“The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counselors. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest.” —Thomas Jefferson

If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?" –Will Rogers

“Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors – and miss.” – Robert Heinlein

Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing, and that was the closest the country ever came to breaking even. –Will Rogers

"Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always falls under loose fiscal policy." -- Sir Arthur Francis Tyler

The Cure For Ron Paul's Issues:
A Profound Plan For Freedom

Is Ron Paul really Gandalf in a Congressman's Clothing?

This message is for all people who support Ron Paul's message of Freedom and want to know what they can do as a "Freedom Keeper."

Listed just below are seven activities of the federal government that are un-constitutional. With the exception of Ron Paul, all of this year's presidential candidates, past and present, would have us believe these activities are mere matters of public policy. Ron Paul says "NO!" -- These are not matters of public policy, they are VIOLATIONS of the Constitution. Here they are:

• The Federal Reserve
• The invasion of Iraq
• The USA Patriot Act
• Undocumented, illegal immigrants
• The North American Union
• Gun control
• The federal Income Tax, as enforced by the IRS

It is true, our servant government has seized power from the People by stepping outside the boundaries drawn around its power by the Constitution.

How important is the Constitution?

It's a set of principles to govern the Government, not the People. We are not mentioned except in the preamble that says We the People establish the Constitution to secure the blessings of Liberty. The Constitution is all the stands between the People and total tyranny and despotism. That's it's function. That's its importance. The problem is the Constitution cannot defend itself, it just sits there.

If the Government won't defend it -- and it will not -- who will?

If corporate America won't speak up in defense of the Constitution, who will?

If the dominant media will not defend the Constitution by exposing its violations, who will?

If our Government controlled schools refuse to educate our children regarding the limited power of Government, then who will?

If our churches and places of worship are prohibited -- by the IRS -- from discussing these truths in public, who will preach the Gospel of the Constitution to the masses?

You guessed it. It's up to the People -- you and I.

So what can we do? As a Free People, what MUST we do?

Fortunately, in this country of, by and for the People, there is a Supreme Law that enables the People to directly hold the Government accountable to the Constitution. Due to the passage of time, this law has been all but forgotten. It's not a law the Government wants you to know about. Still more fortunately, it's a law that is embedded in the Constitution -- explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. Deliberately inserted by Jefferson and the other prescient Sons of liberty as the most critical factor in the carefully crafted balance of power between the People and their servant government. It reads:

“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW . . . ABRIDGING . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE . . . TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.”

That's it. The Right of Redress. The last ten words of the First Amendment. A law that enables the People to directly hold the Government accountable. The Right to remedy Government violations of the Constitution. An individual, unalienable Right, endowed by the Creator.

However, the Government treats the clause as People treat the "third rail" -- not to be touched, to be avoided.

Unlike the other four Freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has NEVER interpreted the last ten words and recently refused its first invitation to do so.

What are the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government as guaranteed by the Petition clause?

What was the intent of the Founding Fathers? What did they have in their minds?

One need look no further than the words of an official Act the First Congress passed unanimously in 1774:

“IF MONEY IS WANTED BY RULERS WHO HAVE IN ANY MANNER OPPRESSED THE PEOPLE, THEY MAY RETAIN IT UNTIL THEIR GRIEVANCES ARE REDRESSED, AND THUS PEACEABLY PROCURE RELIEF WITHOUT TRUSTING TO DESPISED PETITIONS OR DISTURBING THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY.” Continental Congress to the Inhabitants of Quebec, Journals of the Continental Congress, Journals 1:105-113

Another clue comes from the words of Thomas Jefferson who wrote in 1775:

“THE PRIVILEGE OF GIVING OR WITHHOLDING OUR MONEY IS AN IMPORTANT BARRIER AGAINST THE UNDUE EXERTION OF PREROGATIVE, WHICH LEFT ALTOGETHER WITHOUT CONTROL MAY BE EXERCISED TO OUR GREAT OPPRESSION; AND ALL HISTORY HAS SHOWS HOW EFFICACIOUS ITS INTERCESSION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF RIGHTS, AND HOW IMPROVIDENT WOULD BE THE SURRENDER OF SO POWERFUL A MEDIATOR.” Thomas Jefferson, Reply to Lord North, 1775, Papers, 1:225

One of the best clues is found in the Declaration of Independence itself.

Read the words the Founding Fathers used to express their ultimate Grievance, the Grievance that capped the long list of Grievances enumerated in the Declaration, the Grievance that more than any other caused them to withdraw their allegiance, their support, and their tax money from the government of their day. They wrote:

“IN EVERY STAGE OF THESE OPPRESSIONS WE HAVE PETITIONED FOR REDRESS IN THE MOST HUMBLE TERMS. OUR REPEATED PETITIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED ONLY BY REPEATED INJURY. A PRINCE, WHOSE CHARACTER IS THUS MARKED BY EVERY ACT WHICH MAY DEFINE A TYRANT, IS UNFIT TO BE THE RULER OF A FREE PEOPLE.”

The Founders believed a government that violates the Rights of the People and will not listen to its People is NOT fit to rule a Free People. The Founders had numerous Grievances but found most intolerable the Government's refusal to respond to their Petitions for Redress. Finally, we know the Founders were intimately familiar with the words of the Magna Carta, the cradle of Liberty, signed in 1215. We read in Section 61 that the monarch agreed that if the royal family offended the People in any respect, the People possessed a natural Right to not only claim Redress, but they also enjoyed a natural Right to a REMEDY of the Grievance. Read the words of the Magna Carta:

“IF WE [the Monarchy]…MAKE NO REDRESS WITHIN FORTY DAYS…THE [People] MAY… ASSAIL US IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE WHOLE COMMUNITY OF THE LAND, BY SEIZING OUR CASTLES, LANDS, POSSESSIONS, OR ANYTHING ELSE SAVING ONLY OUR [Lives] …UNTIL THEY HAVE SECURED SUCH REDRESS AS THEY HAVE DETERMINED UPON. HAVING SECURED THE REDRESS, THEY MAY THEN RESUME THEIR NORMAL OBEDIENCE TO US.”

So now you know the historical purpose and original intent of the "accountability" clause of the First Amendment.

If the People Petition the Government for Redress of ANY violation of the Constitution (such as the War powers, Privacy, Money or Tax provisions) but the Government refuses to Respond, the People have the Right to withdraw their allegiance, their support, -- and their tax money -- until their Grievances are Redressed, to peaceably and non-violently procure the Relief they are entitled to as a Free People.

THIS IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

It is very important to note that there is absolutely NOTHING in American history or jurisprudence that contradicts this interpretation of the law.

Now that we know we possess this profound power to hold the Government accountable, it is imperative to address how can we claim and practically exercise this Right.

