Google Search

Showing posts with label Should. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Should. Show all posts

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Should the State Decide What You're Allowed to Eat?

Eating Right
by WENDY MCELROY


Food has always been political. Throughout history, armies have razed crops and demographics have shifted in response to hunger. Political correctness now drives the civics of food with bountiful nations attempting to dictate what people can eat and how much. Why? For their own good.

The public debate revolves around whether a particular food choice is healthy or not. The real debate is, ?Who should choose: you or someone else?? The defense of food freedom needs to turn on the right of people to express themselves through dietary choices that reflect not only their preferences but also their judgment. Food is self-expression as much as music or literature is. If the government can control the flavors of life you choose to swallow, then it can control everything else.

Poe's law comes alive

Poe's law is an Internet adage. It says that without knowing the intent of an online poster, it is impossible to distinguish someone who is expressing an extreme position from someone else who is satirizing that extreme position. A recent news story blurs the line between parody and reality.

The parody goes by various names, including ?Ordering a Pizza from Big Brother? and ?Ordering a Pizza in 2015.? The gist: a pizza parlor with access to all of your personal information refuses to accept an order that is contraindicated by your finances, medical condition, or some other characteristic. The reality is expressed by a December 8 headline in the Telegraph that read, ?The vending machine of the future is here, and it knows who you are.?

The Luce X2 Touch TV is the first commercial vending machine to use facial recognition technology to store data and interact with customers. The vending machines offer advantages to both buyers and sellers. A buyer could voluntarily store his preferences, and the machine could regularly restock those items. A seller could replace expensive employees and stores with machines. But the Telegraph points to possible disadvantages. Luce X2 ?could refuse to vend a certain product based on a shopper?s age, medical record or dietary requirements.? Candy might be refused to the obese, sodas to schoolchildren. Since Luce X2 uses data-sharing cloud technology, going to another machine might not provide the anonymity that allows access.

The prospect of social control via vending machine sounds paranoid to some. But food regulations have become so intrusive and unreasonable as to become self-parodies. Michelle Obama's unpopular school-lunch program has children across America tossing trays full of untouched food into extremely well-nourished wastebaskets. Recent menu-labeling laws require food vendors ? from restaurants to theater popcorn stands ? to provide information on calorie contents that next to no one will read. But the requirement does make fast food more expensive and so discourages its consumption, which may be the laws? real purpose.

Even as food regulation verges on the absurd, many acquiesce on health grounds. Framing the issue as medical gives the government a strong advantage.

Food is much more than a health matter

The State uses two basic arguments to justify the micromanagement of what people eat. First, laws are necessary to force people to make healthy choices. This argument assumes that politically motivated bureaucrats know what is best for people better than they do themselves. Second, people's unhealthy choices make them tax burdens on the socialized medical system. Having "relieved" or deprived people of the responsibility for their own medical maintenance, the State uses their dependence as an excuse to impose social control. It is important to counter both arguments, but doing so often ignores an equally essential point.

Food is not merely a matter of health or sustaining life. It is one of the main ways people express themselves in terms of culture, ethnicity, religion, psychology, family history, and pure preference. Food choices are personal; they define our identity as surely as choices in attire or music do.

Food is an integral aspect of transmitting culture and ethnicity. From Hungarian goulash to Italian sausage, from Indian curries to falafels, food expresses a family?s rich heritage. Recipes and cooking techniques are passed down from one generation to the next in an act that preserves the family bond; it preserves the culture itself.

Food is also a cultural ambassador through which diverse groups appreciate each other's ethnicity. People who would never listen to Chinese music are able to mention dozens of their favorite Chinese dishes. A man who would never learn Spanish might cook pescado a la talla with the same ingredients a woman is using in Acapulco. A couple will return from visiting Germany and rave about its spaetzle and knackwurst. This cultural appreciation occurs naturally, without tax funding or government-mandated tolerance. Indeed, laws interrupt people's appreciation of other cuisines.

Food can be a moral choice, as vegetarians and vegans know. It can be a part of religious doctrine, as any Orthodox Jew will tell you. It is a matter of ritual, as those who carve a turkey each Christmas or children who gather Halloween candy will gladly acknowledge. Food can even be a political statement, as those who prefer raw milk will attest.

As a psychological matter, food has been called ?love.? A mother makes her son's favorite meal or a cake to celebrate his birthday. A lover proposes marriage over a romantic dinner and a good wine. Women recover from a broken heart by emptying containers of ice cream. When a neighbor expresses sympathy for a death in someone's family, she brings over a homemade casserole. At the funeral, there is a spread of food. At festivals, it is featured; for the Super Bowl, it is strategically placed between the couch and the TV.

Digestif

The diversity of plentiful food that every grocery store boasts should be a cause of pride, because it demonstrates not only financial prosperity, but also cultural richness. It showcases the range of choices in our affluent society.

Never mind that subsidies, taxes, and regulations already distort what we find at the supermarket and how much we pay for it. When government tries to dictate what we may eat or the manner in which we eat, it is tampering with our heritage, our ethnicity, our psychology, and our religious or political choices. The ability to control the food you put in your mouth is as fundamental a right as to control the words that come out of it.

The government's increasing interference in food choice is often viewed as benevolent, because it is discussed in terms of health benefits. Food regulation is anything but benevolent. The government is not only trying to define who and what you are; it is, at the same time, trying to convince you that the denial of freedom is ?for your own good.? If you are what you eat, then food laws are an attempt to control your identity.
_
Contributing editor for The Freeman, Wendy McElroy is an author, editor of ifeminists.com, and Research Fellow at The Independent Institute (independent.org).


