• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget
0


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cowboy J <>
Date: Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Subject: [ronpaul-132] Libertarian Party Convention
To: ronpaul-132@meetup.com


All,

I will speaking at the Libertarian Party State Convention this Saturday. Admission is free. I bring this to your attention because it is a good experience to learn how Robert's Rules are used in a convention environment and, as we move forward with our Liberty movement strategy here in Delaware, the Libertarian Party will be strong allies for many elections. It's always good to network with friends and build coalitions.


Cowboy J




--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-132@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Cowboy J (ericrboye@yahoo.com) from Delaware for Ron Paul 2012.
To learn more about Cowboy J, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com

--
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.
This should have the GOP Faithful wholly livid and outraged ....

"Taking over the Republican Party is like trying to take over the Gambino Family. In Nevada, the mob known as the RNC is joining with the Romney Family to set up a new party to bypass the Paulians. The establishment group will be seated in Tampa. It's like the 1952 convention, when Eisenhower stole the nomination from Taft by tossing out Taft delegations, under the aegis of Earl Warren, and seating Ike establishmentarians instead. Warren was rewarded with the chief justiceship of the Supremes, and wreaked huge harm. The Republican party can never be trusted. It is, after all, an adjunct of the federal government." -- LHR, Jr.

RNC, Romney campaign will erect new organization to bypass state GOP
By Jon Ralston
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 | 2:41 p.m.

UPDATE: Late yesterday, GOP Chairman Michael McDonald, trying to slow down any move to make the party irrelevant, worked with the RNC and released a statement designed to undercut the Clark County party's call for Reince Priebus' resignation and indicate to DC that he is willing to play ball:

"The Chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus has the authority to take the necessary steps to support a candidate to ensure Republicans win the presidency in November. RNC Rule 11 applies to the RNC's ability to make endorsements and spend resources in state races and may have been misinterpreted by some in Nevada in its application to the presidential election. Ron Paul's campaign released a statement on May 5 providing Chairman Priebus and the RNC their "full consent" to move forward with setting up Victory organizations. Certainly we do not need to wait for Tampa before assisting our presumptive nominee. I look forward to working with Chairman Priebus and Republicans across the state of Nevada as we build a top-notch ground game to beat Barack Obama and elect Mitt Romney to the White House."

In concert, Sean Spicer, the communications director of the RNC, told me: "The RNC continues to work with the state party."

To some extent this merely heads off the inevitable because nobody here on the ground -- from the RNC, from the Romney campaign, from the Dean Heller campaign, from the Joe Heck campaign -- is likely to trust the party with any real money. But can McDonald slow down the move to erect the outside entity for a bit -- at least before something else goofy happens out here? Perhaps. After all, if he can persuade the City Council to give him $4 million for a project even though he's not a developer, maybe he can sell the DC and Boston folks that he really can run a viable state party.

Fed up with an inept and self-destructive GOP apparatus in Nevada, the Republican National Committee and the Mitt Romney campaign have decided to erect a "shadow state party" in this critical swing state, sources confirmed today.

"They are still bogged down in the minutiae of whether Romney will be the presumptive nominee," scoffed a GOP strategist familiar with the details of the restructuring. "We don't have time for that when the Obama campaign already is in full campaign mode. We have no use for them (the state GOP)."

The lack of faith in the Republican Party here intensified with the botched February caucus, metastasized after the Ron Paul takeover in Sparks and reached its zenith with Tuesday evening's call for RNC Chairman Reince Priebus to resign by a divided Clark County GOP

Priebus was described to me as "disappointed with the censuring," which probably means his blood pressure went high enough to give an elephant a stroke. So Priebus, in concert with the Romney folks here, have decided to turn the so-called Team Nevada office on Tropicana into the de facto Republican Party.

"The goal is for us to be running get out the vote, running phone programs, voter ID, voter contact, everything through the Team Nevada headquarters," the strategist told me. That is, everything the party is supposed to do, except the GOP here can't raise money and has the inmates running the asylum.

He continued: "The RNC has said it is willing to do everything possible as the state party appears not to be willing to work with us, so we will do it without them."

The plan would be to transfer money directly to Team Nevada and/or funnel some through the Washoe Republican Party, run by the respected Dave Buell, who is well-liked by the RNC and Romney folks.

To distill, the GOP insider said, "Essentially we're setting up a shadow state party."