First, WE NEED A PLAN -- a profound plan for a profound problem.

We then need to WORK THE PLAN.

Given the current nature and extent of the federal Government’s violations of the Constitution, it is clear we must act decisively -- and very soon -- if our Liberty and our Republic are to survive.

To begin, we must acknowledge what will not work.

We know we cannot elect our way out of tyranny. The math is against us. Think about it. To elect our way out of tyranny, one more than half the number of People voting in all the precincts and in the halls of Congress would need to strictly abide by the Constitution, abandoning all their party loyalties, special interests and self-interests. It will never happen. People have forever suffered human frailties and as Jefferson said, “political parties are by their nature, corruptive.” In any event, we should never, and can never be forced to rely on the majority to protect our Rights. Our Rights are individual rights that were endowed by our Creator simply because we are alive. These essential principles lie at the heart of our Founding documents and the design of our system of governance. We also know individuals and small groups cannot speak to power and prevail against the manpower and resources of the state.

What we do know is that peaceful "people power" can work. Gandhi and Martin Luther King understood this well. They understood that when the People are up against unjust and uncivil laws and government, and they are entitled to reform, they will achieve it only if they are pro-active, non-violent and can mobilize a determined minority into a "critical mass." This critical mass of People must share a heartfelt passion for Liberty and Justice to the extent that they will put aside their differences, set aside the priorities of everyday life, and join together to act for the common good of all the People.

WE HAVE A PLAN.

We have a profound Plan to restore Freedom and Constitutional Order. We have a Plan for the minority of Americans who are awake to the present dangers and who have declared themselves to be Constitutionalists and defenders of the Rule of Law. We have a Plan to mobilize the Freedom Keepers among us, who are more or less isolated one from another, often with spouses, co-workers and neighbors who don’t yet understand that one could love the country but despise the government for they are two different things.

Unless someone has a better plan, we are asking that you join the one we have adopted. The Plan is bold, but doable. With an energized and vocal critical mass, the Plan could quickly attract world-wide attention. It starts out rather quietly, but builds in August and September to a climax.

First, on June 30, 2008, every member of the Congress will be served by one or more of their constituents, at their local district office(s), with seven signed Petitions for Redress of Grievances. Each Petition for Redress will address a separate violation of the Constitution and will request a response within 40 days (by August 11, 2008).

On July 11, 2008, a declaratory judgment action will be filed in each of the 11 federal judicial circuits outside the District of Columbia. These lawsuits will each seek a Judicial declaration of the obligation of the Government to respond to Petitions for Redress and the Rights of the People if the Government fails to respond. Prayerfully, there will be sharp disagreements among the Circuit courts, making it difficult for the Supreme Court of the United States not to accept the next invitation to interpret the meaning of the accountability clause of the First Amendment.

Beginning on August 11, 2008, Bob Schulz will begin a hunger fast in Washington DC to draw attention to the fact that the Government of the United States of America has turned on its Free People by violating their Constitution and refusing to be held accountable, choosing instead to allow Americans to once again hunger for freedom and Redress of Grievances.

You can demonstrate your support for the Constitution and the Rule of Law by joining Bob for a day or two or, a weekend or more. A large scale, public hunger fast in the Gandhi tradition is needed, now.

Men died to make us free.

Men died to keep us free.

Freedom is a very fragile thing, never more than one generation away from being lost.

Each generation is responsible to the next as its Freedom Keepers.

Acta Non Verba. Deeds not words are needed now.

Time is of the essence.

Here is what you -- as a Freedom Keeper -- can do.

Go to www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution to volunteer to serve the Petitions for Redress on your local Congressperson on June 30, 2008.

Go to www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution to volunteer to Petition your local federal court on July 11 for an interpretation of the Constitution's accountability clause.

Go to www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution to participate in “Hungering for Redress” in Washington, D.C. on August 11, 2008.

And finally, go to www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution to suggest any alternative plan.

THANK YOU.

Just in case you don't know this or don't believe this, it's easy to check out. Be sure and show it to your kids. They might need a little history lesson.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,

2.) That participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the participants' money would be put into an independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and finding that they are getting taxed on 85% of the money they paid to the Federal Government to "put away" -- you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65 began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so. But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.

“The government solution to any problem is usually at least as bad as the problem.” —Milton Friedman

“Vote for the man who promises least; he’ll be the least disappointing.” —Bernard Baruch

“In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant.” —Charles de Gaulle

“If a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner.” —H. L. Mencken

“We’d all like to vote for the best man...but he’s never a candidate.” —Kin Hubbard

“We may not imagine how our lives could be more frustrating and complex—but Congress can.” —Cullen Hightower

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

“I’m sure everyone feels sorry for the individual who has fallen by the wayside or who can’t keep up in our competitive society, but my own compassion goes beyond that to the millions of unsung men and women who get up every morning, send the kids to school, go to work, try and keep up the payments on their house, pay exorbitant taxes to make possible compassion for the less fortunate, and as a result have to sacrifice many of their own desires and dreams and hopes. Government owes them something better than always finding a new way to make them share the fruit of their toils with others.”—Ronald Reagan

“The fact that the market is not doing what we wish it would do is no reason to automatically assume that the government would do better. There are too many examples of government interventions that made things worse, the Great Depression of the 1930s being the most tragic. Those on the left love to believe that the stock market crash of 1929 showed the failure of the free market and that the New Deal interventions in the 1930s saved the day. But the stock market crash of 1987 was just as big and Ronald Reagan resisted loud calls for him to intervene. The result was not another Great Depression but the beginning of a decades-long period of prosperity. Before Presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt came along, there was no expectation that the federal government would intervene when the stock market crashed or when there was a downturn in the economy. Previous stock market crashes and previous downturns in the economy worked themselves out faster and less painfully than the Great Depression of the 1930s, just as the 1987 crisis did. The track record of government intervention is far less impressive than its rhetoric.”—Thomas Sowell

Feminism Means Never Having to Say you’re Sorry
By Mike S. Adams
Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Two years ago, during our annual peer evaluation, a feminist professor suggested (via e-mail) that I may have falsified information in my annual productivity report. She claimed I had listed an article as “in print” without placing any re-prints in my “supporting documents” folder. A few minutes later, she wrote back admitting she had misread my report. I had listed the article as “in press,” which meant that the absence of reprints was simply a function of the fact that the article had not yet been printed.

The incident did not surprise me. Feminists are generally more confrontational in emails than they are in person – unless, of course, they are with a large group of feminists. They also approach orgasm every time they think they have caught a man doing something wrong. But, although it was unsurprising, the incident was certainly enlightening.