View the original article here

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Students Taught That Government Is "Family": A Caretaker That Should Be Obeyed



SKOKIE, IL ? A homework assignment was given to children at a public school which revealed the true nature of this nation?s education model: to condition impressionable young people to accept the paternal role of the state; trusting, accepting, and obeying the state?s wishes as you would your own family.? This familial role of the state has been formally advocated since the onset of public education in America.

Fourth-graders at East Prairie School in Skokie, Illinois, were distributed an assignment titled, ?What is Government??

The assignment was prefaced with a statement that caused a stir with some parents.? The worksheet stated:

?Government is like a nation?s family.? Families take care of each other and make sure they are safe, healthy, educated, and free to enjoy life.? Families encourage children to be independent, hardworking, and responsible.? Families make and enforce rules and give appropriate punishments when rules are broken.? Government does these things for its citizens, too.?
The worksheet goes on to make a series of analogies between the state of families in the form of questions.? It can be viewed below.


Assignment given to children in compulsory government schools. (Source: TheBlaze)

This worksheet, while shocking to some, is completely in line with the foundation and intent of the American public education system.? To illustrate this, we must review some forgotten (buried) history.

Read More


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Americans Petition To Repeal the 4th Amendment (Protection Against Unreasonable Searches & Seizures)
- The NSA and Its "Compliance Problems"
- USF Student Harassed by Feds for Transporting Humanitarian Aide to Syria
- Pot Apocalypse Looms, Marijuana Foes Warn
- Obama Supporters Petition to Eliminate Right to Remain Silent by Repealing the 5th Amendment
- If You Have Nothing to Hide, Be Very Worried
- Obama Pushes for Warrantless Access to Phone Data... Again
- Editor-In-Chief At 'The Guardian' Describes Smashing Hard Drives In Front Of British Authorities

Since the Black community has a broken down family system, Govt must step in, indoctrinate, brainwash and control that part of our population.

The Jews understand the importance of family, the Italians also. The Irish just know it's every man for him self. At least they work.

The Hispanics are also strong on family but lack education.

Blacks + Hispanics = 51% + and growing.

Read the writing on the wall.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, August 1, 2013

Donald Trump Says Snowden Should Be Assassinated


Extradition process and justice system are too slow for would-be presidential candidate

Donald Trump, a man who has previously and may once again tout himself as a presidential candidate, believes that the American justice system is too slow and cumbersome to deal with whistleblowers like former NSA analyst Edward Snowden.

Labeling Snowden a ?spy?, Trump went on Fox News to advocate his immediate ?execution?.

In a vomit inducing interview with Fox and Friends, Trump, in his infinite wisdom, stated:

?You know, spies in the old days used to be executed.?

?This guy is becoming a hero in some circles. Now, I will say, with the passage of time, even people that were sort of liking him and were trying to go on his side are maybe dropping out"??

?We have to get him back and we have to get him back fast. It could take months or it could take years, and that would be pathetic.? The Donald noted.

Blatantly advocating that Snowden be assassinated, Trump suggested that the US would somehow cease to exist, should he be allowed to live and divulge secret information on government surveillance and other unconstitutional practices.

?This guy?s a bad guy and, you know, there?s still a thing called execution,? he said.

?You really have to take a strong"? You have thousands of people with access to material like this. We?re not going to have a country any longer.? Trump continued.

Ironically, that reasoning was EXACTLY why Snowden went public with the material on the NSA in the first place ? because he could not face living in a country that treats its own citizens like suspects and actively spies on all their communications.

Trump also labelled journalists who covered the story ?disgraceful?, saying that newspapers should not have printed the details of the revelations.

Trump?s lack of understanding of the Bill Of Rights and the Fourth Amendment will not come as a surprise to regular readers, given his attacks on former Congressman Ron Paul last year.

Despite him being the most constitutionally sound presidential candidate in decades, Trump called Paul a ?joke? candidate, and belittled his Libertarian outlook on foreign policy, saying Paul did not care about foreign affairs such as ?if Iran has a nuclear weapon that can wipe out Israel.?
_
Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones? Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.


(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Hawthorne, CA Police Arrest Man for Filming Raid, Shoot his Dog in Front of Him
- Shock Video Shows Police Forcibly Drawing Blood
- Los Angeles Deputies Kill Armed Man, 80, in Marijuana Raid
- SWAT Team Kills Armed Homeowner in Dawn Drug Raid
- Police Once Again Mistake Cell Phone for Gun - But This Time, They Open Fire
- Cleveland Police Run Fake Drug Checkpoints on Interstate, Arrest People Who Seek to Evade
- Police Chief Attempts to Shoot Dog, Hits Woman Instead
- Cop's Outburst After Man Escapes Petty Marijuana Charge Lands Him In Contempt of Court

Keep combing that hair over the brainless spot, Donald Donald Rump is a national laughingstock.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Ron Paul: "Country Should Panic Over Fed's Decision"


Follow @infolibnews!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src='//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,'script','twitter-wjs');
by Tyler Durden

What took Ben Bernanke sixty minutes of mumbling about tools, word-twisting, and data-manipulating to kinda-sorta admit - that in fact he is lost; Ron Paul eloquently expresses in 25 seconds in this Bloomberg TV clip. Noting that "we are creating money out of thin air," Paul sums up Bernanke's position perfectly "We've Lost Control!"

25-second quick clip

Full 5 minute clip - must watch! from Mal-investment to Bernanke's frustration...

