A Trojan Horse? A Closet Leftist?

DONALD TRUMP: TROJAN HORSE
 
The Donald, in his own words:
1) "I probably identify more as Democrat."
–Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2004

2) "I've been around for a long time. And it just seems that the economy does
better under the Democrats than the Republicans."
–Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2004

3) "Nancy — you're the best. Congrats. Donald."
–Handwritten note to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, January 2007

4) "Bush is probably the worst president in the history of the United States."
–Interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, March 2007

5) "I'm totally pro-choice."
–Interview with Fox News Sunday, October 1999

6 ) "I want to see the abortion issue removed from politics. I believe it is a
personal decision that should be left to the women and their doctors."
–Remarks to reporters, December 1999

7) "I'm very liberal when it comes to health care. I believe in universal health
care."
–Interview with CNN's Larry King, October 1999.

8 ) "The Canadian plan also helps Canadians live longer and healthier than
Americans… We need, as a nation, to reexamine the single-payer plan."
–Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000

9) "By imposing a one-time 14.25 percent net-worth tax on the richest
individuals and trusts, we can put America on sound financial footing for the
next century."
–Writing in his book, The America We Deserve, January 2000

10) "I think he [Obama] has a chance to go down as a great president."
–Interview with NY1, November 2008

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Sex Change for 10-Year-Old

((  Mommie.mommie. Why did they take my pee-pee? ))

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2011/04/sex-change-for.html

 

 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: "Fight of the Century" Keynes vs. Hayek Round 2 - Film Shoot

I am an extra in this.  You should follow them on FaceBook.  The film should be great

MESSAGE from the event organizers Event "Fight of the Century" Keynes vs. Hayek Round 2 - Film Shoot Date Sunday, April 17 from 8:30 am to 8:30 pm Hi Good Folks! Thanks for coming out to our little shoot on Sunday. We had a ball and the footage looks amazing! We're quickly moving through the edit and we'll be sure to email everyone as soon as the cut is finished. It looks like the final video will be ready to go around the first week of May. We're really happy with how FULL the background looks - thanks for making it great! Can't wait to share it with all of you. Please friend EconStories on Facebook for future sneak peeks and production stills. http://www.facebook.com/EconStoriesTV Much appreciated! Lisa Versaci Producer | Partner Emergent Order www.emergentorder.com Contact event host   |   Event information Event registration services provided by Guestlist.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

The Sesquicentennial Is Upon Us

The Sesquicentennial Is Upon Us
by Kirkpatrick Sale

As an editor at large, I get to be considerably at large and so I am in fact living these days across the Cooper River from Charleston, South Carolina. That was the place, as you may remember, where the phenomenon erroneously called the "Civil War" began some 150 years ago, and where some folks now are determined to remember what went on and some others are determined to protest whatever went on then and is going on now.

It seems to have become something of a national issue, and being in a good position to take a look at the events this spring commemorating the sesquicentennial of what they like to call "the late unpleasantness," I thought I'd try to shed a little light amid the considerable murkiness of ignorance all around.

But first I think it's important to remember that the secession that took place 150 years ago was in a grand old American tradition. The American "Revolution" was, in fact, a war of secession – 13 colonies breaking away from the British Empire – not a war of conquest, and most of the Founding Fathers understood that to be a given right when they created the Articles and then the Constitution. The creation of the Republic of Vermont in 1777 was another act of secession, from both New Hampshire and New York. And just 25 years after the new nation was born, representatives from all New England states (only one from Vermont) met at a convention in Hartford to consider secession from the United States if their grievances against President Madison's conduct of the war of 1812 and limitations on Atlantic trade were not satisfied; in the event, they did not vote for secession, but its spirit was in the air.

So in that context, let's make clear that what began 150 years ago this April was not a true civil war, except in the sense that there were two sides in one country, because there was no attempt by one side to take over the other, as in the more familiar English civil war between Parliament and Charles I. The South did not want to run the Union, it wanted out of the Union. That makes it a war of secession (similar to the war of 1775-1783) or, as various forms have it, the War of Southern Secession, the War Between the States, the War of Northern Aggression, or the War to Prevent Southern Independence – all more accurate than "Civil War."

Next, let's see who really began it. The first conflict had to do with Washington's unwillingness to give up Federal forts and bases in states that had declared their independence, or even to negotiate some kind of settlement. After declaring independence in December 1860, South Carolina sent two delegations to Washington with the express purpose of working out terms, including monetary compensation, for the turning over of Federal outposts in Charleston Harbor, including Fort Sumter. Refusing to negotiate, President Buchanan in January sent ships with 200 troops intending to restock and reinforce Fort Sumter, an island only four miles from downtown Charleston. The first one was fired on and forced to turn back, and the South looked for some reconciliation. But when Lincoln took office two months later he still refused to negotiate and, a month after saying he had no intention of invading the South, accomplished that in effect by ordering a second flotilla of armed supply ships to force its way into the harbor.

Upon learning of the second fleet, in what seemed a clear and deliberate act of war, the government of South Carolina repeatedly demanded that the Unionists in the fort surrender. When they refused, the Carolina battalions gave warning on April 12, and after an hour began firing. The fort, low on munitions as well as provisions, finally surrendered the next day, the soldiers were transported by Confederate steamers to Union ships outside the harbor, and the only casualties were two Union soldiers that blew themselves up by accident during a cannon salute during the lowering of the U.S. flag.

Exactly what Lincoln wanted. It mattered not who committed the first act of war, which was the North, but who fired the first shot; that would work in the Union propaganda machines sufficiently to have it understood not only in the North but in the Border States and territories that the South had started the war. A Union invasion of a revolutionary Confederacy that fired first seemed only a fit and proper response.

Which in turn brings up the next nettlesome issue that always surrounds this issue: slavery, and the motive for Northern invasion.

In fact, after the fall of Fort Sumter the Union armies descended on the South in 1861, or tried to, in order to put down what Lincoln held to be a revolution by a federation of states that had illegally left the Federal compact. They did not, nor would their generals or soldiers have even so formulated it, invade the South to eliminate slavery, in the cause of abolition, or for the liberation of Negroes. It was not formally or informally, in the minds of either the Union armies or their civilian instigators, a war about slavery.

The great myth that the Union was fighting for a high moral cause, the elimination of chattel slavery and freedom for four million oppressed people torn from Africa, was ultimately a very convenient falsehood that served Northern ends later on in the war, particularly in distorting world opinion so that neither England nor France, though they might have had some allegiance to the cause of independence, were able to take the side of the Confederacy. But even then, the ultimate welfare of black Americans and their peaceful economic and social integration into white American society was never, but to a tiny few – and certainly not to Lincoln or his government – a moral (or even political) principle even thought much less expressed. The deep racism of the American North, though the victors would try to go on to forget it, was as dark a stigma against the Union as anything it would project on the South.