I say the incident was enlightening because, seven years before that, another feminist listed a first-edition book as “in print” in her annual report without providing any supporting documentation. Then, three years later, she listed the same first-edition book as “in print,” thus twice receiving credit for the same publication. I brought this to the attention of the department chairman but, to my knowledge, nothing ever happened.

More recently, feminist Rosemary DePaolo appeared in an ad misrepresenting her accomplishments as UNC-Wilmington Chancellor. The ad, appearing in “The Black Pages” phone book, which advertises black-owned businesses, used this bold heading:

New Black Faculty 2006-2007.

Among the fifteen pictures of “new black faculty” there were several of black professors who have been at UNC-Wilmington for many years. There was also at least one picture of a black professor who has been gone from the university for several years. It was a triple blow to the university because she was (and still is, I suppose) a black lesbian.

But the university solved the problem of losing a black, a woman, and a homosexual - all rolled into one person - by simply lying with taxpayer money in an ad meant to a) appease the black community, and b) cover up the failures of the chancellor with regard to improving diversity. It is a strong accusation but there were simply too many “errors” in the ad to attribute to the administration’s generally high level of incompetence.

Of course, despite the obvious deception, nothing has happened to the chancellor and nothing ever will because she is a feminist. And we all know that feminists are held to a lower standard than men because, curiously, we think that is a good way to end sexism.

But there really is more to these cases than “society” simply holding women to a lower standard of ethical conduct. I think such cases really have a lot to do with the current goals of the feminist movement. This revelation came to me when I heard two feminists talking the other day about an alleged relationship between Ashley Olsen, 21, and Lance Armstrong, 36.

I don’t have to tell my readers that both feminists were offended by the relationship. Nor do I have to explain that they were offended because they thought Armstrong was taking advantage of the younger Olsen and that he was somehow perverted for taking interest in one so young.

But perhaps I should at this point remind the reader that feminists are staunchly opposed to parental notification requirements for minors seeking abortions. Feminists will almost always defend a teenager’s right to make such a decision on her own. They are even reluctant to require parental notification in cases where the girl is not yet a teenager.

So why is a 12-year-old mature enough to have an abortion while a 21-year-old is too immature to date Lance Armstrong? The answer lies in what I think feminism has come to mean now that a woman has the same opportunities as a man:

Feminism is a political movement that seeks unlimited rights for women without corresponding responsibilities by exempting women from all criticism.

The arrogance of modern day feminism is best illustrated by the case of a feminist atheist who was mad at God after several people were killed in a natural disaster. “How could a God who is good and just decide arbitrarily who should live and who should die?” she asked indignantly.

Of course, the feminist is pro-choice on the issue of abortion. She feels entitled to as many abortions as she deems necessary. She can abort every other pregnancy, every third pregnancy, every odd-numbered pregnancy, every even-numbered pregnancy, or, for that matter, every one of them if she so chooses.

But no one will ever confront the angry feminist with her hypocrisy. It shows more than that the modern feminist believes she is above God. It shows that the modern feminist movement is succeeding wildly in achieving its current political objectives.

Dr. Mike Adams’ new book, “Feminists Say the Darndest Things,” will appear in bookstores across America on February 14th. Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and author of Welcome to the Ivory Tower of Babel: Confessions of a Conservative College Professor.

Mommie Dearest
Best of the Web Today
December 31, 2007
Wall Street Journal Online
By JAMES TARANTO

The Iowa caucuses aren't till next year, but in this case "next year" means roughly 72 hours from now. Over the weekend we got to thinking about whom we'd be rooting for on the Democratic side. For a moment, we were in the uncomfortable position of leaning toward Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama seems like an impressive young man, but we can't shake the feeling that he isn't tough-minded enough to be president. For all of Mrs. Clinton's problems, a lack of toughness isn't one of them. What's more, call us cynical, but we've already grown weary of all the hype surrounding Obama--he's some sort of transcendent figure who's going to usher in a new kind of politics, yadda yadda yadda. We're not sure we can take another week of it, never mind 10 months.

But then we read this Boston Globe piece about Mrs. Clinton, who spoke yesterday in Des Moines:

The New York senator also highlighted a chapter in her book, "It Takes a Village," that talks about every child needing a champion. She said most children have someone in that role and she'd like to fulfill it for the whole country.

"I think the American people need a president who is their champion. And I've been running to be that champion--to get up every single day and do all that I can to make sure I provide the tools that every single American is entitled to receive and make the most out of their own lives," Clinton said.

Apparently unaware that every American of voting age is an adult, Mrs. Clinton seeks to infantalize the entire country. True, the sentiment is less horrid by virtue of its likely insincerity, but still, it ought to stand one's hair on end that Mrs. Clinton thought voters would find it appealing.

So whom do we root for? John Edwards? (Kidding!) To paraphrase Henry Kissinger, it's a pity they can't all lose.

If Someone Else Has To Do It
Fred on Everything
December 28, 2007
http://fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm

I have just received the November issue of the magazine of the American Legion, in which I discover an article by one Ralph Peters, reminding me of why, having joined the Legion on impulse, I have never gone to the Post. The piece is entitled “Twelve Myths of 21st Century War.” A better title might be, “A Pedestrian Compendium of Agonizingly Cliched Jingoism.” (I guess he didn’t think of calling it that.) Anyway, Ralph believes that Americans have become too comfortable, have lost their taste for war, no longer want to pay the butcher’s bill. Ralph is for war. Not much for history, though.

As a diagnostic exercise in intellectual pathology, let’s look at some of these clichés. Ralph speaks of “the terrible price our troops had to pay for freedom” in our various wars. Ah. In exactly which wars did the military protect our freedoms?

The Mexican War of 1847 didn’t protect our freedoms. In the view of Ulysses Grant—a participant in that war, and unconvincing as a limp-wristed liberal—it constituted sheer unjustified aggression. In the Civil War the Confederacy posed no danger to our freedoms, if by “us” one means the Union. The South wanted only to be left alone to misbehave in peace. The Spanish-American War of 1898 was also unjustified aggression: Neither Cuba nor Spain posed the slightest threat to our freedoms. World War I didn’t protect our freedoms, nor probably those of Europe. It was an internal war between colonial powers led by idiots. World War II was justified retaliation for attack and a plausible long-term peril for freedom. The Korean War wasn’t about our freedoms—many observers assert that it took place in Korea—and neither was Viet Nam. We lost the latter and seemed no less free than before. Iraq has nothing to do with our freedoms. It couldn’t threaten the freedom of Guatemala.

One for eight, Ralph. It wouldn’t fly in the NFL.