Paul's reaction to more Federal Reserve stimulus:

"It should not surprise anybody, but it is still astounding. To me, it is so astounding that it does not collapse the markets. [Bernanke] said, 'We are in very big trouble. We are going to do something unprecedented and we believe it will not hurt the dollar.' And yet the stocks, they say 'we love this stuff.' But the dollar didn't do so well today and the real value of the dollar is measured against gold, and gold skyrocketed from its very low to its highest. It means we are weakening the dollar. We are trying to liquidate our debt through inflation. The consequence of what the Fed is doing is a lot more than just CPI. It has to do with malinvestment and people doing the wrong things at the wrong time. Believe me, there is plenty of that. The one thing that Bernanke has not achieved and it frustrates him, I can tell--is he gets no economic growth. He doesn't do anything with the unemployment numbers. I think the country should have panicked over what the Fed is saying that we have lost control and the only thing we have left is massively creating new money out of thin air, which has not worked before, and is not going to work this time."
On potential unintended consequences:
"The biggest unintended consequence is what we need is a restoration of confidence. If the Fed is expressing a lack of confidence and they do not know what to do, it does not do anything to restore confidence. People might restrain from doing anything. 'Interest rates are low. I do not have to buy my house this year. I will wait until next year. It might be a little easier. Prices might come down.' So people are restrained and it is the opposite of when you expect that housing prices are going up, and you are afraid interest rates are going up. That is why the market rate of interest is so crucial. The rate of interest should give the businessman, the entrepreneurs, the investors and the savers information. But there is no market to interest rates. That is why there is such gross distortion and why we do not have a market economy. We have a rigged economy through central economic planning by central banking. The system is failing, it was doomed to fail and we have to wake up to that fact."
On whether the Federal Reserve needs discipline:
"Short of getting rid of the Fed, which is not going to come and I wouldn't do that overnight anyway, I would say that Congress has the authority to say, do not buy debt. Do not buy any debt. The Congress can yell and scream and pander to the people. They can say the deficits are terrible and terrible. But nobody wants to cut overseas spending or food stamps for the poor. They say, 'we cannot do it without the Fed. The Fed has to buy this debt.' That is a moral hazard for the politician. If the Fed couldn't buy the debt, and interest rates would rise all of the sudden the burden would be on the Congress to get their house in order to restore confidence. Even that would panic a lot of people because live within your means? We do not like that. We like this idea that we can give people anything they want for free, so we can get reelected. Well, all of this is coming to an end."
On whether Bernanke should be pulling back liquidity and raising interest rates right now instead:
"Liquidity should be determined by the market. I don't think he should raise rates. He should just get out of rigging rates. The system is so biased. It helps the bankers who get free money and then they buy government debt. What about the people who are frightened, they do not like the stock market and they are frugal and want to take care of themselves? What do they get--1% on a CD? That is unfair. It's bad economics. You want to let the market determine interest rates and let it sort it out. People get so nervous, because we have lived so long with a Keynesian economic model of fixing interest rates and intervening in the market."
On whether Romney would do the right thing with the Federal Reserve if elected:
"So far, I have not heard that he would, but he has changed his mind before. If he gets to be president, we will keep our fingers crossed."

(function(d, s, id) {var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if (d.getElementById(id)) return;js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id;js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));

Latest Economy
- The Fed's Balance At The End Of 2013: $4 Trillion
- Things Are Getting Worse: Median Household Income Has Fallen 4 Years In A Row
- Schiff Vs. Insana; Matter Vs. Anti-Matter
- Peter Schiff On CNBC - Talks Ban Corporate Profits Video
- The Bill Clinton Myth
- Philip DeFranco Interviewed on Redistribution
- Peter Schiff Talks Rising Food Prices On Al Jazeera
- World's richest woman: "Drink less, work more"

Was there ever any doubt that this was what they would do? It is like being surprised that a dog ate your lunch when you left the room. Did the country, which has been run now for years, if not always, by men with an agenda, not really in the best interest, of most people in the U.S. expected at 1 second to midnight, a real plan to revitalize the American economy. They shot us in the foot, in the knee, in the groin, in the belly and now are aiming at our chest and head. So if you are surprised now at the prospect of new devastation for your future and your family, I am not sure what it will take to get reality to actually make you believe. Ron Paul was literally treated like a virus by the Republican Party and media and still feels that we could legislate ourselves back to health with small non-interfering government policy. (for the agencies that monitor all communications, I am using an analogy--not advocating violence or saying that they are using actual bullets--so be nice when you put the black bag on our collective heads)

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy



View the original article here

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Mexico Should Just Legalize Drugs

by Jacob G. Hornberger

According to a front-page article in today?s New York Times, Mexico?s top presidential contenders are signaling a shift in how Mexico intends to fight the drug war. While the movement is in a positive direction, unfortunately it still doesn?t go far enough. Mexico should just end its entire participation in the drug war. It should legalize drugs.

Six years ago, the newly elected Mexican president, Filipe Calderon, decided that he was going to really crack down in the drug war, apparently with the aim of finally winning the war. Since the president is limited to one six-year term, Calderon figured that he had that period of time in which to defeat the drug cartels, the drug lords, and the drug gangs.

Calderon figured that to win the drug war, he had to rely on much more than just the police. And who?s best at waging war but the military? So, Calderon deployed Mexican troops to wage the war on drugs, especially in the northern region, along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Needless to say, U.S. officials were ecstatic.

Now that Calderon?s term is coming to an end, can he claim victory in the war on drugs? Has his fierce military crackdown been successful?

Nope. It?s the exact opposite. The drug dealers, drug cartels, and drug gangs are still smuggling and distributing drugs, just like they were six years ago. In fact, the lack of victory is reflected by the fact that U.S. officials are saying that it?s more important than ever that the war on drugs continued to be waged into the indefinite future.

Of course, there is one big factor that the Mexican presidential candidates and the Mexican citizenry have to consider: Some 50,000 people are now dead who were alive six years ago.

Yes, 50,000 people. Think about that. That?s almost the number of U.S. soldiers killed during the Vietnam War. And they?re dead owing to Calderon?s fierce, six-year military crackdown in the war on drugs.