And it will surely cast a long shadow over a state GOP that is trying to oust its executive director, David Gallagher, a political pro, while other staff departures seem likely as the Paul folks complete their coup. Even soon-to-be-former RNC Committeeman Bob List called the state GOP "dysfunctional" during an appearance today on NPR's "Talk of the Nation," although the former governor also blamed the Romney campaign for resting on its caucus win laurels and allowing the Paul revolution to occur.

But List is likely not to factor into these plans, which will feature full integration, as is occurring nationally, between the RNC and Romney. It's also likely that after the June 12 primary clears the filed, the Rep. Joe Heck and Sen. Dean Heller campaigns will get on board.

This move has been inevitable and essential for some time for the RNC and Team Romney to combat a formidable Democratic machine. They won't be able to do everything the Democrats can do, but separating themselves from the imploding and embarrassing party structure is a good first step.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2012/may/16/rnc-romney-campaigns-will-erect-new-organization-b/







 

 

This photo was taken at La Bastille Plaza in Paris, during the election celebration for the comrade socialist president Hollande.  See any French flags? Anywhere? Actually, there is ONE towards the bottom right.  The other flags are in order of appurtenance, Palestinian (2 flags top right+1 center left), Algerian, Turkish (towards center), Syrian (towards left of pic + below Palestinian flag), Moroccan (w. star in center), and European Union flag. The other flags I can't recognize, there are also Syndicates or Unions' flags.  That's France in a nutshell.

Also please read below the picture from a French citizen. 

This e-mail was sent from a friend in France - Maxime Lépante, through Stuart Kaufman

 

Hello to my American friends,

 

As you know, the Socialist François Hollande won the presidential elections in France, last Sunday.  It is a catastrophe for France.

 

Hollande was elected by the Muslims:

 

A survey (of 10,000 Muslims) shows that 93% of the Muslims voted for him.

 

As 2 million Muslims participated in this election, Hollande got 1,720,000 Muslim votes more than Sarkozy did: (0.93-0.07) x 2,000,000 = 1,720,000. But at the end, from the entire population, he got only 1,139,316 votes more than Sarkozy.  So, without the Muslims' votes, Sarkozy would have been re-elected.

 

All the Muslim criminals feel now empowered.  Criminality is already on the rise (1,700 cars were burnt in France for the first night). Muslims are screaming anti-French and anti-Jews watchwords in our streets.

 

Veiled women, wearing the illegal burqa, are strolling in our streets.

 

And, as if this wasn't enough, Hollande wants to give to all the foreigners the right to vote in our elections!!

France will face a very hard situation. We are heading for civil war in a few years.

 

That's the last news from occupied France.

 

Maxime Lépante.

 

Stuart Kaufman

Sent from my iPad

 

 



 


--
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.
0





 

--
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.
 






 

Anonymous: We Have Access to Every Secret Government Database

Anonymous has been meek and quiet since the great Sabu treachery, failing to even threaten much of anything. But in a new interview, one of the group's last remaining leaders says Anon has a nuclear card up its sleeve.

Christopher "Commander X" Doyon, whose name is public because he's been busted for hacking a California government website, sat for an interview with the National Post. The exchange circles mostly around Doyon's exile in Canada, where he's hoping to dodge the wrath of American feds. But he ends on one particularly ominous and/or laughable note:

Q. What's next for Anonymous?
A: Right now we have access to every classified database in the U.S. government. It's a matter of when we leak the contents of those databases, not if. You know how we got access? We didn't hack them. The access was given to us by the people who run the systems.

On the face of it, this is an absurd claim. "Every classified database in the U.S. government" is an outrageously ambitious catch, almost surely too vast to be possible—did someone from literally every government agency sell out to Anonymous? All of them? Even one cache would be a huge feat—see Cablegate—but all of them? It reeks of a tall tale, particularly from an organization with a serious credibility problem (remember when they said they were going to end Mexican drug cartels? Right).

But Doyon's lesser point, that the next great Anonymous coup would be an inside job, is entirely plausible:

The five-star general (and) the Secretary of Defence who sit in the cushy plush offices at the top of the Pentagon don't run anything anymore. It's the pimply-faced kid in the basement who controls the whole game, and Bradley Manning proved that.

Commander X is right: it's amazingly easy for anyone with access to powerful data to spread that data around. So while Anon likely isn't sitting on the collective knowledge of every secret filing cabinet in the United States government, they could have their mitts on some of them. And that alone still makes them dangerous as hell. [National Post]

 


--
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.