Ralph, a doubtless well-paid commentator on television, complains that our elites do not fight in the country’s wars. True. Neither do our Ralphs. Relying on his biography in the Wikipedia, I find that he was born in 1952, making him of military age in 1970. The war in Viet Nam being at its height, he went to Europe for ten years. Rough duty, it was. Cirrhosis always looms in those beer gardens. He retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel in intelligence. (Officers usually being peters, it is not surprising that Peters was an officer.) In the Marines we referred to such people as “admin pogues” or “REMFs,” rear-echelon motherfuckers. I confess to a loathing for those who shelter safely behind the lines yet send others to fight, bowwow, grrrr, woof. Still, his record is not irrelevant to his views. War looks exciting to office workers, but has less appeal to those who are forced to fight. It has even less appeal for those who are hit.

I remember lying in the NSA hospital in Danang, across the way from some guys whose tank had been hit by an RPG. I couldn’t see them because my face was bandaged. Still, we talked. They were badly burned, but seemed likely to live, though with ghastly scars.

The RPG had ruptured the hydraulics, they said, and the cherry juice cooked off. The two across from me had gotten out. The other two crewmen had burned to death. Apparently they screamed a lot. You panic, it hurts, you are blinded, you can’t find the hatches, that kind of thing.

I could tell a lot of stories like that. I don’t because then I get very strange and want to hit something. A loud-mouthed REMF, for example.

Don’t take this as denigration of Ralph, though. Intel work carries its perils. He could have broken a nail on his shift key. Sure, a trip to the nails parlor would fix it, but those things hurt.

Ralph of course speaks of the sacrifices our boys are making. They aren’t making sacrifices. They are being sacrificed. Sacrifices are voluntary, but if the troops decline to fight, they go to jail. The mechanics go this way: Having an all-volunteer army minimizes objections to the war since no one of any influence has to go; if a lot of high-school grads from Tennessee are getting killed, well, it’s not a good thing of course, but who really cares? This facilitates hobbyist wars. A voluntary army is a small army, so you have to send the same troops for tour after tour until they are half-mad and their families wrecked. Who cares? They are just rednecks anyway—not our sort of people, nobody a general would let his daughter date.

What are the current wars about? Ralph thinks, or says he thinks, that our wars serve to protect civilization, decency, and apple pie. This is either boilerplate brainlessness or deliberate cant. Permit me to cite a contrary view:

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives…A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

Many will recognize this as the writing of the celebrated leftist Noam Chomsky, but this would be a case of misidentification. The author is, of course, Marine Major General Smedley Butler, holder of two Congressional Medals of Honor, even more than Ralph. But what does Butler know about war, compared to an office-weenie veteran of Europe’s beer chutes?

War is a racket. The military budget is absolutely huge after you add up the usual budget, the expenditures for the current wars, the intel outfits, the black programs, the Veterans Administration, and Homeland Security. Each of these jelly jars attracts its swarm of hungry bees. Always a new weapon is needed. Some threat pullulates in the darkness, ready to defeat the weapons we have. Some of these programs become virtual kingdoms. A fighter can take a quarter century to develop at wonderful cost. Then you get to produce it for decades perhaps, and sell spare parts and upgrades and then you slep it (Service Life Extension Program, become a verb). Money, money, money. An occasional war provides plausibility.

Of course we are in Iraq to protect our freedoms, Ralph. Who could doubt it? Only by coincidence does colonization put American troops on the borders of Iran and Syria, enemies of Israel, and in a position to control by intimidation the oil of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and the UAE. Coincidence, I assure you.

A bloated military requires enemies. Ralph sees one in the Mohammedans, a desperate recourse but the only one available. Enemies have to be frightening so as to justify the budget. The Soviets were serviceable in this regard, having a huge if low-grade military and a history of occupying places. When the commies punked out, no believable bugaboo was at hand, so makeup was applied to Moslems to let them serve until China comes online. Already one reads of the ominous buildup of the wily Chinee. Evil lurks everywhere, fearsome shapes twist in the fog, send money.

Why does Ralph think Iraq threatens our freedoms? Because he is supposed to. To quote Smedley Butler further, “Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.”

Actually it is much more true of officers, who are issued their minds when they sign up. They seldom turn them in upon retirement. Enlisted men know less but think more.

Enough. I can’t stand it. Ralph complains that the presidential candidates have never been in uniform, but I note that Hillary’s combat record exactly equal Ralph’s. Frauds, phonies, poseurs, always saying, “Let’s you and him fight.”

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." [James Madison (Essay on Property, 29 March 1792); Reference: Madison: Writings, Rakove, ed., Library of America (515)]

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

The Fallacy of Socialized Medicine

“The so-called ‘explosion’ of the uninsured has been driven entirely by wealthy households opting out of health insurance. In the decade after 1995—i.e., since the last round of coercive health reform—the proportion of the uninsured earning less than $25,000 has fallen by 20 percent, and the proportion earning more than $75,000 has increased by 155 percent. The story of the past decade is that the poor are getting sucked into the maw of ‘coverage,’ and the rich are fleeing it. And, given that the cost of health ‘insurance’ bears increasingly little relationship to either the cost of treatment or the actuarial reality of you ever getting any particular illness, it’s entirely rational to say: ‘You know what? I’ll worry about that when it happens. In the meantime, I want to start a business and send my kid to school.’ Freedom is the desire of my human heart, even if my arteries get all clogged and hardened.”

—Mark Steyn

“Governments are not empowered to grant rights; governments can only limit, or extinguish rights. Governments can, however, bestow gifts upon its citizens. But in order to do so, governments must first take resources from those who have earned them, and redistribute those resources to others. Hillary-care, Obama-care, Edwards-care, and every other form of socialized medicine, is inherently fraught with fraud, abuse, and corruption... If the federal government is to be involved in health care, it should be looking toward encouraging, and providing incentives for private medical care that is determined between the patient and provider. The problem is complex, and cannot be solved by any government program. Health care is certainly one of the primary areas where the principles of freedom should be observed and advanced. Any candidate, or politician, who thinks government can solve the problem better than a free market, should be rejected.”

—Henry Lamb

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow." [Alexander Hamilton and James Madison (Federalist No. 62, 1788)]

Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)

Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.

Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.

DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

Safety Nazis

"The forces of safety are afoot in the land. I, for one, believe it is a conspiracy - a conspiracy of Safety Nazis shouting "Sieg Health" and seeking to trammel freedom, liberty, and large noisy parties. The Safety Nazis advocate gun control, vigorous exercise, and health foods. The result can only be a disarmed, exhausted, and half-starved population ready to acquiesce to dictatorship of some kind." ~ P.J. O'Rourke (American libertarian political satirist)

Ron Paul
for President
Hope for America
2008 & 2012

Don't vote for the Wicked Witch of Washington

Vaclav Klause on "Global Warming"

Common sense when regarding "Global Warming" comes from Vaclav Klaus, who introduces Four Questions for the thinking person (not to be confused with Al Gore or George W. Bush). He states:

"Let us focus on science and cost-benefit rather than silly emotional appeal.