Now, that?s not to say that Calderon?s forces didn?t kill, arrest, jail, and destroy plenty of drug lords and drug gangs. Sure they did. But as soon as they?d knock off one drug dealer, ten more would pop up to take his place.

You see, the more they cracked down, the greater the risk for drug dealers. The increased risk caused drug prices and drug profits to soar. The soaring drug profits lured new people into the drug trade.

In other words, the more successful Mexican forces were in killing or capturing drug dealers, the further away from ?victory? Mexico found itself.

All this should be a lesson for American drug-war proponents, especially those who say that the problem is that the U.S. government really hasn?t truly cracked down in the war on drugs. They ought to bring the U.S. military to the border, the American drug warriors have long exclaimed, especially combat-hardened troops who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan.

It shouldn?t surprise anyone that the Mexican military, in its fierce quest to win the drug war within 6 years, was notorious for violating the civil liberties of the Mexican citizenry. Military forces trying to win wars are never too concerned about civil liberties. Many Mexican citizens began demanding that the troops be withdrawn from their cities, preferring to take their chances with the drug lords.

Mexico apparently has had enough. According to the Times, ?The candidates, while vowing to continue to fight drug trafficking, say they intend to eventually withdraw the Mexican Army from the drug fight. They are concerned that it has proved unfit for police work and has contributed to the high death toll, which has exceeded 50,000 since the departing president, Felipe Calderon, made the military a cornerstone of his battle against drug traffickers more than five years ago.?

U.S. officials have been careful to stay out of the presidential race, to avoid the appearance of meddling in Mexico?s internal affairs, but there is no question but that they are seething over the probable shift in direction. Congressman Ben Quayle, an Arizona Republican, reflected the mindset of the Washington establishment with his pointed exclamation: ?Will there be a situation where the next president just turns a blind eye to the cartels, or will they be a willing partner with the United States to combat them? I hope it?s the latter.?

Mexico has paid a big enough price for the U.S. government?s failed, immoral, and destructive decades-long war on drugs. Mexico should reject halfway measures in the war on drugs. It?s time to have the courage and fortitude to openly admit, no matter how angry U.S. officials become, that the drug war is evil, immoral, deadly, and destructive. All the drug war has done is enrich the bank accounts of drug dealers and government officials, including those in the United States.

It?s time Mexico went its own way in the drug war. The best thing Mexico could ever do is dissolve its drug-war partnership with the U.S. government by fully and completely legalizing the possession and distribution of all drugs. As the front-runner in Mexico?s presidential race, Enrique Pe?a Nieto, put it, Mexico should not ?subordinate to the strategies of other countries.?

And who knows? By fully and completely ending its participation in the U.S. government?s war on drugs, Mexico could lead the world, including the United States, out of the drug-war morass of death, destruction, violence, and corruption.
_
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the Future of Freedom Foundation.


View the original article here

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Should We Worry about the Class Divide?

by Jeffrey Tucker

Charles Murray's new book Coming Apart has generated an incredible amount of handwringing on all sides. For those who are skilled at ignoring such debates -- good impulse, I say! -- his thesis is that the ebb and flow of wealth and status between classes that once characterized American culture has ended.

He marshals vast evidence that we now have two separate worlds, one for the lowers and one for the uppers, and a huge chasm separates them. He demonstrates this with vast amounts of data that label the lower third of all races as essentially falling apart in every way. Increasingly, the lowers are characterized by divorce, unemployment, social alienation, and economic stagnation, while the uppers are stable in all the opposite ways.

There might be something to his worry. He quotes Alexis de Tocqueville (who somehow continues to set the standard for how we should be as a nation): In America, "the more opulent citizens take great care not to stand aloof from the people; on the contrary, they constantly keep on easy terms with the lower classes: they listen to them, they speak to them every day."

Is that really true anymore? Murray says no.

But why is it not true, what does it all mean and what are we to do about it? This is what the debate is about. To the Left, the answer about what to do is completely obvious. We need massive government programs to boost the lowers, and we need new taxes and punishments to whack the uppers good and hard. Never mind that the programs for the lowers don't work and the punishments on the rich end up only bolstering a new government elite that lords it over everyone.

The Right has a different solution. Well, not everyone on the right, but those neoconservatives who take it as a given that every coherent nation needs a unified national culture. To quote David Brooks:

We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement. If we could jam the tribes together, we'd have a better elite and a better mass.
No thanks on this Stalinist plan. The Right is just like the Left in this sense: if there is a national problem, it needs a solution imposed by force. The Left favors looting people, whereas the Right favors tasing people. Either way, it is all about increasing the police powers of the state. On the extremes, the Left wants total expropriation to make everyone equally poor, whereas the Right wants total war to unify us all in a grand project of killing and being killed.

This is what worries me most about the Murray thesis. No matter where you look for answers, the solutions actually seem worse than the problem itself.

More fundamentally, we have to ask: What is the problem we are actually trying to solve? It is hardly a new problem that the elite has separated itself from the lowers. I seriously doubt that this is more intense now than it was in the Gilded Age -- gated communities were a sign of wealth then, too -- or even in the Founding period, when a tiny group of elite landowners decided to wreck a perfectly decent system under the Articles of Confederation to ram through a Constitution that put them in charge of the entire country.

So long as the elite are an economic elite and not a political elite, they are benefactors to everyone, providing the capital, the great ideas, the norms and codes, the educational institutions and the cultural infrastructure to protect the country from the rapacious state. This is what Hans-Hermann Hoppe calls the "natural elite," and every society needs them. Resentment against this elite is purely destructive.