Another detail that has come out in the local reports. Zimmerman's
grandfather was black. That's exactly right. That has also surfaced. I
wonder how long all of this stuff has been known by our friends in the
Drive-By Media? George Zimmerman has more black in him than Elizabeth
Warren has Indian. Exactly right. George Zimmerman's grandfather was
black. Now, I had never heard that before, but assuming that that's
true, George Zimmerman is a heck of a lot more black than Elizabeth
Warren is Indian, exactly as you stated, Mr. Snerdley. (interruption)
You have a question? Yeah, he's a black-white Hispanic. In fact, given
our current culture and the president, the way he weighs in on things,
I have the perfect way now to describe George Zimmerman. If all this
is true, and just going by the photos that we've seen of Zimmerman,
I'd almost have to say that if Obama had another son, he would look a
hell of a lot like George Zimmerman.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/16/why_the_left_dropped_the_trayvon_story

--
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.

May17th
Renounce Your Citizenship? We'll Tax You, Then Keep You Out
Tom Woods

From ABC.com:

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again….
At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the "Ex-PATRIOT" – "Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy"….
The senators will call Saverin's move an "outrage" and will outline their plan to re-impose taxes on expatriates like Saverin even after they flee the United States and take up residence in a foreign country. Their proposal would also impose a mandatory 30 percent tax on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.
The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.

As Peter Schiff said on the radio with me today, among other things this legislation will encourage the wealthy contemplating leaving to leave right away, before increasingly draconian restrictions like these and others to come are imposed.

Read " Senators to Unveil the 'Ex-Patriot Act' to Respond to Facebook's Saverin's Tax 'Scheme.'"

http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/renounce-your-citizenship-well-tax-you-then-keep-you-out/
0
"Although the war on drugs is a war on a victimless crime that is not sanctioned by the Constitution, has ruined countless lives, has cost untold billions, and is a failure in every respect, it continues unabated, full-steam ahead. It will not even be an issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections."

The War on Drugs: Cui Bono?
by Laurence M. Vance, May 17, 2012

Cui bono, a maxim of Cassius quoted by Cicero meaning "who benefits?" or "to whose advantage?" is a useful principle when investigating political assassinations, conspiracy theories, mysterious deaths ­ and the war on drugs.

The war on drugs, which actually began in the United States before World War I with the passage of a series of federal anti-narcotics laws, was officially declared by Richard Nixon in 1971. It was expanded by Ronald Reagan and the "Just Say No" campaign of the 1980s, reached ridiculous heights under George W. Bush's Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005, and continues in 2012 under Barack Obama and his crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries.

Although the war on drugs is a war on a victimless crime that is not sanctioned by the Constitution, has ruined countless lives, has cost untold billions, and is a failure in every respect, it continues unabated, full-steam ahead. It will not even be an issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

True, medical marijuana is now legal in sixteen states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia, and there is legislation to that effect pending in a dozen more, but drug warriors have hardly noticed.

I see four reasons why.

First, marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance. The federal government still considers growing, distributing, or possessing marijuana in any capacity to be a violation of federal law regardless of any state laws to the contrary.

Second, states that have to some degree legalized marijuana for medical use all have numerous restrictions, rules, and regulations regarding the prescribing, possession, growing, buying, and selling of marijuana. In addition, there are fees to pay, paperwork to fill out, fingerprints to be taken, cards to be issued, dispensaries to be inspected, and background checks to be done.

Third, the use of marijuana ­ for medical reasons or not ­ is still viewed very negatively. And of course, the use of drugs such as cocaine, LSD, and heroin is disparaged even more.

Fourth, there is almost universal support for the drug war among Democrats, Republicans, Catholics, Protestants, police, preachers, physicians, and housewives; that is, among the vast majority of Americans. The only two major groups who think the contrary are libertarians and college students. There is only one member of Congress that I know of who has absolutely and consistently opposed the drug war ­ Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).

There is no logical or sane reason that a policy like the war on drugs that is so blatantly unconstitutional, that is such a miserable failure, that has so eroded civil liberties, that has so destroyed financial privacy, and that has fostered so much violence should be supported by so many people.

Some people support the drug war because they view getting high on drugs as immoral. Others favor prohibition because they consider narcotics to be addictive. Still others focus on the dangers of ingesting illegal drugs. They are all, of course, inconsistent, since they rarely call for outright bans on alcohol, tobacco, or bungee jumping.

But there are other groups of people who support the drug war for reasons totally unrelated to whether illegal drug use is immoral, addictive, or dangerous. Persons in these groups may even think that taking drugs is all of those things and more, and believe that most drugs should be banned, but that is not the main reason that they support the drug war.