"I ask myself several questions. Let's put them in the proper sequence:

"Is global warming a reality?

"If it is a reality, is it man-made?

"If it is a reality, is it a problem? Will the people in the world, and now I have to say "globally" be better-off or worse-off due to small increases of global temperature?

"If it is a reality, and if it is a problem, can men prevent it or stop it? Can any reasonable cost-benefit analysis justify anything within the range of current proposals to be done just now?

"Surprisingly, we can say yes, with some degree of probability, only to the first question. To the remaining three, my answer is no. And I am not alone in saying that. We are, however, still more or less the silent or silenced majority."

Global Warming and James Hansen’s Hacks
By Michael Fumento
Thursday, August 16, 2007

In retrospect, you knew there would be trouble when you put the people responsible for the Space Shuttle program in charge of tracking U.S. temperatures. So perhaps it shouldn’t have come as a big surprise when it was revealed that NASA committed a bit of an oopsie regarding data constantly used by the mainstream media and other global warming proponents.

If you follow the global warming debate, you “know” that nine of the ten warmest years recorded in the U.S. lower 48 since 1880 have occurred since 1995, with the very hottest being 1998.

But whaddya know! Those figures are wrong. Data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) now show the hottest year since 1880 was 1934. Nineteen-ninety-eight dropped to second, while the third hottest year was way back in 1921. Indeed, four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, while only three were in the past decade.

The real 15 hottest years are spread over seven decades. Eight occurred before the chief “greenhouse gas,” atmospheric carbon dioxide, began its sharp rise; seven occurred afterwards.

Rush Limbaugh was incorrect in saying the new figures are “just more evidence” that “this whole global warming thing is a scientific hoax.” Conversely, global warming hotheads are also wrong in insisting the revelation belongs in a game of Trivial Pursuit.

The GISS, which is directed by global warming guru James Hansen, is saying likewise. They’re wrong, in part because of the importance of the data and in part because of what might be labeled a cover-up.

In pooh-poohing the revision, the GISS ignores the tremendous emotional impact it’s had in practically claiming each year is hotter than the one before. Instead it observes (correctly) since the U.S. accounts for merely two percent of global land surface, a relatively small adjustment in its figures doesn’t meaningfully impact the global picture.

But, notes Canadian mathematician Stephen McIntyre, who exposed the false figures, “The Hansen error . . . has a significant impact on the GISS estimate of U.S. temperature history . . .” (Emphasis added.) Is this important because we’re a major world power or that we produce the best fried chicken? No, it’s important because we have a far more sophisticated system of temperature monitoring than countries with far larger land masses. Hence, data from each of these nations affect the global model more than the American data.

“Many of the stations in China, Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere are in urban areas,” observes McIntyre. This can produce hotter temperatures, yet some of the major trackers of the data from these countries, including the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, make no attempt to adjust for monitor placement errors. In any event, for some reason “the U.S. history has a rather minimal (warming) trend if any since the 1930s, while the ROW [rest of the world] has a very pronounced trend since the 1930s.”

Thus if the U.S. model, by far the most accurate one, became the model, it would be a gut punch to those claiming we must take drastic, horrifically expense measures right now to ameliorate warming.

Therefore, for the GISS to say this “only” affects the U.S. data is rather like a used car salesman insisting, “This automobile defect is trivial; it only affects steering and braking.”

Then there’s the issue of how the revised data came about and came to light.

McIntyre discovered an error in GISS records for the years 2000 through 2006. In simplest terms, they hadn’t been adjusted to compensate for the location or time of day where the data was gathered. Nobody at GISS ever correlated those newer figures with the older ones until McIntyre did, even though later Hansen admitted it was “easy to fix.” McIntyre published the data on his own website and got the agency to admit it was wrong and post new figures.

Yet the GISS did absolutely nothing to alert scientists or the public to the new figures. This though it has published five global warming press releases so far this year, each one alarming. It took the blogosphere and radio talk show hosts to publicize the new figures even as the mainstream media initially ignored it.

Ultimately the greatest importance of all of this is that it strongly appears to substantiate the intuitive belief that, with scientist-politician Hansen at the helm the GISS, whose data are far more important to modeling global temperatures – and hence global warming policy – than it lets on, is not a neutral collector and disseminator of statistics but rather a politicized mouthpiece.

Deadly Environmentalists
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Environmentalists, with the help of politicians and other government officials, have an agenda that has cost thousands of American lives.

In the wake of Hurricane Betsy, which struck New Orleans in 1965, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building flood gates on Lake Pontchartrain, like those in the Netherlands that protect cities from North Sea storms. In 1977, the gates were about to be built, but the Environmental Defense Fund and Save Our Wetlands sought a court injunction to block the project.

According to John Berlau's recent book, "Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism is Hazardous to Your Health," U.S. Attorney Gerald Gallinghouse told the court that not building the gates could kill thousands of New Orleanians. Judge Charles Schwartz issued the injunction despite the evidence refuting claims of environmental damage.

We're told that DDT is harmful to humans and animals. Berlau, a research fellow at the Washington, D.C-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, says, "Not a single study linking DDT exposure to human toxicity has ever been replicated." In one long-term study, volunteers ate 32 ounces of DDT for a year and a half, and 16 years later, they suffered no increased risk of adverse health effects.

Despite evidence that, properly used, DDT is neither harmful to humans nor animals, environmental extremists fight for a continued ban. This has led to millions of illnesses and deaths from malaria, especially in Africa. After WWII, DDT saved millions upon millions of lives in India, Southeast Asia and South America. In some cases, malaria deaths fell to near zero. With bans on DDT, malaria deaths and illnesses have skyrocketed.

Environmental extremists see DDT in a different light. Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, said, "In Guyana, within almost two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem." Jeff Hoffman, environmental attorney, wrote on grist.org, "Malaria was actually a natural population control, and DDT has caused a massive population explosion in some places where it has eradicated malaria. More fundamentally, why should humans get priority over other forms of life? . . . I don't see any respect for mosquitos in these posts." Berlau's book cites many other examples of contempt for human life by environmentalists and how they've made politicians their useful idiots.

In 2001, thousands of Americans perished in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. In the early 1970s, when the World Trade Center complex was built, the asbestos scare had just begun. The builders planned to use AsbestoSpray, a flame retardant that adhered to steel. The New York Port of Authority caved in to the environmentalists' asbestos scare and denied its use. An inferior substitute was used as fireproofing.