Bryan Caplan adds an interesting insight here. One of Murray's interesting insights is that the elite are largely intact from a cultural and social point of view. This observation contradicts the rhetoric of populism that blames all problems on the elite. Caplan says that traditionalists need to "embrace the elite and boost its self-confidence. Then traditionalists and elites can join hands and preach the Good News of bourgeois virtue."

Nor is the gap between rich and poor really a problem. The truth is that the poor are living better than the rich did only decades ago. The average working-class guy with a cellphone holds more computing power in his hand than was available to presidents and CEOs a decade ago. That the pace of advancement disportionately affects one group more than another is actually irrelevant at the individual level.

That leaves the fundamental question: Why has this actually happened? From what I've read, Murray seems to overlook the political reasons for why the lower third has begun to eschew the bourgeois virtues. It all comes down to economic opportunity and deep integration into the division of labor, for it is through commerce that individuals acquire value in the eyes of themselves and others.

The regulatory and tax states have made the lower classes into pariahs from the point of view of the commercial world. They are expensive to hire and hard to fire, which makes them even more expensive to hire. The minimum wage is bad enough, but that is only the beginning. A giant machinery governs how, where, when, and under what terms they can work and enjoy fulfilling lives. Business creation is harder than ever for anyone but the highly educated elite.

When they do get jobs, the whole system is allied against their social advancement. Cash business is criminalized. Everything requires a permit. The bureaucracy rules, instead of the entrepreneur. The laws, taxes, mandates, programs -- and everything else the state has done -- work like a giant bed of sharp rocks in the middle of a river that punishes those who tried to get to the other side.

Inflation and the Fed's interest-rate policy have punished the accumulation of wealth and shortened the time horizon of the lower third of the population classes. The rise of the police state and the criminalization of their lifestyle have driven them into a culturally, socially, and legally marginal existence, so that they are always one step away from entanglement with police, courts, and jail.

As government grows -- and the regulatory and tax states expand -- and as the prohibitions on behaviors, services, and goods grow and grow, society becomes ever less economically mobile and dynamic. The class system that is part of every society becomes a caste system of entrenched position. It becomes a society of the put-upons versus the privileged.

From my reading so far, I don't see that Murray is tuned into this reality, which is probably expected, since so much of the cost of statism is invisible to us and not discernible at this time. It consists of the opportunities missed, the jobs not created, the social advancement that does not take place, the wealth creation that does not happen. Conjectural futures evade the statisticians.

To end on note of hope: Murray is looking backward at what the state has already done; the proliferation of technology could end this trend here as it has around the world.
__
Jeffrey Tucker, publisher and executive editor of Laissez-Faire Books, is author of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo and It's a Jetsons World. You can write him directly here.


View the original article here

Friday, February 24, 2012

Fed Should Heed Lessons of 1920 Recession Response, Grant Says

By Cordell Eddings and Tom Keene

The U.S. has been ?overmedicated? by public policy and should consider the government?s 1920?s response to recession, said James Grant, editor of Grant?s Interest Rate Observer.

Responding to a severe economic downturn from 1920 to 1921, the Federal Reserve increased interest rates and the national budget was balanced, moves that kept the painful recession short, New York-based Grant said. In contrast, he said U.S. policy makers are prolonging the pain of the so-called Great Recession by intervening in markets and running unprecedented federal budget deficits.

?The Fed is not content to let interest rates find their levels, they must repress them, and they are not content to let housing prices find their levels, they seek to intervene to prop them up,? Grant said in a radio interview on ?Bloomberg Surveillance? with Ken Prewitt and Tom Keene. ?The results of all this intervention is not to cure what ails us, but prolongs the symptoms of what distresses us.?

In January, the Fed extended its pledge to keep the target rate for overnight loan between banks near zero, as more than two years of economic growth have failed to push unemployment below 8.3 percent.

?Economic conditions -- including low rates of resource utilization and a subdued outlook for inflation over the medium run -- are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels for the federal funds rate at least through late 2014,? the Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement on Jan. 25.

Read More


Latest Economy
- Jeffrey Tucker makes the Case Against the Federal Reserve and the Banking Cartel
- Tom Woods Interviews Lew Rockwell
- Another Fed-Backed Solar Company Goes Bankrupt
- Obama: Not Raising Taxes Is a Form of Government Spending
- Keynesians Jump The Gun on Inflation
- Doug Casey Interviewed by Kerry Lutz
- Obama: Lets Debase Our Coinage Even Further to "Save Money"
- Obama Proposes Doubling Dividend Tax on Wealthy

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

No One Should Be Forced to Act Against His Conscience

by Sheldon Richman

A question arises from the recent controversy between President Obama and the Catholic Church that aches for an answer: If Catholic institutions have a right to abstain from paying for what morally offends them, why don?t the rest of us?

The initial Obamacare rule held that all employers, in fulfilling their new legal requirement to provide health insurance to their employees, must include contraception (and other ?preventive? health services) in the coverage at no cost. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is sinful. The Department of Health and Human services was willing to exempt churches but not church-operated institutions that pursue a broader mission than religious teaching, such as colleges, hospitals, and charities. This brought protests from Catholic officials, who claim that their religious freedom would be infringed by a mandate that they buy services that they teach are morally abhorrent.

As the political controversy mounted, the Obama administration devised an ?accommodation?: those institutions would not have to pay for birth-control coverage; however, their insurers would still have to offer free contraception.

Many objections can be raised against this policy. In a society that thinks itself free, how dare the government force employers to provide health insurance? How dare it mandate that coverage include contraception ? or any particular service? How dare it mandate that any coverage be free? (It can?t really be free; the coverage necessarily reduces employees? cash wages.) How can contraception use be insurable when it is a chosen act, not the kind of low-probability, high-cost event that insurance was designed to protect against? Is there really a moral difference between forcing a Catholic institution to pay for employee contraception and forcing it to arrange a match between its employees and an insurer that will provide the contraception?

