscribe his family bench with the following: “ God, I’ve tasted your heaven through freedom and fought through the pain of these wars and wondered if somehow the something I’ve given could somehow have been something more.”
Mr. Soike objected to the requirement that, before his bench could be inscribed, he would have to remove the words “God” and “Heaven“. He was later told he would have to remove the entire quote because it is “Too prayer-like“. Supervisor Ray Nutting has scheduled the matter for discussion on Tuesday February 23, 2010 at 9:30am in the Board Meeting Room at 330 Fair Lane in Placerville.
We do not have nor can we afford an attorney. We’re counting on public support. So if you can be there or send a letter of support to: Tom Soike at P.O. Box 129, Somerset, CA 95684. Or email at katlibicki@aol.com. We would appreciate it.
Tom Soike
visit El Dorado County Veteran’s Affairs
Here is Ray Nutting’s email address. bostwo@edcgov.us
It’s the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, which means it is Darwin Day!
Darwin Day is a recently instituted celebration intended to commemorate the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwinon February 12, 1809. The day is used to highlight Darwin’s contribution to science and to promote science in general. Some may believe that Darwin Day also commemorates the passing of those who earned the Darwin Award.
It is also the 201st anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, but Abe was a politician, and more recent politicians have deemed it reasonable to officially recognize him and other presidents with a federal holiday later in the month. No more need be said here today.
So celebrate by testing a hypothesis, doing an experiment, or collecting some careful observations. In other words: Go do some science!
Entitlements: Social Security, is running deficits decades earlier than expected. We’ve been kicking the can down the road. We’re out of road.
USAToday: Social Security’s annual surplus “nearly evaporated” for the first time in a quarter-century last year. The program is poised to be in the red for the next two years; between 2008 and 2009, it saw a revenue decline of $60 billion.
Meanwhile, with the retirement of many in the “Baby Boom” generation imminent, regular annual losses are expected beginning in 2016. Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the highest-ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, says the program’s “moment of truth has arrived.”
IBD: As Bernie Madoff found out, any Ponzi scheme depends on a continuous inflow of new cash and new customers or the ever-expanding pyramid will totter and collapse. Social Security, dependent as it was on new workers paying the expanding benefits of retirees, is about to, much sooner than expected.
As Ed Morrissey over at HotAir.com reminds us, Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, predicted as director of the Congressional Budget Office in August 2008 that no one needed to worry about Social Security. “CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049,” we were told.
As the baby boomers have started retiring and the economy has collapsed, that day of reckoning is here. The Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary finally got around to posting detailed November numbers, and they aren’t pretty.
The combined OASDI (Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance) “Trust” Funds recorded a nearly $6 billion primary deficit for November, the worst monthly performance since records began in 1987. The 12-month OASDI primary surplus was only $9.598 billion, also the worst 12-month performance on record.
Only the fact there will be no cost-of-living increase in 2010 may save OASDI from running a primary deficit this year. But continued economic doldrums coupled with the economy-killing socialization of health care, higher taxes, rising deficits and the still-looming catastrophe known as cap-and-trade may cause our house of Social Security cards to collapse long before sea levels begin to rise.
When you consider just disability income (DI), the picture looks even bleaker. For the 50th straight month, going back to October 2005, the DI Fund ran a yearly deficit, this time a record $21 billion.
At least one part of Orszag’s prophecy is coming true: “Social Security’s revenues each year are greater than its outlays, but as the baby-boom generation (people born between 1946 and 1964) continues to age, growth in the number of Social Security beneficiaries will accelerate, and outlays will grow substantially faster than revenues.”
That trend has accelerated to the point of collapse.
Private, insurance company-run annuity plans are legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem those promises. Social Security is not. Any insurance company CEO that ran a Ponzi scheme like Social Security would soon be incarcerated for fraud.
Opponents of the partial privatization proposed by President George W. Bush cited the variability in the stock market as a looming disaster and probably would say “I told you so” considering the recent market troubles. But at least retirees would still have real money, their money, in real accounts. They wouldn’t be dependent on government IOU’s and the hoped-for contributions of others.
We have a looming disaster on our hands.
Social Security has been called the “third rail” of American politics. Well, this train is running off the rails, and someone better touch it before momma gets thrown from it.
And this from The New York Times: One sound approach would be to link benefit levels to life expectancy, so that as people live longer, future benefits would be modestly reduced while payroll taxes that support Social Security would be modestly increased.
A nice way of saying, less Benefits, more taxes.