And the Emancipation Proclamation? Well, in the first place, it had nothing to do with slavery, per se. It did not abolish slavery. It decreed that slaves in the Confederacy only were to be free, but not those elsewhere in the Union or the territories (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri all had slavery, as well as Washington, D.C., until 1862). It was at bottom a military ploy, hoping to create rebellion and civil unrest on the South's plantations at a time when the war was not going all that well for the Union. ("It has no constitutional or legal justification, except as a military measure," its creator acknowledged.) It had no particular moral implications, and it made no provision for how the liberation was to be effected, what would happen to the slaves after they were emancipated, what the slaves would in fact do for a living, or even where they were to go if they left the plantations that had been their home for generations. (They could not, incidentally, go north, because no state there would welcome them and a good many, including Lincoln's own Illinois, had laws forbidding immigration and settlement of Negroes.) Unlike a number of serious schemes that had been proposed, North and South, before the war, the Proclamation did not deal with necessary issues of compensation for deprived slave-owners, integration of ex-slaves politically or economically into white societies, or even for their deportation to Africa, an idea that Lincoln in particular had favored. It was, in short, a military ploy without moral or humanitarian foundation.

Finally, we should understand that the issue of slavery, strictly, was not the cause of Southern secession or the reason for the war on the Confederate side. The South did not want to protect slavery from a Northern attempt to abolish it, because no such attempt was ever intended or expressed by any serious party, and indeed Congress in 1861 had explicitly defended the continuance of the institution in the South. Nor did the South want to extend slavery into the Western territories, because it was clear it was neither a useful nor a welcome practice there, and besides when it formed the Confederacy it no longer had any constitutional claim to influence in those sections.

What the South wanted was to continue an economic system that it had inherited for 200 years, that had been fostered and maintained by Northern interests (particularly New England shippers and textile barons) that entire time, that had been the foundation of the United States economy both North and South from the beginning of the nation, and that was a way of life now so entrenched no one knew how to alter or ameliorate it even if, like quite a few, they wished to do so. And the South wanted to be free of Northern interference: the continued attempts by abolitionists (as John Brown in 1859) to foster slave rebellions and terrorism in the South, the refusal of Northern states to return illegal runaway slaves (or to return Brown's companions who had fled North), the threat of increased tariffs on Southern goods, the stated purpose of the new Republican party to expand federal power in the interest of Northern industrialists, and the clear perception that Lincoln had come into office with a hidden agenda of limiting if not eliminating Southern influence on the national scene (he was elected with not a single Southern electoral vote).

So, is all that clear? Now we can go on with four more years of sesquicentennial commemorations without all the myths and misunderstandings. Maybe.

http://www.vtcommons.org/

Across-the-Board Cuts Are the Only Road to Budget Reduction

Across-the-Board Cuts Are the Only Road to Budget Reduction
by Ivan Eland, April 19, 2011

Defense analysts and military personnel are trained to analyze the U.S. defense posture in a certain way. But even analysts who are trying to be restrained in their assessment of threats and force and equipment requirements are politically naïve about the way the real world of defense budgeting works. A different approach is needed to successfully cut the defense budget.

Defense analysts, military people, and retired military officers have essentially opted for a rational approach to assessing the U.S. defense posture. The problem is that the rationality of defense analysis runs up against the entirely different rationality of budgeting. I have used this logical approach to defense analysis myself. I even wrote an entire book, Putting "Defense" Back into U.S. Defense Policy, which assessed U.S. vital interests, threats to those vital interests, the best national military strategy for countering those threats, the best structure of forces to carry out that strategy (for example, how many fighter air wings, mechanized divisions, lighter infantry divisions, Special Forces units, Marine amphibious groups, and aircraft carrier battle groups are needed), the weapons required to implement the strategy, and the ideal defense budget needed to pay for all of the above. This is a very useful way to approach the problem of defending the nation, because it gives you an ideal force structure and defense budget. However, at the Pentagon and the consulting firms that work for it, the process can be "gamed" to expand U.S. vital interests, the threats to them, and the strategy needed to counter them (for example, adopting a "preventive" strategy versus a more restrained approach). Expanding interests, threats, and strategy then leads to a ballooning of the force structure, weapons requirements, and defense budgets.

Yet, if the process is used responsibly and with some restraint, it is still valuable in coming up with the ideal defense posture. But one must keep in mind that this process bears no resemblance to the way the force structure, weapons requirements, and defense budget are arrived at in the real world.

In reality, the Department of Defense (DoD), despite being shielded by "patriotic fervor," works much like any other government agency or operation­according to the public choice model. As the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, the kinds of forces and weapons on hand were not the ones needed for best prosecuting the wars. DoD often purchases weapons that only dimly comport with the threats, strategy, or force structure (for example, the F-22 fighter plane, which had originally been designed to fight Soviet fighters that were never built because the East bloc collapsed, were purchased long after the Cold War ended). Weapons purchases are often welfare projects doled out to congressional districts and states with political clout. In fact, unlike in the commercial market, defense contractors don't give subcontracts to the best subcontractors but spread them around the country to build political support, so that it is very difficult to kill weapons programs. Such welfare programs provide many jobs in the states and districts, thus ensuring congressional support for continuing unnecessary or white-elephant weapon procurement. The same difficulty arises when it comes to closing excess military bases.

The "iron triangle" of a government agency, its contractors and subcontractors, and Congress is not unique to defense, but applies to all government programs, which are all heavily politicized. These iron triangles are always in the shadows, but they surface to nix budget cuts. The recent squabble between Democrats and Republicans over the "record" cut of $38.5 billion from the 2010 budget starkly illustrates the problem. The neutral Congressional Budget Office, in which I used to work, discovered that after all the hoopla, the $38.5 billion figure was fraudulent. Out of that amount, a measly $350 million (it sounds like a lot, but when the annual federal deficit is more than $1 trillion, it's chicken feed) would be cut in 2011. The CBO uncovered that $13 billion to $18 billion of the cuts involved money that existed only on paper and unlikely would have been spent during the next decade (for example, money not needed for the 2010 census or earmarks that were never used). Much of the other spending didn't spend out until future years. Budget insiders know that most future budget projections are… well… just projections, because politics and legislation can change in future years; the only number that really matters is what is cut in the here and now (this year's budget).

Budget gimmicks and fraud are commonly used to fool citizens into thinking Washington is being fiscally responsible in order to mask the shoveling of welfare to constituencies not based on merit, but on political power. In Washington, a budget cut is rarely a real budget reduction.

The Republicans, under the leadership of Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, were heralded as bringing forth a courageous long-term budget plan that finally cut some of the large entitlement programs (for example, Medicare and Medicaid). Unfortunately, Ryan's plan slashed spending by $4.3 trillion during the next decade but failed to cut defense and reduced taxes over the same period by $4.2 billion. Thus, Ryan would allow the monstrous federal deficit to go on much too long. Ordinarily I couldn't argue with tax cuts, but much of the Republican Party's recent electoral success (from Reagan on) has been based on fake tax cuts. If we go down Ryan's road, what will likely occur­as happened under Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush­is that taxes will be reduced, but the politically more difficult spending cuts will not be made. A tax cut is fake if spending is not cut, because taxes will have to be raised in the future, interest rates will have to be raised, or money will have to be printed. Credit counselors say the first thing to do is pay down your debt. Thus, no tax cuts should be on the horizon until the tough medicine of substantial spending cuts has been taken.

President Obama then put out a budget plan that was even more irresponsible. He put forth only modest cuts in defense, left the big entitlements alone, and proposed tax increases on the wealthy. But the Republicans have fallen into his electoral trap for 2012, because he can portray them as trying to do away with Medicare while cutting taxes for the rich.