These questions are daggers at the heart of Obamacare. But let?s leave them aside. What has gone largely unnoticed is that the principle invoked by the Catholic Church and largely endorsed by the public ? that freedom of religion, as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution?s First Amendment, rules out forcing a church to pay for what it regards as morally abhorrent ? applies beyond this instance. If a Catholic institution should not be forced to pay for contraception because it regards birth control as morally repugnant, why should anyone be forced to pay for what he or she finds morally repugnant?

It does no good to say that the First Amendment is about religion. The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not create rights; they acknowledged preexisting rights. Moreover, we are entitled to make reasonable inferences from the framers? language, because they could hardly have created an exhaustive list of implications. For example, by specifying the free exercise of religion, the framers can?t be construed as intending to exclude atheists from the protection of freedom of conscience.

Logic drives us to conclude that government should never compel anyone to act against his or her moral convictions. The good sense of this becomes clear when we get down to particulars. If a Catholic may not be forced to pay for birth control in violation of conscience, why should that Catholic ? or anyone else ? be compelled to finance mass murder in violation of conscience? No one can reasonably insist that personal convictions should be disregarded in the case of mass murder.

This is no hypothetical speculation. Americans have been forced, without their consultation ? much less permission ? to finance mass murder. It?s called war, invasion, occupation, and special operations. U.S. military missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere have directly or indirectly killed over a million people who never threatened Americans at home. Those missions have ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands more through injury and the destruction of their homes and societies.

The president of the United States refuses to take war with Iran off ?the table? ostensibly because the Islamic republic won?t end its nuclear-enrichment program ? although the International Atomic Energy Agency says no weapons are being produced, and U.S. and Israeli officials say no decision to build a weapon has been made. War against Iran would constitute mass murder.

The U.S. government should be stopped from engaging in such brutality. But short of that, those with a conscientious objection should be free to opt out of financing these crimes.
_
Sheldon Richman is senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va., author of Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State, and editor of The Freeman magazine. Visit his blog Free Association at www.sheldonrichman.com. Send him email.


Latest Commentary
- Democracy Is Destroying Your Wealth and Freedom
- The Global Land Grab
- Degenerates Rule America
- Why Are Government Bureaucrats Turning America Into Nazi Germany?
- Don't Be a Domesticated Extremist
- To Love the Unknown
- Is it the Lawmakers or Law Enforcers who are to Blame?
- Why Facebook Works and Democracy Does Not

So, The Catholic Church is against health-care for everybody because it would 'force' them to pay to something that they find 'morally abhorrent' ?

We ARE talking about the same Catholic Church that has payed HUNDREDS of millions in 'compensation' to the victims of their Gay-paedophile-Priests, right ??

I'll say it again : Fundamentalist Libertarians are exactly as blind and dangerous as Fundamentalist Socialists, Commies, nazies, fascists,
Flat-Earthers and what not ..
Ideology is for people who can't cope with reality !

The ACLU and others who scream "Separation of church and state!" seem to be MIA on this. What hypocrites. They don't want the church involved in the government's business, but don't mind if the government gets involved in the church's business. Hey--to force ANYONE to purchase health insurance--and at whatever cost the genocidal insurance companies want to charge, for health care that is also genocidal (just ask Michael Jackson, Whitney et al) IS MORALLY ABHORRENT JUST LIKE UNPROVOKED WARS TO BENEFIT THE SAME LIZARD BANKSTERS--i say we need some et's to come down and SHRINK these bankster lizards and their minions down to the size of 3-4 inches and set them loose in the garden to keep the bug population down---that way, they can stalk, f---k, eat, and kill their prey and at the same time be doing a public service for all...HOW'S THAT FOR A SOLUTION??? peace out--

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Saturday, October 29, 2011

What Radicalism? OWS's Slogan Should Really Be "Up With The Man!"

by Jeffrey A. Tucker

The protesters of the "occupy" movement imagine themselves to be in the spirit of history's great radicals ? speaking truth to power and all that. As many have said, the movement seems blind to the real source of power in society, else they would be protesting government bureaucracies and the Federal Reserve.

Actually, however, it is even worse than that. The protest movement is not just blind to the actual driving force behind impoverishment and injustice. The main ethos of the movement is actively supportive of government and the powerful interests that back the status quo, so much so that this movement doesn't even deserve the name radical.

My exhibit is an opinion piece on the far-left site Alternet.org, a venue that often runs excellent critiques of American foreign policy. But when it comes to economic issues, it offers up the predictable goofiness that has afflicted the leftist mind for at least a century.

In "5 Conservative Economic Myths Occupy Wall Street Is Helping to Bust," author Dave Johnson gives us a peek into the economic worldview at the heart of this movement. Far from fighting power, it is supporting power. Instead of dissing the suits, it is tailoring them. The slogan on the streets should really be "Up with the Man!"

The supposed myths Johnson lists are:

Business does everything better than government. Rich people are "job creators."Government and taxes take money out of the economy.Regulations kill jobs.Protectionism hurts the economy.
Yes, these are the supposed myths. I might have phrased some differently but the bottom line is that every one of them is absolutely true. So of course it is enormously amusing to watch the author explain to us what is so obviously false about all these points. In the course of his explanation, he begins to sound like a public-service ad put out by a government bureaucracy.