After the attack, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) confirmed other experts' concerns about asbestos substitutes, concluding, "Even with the airplane impact and jet-fuel-ignited multi-floor fires, which were not normal building fires, the building would likely not have collapsed had it not been for the fireproofing."

Through restrictions on asbestos use, our naval vessels are more vulnerable to our enemies, a disaster waiting in the wings. The Columbia spaceship disaster was a result of the EPA's demand that NASA not use freon in its thermal insulating foam.

Congress mandates auto fuel mileage standards -- Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standards -- resulting in lighter, less crashworthy cars. In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences calculated that CAFE standards caused 2,000 additional traffic deaths each year. In 1999, a USA Today analysis of government and Insurance Institute data found that since the 1970s CAFE standards went into effect, 46,000 people died in crashes which they would have likely survived had they been riding in heavier cars.

None of this is news to politicians. It's just that environmental extremists have the ears of politicians, and potential victims don't.

The Many Myths of Ethanol
Why Ethanol Isn't the Solution to America's Energy Crisis
OPINION By JOHN STOSSEL
May 23, 2007
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3204163

No doubt about it, if there were a Miss Energy Pageant, Miss Ethanol would win hands down. Everyone loves ethanol.

"Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton.

"Ethanol makes a lot of sense," says John McCain.

"The economics of ethanol make more and more sense," says Mitt Romney.

"We've got to get serious about ethanol," says Rudolph Giuliani.

And the media love ethanol. "60 Minutes" called it "the solution."

Clinton, Romney, Barack Obama and John Edwards not only believe ethanol is the elixir that will give us cheap energy, end our dependence on Middle East oil sheiks and reverse global warming, they also want you and me -- as taxpayers -- to subsidize it.

When everyone in politics jumps on a bandwagon like ethanol, I start to wonder if there's something wrong with it. And there is. Except for that fact that ethanol comes from corn, nothing you're told about it is true. As the Cato Institute's energy expert Jerry Taylor said on a recent "Myths" edition of "20/20," the case for ethanol is based on a baker's dozen myths.

A simple question first. If ethanol's so good, why does it need government subsidies? Shouldn't producers be eager to make it, knowing that thrilled consumers will reward them with profits?

But consumers won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. "It takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant," Taylor says.

And because ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline can. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it.

More bad news: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn-growing, which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. A University of Minnesota study shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation."

OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.

Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.

Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.

Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something -- or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.

And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?

"It's no mystery that people who want to be president support the corn ethanol program," Taylor says. "If you're not willing to sacrifice children to the corn god, you will not get out of the Iowa primary with more than 1 percent of the vote. Right now the closest thing we have to a state religion in the United States isn't Christianity. It's corn."

John Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel -- Why Everything You Know Is Wrong," which is now available in paperback. To find out more about John Stossel and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2006 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

"[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison (Federalist No. 10, 23 November 1787) Reference: Madison, Federalist No. 10 (81)

Seven Deadly Money Lies

Security Hokum
Fred on Everything
Theater of the Absurd, by the Absurd, for...
Ionesco as Political Consultant
February 16, 2007

Every time I go to the United States (I have just returned from two weeks in Washington), I am astonished by the antic security, by the proliferation of admonitions and alarms and inchoate fear. Now it is illegal to carry toothpaste on airplanes. I find myself wondering: Is this just another spasm of periodic hysteria, like Prohibition, the Sixties, and a Commie Under Every Bed? Or is it calculated political programming?

Most of it impinges at best lightly upon reality. For example, measures for security at airports are largely useless—if their purpose is to increase security. Think about it. Time and again the public-address system warns that vehicles left unattended in passenger-loading zones "may be ticketed and towed." Why? By the time anyone notices that the truck is unattended, by definition the driver will be somewhere else. He will certainly be able to walk a hundred yards before the tow-truck arrives—and push the button. Boom. In the case of a suicide bomber (which is what we are worried about, no?) it doesn't matter anyway. Boom.

For that matter, at any airport you can drive up, load a hundred pounds of suitcases containing god knows what onto a baggage cart, and go into a crowded waiting area. Boom. You probably couldn't get them onto an airplane. Why would you need to? Terroristically, killing two hundred people in the airport is as good as dropping an airliner.

Most of security is just theater. Over and over, the PA system tells you not to leave baggage unattended or it may be destroyed by security personnel. This doubtless serves to make legitimate passengers watch their luggage. Who cares? A suitcase full of bras and socks isn't perilous. But none of this keeps a terrorist from leaving a baggage cart and walking for two minutes, far enough to be outside the blast radius.

No, I'm not giving ideas to terrorists. Everything in this column is obvious to anyone with a three-digit IQ.

It gets sillier. If you ride Metro, Washington's subway, you will incessantly hear things like, "Passengers! Look up from your papers occasionally. Be alert! Report any suspicious behavior to Metro employees."

Yeah, sure. As a security measure, this is worthless. Why? First, a terrorist would be careful not to look suspicious. Second, what is suspicious behavior on an urban subway? You've got rastas, Goths, spike-haired young in leathers, semi-derelicts, blacks from the slums, people from India, Guatemala, Morocco, drunks, stoners, people talking to Mars through the transmitters the CIA put in their teeth, and swarthy men speaking languages you can't identify. What's suspicious?

So how do report any of this? You could get off the train at the next stop, go up the escalators, and find the Metro kiosk by the exit gates. You find a bored guy inside waiting for his shift to end.

"Hey, I saw this suspicious guy on the train!" you say.

"Yeah? What was he doing?"

"He had a backpack, and he was looking around a lot like he was nervous, and I think he was sweating."

Oh. By now the train you were riding has left. The attendant has two choices. He can call in an emergency, have the train halted at the next stop, tie up the whole system at rush hour, and have police search the train, for a guy who looks like he might be sweating. Now, that's a career-enhancing move. Or he can brush you off. Real world: Which?

Have you ever been on an urban subway at rush hour—which of course is when a terrorist would strike? They are madhouses. People are packed so tight they can hardly move. Everybody is thinking, "Come on, come on, get this damned thing moving." Suppose you are aboard, and you see what appears to be a forgotten briefcase. What do you do?

The train is now sailing through the tunnel between Rosslyn Station and the Pentagon. Nobody can move an inch. You could scream, "Bomb!" However, the odds are much better than 999 to 1 that it isn't. Years have passed since 9/11, with no terrorism on Metro. People leave things on trains all the time. Let's say that you do scream. Chaos results, people very possibly are crushed to death in the panic, and someone pulls the Emergency Stop handle. You have just shut down Metro in rush hour. Further, you are in mid-tunnel. Oh good. The briefcase turns out to contain two sandwiches and a report from Agriculture on locust infestations in Chad. You probably go to jail.