So what can be done? To defeat the intense lobbying of powerful interest groups (including DoD and its contractors) and accompanying partisan conflict over budget cuts, which was illustrated by the uproar over the modest $38.5 billion (I mean $350 million) cut for 2011, a simple decision rule of across-the-board spending cuts is the only road to travel. We have to reject cutting defense and every other program on the basis of rational analysis. Fiscal times are too grim for that, and politics just won't permit it. If every program in the budget had to take a substantial and equal percentage cut, the plan could be sold with the simple and honest phrase: "In this dire time of record budget deficits, endangering the creditworthiness of the United States, everyone must sacrifice equally." Across-the-board cuts are the only way to slice through interest group politics and the concomitant partisan bickering to restore sanity in public finances.


http://original.antiwar.com/eland/2011/04/18/across-the-board-cuts/

Police Brutality: When Will It Be "Enough"?

When Will It Be "Enough"?
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/04/when-will-it-be-enough.html

---

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Abolish The Federal Income Tax

Flat Tax? Fair Tax? Consumption Tax?

---

Today I'm describing how to put liberty first in consideration of the consequences of popular tax reform proposals.

---

by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Sunday, April 17, 2011

If you are the sort who interprets any criticism of an idea to be a defacto support of another idea or the status quo you can stop reading already. Although that is not what this article is about, its points will certainly be lost on you. Save yourself the time and just leave a comment about what a moron I am for supporting the current tax system.

For the rest, enjoy!

The problem with tax reform proposals like the flat tax or the fair tax is that they cede authority to the government for specific portions of an individual's productivity. "But at a lower rate." comes the rallying cry of the supporters of these proposals. If the only debate is over what rate this extortion is to take place, for now, then the battle is lost. Once the baseline is established the rate will only increase as more spending creates more "need."

"We all get what's coming whether we deserve it or not."
~Bill Bonner

Here is a simple test if you dare:
 Suppose I am a person who has never paid more than 8% of my productivity in taxes to a government. By what authority can you force me to pay more? Why 10%? Does it require less immoral force to extort only 2% more from me than say, and additional 5%? In my critique the number is irrelevant; I focus attention on the number to highlight its arbitrary defenseless value. The morals behind granting government the authority to pick a number is where my criticism lies.

I make no defense of our tax system today. Today, the tax laws are horrible, stifling, immoral, etc.

My criticism is based on the relative moral impact on liberty required by several popular tax reform proposals.

Today the income tax game is played like this:
Here are all the rules. Your objective is to find the way to pay the least amount of taxes allowed under these rules. If you find a way to pay zero taxes or never more than 8% then good for you. That is your choice under this system. Good Luck.

Under the flat or fair taxes there is no choice. Some baseline percentage is chosen by people who supposedly know just how much tax is the right amount. That sounds like no liberty at all to me. Once that baseline is set the game changes. Now the rules are that you pay the chosen amount or suffer under the force of law. If the amount goes up, you pay more. You have no choices; no options for influencing your oppression.

These proposals are carefully veiled progressive strategies for removing the obstacles in their way. One big obstacle for progressive centralization is the notion that the government is an instrument of the people. Progressives need people to accept their being subjects of the central government. Until this happens their plans cannot succeed. Enter the useful idiots. Now the stage is set for the next election.

These kinds of tax reform proposals move us away from the notions of individual liberty and into the acceptance of a hive mentality. They are aimed at getting the people to accept being subjects of the government's will and hungers.

Take this already horrifying rationale out of the abstract and consider your own fingers. If you had to choose between a system where you were free to prevent the loss of any fingers by your own choices and behavior or a system where you must lose one finger no matter what you do, which would you prefer?

What? You say you're already losing 3 fingers under the present system? Ahh...now we're getting to the crux of the issue. You think the government should impose "fairness" by eliminating individual autonomy in determining their payments.

I ask, "Do the negative consequences of your behavior justify your forcing to lose fingers those who would otherwise keep them?"

An honest answer to this question from any supporter of these progressive tax reform proposals will reveal quickly who is on the side of liberty and who is on the side of the state. Then the only question is, Why?

When it comes to Rand Paul never forget: The son is NOT the father. If you aren't too sensitive to risk having your bubble burst check out Ron Paul's take on these tax reform proposals.

In the final analysis any energy spent trying to craft a new way to extort income from citizens is a distraction from the reality that our spending is the problem. Unless a limited government, fiscally responsible congress is elected the tax burden for individuals can only increase over the long run. Attempts to deal with the tax collection before dealing with the spending are purely political strategies, not serious behavior aimed at long-term sustain-ability.

Don't let these progressive schemes distract you from the #1 priority, eliminating the big spending GOP members of Congress. That is JOB ONE for constructive political activists. If you aren't focused on that I'm sure the defenders of the status quo will thank you in the end.

On 04/19/2011 10:52 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:

Jonathan. Dowonload  Russia Flat Tax and it's success.  On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote: 

There is no such thing as a "fair tax." All taxes are theft of property.  On 04/19/2011 09:31 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:  Jonathan, the Tea Party Movement showed what could happen, if we unite behind a cause. If we want the do away with the income tax and replace it with a flat tax of  a sort. It can be done and it is only a matter of time that it will happen, The way thing or going it won't be fast enough. I believe the only fair one is the consummation tax.  That citizen would receive a check each month for the necessaries and pay tax on every thing. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:  Abolish The Federal Income Tax http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan188.htm "The typical taxpayer will pay about $12,500 in income taxes in 2010. Imagine what would happen if the federal government discontinued collecting income taxes this April 15. Imagine if the typical American taxpayer retained, rather than paid to the government, $12,500 each year." ________________________________ Freedom Is Always Illegal. Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.  --  Freedom Is Always Illegal.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft  -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Fwd: Confidence abounds...in this article....

        Does the term "barking mad" sound about right for this clown?

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Confidence abounds...in this article....
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:38:23 -0400
From:	Kerwin, Michael Contractor <Michael.Kerwin@ssa.gov>
To:	'dick thompson' <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112569/doomsday-trends-america-marketwatch?mod=bb-budgeting%20%20%20&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

 

Re: Abolish The Federal Income Tax

All taxes are theft of property!

What about that do you not understand?

On 04/19/2011 10:52 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:

Jonathan. Dowonload  Russia Flat Tax and it's success.  On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote: 

There is no such thing as a "fair tax." All taxes are theft of property.  On 04/19/2011 09:31 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:  Jonathan, the Tea Party Movement showed what could happen, if we unite behind a cause. If we want the do away with the income tax and replace it with a flat tax of  a sort. It can be done and it is only a matter of time that it will happen, The way thing or going it won't be fast enough. I believe the only fair one is the consummation tax.  That citizen would receive a check each month for the necessaries and pay tax on every thing. On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:  Abolish The Federal Income Tax http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan188.htm "The typical taxpayer will pay about $12,500 in income taxes in 2010. Imagine what would happen if the federal government discontinued collecting income taxes this April 15. Imagine if the typical American taxpayer retained, rather than paid to the government, $12,500 each year." ________________________________ Freedom Is Always Illegal. Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.  --  Freedom Is Always Illegal.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft  -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Fwd: I'm really surprised this wasn't thought about sooner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sounds like something Zero would support.