So we learn from him that

the taxes that government collects are invested in the "public structures" that create the prosperity and lifestyle we enjoy ? or at least did before taxes were cut. Tax revenue builds the infrastructure of transportation, courts, schools, universities, research facilities and other institutions that enable our businesses to grow and prosper and the consumer protection, safety inspection, water and sewer, health, parks and arts that help us live and enjoy our lives.
So says the commissar! Up with the mandarins! Those courts and regulations are so wonderful, aren't they? And yet, isn't it rather strange that this little litany doesn't include anything about the police that are being unleashed on the protesters? The police are making all the rest of these supposed "services" possible. The larger and more expansive the state, the more police it needs to enforce its edicts. By praising all of this and urging its expansion, the protesters are urging an expansion of the police state ? and yet they seem completely oblivious to this reality.

Now, what about free enterprise? Here is how the writer characterizes the market economy that took humankind from caves to condominiums, from smoke signals to cell phones, from chasing wild animals to ordering from a fast-food window:

[Under competition] businesses are forced to cut every corner, cheapen every product, cut out every service, lay people off, cut people's wages while adding hours, gut benefits ? and probably go under anyway because when every business does the same 99 percent of us can't afford to buy or do things anymore.
Leave aside the ridiculous claim that only 1 percent of the public can afford to buy things. Has he never been to Walmart (oh I'm sure he is against that too)? It is indeed true that business cuts jobs and benefits when profit margins are squeezed. Not so when businesses are succeeding. So does this writer favor higher and higher profits so that businesses don't cut back? Of course not. That would be regarded as evil too. So how about bailouts when companies are failing so that they don't have to cut employees and hours? Nope: bailouts are precisely what the protesters are against. Or how about a policy that permits businesses to waste vast resources doing whatever they want? No, that would be contrary to the environmentalist ethic of doing without. There's just no pleasing these people.

What about the idea that production follows investment and this is rooted in savings? The writer completely rejects this:

Anyone with a real business will tell you that people coming in the door and buying things is what creates jobs. In a real economy, people wanting to buy things ? demand ? is what causes businesses to form and people to be hired.
It hasn't occurred to this guy that there is no shortage of want in the world. The demand for stuff is infinite. The struggle inherent in the economic way of doing things comes with supplying what is demanded. The writer might respond that people need money to buy stuff. So we are back again to the old canard that printing infinite paper tickets is the path to salvation. We already have that system and it is called the Federal Reserve. Once again, this line of thinking ends up on the side of powerful elites.

Here he is on free trade, in which the whole human race cooperates toward mutual benefit while ignoring the nation-state (sweet liberty!):

What has happened is countries sell to us but do not buy equally from us, causing huge trade deficits that have drained our economy and our jobs and our wages.
This is precisely the claim made by every corporate mercantilist from the late Middle Ages to the present day. They want government protection against foreign goods so that they can charge more to consumers at home. They care nothing for the well-being of anyone else but themselves. They use nationalist rhetoric ("us"?) to whip up a frenzy to back their own corporate private privileges.

And so the "radical Left" says the exact same thing? This is not a challenge to the system; it is the system.

As for government regulations, check out this mind bender:

A business wants to make a profit, and will only care how regulations affect that goal. It makes sense for government to set up regulations because the rest of us are concerned about the larger world of the rest of us, and therefore understand more clearly how the actions of a business will affect the rest of us.
The implied assumptions: government acts on our behalf; government is all knowing about what is needed and what is not; businesses never favor regulations as a means of outcompeting upstarts; in a market, businesses can profit even without serving the public.

None of this is true. Government acts on behalf of itself and the interest groups it represents. Government is not omniscient and is, actually, the dumbest institution in society because it does nothing but take by force and reward its friends.

As for controlling business, there is probably no regulation on the books that wasn't pushed by some fat cat somewhere as a means of clobbering the competition through legal channels. In contrast, in a market economy, there is only one path to profitability: service to others.

These are all truths that libertarians know. For example, the historical documentation is legion on the relationship between more regulation and the lobbying by top players in the corporate pecking order. What's striking is how completely oblivious this writer is to certain basic facts about reality. It's like a kind of insanity where up is down, right is left, and white is black.

However, when it comes to war and foreign policy, suddenly sanity arrives again:

Spending on wars, the "Defense" department (military), intelligence, nuclear weapons, veterans, and related budget items (including interest on money borrowed for past military spending) is a significant portion of the budget, and people instinctively feel that the country is not getting back services that match what they are putting in.
It's all true, but note the nature of his regret. He opposes the warfare state because he thinks that he discredits the government's system of extract-and-spend. He fears that all this squandering money on bombs is making it more difficult to realize the domestic agenda of all-around government planning, spending, and socialism.

Whether backing more spending, more inflation, more regulation, or more protection, it is precisely as Anthony Gregory says: "the true members of the ruling class have nothing to fear from these protests, which on balance strengthen the power elite."

These people are radicals only in the sense that the youth of the Red Guard in Mao's China and the Nazi youth movement in Vienna in the early 1930s were radical: they are only urging the regime to be truer to itself and stop compromising with its enemies. In this sense, these street protests are not benign; they might be a foreshadowing of dark times ahead.

What is desperately needed is a movement of true radicals who do actually speak truth to power, not one that serves as echo chamber for the myths that the powerful have been trying to sell us for hundreds of years.
__
Jeffrey Tucker is the editor of Mises.org and author of It's a Jetsons World: Private Miracles and Public Crimes and Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo. Send him mail. See Jeffrey A. Tucker's article archives.


Latest Commentary
- There Is An Evil 1%, But Everyone Is Getting Its Identity Wrong
- Don't Change the Law -- Ignore It
- The Dawn of Late Fascism
- Will Holder Fold?
- The Adventures of Gullible Gringo: How Government Love Extends Beyond the Border
- Destroying Value: What Government Does Best
- The LA Times notices the "double standard" on Iran
- Prison-Yard America

Awe. Jeffery doesn't like liberals. This piece is simply an outburst against anything "left." The accusations about the OWS not being radical or being pro-government (or at least pro-status quo) isn't supported by a single fact. Drivel.