And of course a terrorist would leave the briefcase on a timer to give himself a few minutes to leave Rosslyn Station and be walking innocently up Wilson Boulevard when the thing went off. Say, five minutes. Real world: What are the chances that anyone will notice the briefcase, take it seriously, and clear the train, in five minutes? Zero.

It's theater. If people actually reported strange behavior however defined, or if Metro cleared trains for forgotten briefcases until the bomb squad arrived, trains would never run.

Are security measures going to keep terrorists out of the US? I just finished reading De Los Maras a Los Zetas, by a Mexican crime reporter. (I don't think it is available in English.) He talks mostly about the drug trade, but mentions the smuggling of illegal immigrants. In particular he tells of a tunnel going under the border (estimating that at any one time about forty such tunnels are active) through which, he says, about 150 illegals a day passed. All it takes is $2000 or so and you are in the US. There is no border security, boys and girls. Not against anyone serious. There really isn't.

Now, yes, we may well see more terrorist attacks on the United States. We certainly ask for them. Or they may be prevented by other means. But dramatic announcements on the subway are going to prevent nothing. Nor are color-coded terror alerts that you hear every five minutes in airports. What does anyone do differently when the level is orange instead of green? Cancel reservations? Wear body armor?

On examination, most of the measures purportedly taken to stifle Terror don't. Opening mail without a warrant? It's pointless once the terrorists know you are doing it, but effective in intimidating honest citizens. The same is true of warrantless wiretaps and searches. Does the gutting of habeas corpus make us safer against terrorists? Or merely suppress dissent by citizens?

The whole business looks remarkably like malign vaudeville, like mummery intended to accomplish two things. The first is to persuade the foolish that the nation is "At War." Actually, only the president is at war. The second, and I would like to be wrong about this, is to train the public to obedience. The formula is simple: Keep'em scared and you can do anything. It works. Americans are rapidly becoming accustomed to Soviet-style surveillance, to the state's power to search and spy without restraint, to being barked at and ordered about by low-level federal employees. People deserve what they tolerate.

Eliot Spitzer, a Menace to Society

[New York] Governor Eliot Spitzer… promised to "reduce the burdensome cost structures that have driven businesses out of our state." Speaking before a packed State Assembly Chamber in Albany, Spitzer declared that worker's compensation in New York state, "does not work for anyone…" The new Governor intends to "lower employer premiums while increasing worker benefits." Alchemy is not dead.

Anxious Hillary Makes 2008 Calls
"Washington insiders suggest Clinton's team is worried that she may lose luster as candidates like Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., have catapulted into the national headlines."

Run, Hillary, run!

In the last 10 elections (state and national), I have voted for less than 10 Republicans, none for president or governor, and zero Democrats. If Hillary runs in 2008, I just might vote for a Republican for President.

Don't be fooled by the last six years of rhetoric; she is and always has been a radical left wing moron (with apologies to regular morons), who agrees with Lenin & Stalin on how to govern. She already had too much power when her husband was President; many of his mistakes were Hillary's fault.

Independence Day
by THOMAS G. DONLAN
Editorial Page Editor
Barrons Magazine Online
July 4, 2005

Celebrating the independence of the citizen from the government

RIGHT AFTER THE FAMOUS ASSURANCES of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights that include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there comes the essence of the Jeffersonian philosophy:

"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 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."

Before the sun goes down and the Independence Day fireworks begin, we ought to appreciate what dangerous radicals were Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues of the Second Continental Congress. They challenged the permanent standing of government in an era when the divine right of kings to rule was received wisdom. Indeed, they would be radicals today, if they were here to repeat that the people have a right and a duty to throw off a government that oppresses them with "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations."

Government, not just the British government of the American colonies in 1776 but any government -- including the American government of 2005 -- exists on sufferance and must perform to win the consent of the governed.

Jefferson enumerated the abuses of the British crown and thus asserted the rights of Americans not to be abused by their governments. One of the most vivid and relevant in his list is this:

"He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their Substance."

What we would not tolerate from the king, we should not tolerate from our own leaders.

"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks, new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense and common decency."

- H.L. Mencken

"Man has always assumed that he is more intelligent than dolphins because he has achieved so much--the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- while all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But, conversely, the dolphins have always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons."

Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for the Fish

The Left's Vocabulary
by Thomas Sowell
August 6, 2004

Socialism is Evil
by Walter Williams
Part 1: July 28, 2004
Part 2: August 17, 2004

"The Politician under democracy"
(1926) by H. L. Mencken

"He is a man who has lied and dissembled, and a man who has crawled. He knows the taste of boot-polish. He has suffered kicks in the tonneau of his pantaloons. He has taken orders from his superiors in knavery and he has wooed and flattered his inferiors in sense. His public life is an endless series of evasions and false pretenses. He is willing to embrace any issue, however idiotic, that will get him votes, and he is willing to sacrifice any principle, however sound, that will lose them for him. I do not describe the democratic politician at his inordinate worst; I describe him as he is encountered in the full sunshine of normalcy."

"They are men who, at some time or other, have compromised with their honor, either by swallowing their convictions or by whooping for what they believe to be untrue. They are in the position of the chorus-girl who, in order to get her humble job, has had to admit the manager to her person. . . . He becomes a coward and a trimmer ex officio. . . . Thus the ideal of democracy is reached at last: it has become a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office under the Federal Union, save by a combination of miracles that must tax the resourcefulness of God."

"The state — or, to make the matter more concrete, the government — consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods." — H. L. Mencken 1936

Over the last few days I have spoken to Democrats who are firmly convinced he is a hawkish free-trading fiscal conservative who believes that life begins at conception, that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that the U.S. should bulk up its forces in Iraq. I've also spoken to other Democrats just as convinced that Kerry is really a protectionist, socially liberal dove who actually opposes the war and supports gay marriage and nationalized health care.

By DAVID BROOKS
New York Times, Published: July 27, 2004

"Virtue means doing the right thing, in relation to the right person, at the right time, to the right extent, in the right manner, and for the right purpose. Thus, to give money away is quite a simple task, but for the act to be virtuous, the donor must give to the right person, for the right purpose, in the right amount, in the right manner, and at the right time."
          – Aristotle

"...Man is a Wild Animal. He cannot be tamed and remain Man; his genius is bound up in the very qualities which make him wild...With this knowledge, bleak, stern, and proud, goes the last hope of permanent peace on Earth; it makes world government unlikely and certainly unstable."
          – Robert A. Heinlein

More Political Quotes

Will Rogers on Government

Mom, Drugs, and Apple Pie
Fred on Everything

I wish someone would explain to me the War On Drugs, or at least why we think there is one. I grant that I'm just a country boy, and intellectually barefoot, and can't understand things that don't make sense. For that you have to go to Yale. Help me.