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	I'm really surprised this wasn't thought about sooner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date:	Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:10:31 -0400
From:	Kerwin, Michael Contractor <Michael.Kerwin@ssa.gov>
To:	'dick thompson' <rhomp2002@earthlink.net>

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/expert_rx_for_sicker_seniors_daFkw2GrGHNw2KtyeSnHzJ

 

Re: Abolish The Federal Income Tax

Jonathan. Dowonload Russia Flat Tax and it's success.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Jonathan Ashley
<jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
> There is no such thing as a "fair tax." All taxes are theft of property.
>
> On 04/19/2011 09:31 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:
>
> Jonathan, the Tea Party Movement showed what could happen, if we unite
> behind a cause. If we want the do away with the income tax and replace
> it with a flat tax of a sort. It can be done and it is only a matter
> of time that it will happen, The way thing or going it won't be fast
> enough. I believe the only fair one is the consummation tax. That
> citizen would receive a check each month for the necessaries and pay
> tax on every thing.
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan Ashley
> <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote:
>
> Abolish The Federal Income Tax
> http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan188.htm
> "The typical taxpayer will pay about $12,500 in income taxes in 2010.
> Imagine what would happen if the federal government discontinued collecting
> income taxes this April 15. Imagine if the typical American taxpayer
> retained, rather than paid to the government, $12,500 each year."
> ________________________________
> Freedom Is Always Illegal.
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
>
> Freedom Is Always Illegal.
>
> Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

Michigan: Police Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops

ACLU seeks information on Michigan program that allows cops to download information from smart phones belonging to stopped motorists.

CelleBriteThe Michigan State Police have a high-tech mobile forensics device that can be used to extract information from cell phones belonging to motorists stopped for minor traffic violations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan last Wednesday demanded that state officials stop stonewalling freedom of information requests for information on the program.

ACLU learned that the police had acquired the cell phone scanning devices and in August 2008 filed an official request for records on the program, including logs of how the devices were used. The state police responded by saying they would provide the information only in return for a payment of $544,680. The ACLU found the charge outrageous.

"Law enforcement officers are known, on occasion, to encourage citizens to cooperate if they have nothing to hide," ACLU staff attorney Mark P. Fancher wrote. "No less should be expected of law enforcement, and the Michigan State Police should be willing to assuage concerns that these powerful extraction devices are being used illegally by honoring our requests for cooperation and disclosure."

A US Department of Justice test of the CelleBrite UFED used by Michigan police found the device could grab all of the photos and video off of an iPhone within one-and-a-half minutes. The device works with 3000 different phone models and can even defeat password protections.

"Complete extraction of existing, hidden, and deleted phone data, including call history, text messages, contacts, images, and geotags," a CelleBrite brochure explains regarding the device's capabilities. "The Physical Analyzer allows visualization of both existing and deleted locations on Google Earth. In addition, location information from GPS devices and image geotags can be mapped on Google Maps."

The ACLU is concerned that these powerful capabilities are being quietly used to bypass Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.

"With certain exceptions that do not apply here, a search cannot occur without a warrant in which a judicial officer determines that there is probable cause to believe that the search will yield evidence of criminal activity," Fancher wrote. "A device that allows immediate, surreptitious intrusion into private data creates enormous risks that troopers will ignore these requirements to the detriment of the constitutional rights of persons whose cell phones are searched."

The national ACLU is currently suing the Department of Homeland Security for its policy of warrantless electronic searches of laptops and cell phones belonging to people entering the country who are not suspected of committing any crime.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp

---

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Abolish The Federal Income Tax

There is no such thing as a "fair tax." All taxes are theft of property.

On 04/19/2011 09:31 AM, lbiglee75 wrote:

Jonathan, the Tea Party Movement showed what could happen, if we unite behind a cause. If we want the do away with the income tax and replace it with a flat tax of  a sort. It can be done and it is only a matter of time that it will happen, The way thing or going it won't be fast enough. I believe the only fair one is the consummation tax.  That citizen would receive a check each month for the necessaries and pay tax on every thing.  On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:15 PM, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashleyii@lavabit.com> wrote: 

Abolish The Federal Income Tax http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan188.htm  "The typical taxpayer will pay about $12,500 in income taxes in 2010. Imagine what would happen if the federal government discontinued collecting income taxes this April 15. Imagine if the typical American taxpayer retained, rather than paid to the government, $12,500 each year."  ________________________________ Freedom Is Always Illegal.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft  -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

Not only is Donald Trump a socialist, he is also a bad businessman.

Sounding The Trumpet On RINO Donald Trump
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd499.htm

Donald Trump Sued In New Lawsuit Over Failed Project
http://www.luxist.com/2010/03/09/donald-trump-facing-new-lawsuit-over-failed-project/

Donald Trump: Not As Great A Businessman As He Claims To Be
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/donald-trump-not-as-great-a-businessman-as-he-claims-to-be/

More Lawsuits Filed Over Trump Tower Chicago
http://cribchatter.com/?p=5953

On 04/18/2011 08:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:

Folks:  The following essay contains the first two articles of my New Constitution.  I'm copying it, below, so those looking in the present post can find it.  Hope you readers are having a great Spring!  Can Donald Trump "Fix" the Thin Ice that the USA is skating on?  The contrast is striking between the potential presidential candidacy of The Donald and every other might-be candidate mentioned.  For one thing, if The Donald says he can fix something—like our broke economy— you can damn-well take him seriously!  Some of you may recall that a certain new ice skating rink in New York's Central Park started leaking water and couldn't be used.  That work had been done by three or four labor unions with each one pointing the fingers at the other. After millions of dollars had been wasted on attempted patches, The Donald took over the entire job and had happy skaters out on that ice before long.  Every day when I realize how much labor unions of all kinds are effectively screwing the US economy and preventing our having a really 'free' free enterprise system, I think of The Donald.  He has been able to find considerable success working in the morass of labor unions and government regulations that are found in NYC.  That man THRIVES on being able to get the disparate powers-that-be to get the job done!  Part of the secret is his charisma.  But most of it is because he is a trustworthy man-of-his-word.  He makes sure that all those involved in a project realize just what their responsibilities are, and what they are expected to do if there are any glitches.  In short, The Donald is one of the top businessmen in the country of all time.  His executive experience probably exceeds that of the governors of most states.  Under him people do their jobs and do them well. Just having The Donald as the head man improves the quality of projects, because it's an honor just to be associated with one of his projects!  Obviously, Donald Trump is politically conservative.  But he doesn't owe-his-soul to the Republican Party like most of his would-be rivals do even without realizing that they do.  The USA has been hamstrung trying to avoid looking like a colonialist aggressor every time we 'invade' other nations to help the oppressed. The reason oil fields get set on fire is because those people suppose we are there… just for their oil.  By destroying the oil, they believe we will simply go away.  The blind-leading-the-blind in our government think that the USA has the financial wherewithal to finance long wars, and will have enough wherewithal remaining to rebuild the busted infrastructure of the invaded countries; train the new armies; and care for those "poor" people till they are back on their feet.  All of that is being done like forced charity from the big-hearted American People whose standards of living keep dropping, because of the explosion in the size and the over-control of our government.  If The Donald can get us trillions of dollars worth of oil to repay the American Taxpayers for our sacrifices, I'll vote for him!  Some good news is that Republicans now have trillions of dollars in 'possible' budget cuts that might save this country.  The bad news is that those takes-too-long-to-happen cuts will still leave the never- should-have-been-there-in-the-first-place entitlement programs being run by government.  After the nearly 15 years that I've spent penning and polishing my New Constitution, I have better than average ideas how to fix our government, fast.  The following 5 things aren't written into the New Constitution, but are of fundamental importance:  1.  Get our government out of the entitlement business!  Privatize Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; and Unemployment Insurance, etc. Like the Republicans are now planning to do, protect those now in programs from being hurt who are close to retirement.  But unlike Republicans, once and forever, get the USA out of managing the entitlement business!  If government pulls any of the strings, things will start getting bad again, soon.  2.  Inform China and our other creditors that the USA will not be paying them any interest on their loans.  We will repay the principal, but only when doing so won't jeopardize our recovery.  3.  Bring home 90% of US troops within 90 days.  Leave 10% of the troops in bases around the world to serve as a front guard in case redeployment is necessary.  4.  Stop wasting billions and billions of dollars on political campaigns!  That money is going into the pockets of the media.  Those media rascals salivate over the ad money they generate by "talking up" how 'close' the elections are going to be.  Britt Hume, though a conservative, keeps pumping air into Obama by talking about the money Obama can spend (waste!) to get re elected.  Barack Obama is a cash cow for the media.  That's why no one in the media will call the majority of Democrats CROOKS!  5.  'Fat cats' should stop being wimps!  Government has become no- longer-legal STEALING from the supposed rich to give to the poor.  The Democrats talk about how Republicans are wanting to give tax breaks to the wealthy while denying women medical screenings.  Republicans should be talking about how "Democrats are criminals for seeking stolen benefits for themselves and other criminals!"  Be it known:  1.  The Constitution does NOT allow political parties!  Those are quasi governmental bodies which get to decide who our candidates for public office can be, and decide who "the leaders" in Congress are. Because our country was conceived as a Representative Republic, such fact tacitly mandates that each representative shall have identical power!  Seniority nor party affiliation can give more power to ANYONE!  2.  The US Senate is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL oligarchy of elitists who effectively have been running-the-USA-into-the-ground since the birth of this nation.  Senators aren't determined by having a parity of the population which they each serve.  Though the Senate was begrudgingly included in the 'words' of the Constitution, it has never been within the SPIRIT of the Constitution!  3.  The principle of FAIR representation makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow the State of Iowa to have more "power" in determining who our candidates for President can be.  And by the same general reasoning, it makes the entire primary system UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because the states with earlier-dated primaries always have the most influence in determining who can run.  4.  Political party conventions are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, because those are "governed" by the unsanctioned and UNCONSTITUTIONAL rules of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL political parties!  5.  The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow any individual or group to have more influence on the outcome of an election or referenda than one-person-one vote.  That criminalizes entertainment or media celebrities who use their influence to garner votes for any candidate.  And it makes any group—such as labor unions— who seek more 'power' than could ever be manifested by just their members' votes, criminals.  Labor unions and other unconstitutional group influences, effectively, have been blackmailing candidates by implying… "You vote for 'us' or you won't get elected."  Since the latter is a SUBVERSION of the Constitution that shifts the par of power away from individuals and toward specific groups, the leaders of such groups are guilty of TREASON!  6.  The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to give equal time to discuss any socialist idea!  Since socialism and communism aren't fair, then it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow democrats to represent anyone in Congress!  7.  Because socialism and communism are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, it is similarly UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow a "President", like Barack Obama— who has been masquerading as president—to remain in the White House! And it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for our taxpayer-financed Secret Service to give that socialist-communist bastard protection, when they should be arresting Obama and everyone on his White House staff for TREASON!  8.  The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to allow the US Supreme Court to decide any issue in lieu of citizen-approved legislation!  And it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for any President to nominate justices who share socialist-communist ideals—like both of Barack Obama's nominees do.  9.  The principle of fairness makes it UNCONSTITUTIONAL to continue to use the now-outmoded Electoral College System for determining who our President and Vice President can be.  There shall be ONLY a single, national popular vote tally!  If such had been used in 2008, Hillary Rodham Clinton would now be President.  As it is, she will be fighting- for-her-life for accepting bribes from Obama for "her support" in exchange for… 'vice president' or 'Secretary of State'.  Hillary's glowing endorsement of Obama at that UNCONSTITUTIONAL 2008 Democratic Convention is a big part of the reason we now have an OVERT TRAITOR to the USA residing in the White House!  10.  It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for any state government, such as Arizona, to defer to the rules, regulations, or judicial decisions of our obviously corrupt Federal Government.  The Constitution, both in its spirit and by the 10th Amendment gives states the RIGHT to run things within their borders, when the federal government has obviously run amuck.  That includes arresting Barack Obama for TREASON the next time he bounces down the stairs of Air Force One!  The Donald impressed me when he said he will run as an independent (if not a Republican).  My New Constitution MANDATES that all candidates be disassociated from any political party!  The candidates won't be narrowed-down in UNCONSTITUTIONAL primaries.  Read the following to understand how it will be done:  "Article 1:  Section 1 & 2:  Legislative power shall be vested in the House of Representatives.  Members shall be Citizens at least 25 years old who have been residents of their respective states for 7 or more years and for the entire year prior to election.  Except for military service, a representative shall not have held any full-time public office nor government employment, nor shall he or she be sponsored by a political party.  Representatives' districts shall have clearly defined, regular- shaped geographical boundaries drawn without regard to the race, creed, age, nor political ideology of the residents therein. Boundaries may be redrawn from time to time, but the number of representatives shall not exceed 500.  When vacancies happen in the representation from a state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such.  The House shall choose its speaker and other officers without regard to political affiliation, seniority nor ideology.  With the assent of 33% it can impeach and try impeachment.  With the assent of 67%, it can convict and remove the one tried from office, who is still liable and subject to other lawful indictments, trials, judgments and punishments.      Representatives shall be elected to two year terms by the vote of the People of their districts on the first Tuesday in November of even number years, and shall fairly represent all blocs of their electorate, or face expulsion.   The House shall meet at the same times and for no less than three months, nor more than six months of each year, except that in times of war or internal crisis, such time may be extended on a monthly basis with the assent of 60% of the members.  No House member shall serve more than 10 years in office, but existing representatives with 6 plus years in office may seek one additional two year term beyond the initial two year grace period allowed for all existing House members.  Section 3, 4 & 5:  The House shall judge its members on the appropriateness of their districts' boundaries and population thereof, and shall enumerate and fairly adjudge members' qualifications without discrimination due to sex, race, creed, nor political ideology.  The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a violation.  But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote.  55% attendance is a quorum.  Those present may compel absent members to attend, or penalize non attendance.  Written, audio and video record shall be made of all House proceedings.  Master records shall not be destroyed, and copies shall be made readily available to any Citizen for a nominal fee.      House salaries shall not be increased for the present term. Except for military service, no representative shall hold other civil office nor government job—local, state nor federal—while being a representative, nor hold such office or job during an interim period prior to seeking re election.  Representatives shall not intentionally communicate with any news medium whose coverage area is predominately outside of their home district.  Nor shall they, or any government official, cultivate a media personae, or make petty public speeches, introductions or comments lauding any person, living or dead, nor any civil or private projects or those responsible.  Comments to media by representatives or government employees shall be germane to pending legislation, or to the exercise of their jobs.  The media shall not solicit public officials' opinions over those of the People.  The American Flag shall be red, white, and readily discernable blue.  Only when the President or Secretary of State are addressing the nation or appearing before or receiving foreign dignitaries shall the American Flag, bunting, or flag-color drapes be used as a backdrop.  No other public official nor candidate shall use such.  Flags shall not be displayed in or outside of government buildings other than: public schools, post offices, military bases, memorials, the White House, the Pentagon, and outside of the Capital or other government seats.  Use this public oath: "I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Democracy-on-demand Republic for which it stands.  We're One Nation of individuals who champion fair play, maximum civil liberties, the Right of Self-determination, and having an efficient, unobtrusive and deferential government."  Governments aren't graders of performance, style, art, design, history, nor social significance, and shall make no law, proclamation, stamp or other acclaim recognizing any persons, organizations or events in history. Public officials shall make judgments within their expertise or shall poll unbiased experts, or the Citizens, and defer to the opinions of such.      The federal government's only revenue tax shall be a single item tax of the individual states and territories, in total, not to exceed 15% of the previous year's gross national product.  The tax rate shall be uniform for states in proportion to the total population of each state, but may be adjusted downward for territories, only, if such receive greatly reduced services.   