Some people support the war on drugs because they have something to gain from it. They are advantaged in some way by it.

The first group who benefits from the war on drugs is drug dealers. They may not use drugs themselves, but they know a good investment when they see it. The reason that the price of some drugs is so astronomical is that drugs are illegal. The penalties for drug smuggling are severe, the risks to life and limb are great, but the potential profits are incredible. Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, the head of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, recently said that he owed his fortune to the U.S. war on drugs:

I couldn't have gotten so stinking rich without George Bush, George Bush Jr., Ronald Regan and even El Presidente Obama, none of them have the cojones to stand up to all of the big money that wants to keep this stuff illegal. From the bottom of my heart, I want to say "Gracias Amigos" I owe my whole empire to you.

The second group who benefits from the war on drugs is alcohol distributors. Illicit drugs are a threat to their sales of beer, wine, and spirits. Purveyors of alcohol are afraid that people might substitute smoking marijuana at home while watching the playoffs for drinking beer at the local sports bar. In 2010, a ballot initiative in California called Proposition 19, the Regulate, Control & Tax Cannabis Act, would have made it legal for individuals to possess a maximum of one ounce of marijuana and for authorized retailers to sell it to those 21 and older. Although the initiative was defeated, it is interesting that the California Beer & Beverage Distributors spent money in the state to oppose the initiative.

The third group who benefits from the war on drugs is the prison industry, including private prison corporations. One of the most evil things about the war on drugs is that it has unnecessarily swelled the prison population. More than half of the federal prison population and about 20 percent of the state prison population are imprisoned because of the drug war. In 2008, California prison guards spent more than a million dollars to defeat a proposition that would have sent some nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than to prison. The California Correctional Supervisors Organization gave $7,500 toward defeating Proposition 19.

The fourth group who benefits from the war on drugs is law enforcement. Another evil thing about the war on drugs is that it makes criminals out of too many otherwise law-abiding Americans. According to the FBI's latest report, " Crime in the United States," more than 1.6 million Americans were arrested on drug charges in 2010, with almost half of those arrests just for marijuana possession. How fewer and smaller law-enforcement agencies would be without the war on drugs. Oh, and the California Narcotics Officers' Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Peace Officers Association, and the California District Attorney Association all contributed toward defeating Proposition 19. (A growing exception to law-enforcement support of the drug war is the organization Law Enforcement against Prohibition (LEAP), an international association of criminal-justice professionals who favor a repeal of drug-prohibition laws.)

The fifth group who benefits from the war on drugs is the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA made almost 31,000 arrests last year. It has 10,000 employees in 226 offices organized in 21 divisions throughout the United States and 83 foreign offices in 63 countries around the world. The DEA even employs 300 chemists and 124 pilots. These government parasites owe everything they do to the war on drugs. And don't forget the state DEA parasites.

And then there are physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, state and federal prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the CIA and the FBI, the drug-testing and addiction-recovery industries, and any group receiving federal funds for anti-drug campaigns.

Cui bono?

More individual persons and organizations than you might think.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1205n.asp
0

Thursday, May 17, 2012
Torture and the Innocent
by Jacob G. Hornberger

One of the main arguments made by pro-torture Americans is that the information acquired by torture can lead to important information that can save the lives of innocent people. Their argument is a classic example of the old maxim, "The end justifies the means."

But even if we were to accept that utilitarian argument for torture, doesn't it necessarily involve an important assumption? Doesn't it assume that the person being tortured is guilty of the suspected offense or possesses the important information that is sought from him?

It seems that the pro-torture crowd never considers the discomforting possibility that the person being torture is innocent and has no relevant information to divulge at all?

What happens if a suspect tells the torturer that he is innocent and doesn't have the information the torturer is seeking?

One possibility is that the torturer will say, "Well, I believe you. I'm not going to torture you. I'm going to go ahead and release you."

That outcome, however, is highly unlikely, especially since many people who are guilty of the offense or who do possess the information that is being sought, initially deny culpability.

It's much more likely that the torturer is going to reject the suspect's claim of innocence and begin torturing him. The torturer's mindset is that the suspect wouldn't be there being tortured if he were truly innocent. After all, the torturer feels, the military and the CIA would never bring innocent people to be tortured.

During the first few bouts of torture, the innocent person will continue to claim he's innocent. But to the torturer, that will simply mean that the torture hasn't been tough enough. He'll ramp up the torture to make the person talk.