But once the checks arrived, most of the promises regarding children went up in smoke. In North Carolina, politicians gave $200,000 to a place that holds horse riding competitions. A county golf course in New York got almost a million dollars; $200,000 for golf carts. And the lawyers got plenty. Dickie Scruggs, Senate Minority Leader, Trent Lott's brother-in-law, is said to be getting more than $800 million. Maryland attorney Peter Angelos, who was already rich enough to own the Baltimore Orioles, is getting another $150 million. And guess who else got some money? Tobacco producers [and farmers], because there may be less demand for their crops because of the settlement. "Why shouldn't I get some of the money?" North Carolina tobacco farmer Bobby Bissett told us. North Carolina has now spent more than $42 million of its part of the settlement with the tobacco industry. They gave money to a tobacco auction house, and a museum of tobacco farming.

The states say these kinds of investments will help create jobs and stimulate the economy. What's going on here? Politicians and lawyers cut a deal promising they'll help stop kids from smoking. But who was really helped? Rich lawyers and the tobacco industry. Give me a break!

         -- John Stossel's "Give Me a Break" 10/18/2002

Larry Miller on the Middle East crisis
The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word.

"Modern legislators would do well to heed these words. The legislature is to society as a physician is to the patient. If a physician ignored the side effects of medications like today's legislators ignore the side effects of their legislation, the physician would be accused of malpractice. We accuse today's legislators (with rare exception) of legislative malpractice. Many of the ills that are so obvious in our society are a direct result of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. Their misguided solution? More laws!

"Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws was born to provide doctors, patients and the American citizenry with a voice of reason amidst an alarming outpouring from unreasonable doctors turned anti-Constitution politicians. Our mission serves the purpose of correcting many mistakes being made by our peers under the banner of "political correctness."

Queen Hillary hasn't changed.

Michelle Malkin, on Hillary Clinton's conduct during President Bush's September 20, 2001, speech to Congress:

[Hillary Clinton's] behavior during President Bush's address to Congress last week was abominable. At a time when even the most partisan of her Democratic colleagues stood united with the president, New York Senator Clinton shunned patriotism for petulance. She grimaced. She sighed. She rolled her eyes. She fidgeted like a 5-year-old at an opera.

And when Mrs. Clinton mustered enough energy to clap, she acted as if there were razor blades strapped to her palms.

Although network talking heads refrained from comment, outraged Americans across the country spoke out. Teacher Kathie Larkin of Atlanta wrote to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: "This is behavior I would not accept from my sixth-graders listening to a speaker, and I expected better of an adult from a state ripped apart by terrorist violence. Hillary needs to grow up."

James Gale of Silver Spring, Maryland, wrote to The Washington Post: "She at times seemed bored and uninterested, clapping perfunctorily, and at other times she was talking during the speech. I thought her actions were unbecoming a senator at this difficult time."

The Boston Herald, one of the few bold newspapers to take note of Clinton's insolence, editorialized that she "looked like she was sucking on a lemon." And Karen Gauvreau of Clearwater, Florida, wrote to the St. Petersburg Times: "She would have been better off had she stayed home."

Mrs. Clinton's staff claims she was weary from traveling. What nerve. All she had to do last week was park her taxpayer-funded backside on a plane seat. Meanwhile, her constituents and volunteers from across the country pulled 13-hour shifts, sifting through rubble, sorting body parts, and collapsing on curbsides from exhaustion and grief...

Read the whole article

Andrew Sullivan comments further:

"During last weekend's prayer memorial at Yankee Stadium, she remained dour and tight-lipped as the tearful crowd of thousands sang the national anthem...Mrs. Clinton poses for photos with a strange sneer frozen on her stony face."

Andrew Sullivan also comments, on October 3, 2001:

Senator [Hillary] Clinton's response to a question [Nick] Lemann [of the New Yorker] posed is simply jaw-dropping. In the context of the World Trade Center massacre, he asked her "how she thought people would react to knowing they are on the receiving end of a murderous anger."

Clinton's reply: "Oh I am well aware that it is out there. One of the most difficult experiences I personally had in the White House was during the health-care debate, being the object of extraordinary rage."

She talks about hecklers and the threat of violence and the rhetoric spewed by radio talk show hosts. I've no doubt these things hurt. Heck, I've had my fair share of the same kind of thing. But to equate that with the murder of thousands of innocent people by terrorists is simply deranged. Or rather, it's just another sign that this woman adds whole universes of meaning to the word narcissism. Even after a massacre, it's still all about her.

New York City's
World Trade Center Destroyed
September 11, 2001

Have we forgotten?

In his Farewell Address in 1797, George Washington warned us: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."

Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural Address in 1801, said: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Reaping the Whirlwind
Walter Williams revisits our foreign policy
September 19, 2001
townhall.com

"The recent terrorist attacks suggest that it might be time to re-examine our foreign policy. What should that foreign policy be? Part of the answer might lie in the foreign policy principles enunciated at our founding."

"First and foremost, we must recognize that while terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and part of the Pentagon, they didn't destroy our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The true threat comes from our political leaders anxious to seize upon any excuse to restrict liberty. We shouldn't tolerate any restraints on our liberties in the name of combating terrorism and producing domestic safety. Keep in mind that a caged canary is safe but not free."

Harry Browne, Libertarian,
on the destruction of the WTC

What is War? (Aug 24, 2000)

When Will We Learn? (Sep 12, 2001)

The Cycle of Violence (Sep 15, 2001)

Retribution (Sep 17, 2001)

The Overlooked Flaw in Retailiation
(Sep 19, 2001)

What can we do about Terrorism?
(Part 1: Oct 5, 2001)

Do we choose Peace or Death?
(Part 2: Oct 16, 2001)

Preventing Future Terrorism?
(Part 3: Nov  1, 2001)

Maybe it was Clinton's Fault

Maybe if we didn't have a pansy in the White House for the last 8 (or 12) Years, this wouldn't have happened.

After the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which killed six and injured 1,000, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed 19 and injured 200 U.S. military personnel, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, which killed 224 and injured 5,000, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

After the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 and injured 3 U.S. sailors, Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

Maybe if Clinton had kept his promises, the more than 3,000 victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack by (mostly Saudi) Arab Muslims would be alive today.

Mark Twain once said: "No one's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session."

In 1759, Benjamin Franklin said: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Confucius said: "The higher type of man clings to virtue, the lower type of man clings to material comfort. The higher type of man cherishes justice, the lower type of man cherishes the hope of favors to be received."

Daschle & Kennedy Call for Abolition of Bathtubs

Why Al Gore Lost the Presidential Election