The House authors bills of revenue, but no increase in federal taxes on the states shall be made without 55% of the voters so approving on election day, and no increase beyond 15% of the previous year's gross national product shall be allowed without an amendment to this constitution ratified in a referendum by 75% of the People voting.  Accounting methods for determining gross national product shall be consistent and un tampered- with for any purpose of tax increase.  Government shall function within its means, without an inflationary over-printing of currency. The stated rate of return on government guaranteed bonds, and/or tax exempt bonds, shall always be—at the time of purchase—15% lower than similar non guaranteed, or non tax exempt bonds in the private sector.*  The House shall author bills of appropriation within budget; in addition, the President shall have Line Item Veto power on all such bills, except if overruled by a 60% vote of the House.  12 years from the adoption of this New Constitution, and following a successful two year test in two or more states, taxation in the USA shall be changed to sales tax only—at a maximum conglomerate rate per annum of 35% of the GNP—home food and medicines excluded.*  Section 6, 7 & 8:  The House shall have the power to collect taxes, customs duties and user fees that are due from the states and territories, with the proviso that user fees shall not be applied to major areas of government services so that the total cost of federal government exceeds 15% of the previous year's GNP.  Additionally, the House shall have the power to: regulate commerce with nations, among states, and with Indian tribes; coin money and set the value of such, and of foreign money; set standards for weights and measures; punish counterfeiters; establish uniform rules of naturalization, but specifically excluding destitute persons seeking jobs and benefits at the expense of local, state or federal governments or the Citizens; establish uniform laws on bankruptcies; establish post offices; create tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; punish piracies and felonies committed at sea, and offenses against the laws of nations; declare war and appropriate money for such, but for no longer than two years; grant letters of marquee and reprisal and make rules concerning capture; raise, support and maintain the Army, Navy, Marine Corp., Air Force and Coast Guard, and make laws regulating such, as well as the militias to uphold the laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; provide for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing those parts of the militias employed in the service of the USA—but each state selects its militia officers.      With assent by the apt state legislatures, the House may purchase property for, and have continuous authority over, all needed forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and buildings.  The House determines fair, maximum sentences for federal crimes, and defines and imposes reasonable, uniform sanctions for non criminal violations of federal rules and/or procedures.  The House shall make laws as necessary and proper to execute the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this New Constitution of the United States of America to any department or office thereof.      Unless public safety is jeopardized, the right to writ of habeas corpus prevails.  No law shall favor the ports of one state over another.  Ships going to or from a state shall not be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another.  Laws of appropriation shall precede withdrawal of treasury money, and an accounting report shall be published quarterly.  No office holder, without House assent, shall accept any present, emolument, office or title from any king, prince, person, group or nation.  No state shall: enter into a treaty, alliance, confederation, agreement or compact with another state or nation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money, emit bills of credit, or use anything but gold or silver coins or other legal tender controlled by the USA for the payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor law impairing the obligation of easily understood, non-coerced, signed contracts; grant any title of nobility, nor engage in war unless invaded or in imminent danger of such.  Without House assent no city, county nor state shall lay tariffs, imposts or duties on goods or tonnage transported to or from such, but if apt, nominal inspection fees may be charged.  With House assent the federal government may collect reasonable and prudent tariffs, duties and imposts on international shipments.  No city shall require obtaining a business license before allowing a business— located outside of that city—to transport goods into such city. Except as allowed elsewhere in this constitution, there shall be no taxes, fees, licenses or other payments that are prorated based on income or personal property; nor taxes on the free transfer of estates to rightful heirs and/or assigns.  Without a signed sales order coerced, baited or unsolicited goods are free to the addressee.  Any bank billing such goods shall pay the addressee $25.00 per instance. Persons profiting from scam; confusing promos, advertising or contracts; trickery; high-pressure sales tactics; continuing charges for difficult-to-cancel, no longer desired goods or services; or any other willful dishonesty are committing a felony.  It is a 5 year felony to dictate or authorize—for undeserved gain—the dunning, threatening or extorting of any Citizen.  Banks or businesses that loan or sell on credit shall not discriminate, nor punitively vary charges, interest rates or fees.  Section 9 & 10:  Other than the President or his agents, no person, news medium, organization, group, their envoys, or any lobby, within government or without, shall be allowed to contact representatives while such are in Washington.  However, invited persons or groups can make scheduled depositions provided they don't communicate with the representatives otherwise.  A representative's constituents shall be allowed to contact them for the purpose of influencing their votes only while they are in their home states or districts. Representatives shall regularly contact their district offices or return to their districts to be informed of the wishes of their constituents, and their constituents only, and shall be held accountable for the representativeness of their votes.  The solicitation of Citizen support is permitted, but the targeted solicitation of representatives in any place, by any person, organization, group, or lobby within government or without, is prohibited.  Overt solicitation, feting, or laudatory ceremony, as above, is a felony—defined as any crime requiring a minimum three year prison sentence, but time off for good behavior is allowed.  It is unlawful for representatives to intentionally reveal affiliation with any political party or political activist group, whatsoever, and unlawful for representatives to assemble in such groups, or in pro or con factions, for the purpose of gaining persuasion over any vote. Such restrictions shall not be construed to limit open debate on the floor of the House or in any committees.  At risk of civil action, no person nor group shall use political or pseudo-political labels to classify any candidate or official.  Representatives shall be seated randomly regardless of their voting history and ideology.  Bills shall be sufficiently short in length and focused in subject matter so votes on such can be indicative of the representatives' true positions. Putting unassociated, disparate items into a bill to influence the passage of the whole or its parts is prohibited.  Representatives shall not be polled concerning issues up for a vote, nor shall Citizens be polled prior to any election on their support for any candidate, amendment, or referendum item.  It shall be a felony to take, or to disseminate, the results of any such poll.  But representatives shall poll those law-abiding Citizens within their districts who are most affected by any bill, and defer to the results in voting.  No release of projected election or referenda results shall be made until all polls have been closed one hour.  Votes taken on bills are final.  If there is less than a 55% yea vote, as below, no revoting on a bill, unless first substantially changed, can be taken for two years.  Passed bills that are constitutional become law, but when possible, laws shall be probationary for one year to allow more Citizen input—with no disfavor being shown toward such later input.  Laws shall be revoted and expunged if new information shows such to have been poorly conceived, or contrary to the Will of the People—especially the law-abiding Citizens most affected.  Officials not honoring the latter or acting counter to the will of or not in the best interests of their electorate shall be removed.  Except for elections or referenda, secret ballots shall not be used in governmental nor judicial proceedings, and no part of any official public meeting shall be held in private.      No bill shall become law without at least a 55% affirmative vote.  All laws on the books shall indicate vote of passage.  Laws passing by fewer than 60% of the representatives shall automatically expire every four years, but the House shall vote before such expiration date to determine if such laws are to continue in force. The casting of votes in the House shall be by a means that is simultaneous, representative specific, and secure.  Article II:  Section 1:  Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.  Candidates for President shall be Citizens born in the USA who are at least 35 years of age.  With the exception of the incumbent President and/or VP—if eligible and seeking re election—other candidates shall, within ninety days of the date of filing as a candidate for President, have obtained the endorsement of a min. of 25,000 confirmed registered voters knowledgeable of such candidate's qualifications.  The 3rd Tuesday in July, voters of all the states and territories shall reduce the field of presidential candidates to 8, with the incumbent Pres. & VP to be included in such number, if applicable.  The 3rd Tuesday in October, voters shall reduce the field to four, with the incumbent Pres. and VP not automatically included.  The 1st Tuesday in November, each voter selects their 1st & 2nd choices—points 4 and 3 respectively.  The President and Vice President Elect receive the highest the 2nd highest total points.      If a President is removed from office, resigns, dies, or is unable to discharge the required powers and duties, the Vice President becomes President.  Then, the new President nominates a V. Pres. who, with 55% House ascent, takes office.  A President unable to discharge the required powers and duties shall notify the House Speaker in writing that the Vice President is the Acting President for up to four days, at which time—if the House concurs by a 60% vote—the Acting Pres. becomes President in 21 days, unless during such time the President has regained capacity to perform his duties.  The Order of Succession to the Presidency is: V. Pres.; Sec. of State; then, in descending order, the most senior House member who had a career in the military.  A President's salary—their only pay from the states or the USA—shall not be changed for that term.  The President's oath of office: "I solemnly affirm that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, respect, uphold and defend the New Constitution of the United States of America."  Section 2 & 3:  The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard, and of the militia of the several states when such is called into the actual service of the United States.  He may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments on any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of treason.  He shall have the power to make treaties, provided 60% of the House concurs.  He shall nominate ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, justices of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the USA whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law, but the House may by law vest the appointment of such inferior offices as they may think proper, to the President alone, to the courts of law, or to the heads of departments.  The President can fill vacancies that occur during House recess, by commissions that expire at the end of their next session.      The President shall give the House information on the state of the Union, and propose measures that he judges prudent.  He may convene and adjourn the House when he thinks proper.  He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; take care that laws are faithfully executed; and commission all officers of the USA.  Section 4:  The President, Vice Pres., representatives, and civil officers of the USA shall be fired if they are convicted of a high crime or felony, or if they willfully violate any provision of this constitution.  Such person shall never again hold public office.  It is a felony for any of the latter to use public services, departments or resources for their personal purposes above what any Citizen can use.  No representative shall be transported nor boarded at public expense without House assent.  It is a felony to give or receive money, gifts, travel or board germane to an issue presently up for vote in the House, or knowingly, which might be voted on in the foreseeable future; or for a government official to defend unlawful acts that they or anyone they know has committed or expects to commit by targeting any Citizen or group for an investigation or suspicion of wrongdoing, or by denying to any Citizen(s) full civil and constitutional rights.  Law enforcement and the judiciary shall not favor wrongdoers—within government or without—over a plaintiff or Citizen seeking justice, and shall keep the latter up-to-date on an investigation's progress.  The former have no authority to act in the support of wrongdoing or corruption in government and shall suspicion such requests by anyone in government at personal risk of a similar penalty.  It shall be a felony for any government official, celebrity or media idol—past or present—to publicly endorse or campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job.   Exhibiting ideological bias in a government job terminates the employment. Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the transportation of voters to the polls."  *** Folks, the MAJORITY of what is being done by our government in Washington is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, according to the Ideals of the Founding Fathers!  Over the past 14 years—with every sentence that I wrote—I asked myself: "What would the Founding Fathers think about what I'm doing?"  Each time I did, I could sense the applause and smiling faces!  This one sentence summarizes the SPIRIT of both the original Constitution and my New Constitution: "Fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA!"  Long shall the USA survive and prosper!   Respectfully submitted,   — John A. Armistead — Patriot  AKA NoEinstein on Google's sci.physics news group.  Those who are interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."  Such is available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble.  On Apr 15, 10:21 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote: 