I personally have never regarded Social Security as anything other than a Tax.
And when liberals attack me on Social Security for being “socialist” so I’m a hypocrite, I just say back to them: Give me all the money you stole from me and never do it again and I will be happy.
I will succeed or fail on my own merits.
I never get a response to that.
And thus the shouting match continues as the trail derails as to whether it is even derailing to begin with then what to do if it does or how to prevent it if it does, but will it?
:::sigh:::
Meanwhile, The President proposes to increase the money taken from my paycheck.
Cameron has just jumped into his own mouth with both feet, by proferring an answer to the wrong question.
Everyone knows that the place where ex-Ministers go to (not) die is QUANGOs. These items are set up _/by/_ governments, in order to be given money _/by/_ governments, and then with which they “hire” objects such as “ex-ministers” to _/lobby/_ the very same governments with the objective ov bringing in the very policies that those governments want to see enacted.
If MPs had to be (real) “local” people, standing locally, known by sight and acquaintance to most of their employers (us) and if they were truly disinterested, which is to say: they don’t need the money, then “lobbying” as it is today understood would wither away naturally. Lobbying-power would pass to constituents and voters where it belongs: governments would not need to nurture a galaxy of faux-lobbyists in order to pretend there is “wide public support” for this or that.
Don’t be so shocked. Aryan is a term abused by Hitler. I found a blog that may help shed a little more light on this.
Once Iran was known as Persia. Persia was an ancient culture. The bible speaks of the Persians.
So why was the name changed?
In 1935, the shah of Iran, who was a Nazi sympathizer and he hated the Jews, decided to rename his country Iran. Read more here… This name Iran, pretty much means “Land of the Aryans.” Were you aware of that?
Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi Read more here
There is also an interesting video I found about the Shah and American Presidents.
It would seem their leaders still hold these philosophies to date. This would also explain whyMahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to start a war with Israel.
This is the same man that says the Holocaust was a myth. This is also the same man our American President wants to have a relationship with. This is the same man that the American people made feel welcome and comfortable in this country. I know good public relations….
My father used to say to me growing up in Australia “Don’t go walking in the long grass for you never know, if you will step on a snake.” Snake bites are lethal in Australia if you do not treat them in time.
How many times then, does America allow the venom to be re-injected?
Iran is LESS THAN 12 MONTHS AWAY from developing a powerful Nuclear weapon.
What do you think Iran’s plans will be then?
Do you know what The Collective have said to me about Iran;
“DO NOT TURN YOUR EYES AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.”
Months ago I wrote a blog about what I saw in a vision. It was of a war in the Middle East. The countries involved in this were the same countries that were near or in Afghanistan. China, Russia, Iran, Israel, America.
I assure you The Collective tell me that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants nothing more,
than to start a war with Israel.
Now the media has told the American Public that Russia is selling Uranium to Iran.
I also said months ago in a blog, that Russia and China were secretly speaking.
Russia and China are also doing joint Military Exercises together.
For what purpose?
So, let me remind you how powerful China is becoming. The Australian Federal Reserve wanted to raise their interest rates recently but the Chinese Government said “NO” so it didn’t happen.
America too is so indebted to China with loans, what will be the price we too now pay?
So what then America?
Too many times have we become complacent and comfortable believing that our world rulers knew what is best for us. Even the Shah of Iran said this to the “Blue Eyed People.”
In 1976 Mike Wallace did an Interview with the Shah of Iran.
When I listened to the interview some of what he said was truth.
Especially the parts that people would now call the “Conspiracy Theory.”
All the warning signs were there in 1976.
So why is it that we are still not paying attention? This hate has been going on a long time.
Iran brought weapons from all over the world for what reason?
Iran is now doing business with Russia and this is the same nation who invaded Iran, in the second world war to grab oil. Iran was a Neutral state in WW11.
If you see an
d read the long ugly history here, you will come to understand many things as I have.
Read more here…
Some of these wounds are old and the anger has built up over time.
Let sleeping dogs lie?
I do not think the Iranian Government has forgotten, nor will it ever.
Wake Up.
Love and Blessings
Victoria
Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, outgoing Chair of the Council of Europe’s Sub-committee on Health Wolfgang Wodarg said that his panel’s investigation into the 2009 swine flu outbreak has found that the pandemic was a fake hoax manufactured by pharmaceutical companies in league with the WHO to make vast profits while endangering public health.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a 47 nation body encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, began hearings last month to investigate whether the H1N1 swine flu pandemic was falsified or exaggerated in an attempt to profit from vaccine sales.