So, how long does this go on? It could actually go on for a long time. One inmate currently at Guantanamo was waterboarded 83 times. Was that because the torturer felt that the victim wasn't forthcoming after 82 times? How many times would he waterboard a person who turned out to be totally innocent ­ 183 times? 283 times? When would he stop? Would he stop?

Could the government, including the military and the CIA, make a mistake by targeting an innocent person for torture? Of course. How often do we hear about government officials executing people for crimes they didn't commit?

The solution to this problem is not to get better screeners before torturing people or even to have a system of pre-torture judicial review, where judges issue torture warrants based on probable cause, as some in the pro-torture crowd advocate.

The solution is to reject the "end justifies the means" mindset. Moral principles are immutable. We need to prohibit torture under all circumstances. Hopefully, even the pro-torture crowd would not countenance things like rape or murder of a suspect's family members, even if those means were successful in inducing people to confess or talk. It should be no different with torture.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2012-05-17.asp
0

Five Pillars of Economic Freedom
Jeffrey Tucker · May 17, 2012

The great debate between capitalism and socialism suffers from a lack of clarity about definitions. This is why when Walter Block lectured in Brazil this past week, he was very careful to distinguish between crony capitalism and authentic capitalism. And it's why when I was interviewed, the question came up immediately: What precisely do you mean by capitalism?

Every day, for example, we read how the European economic mess is a "crisis of capitalism." Huh? It's been more than a century since governments let these economies grow on their own without bludgeoning them with regulations, taxing and looting the public, littering financial systems with fake money, cartelizing producers, shoveling welfare benefits, funding gigantic public works and the like.

Some advocates of market liberty believe that the term "capitalism" should be jettisoned permanently because it causes confusion. People might think that you favor using the state to back capital against labor, using public policy in a way that supports prominent producers over consumers or pushing political priorities that advance business over labor.

If a term elucidates an idea with accuracy, great. If it causes confusion, change it. Language is constantly evolving. No particular arrangement of letters embeds an immutable meaning. And what is at stake in this debate about market freedom (or capitalism or laissez-faire or the free market) is a substance of profound importance.

It's the substance, not the words, we should care about. Civilization really does hang in the balance.

Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn't just about economics but the whole of life itself.

Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society. These choices extend to every sector and every individual. You can choose your work. No one can force you. At the same time, you can't force yourself on any employer. No one can force you to buy anything, either, but neither can you force someone to sell to you.

This right of choice recognizes the infinite diversity within the human family (whereas state policy has to assume people are interchangeable units). Some people feel a calling to live lives of prayer and contemplation in a community of religious believers. Others have a talent for managing high-risk hedge funds. Others favor the arts or accounting, or any profession or calling that you can imagine. Whatever it is, you can do it, provided it is pursued peacefully.

You are the chooser, but in your relations with others, "agreement" is the watchword. This implies maximum freedom for everyone in society. It also implies a maximum role for what are called "civil liberties." It means freedom of speech, freedom to consume, freedom to buy and sell, freedom to advertise and so on. No one set of choices is legally privileged over others.

Ownership. In a world of infinite abundance, there would be no need for ownership. But so long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources ­ without exception ­ need private owners.

Everyone can use his or her property in any way that is peaceful. There are no accumulation mandates or limits on accumulation. Society cannot declare anyone too rich, nor prohibit voluntary aestheticism by declaring anyone too poor. At no point can anyone take what is yours without your permission. You can reassign ownership rights to heirs after you die.

Socialism is not really an option in the material world. There can be no collective ownership of anything materially scarce. One or another faction will assert control in the name of society. Inevitably, the faction will be the most-powerful society ­ that is, the state. This is why all attempts to create socialism in scarce goods or services devolve into totalitarian systems.

Cooperation. Volition and ownership grant the right to anyone to live in a state of pure autarky. On the other hand, that won't get you very far. You will be poor, and your life will be short. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial and religious. The lives of each of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.

In a society based on volition, ownership and cooperation, networks of human association develop across time and space to create the complexities of the social and economic order. No one is the master of anyone else. If we want to succeed in life, we come to value serving each other in the best way we can. Businesses serve consumers. Managers serve employees just as employees serve businesses.

A free society is a society of extended friendship. It is a society of service and benevolence.

Learning. No one is born into this world knowing much of anything. We learn from our parents and teachers, but more importantly, we learn from the infinite bits of information that come to us every instant of the day all throughout our lives. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas and extract information from any source and adapt it to our own uses.