Stay tuned, People!  Tomorrow I will write you another essay explaining why the "ritual" of most of our political-governmental processes are either unconstitutional, wasteful of economic resources, or otherwise stupid.  —  John A. Armistead —  Patriot  On Apr 14, 10:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:        

Like me, the readers must be busy with spring buying and fix-up.  The present discussions will affect the fortunes and the liberty (happiness) of your grandchildren.  There won't be any more fortunes and little liberty if the US economy goes down-the-tubes.  By adapting my New Constitution, the survival of the USA will be assured!  — John A. Armistead —  Patriot 

Those interested are invited to read my book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity" (Amazon and B. & N.).  I'm thrilled that the word 'prosperity' is being mentioned more and more as a cure for our ailing economy (Capitalism over socialism).  That book explains the 'build-up' to my writing the New Constitution.  Simple things can turn this country around!  And none of them involving conducting... business-as-usual in Washington!  Trust me, Folks!  I know what I am doing.  99.5% of those in Washington are clueless! 

On Apr 11, 2:36 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote: 

Mark:  If you could, and would, read my document with an open mind, there is nothing injurious to ordinary citizens.  Stalin didn't give a damn about ordinary citizens (or soldiers).  He killed them by the millions.  Are you saying that my New Constitution will harm ordinary citizens?  Ha, ha, HA!  Then you can't read, for sure!  — J. A. A. — 

On Apr 10, 7:25 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: 

I prefer to call it what it is.... Stalinesque. 

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Jonathan Ashley < 

jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

 John, 

So you are trying to eliminate celebrities who have an opinion that differs from yours. How fascist of you! 