Wodarg said that governments were “threatened” by special interest groups within the pharmaceutical industry as well as the WHO to buy the vaccines and inject their populations without any reasonable scientific reason for doing so, and yet in countries like Germany and France only around 6 per cent took the vaccine despite enough being available to cover 90 per cent of the population.
Wodarg said he was alarmed when the WHO cited early cases in Mexico as a threat and quickly moved to pandemic status, despite the fact that the cases were relatively mild and the virus was not new.
“This was the mildest flu ever and the people were much more clever than the government so we have to find out what was going on with WHO – why did they do this pandemic alarm,” asked Wodarg, noting that pharmaceutical interests within the World Health Organization were instrumental in creating the panic and reaping the financial dividends.
“We don’t know what really happened, we only know that they changed the definition of a pandemic, which was a very dangerous thing before and now is just a normal flu, and this is why business for pharmaceutical companies was open,” said Wodarg, adding that select pharmaceutical companies were handed a monopoly on creating the vaccine.
“It is their trick that they always try to monopolize this and we pay much more like this,” said Wodarg, noting that if patents were left open, vaccines would be produced much quicker and far cheaper.
Wodarg said there was “no other explanation” for what happened than the fact that the WHO worked in cahoots with the pharmaceutical industry to manufacture the panic in order to generate vast profits, agreeing with host Alex Jones that the entire farce was a hoax.
He also explained how health authorities were “already waiting for something to happen” before the pandemic started and then exploited the virus for their own purposes.
Wodarg said that the investigation was likely to recommend an end to the undue influence of pharmaceutical companies on public health institutions in Europe.
However, Wodarg pointed out, “There is no law for WHO, there is no one who punishes those people in WHO, we only have national law, so this is very important that we collect the information and on the national level we try to find those people responsible and we try to punish them.”
“Have investigations, have a deep look, we cannot tolerate such a development, we cannot have this next winter again, we don’t want such fake pandemics,” concluded Wodarg.
Wodarg said that vast quantities of unused vaccines were now being dumped on the third world and that other countries were simply trying to push ahead with vaccination programs even though the virus has proven not to be a major threat.
“The Japanese bought vaccines for 110 million people and they cannot return from this vaccine contract so they are in a very big political dilemma now and they already have problems because the Japanese people already know it wouldn’t be necessary to get vaccinated,” Wodarg told The Alex Jones Show.
Barack Obama has claimed, many times, to be “post-partisan.” The corollary is that this is how he would prefer to govern, not having to deal with the often rancorous partisanship that at times has gridlocked Washington.
I take Obama at his word on this, but would offer that in Obamaland, post-partisanship is just another way of saying “groupthink.” As in, don’t argue with me, I know what’s best for you.
In our republic, partisanship, or factionalism, has been the engine that both drives and halts the American enterprise. Call it creative tension, call it competition, call it survival of the fittest ideas. Partisanship is a necessary ingredient for progress when progress is needed.
Partisanship is also necessary when what is needed is, in the inimitable words of Bill Buckley, to
stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do.
Our job as loyal Americans, and as conservative partisans, is to yell “Stop” when the post-partisans go for unsustainable spending and debt, when the post-partisans would control every aspect of our lives and our economy.
Of course Obama would prefer to be a “post-partisan” president. It would save him the time of having to defend and justify his wretched leap to the left.
Oh, and for the record: our liberty is never more secure than when Washington is in gridlock. That way, the miscreants in Congress and the White House are given fewer chances to reduce our liberty and harm the economy.
In 1913 when the Income Tax was sold to the US population, it was a 1% rate and a 7% top rate, now it is 10% and 35% with 6 brackets. When implemented in 1913, it affected less than 10% of the US population.
I was listening to NPR while driving to campus early this morning and, while many of the hosts featured on their station come with more of a left-liberal lean, their story highlighted a young, conservative girl who has become a booming voice for the tea party movement. Keli Carender, known as the famous blogger, Liberty Belle, was a tea party patriot even before this recent revival of the tea party movement. Her claim to fame came after she held up a $20 bill and challenged her Democratic Congressman at a health care town hall protest to come and take it from her. With these words, she’s inspired thousands of others:
The other side [of the constituency] is demanding that your vote culminate in legislation that actively seeks to plunder from some in order to satisfy arbitrary needs as determined by you and other bureuacrtas. So here is my question: if you are so keen to forcibly take from one person to give to another who you deem as needier than me, if you believe that it is absolutely moral to take my money and give it to someone else based on their supposed needs, then you come and take this twenty dollars from me and use it as a downpayment on this health care plan. (video provided below)
Reading her blog and having watched her videos on YouTube, I am blown away by the immense sincerity and thoughtfulness of this girl. Not only can she speak clearly and effectively, but she can relate the philosophical foundations of our republic to the current policy debates making headlines and directly affecting the lives of millions of Americans. Like the tea party movement, there are no politics of party preferences involved here, rather just debating the heart of the matter. Therefore, while politics makes an art out of evading the principle in question, little miss Liberty Belle eloquently throws it in their face and demands it be addressed.