All of the information we come across in our lives, provided it is obtained noncoercively, is a free good, not subject to the limits of scarcity because it is infinitely copyable. You can own it and I can own it and everyone can own it without limit.

Here we find the "socialist" side of the capitalist system. The recipes for success and failure are everywhere and available to use for the taking. This is why the very notion of "intellectual property" is inimical to freedom: It always implies coercing people and thereby violating the principles of volition, authentic ownership and cooperation.

Competition. When people think of capitalism, competition is perhaps that first idea that comes to mind. But the idea is widely misunderstood. It doesn't mean that there must be several suppliers of every good or service, or that there must be a set number of producers of anything. It means only that there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other. And there really are infinite numbers of ways in which this can take place.

In sports, competition has a goal: to win. Competition has a goal in the market economy, too: service to the consumer through ever increasing degrees of excellence. This excellence can come from providing better and cheaper products or services or providing new innovations that meet people's needs better than existing products or services. It doesn't mean "killing" the competition; it means striving to do a better job than anyone else.

Every competitive act is a risk, a leap into an unknown future. Whether the judgment was right or wrong is ratified by the system of profit and loss, signals that serve as objective measures of whether resources are being used wisely or not. These signals are derived from prices that are established freely on the market ­ which is to say that they reflect prior agreements among choosing individuals.

Unlike sports, there is no end point to the competition. It is a process that never ends. There is no final winner; there is an ongoing rotation of excellence among the players. And anyone can join the game, provided they go about it peacefully.

Summary. There we have it: volition, ownership, cooperation, learning and competition. That's capitalism as I understand it, as described in the classical liberal tradition improved by the Austrian social theorists of the 20th century. It is not a system so much as a social setting for all times and places that favor human flourishing.

It's not hard to discern my political outlook then: If it fits with these pillars, I'm for it; if it does not, I'm against it. Now, you tell me: Is the European crisis, or the U.S.' own, really a crisis of capitalism? On the contrary, an authentic capitalism is the answer to the biggest problems in the world today.

http://lfb.org/today/five-pillars-of-economic-freedom/
0




 

--
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.

Wall Street Editorial Page: If the Government Claims You are a Terrorist, then You ARE a Terrorist
Posted by Bill Anderson on May 17, 2012 06:12 AM

The "War on Terror" has become a sickness. Abroad, the U.S. Armed Forces either commit acts of war in small, defenseless countries or they are engaged in dirty wars of occupation, as we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Drone strikes kill innocents and now the government has decided that Americans are so evil that they, too, need to feel the full force of the drone.

Cheering on every lie and abuse has been the neocon (emphasis on "con") Wall Street Journal editorial page and today we see the Journal's viewpoint in all its evil: the government should not have to face any restrictions at all when it comes to pursuing what it calls "terrorists." On top of that, the Journal goes on to lambast those few "Tea Party" Republicans who have the audacity to question the abuses of the FBI, the CIA, and the Armed Forces. The editorial states:

A week ago the world learned of another foiled airplane bombing attack by the Yemeni offshoot of al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden's successors are desperate to strike the U.S. again, which isn't news to most Americans but seems to elude some Members of Congress.
As early as Thursday, the House is due to vote on a measure that effectively declares the war on terror over in the U.S. and dismantles the legal architecture that has protected the homeland since 9/11. Any wonder Americans have so little respect for Congress? Or the Constitution has Presidents run the nation's wars?

The newest "foiled" attempt was yet another CIA "false flag" operation, but the WSJ wants us to believe that the brave U.S. Government agents, using their vast intelligence network that was gained through waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogation" methods that in reality have produced nothing but hot air and lies at home, not to mention hatred of the USA by people abroad. But the editorial gets even better:

Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat, and Michigan Republican and tea partier Justin Amash want to bar the U.S. military from capturing, detaining or interrogating any terrorist of any nationality captured on American soil. Their proposed amendment to next year's defense authorization bill more or less revokes the legal authority granted by Congress a week after 9/11 to fight terrorists on every front.
What this means in practice is that if al Qaeda big Ayman al-Zawahiri and his soldiers are captured overseas (say, in Pakistan), they can be detained by the military, interrogated, and dispatched to wherever the Commander in Chief decides. But if they happen to make it to the U.S., they will have to be handled like your neighborhood burglar. That means being read their Miranda rights, handed over to the local police and put before a civilian judge. The military or CIA couldn't question them to learn about future plots.
This is a bizarre distinction, as if America is not somehow part of the global terror battlefield. Try to explain that to the al Qaeda bombmakers in Yemen, or the residents of downtown Manhattan. The amendment would essentially reward al Qaeda operatives with better treatment for having the wit to get out of their caves and sneak into America to blow up civilians in shopping malls.