On 04/10/2011 01:53 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 

No, Jonathan!  Celebrities in the media and in entertainment simply can't voice their opinions or political preferences in any MEDIUM. The man-on-the-street doesn't get hours a week to talk about how great Barack Obama is, the way Oprah Winfrey did.  Barbara Walters, a celebrity, made no bones about the fact she supported Barack Obama. What in our "Constitution" gives high-paid celebrities the right to have more influence on the outcome of elections than the man on the street?  As soon as Jay Leno or David Letterman make one joke about a candidate for public office, they will immediately be fired or their network closed.  Politics is NOT about entertainment, nor is it a game with 24-7 play-by-play coverage with commentary and prove-nothing polls.  Those who would like our government to be run the way the People say, rather than the way those who publicly endorse a candidate say, should rally behind my New Constitution—a document for the people!  —  J. A. A. — 

  On Apr 9, 1:01 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

 John, 

You have once again shown that you have no interest in freedom, but instead want to dictate what others can and cannot do. 

That you believe celebrities should have less right to voice their opinions smacks of fascism. Or am I misinterpreting what you mean when you state, "Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a 'following' which would be cesseptable (sic) to vote like the celebrities vote. The (sic) means celebrities would have more influence at the poles (sic) than the man-on-the-street (sic).  Of course, that shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and democracy." 

Please explain to the world what "principles of fair play" means and why someone who is a celebrity will not be allowed to "play" in your world. 

And, John, you'd better do it fast. I think your time on this forum is about up. 

On 04/08/2011 09:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote: 

 Jonathan:  Entertainment celebrities, like media celebrities, have a "following" which would be cesseptable to vote like the celebrities vote.  The means celebrities would have more influence at the poles than the man-on-the-street.  Of course, that shift of power runs counter to principles of fair play and democracy.  The 1st Amendment says: "... the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium".  Having a pro-democracy press means that no one like Mark is allowed to push socialism nor communism. His threatening me because I correctly peg him as anti-America, would shut down Google, if Google didn't FIRE Mark, post haste!  ï¿½ J. A. A. � 

 -- 

      Freedom Is Always Illegal. 

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

-- Freedom Is Always Illegal. 

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum 

* Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. 

-- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * * * 

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Abolish The Federal Income Tax

Then there is no time to waste.

On 04/19/2011 06:05 AM, GregfromBoston wrote:

Repealing amendments is hard  

--

Freedom Is Always Illegal.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
By Paul Bignell
Tuesday, 19 April 2011

Plans to exploit Iraq's oil reserves were discussed by government ministers and the world's largest oil companies the year before Britain took a leading role in invading Iraq, government documents show.

The papers, revealed here for the first time, raise new questions over Britain's involvement in the war, which had divided Tony Blair's cabinet and was voted through only after his claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

The minutes of a series of meetings between ministers and senior oil executives are at odds with the public denials of self-interest from oil companies and Western governments at the time.

The documents were not offered as evidence in the ongoing Chilcot Inquiry into the UK's involvement in the Iraq war. In March 2003, just before Britain went to war, Shell denounced reports that it had held talks with Downing Street about Iraqi oil as "highly inaccurate". BP denied that it had any "strategic interest" in Iraq, while Tony Blair described "the oil conspiracy theory" as "the most absurd".

But documents from October and November the previous year paint a very different picture.

Five months before the March 2003 invasion, Baroness Symons, then the Trade Minister, told BP that the Government believed British energy firms should be given a share of Iraq's enormous oil and gas reserves as a reward for Tony Blair's military commitment to US plans for regime change.

The papers show that Lady Symons agreed to lobby the Bush administration on BP's behalf because the oil giant feared it was being "locked out" of deals that Washington was quietly striking with US, French and Russian governments and their energy firms.

Minutes of a meeting with BP, Shell and BG (formerly British Gas) on 31 October 2002 read: "Baroness Symons agreed that it would be difficult to justify British companies losing out in Iraq in that way if the UK had itself been a conspicuous supporter of the US government throughout the crisis."

The minister then promised to "report back to the companies before Christmas" on her lobbying efforts.

The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq "post regime change". Its minutes state: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity."

After another meeting, this one in October 2002, the Foreign Office's Middle East director at the time, Edward Chaplin, noted: "Shell and BP could not afford not to have a stake in [Iraq] for the sake of their long-term future... We were determined to get a fair slice of the action for UK companies in a post-Saddam Iraq."

Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had "no strategic interest" in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was "more important than anything we've seen for a long time".

BP was concerned that if Washington allowed TotalFinaElf's existing contact with Saddam Hussein to stand after the invasion it would make the French conglomerate the world's leading oil company. BP told the Government it was willing to take "big risks" to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.

Over 1,000 documents were obtained under Freedom of Information over five years by the oil campaigner Greg Muttitt. They reveal that at least five meetings were held between civil servants, ministers and BP and Shell in late 2002.

The 20-year contracts signed in the wake of the invasion were the largest in the history of the oil industry. They covered half of Iraq's reserves – 60 billion barrels of oil, bought up by companies such as BP and CNPC (China National Petroleum Company), whose joint consortium alone stands to make £403m ($658m) profit per year from the Rumaila field in southern Iraq.

Last week, Iraq raised its oil output to the highest level for almost decade, 2.7 million barrels a day – seen as especially important at the moment given the regional volatility and loss of Libyan output. Many opponents of the war suspected that one of Washington's main ambitions in invading Iraq was to secure a cheap and plentiful source of oil.

Mr Muttitt, whose book Fuel on Fire is published next week, said: "Before the war, the Government went to great lengths to insist it had no interest in Iraq's oil. These documents provide the evidence that give the lie to those claims.

"We see that oil was in fact one of the Government's most important strategic considerations, and it secretly colluded with oil companies to give them access to that huge prize."

Lady Symons, 59, later took up an advisory post with a UK merchant bank that cashed in on post-war Iraq reconstruction contracts. Last month she severed links as an unpaid adviser to Libya's National Economic Development Board after Colonel Gaddafi started firing on protesters. Last night, BP and Shell declined to comment.

Not about oil? what they said before the invasion

* Foreign Office memorandum, 13 November 2002, following meeting with BP: "Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP are desperate to get in there and anxious that political deals should not deny them the opportunity to compete. The long-term potential is enormous..."

* Tony Blair, 6 February 2003: "Let me just deal with the oil thing because... the oil conspiracy theory is honestly one of the most absurd when you analyse it. The fact is that, if the oil that Iraq has were our concern, I mean we could probably cut a deal with Saddam tomorrow in relation to the oil. It's not the oil that is the issue, it is the weapons..."

* BP, 12 March 2003: "We have no strategic interest in Iraq. If whoever comes to power wants Western involvement post the war, if there is a war, all we have ever said is that it should be on a level playing field. We are certainly not pushing for involvement."

* Lord Browne, the then-BP chief executive, 12 March 2003: "It is not in my or BP's opinion, a war about oil. Iraq is an important producer, but it must decide what to do with its patrimony and oil."

* Shell, 12 March 2003, said reports that it had discussed oil opportunities with Downing Street were 'highly inaccurate', adding: "We have neither sought nor attended meetings with officials in the UK Government on the subject of Iraq. The subject has only come up during conversations during normal meetings we attend from time to time with officials... We have never asked for 'contracts'."


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html