I wrote an earlier post about how difficult it was trying to find ways to convince my younger sister that conservative can be cool; communicating monumental ideas of liberty, property, and economics in a way that she can understand and appreciate is no easy feat! It’s people like Keli Carender who make movements like this so much more than just a trend. What’s been holding our country together has been doing so since our independence: freedom isn’t a fad. To a rebellious 11-year-old like my sister, freedom has a profound meaning all on its own. The dissent Keli Carender is voicing and encouraging others to participate in is just the type of inspiration I want my sister to have.
Here is a quote from the NPR story I really liked. Carender speaking about the decentralized structure of the tea party movement:
If you have a machine, you know exactly how to attack it, exactly how to shut it down,” she says. “If you have 3 million machines coming at you, you don’t know where to turn.
I’m always blown away by the beauty of the coordination of the masses of anonymous millions.
Went and saw James Cameron’s Avatar (2009) today. Got the bills paid, put the overpriced petrol in the tank then ambled like a good blogger down to the local cineplex.
Once the smell of pop-corn permeated my nostrils, the 3D glasses came out and I settled in for the ride of a lifetime!
If anyone who is a fan of sci-fi / fantasy hasn’t seen this film GO, GO NOW, GO AND SEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A friend of mine Brenton Cooney, has already seen it four times! This is how good it is. The story, the cgi, the sound. I was gratified to note at the end credits that James Horner composed the score for Avatar.
For any star trek tragics out there, Horner composed the greatest Star Trek score/theme in the history of the franchise seen below:
Seriously if Avatar were a religion I would convert! Totally awesome!
A new world of 3D entertainment has exploded onto our screens and put paid to Howard Hughes who said of (“talkies” i.e. sound in movies) that “this was the way of the future”. The same can be said of Avatar.
I believe it is breaking technical and thematic ground with its whole new approach to cinematic experience.
The political element
There have been some that I know in the twitter and blogosphere who have intimated that this somehow is a left-leaning film, considering the undertones of environmentalism that it entails.
Re: Defense of a planets environment by aliens against a foreign occupier.
I would beg to differ in relation to this analysis.
I would refer those ultra-conservatives to Free Talk Live’s analysis of this. Ian and Mark essentially covered the left wing environmentalist angle by saying it is more about Libertarianism and the voluntaryist element of individuals within the Avatar world being of like mind and helping to defend themselves voluntarily against the foriegn invader.
Without spoiler alerting this film, I have to say it is an excellent study in Liberty and one that will be dissected for a long time. I look forward to the sequels!
ISPs must snoop on subscribers or face being sued by content owners
This is the same man that says the Holocaust was a myth. This is also the same man our American President wants to have a relationship with. This is the same man that the American people made feel welcome and comfortable in this country. I know good public relations….
My father used to say to me growing up in Australia “Don’t go walking in the long grass for you never know, if you will step on a snake.” Snake bites are lethal in Australia if you do not treat them in time.
How many times then, does America allow the venom to be re-injected?
Iran is LESS THAN 12 MONTHS AWAY from developing a powerful Nuclear weapon.
What do you think Iran’s plans will be then?
Do you know what The Collective have said to me about Iran;
“DO NOT TURN YOUR EYES AWAY FROM THE MIDDLE EAST.”
Months ago I wrote a blog about what I saw in a vision. It was of a war in the Middle East. The countries involved in this were the same countries that were near or in Afghanistan. China, Russia, Iran, Israel, America.
The other side [of the constituency] is demanding that your vote culminate in legislation that actively seeks to plunder from some in order to satisfy arbitrary needs as determined by you and other bureuacrtas. So here is my question: if you are so keen to forcibly take from one person to give to another who you deem as needier than me, if you believe that it is absolutely moral to take my money and give it to someone else based on their supposed needs, then you come and take this twenty dollars from me and use it as a downpayment on this health care plan. (video provided below)