If this is not delusional thinking, then delusion is nonexistent. The only true "organized" terror "plots" in this country since 9/11 have been FBI or CIA-inspired "false flag" actions that were orchestrated and led by government agents. That includes the first "underwear bomber" action and the latest howler, the attempt to blow up a bridge near Cleveland, Ohio, by a gang that on their own probably could not blow up its own bongs.

But the neocon Journal is not done, as the editors include this lament:

The tragedy here is that the political battles over terrorist detention were finally calming down. The anti-antiterror left waged war against President George W. Bush for refusing to treat illegal enemy combatants the same as common criminals, but President Obama has adopted much of the same legal framework. Now a misguided wing of the tea party is giving political cover to the left to revive this fight and confuse the American public with overblown fears that the government can arrest anyone for anything and hold him forever.

Yes, yes, Barack Obama is a hardcore civil libertarian who respects the rights of everyone, including terrorists. Yeah, that truly is an example of "I'll believe it when I see it," given the legal abuses Obama and his hatchet-man Eric Holder have fomented. As much as anything, this editorial exposes the neocons' desire to essentially turn this country into a military dictatorship in which executive power is absolute and when government claims someone is a "terrorist," that person disappears, a country where no accused person is innocent.
0

 




--
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.
0

 




--
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.
0




 

--
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.
0


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruce Majors
Date: Sunday, May 13, 2012
Subject: You have received a YouTube video!
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


Government Issues Study of a Study About Studies


Sent from my iPad

--
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.
0
Sheila Bair is a funny gal

Almost a Hillary appointee nixed because her child care provider did not fit all the regulations 

She wrote a really good piece recently spoofing bail outs 
Now she raises money for these peeps

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Demos
Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Subject: Get Your Gala Tickets Today!
To: Majors.Bruce@gmail.com


Not subscribed to Demos' weekly updates and event emails? Subscribe here to get regular updates on our work!

Deadline to RSVP is Friday, May 18.
Purchase tickets today!

header

We invite you to celebrate Demos and The American Prospect's work over the past year. Join us to honor leaders who have advanced our vision of shared economic prosperity, inclusive democracy, and effective government. We expect to gather 300-400 friends, supporters, and colleagues committed to helping us be at our best in this critical moment.

button


Thursday, May 31
6-9 pm | Capitale, 130 Bowery, New York City

2012 Transforming America Awardees

Sheila Bair
Senior Advisor at Pew Charitable Trusts and former Chairman of the FDIC

Leo Gerard
International President
of the United Steelworkers

Ai-jen Poo
Director of the
National Domestic Workers Alliance


Honorary Chairs

Susan Berresford
Janet Dewart Bell
Congressman Keith Ellison
Juan Figueroa
Hamilton Fish
Laura Flanders
Frances Fox Piven
Mark Green & Deni Frand
Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva
Ken Grossinger & Micheline Klagsbrun
Mary Kay Henry
Bob Herbert
Leo Hindery, Jr.
Maria Teresa Kumar
Julie Kushner
Gara LaMarche
Bertha Lewis
Lawrence Mishel
Bill & Judith Moyers
Ana Oliveira
Speaker Christine C. Quinn
Cecile Richards
Tavis Smiley
Tracy Sturdivant
Richard Trumka
Luis Ubiñas
Randi Weingarten

Sponsors (list in formation)

CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY

  • KPS Capital Partners, LC

ALLY FOR
EQUALITY

  • Service Employees International Union
  • International Union, UAW

ADVOCATE FOR OPPORTUNITY

  • Citi
  • Marguerite Casey Foundation
  • United Steelworkers

PARTNER IN CHANGE

  • Communication Workers of America
  • David & Julie Samber
  • Paul E. Summit & Leila W. Kinney
  • United Federation of Teachers

SUPPORTER OF PROGRESS

  • American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
  • BTQ Financial
  • Panta Rhea Foundation
  • Piper Fund, a Proteus Fund initiative

button


Sponsorship Packages

CHAMPION OF DEMOCRACY
$50,000

  • Two tables of 10 guests (20 tickets), with premier seating
  • Premium name and logo placement on event materials
  • Recognition during event speaking program
  • One full-page ad in event program  
  • Name and logo with prominent recognition on the Demos website

ALLY FOR EQUALITY
$25,000

  • One table of 10 guests (10 tickets), with premier seating
  • Premium name and logo placement on event materials
  • Recognition during event speaking program
  • One full-page ad in event program  
  • Name and logo with prominent recognition on the Demos website

ADVOCATE FOR OPPORTUNITY
$10,000

  • One table of 10 guests (10 tickets), with prime seating
  • Premium name and logo placement on all event materials
  • One half-page ad in event program 
  • Name and logo with prominent recognition on the Demos website

PARTNER IN CHANGE
$5,000

  • One table of 10 guests (10 tickets)
  • Name and logo on the Demos website
  • Listing in event program 


--
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.
Shocking. Maybe some of those Marxist occupado's should go and see what communism is really like.


peter-worthington
By ,QMI Agency

Shin Dong-hyuk 160512 Shin Dong-hyuk, likely the only man to successfully escape from a North Korean prison camp.

Report an error

Related Stories

TORONTO - Arguably, the most poignant interview ever broadcast on CBC Radio's The Curent, was the story this week, of Shin Dong-hyuk — possibly the only person ever to escape from a North Korean slave-labour prison camp.

All stories about prisons are harsh, but prisons, or political labour camps run by totalitarian regimes can be beyond rational comprehension. And while the Soviet gulag with its millions confined, and China's with even more millions in custody, are inhumane and brutal, they pale to horrors of North Korea's slave camps. Especially in the year 2012.

As the only person ever to escape from a NK camp, Shin Dong-hyuk's story is important as it is unique in giving the world a peek inside that regime, and how the ruling Kim family maintains absolute control through fear and cruelty.

Journalist Blaine Harden discovered Shin, and tells his story in a book — Escape from Camp 14. Harden, a translator and Shin were interviewed by Anna Maria Tremonti on the CBC, and provided a wealth of appalling reality that defies imagination.

Estimates are that roughly 200,000 are in NK slave-labour camps — three generations of inmates. Shine was born in Camp 14. The only food inmates ate was a mush of corn, cabbage and salt — supplemented by mice if they could catch them. And insects.

The electrified razor wire around the camp would kill any who touched it. Anyone caught talking about escaping was shot. Shin was conceived when guards allowed brief intimacy between a male and female inmate for obedient behaviour.

At age 14, he heard his mother and brother talking about escape, and was so fearful and indoctrinated that he asked a guard what he should do. The guard turned him in, and he was roasted over a charcoal fire to extract more information. Then he witnessed his mother and brother hanged.

Rather than feel guilt at their death, he was angry that their loose talk made life tougher for him. Normal, human instincts were channeled into self-preservation.

Shin and another inmate decided to escape, but the other guy was electrocuted trying to get past the fence. Shin crawled over his friend's dead body, which grounded the current. He fled north, stole an army uniform, got into China and made his way to Shanghai, where he reached the South Korean embassy and was taken to Seoul.

Among his recollections is a schoolgirl in Camp 14 being beaten to death by a teacher because she had a few kernels of corn in her pocket.

When Shin accidentally dropped a sewing machine, half his middle finger was chopped off as punishment. Guards had inmates beat other inmates who broke rules.

Responding to Tremonti's question how such inhumane treatment could go on when even Russia and China were easing restrictions, author Harden explained that three generations of Kims rule the world's most tyrannical, oppressive state.

Kim Il-sung instigated the slave camps, followed by Kim Jong-il and now Kim Jong-un who maintain them. North Koreans know of these prisons and fear them to the point of absolute submissiveness and obedience.

Once convicted to a camp, relatives and children are confined to them.

Stalin used fear and intimidation as tools for control, North Korea even more so.

"Class enemies" destined for these horror camps include those who dare practice Christianity, or who don't keep photographs of Kim dusted and prominent in their homes.

If caught, listening to a foreign radio broadcasts can be fatal. As Shin's youthful experience indicated those with deviant thoughts, can be executed. Until he escaped at age 29, he had never tasted chicken or pork — only corn mush.

China is North Korea's protector — more fearful of having affluent, dynamic South Korea as a neighbour without impoverished NK as a buffer, than it is concerned about such niggling nuisances as basic human rights.

In negotiations with North Korea, neither the U.S. nor Japan, and certainly not China, ever raise the question of human rights. What's the use? Perhaps our politicians should read Escape from Camp 14.

 


--
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.