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here

Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Top 100 Statistics About The Collapse Of The Economy That Every American Voter Should Know

by Michael Snyder

The U.S. economy is dying and most American voters have no idea why it is happening.? Unfortunately, the mainstream media and most of our politicians are not telling the truth about the collapse of the economy.? This generation was handed the keys to the greatest economic machine that the world has ever seen, and we have completely wrecked it.? Decades of incredibly foolish decisions have left us drowning in an ocean of corruption, greed and bad debt.? Thousands of businesses and millions of jobs have left the country and poverty is exploding from coast to coast.? We are literally becoming a joke to the rest of the world.? It is absolutely imperative that we educate America about what is happening.? Until the American people truly understand the problems that we are facing, they will not be willing to implement the solutions that are necessary.

The following are the top 100 statistics about the collapse of the economy that every American voter should know....

#100 A staggering 48.5% of all Americans live in a household that receives some form of government benefits.? Back in 1983, that number was below 30 percent.

#99 During the Obama administration, the U.S. government has accumulated more debt than it did from the time that George Washington took office to the time that Bill Clinton took office.

#98 Since Barack Obama was sworn in, the share of the national debt per household has increased by $35,835.

#97 The U.S. national debt has been increasing by an average of more than 4 billion dollars per day since the beginning of the Obama administration.

#96 It is being projected that the U.S. national debt will hit 344% of GDP by the year 2050 if we continue on our current course.

#95 The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that?U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080.

#94 In 2010, the U.S. government paid $413 billion in interest on the national debt.? That is projected to at least double over the next decade.

#93 According to one new survey, one out of every three Americans would not be able to make a mortgage or rent payment next month if they suddenly lost their current job.

#92 State and local government debt has reached an all-time high of 22 percent of U.S. GDP.

#91 In 1980, government transfer payments accounted for just 11.7% of all income.? Today, government transfer payments account for 18.4% of all income.

#90 U.S. households are now receiving more income from the U.S. government than they are paying to the government in taxes.

#89 According to a new study conducted by the BlackRock Investment Institute, the ratio of household debt to personal income in the United States is now 154 percent.

#88 If you can believe it, one out of every seven Americans has at least 10 credit cards.

#87 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980.? Today they account for approximately 16.3%.

#86 The cost of a health insurance policy for the average American family rose by a whopping 9 percent last year, and according to a report put out by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, the average family health insurance policy now costs over $15,000 a year.

#85 One study found that approximately 41 percent of working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.

#84 An all-time record 49.9 million Americans do not have any health insurance at all at this point, and the percentage of Americans covered by employer-based health plans has fallen for 11 years in a row.

#83 According to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills are a major factor in more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States.? Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.

#82 Average yearly tuition at U.S. private universities is now up to $27,293.

#81 The cost of college tuition in the United States has gone up by over 900 percent since 1978.

#80 In America today, approximately two-thirds of all college students graduate with student loans.

#79 In 2010, the average college graduate had accumulated approximately $25,000 in student loan debt by graduation day.

#78 The total amount of student loan debt in the United States now exceeds the total amount of credit card debt in the United States.

#77 One-third of all college graduates end up taking jobs that don't even require college degrees.

#76 In the United States today, there are more than 100,000 janitors that have college degrees.

#75 In the United States today, 317,000 waiters and waitresses have college degrees.

#74 In the United States today, approximately 365,000 cashiers have college degrees.

#73 It is being projected that for the first time ever, the OPEC nations are going to bring in over a trillion dollars from exporting oil this year.? Their biggest customer is the United States.

#72 U.S. oil companies will bring in about $200 billion in pre-tax profits this year.? They will also receive about $4.4 billion in specialized tax breaks from the U.S. government.

#71 The United States has had a negative trade balance every single year since 1976, and since that time the United States has run a total trade deficit of more than 7.5 trillion dollars with the rest of the world.

#70 The United States has lost an average of 50,000 manufacturing jobs per month since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

#69 The U.S. trade deficit with China is now 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.

#68 Today, the United States spends more than 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.

#67 China has surpassed the United States and is now the largest PC market in the entire world.

#66 In 2002, the United States had a trade deficit in "advanced technology products" of $16 billion with the rest of the world.? In 2010, that number skyrocketed to $82 billion.

#65 In 2010, the number one U.S. export to China was "scrap and trash".

#64 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe?? Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts of $110 billion.

#63 The United States has lost a?staggering 32 percent of?its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.

#62 If you can believe it, more than 42,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been closed down since 2001.

#61 Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.

#60 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.

#59 According to Professor Alan Blinder of Princeton University, 40 million more U.S. jobs could be sent offshore over the next two decades.

#58 If you gathered together all of the workers that are "officially" unemployed in the United States today, they would constitute?the 68th largest country in the world.

#57 There are fewer payroll jobs in the United States right now than there were back in 2000 even though we have added 30 million extra people to the population since then.

#56 Back in 1969, 95 percent of all men between the ages of 25 and 54 had a job.? In July, only 81.2 percent of men in that age group had a job.

#55 Only 55.3% of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 were employed last year.? That was the lowest level that we have seen since World War II.

#54 Today, there are 5.9 million Americans between the ages of 25 and 34 that are living with their parents.

#53 The economic downturn has been particularly tough on men.? According to Census data, men are twice as likely to live with their parents as women are.

#52 According to one recent survey, only 14 percent of all Americans that are 28 or 29 years old are optimistic about their financial futures.

#51 Incredibly, less than 30 percent of all U.S. teens had a job this summer.

#50 According to one study, between 1969 and 2009 the median wages earned by American men between the ages of 30 and 50 dropped by 27 percent after you account for inflation.

#49 Since the year 2000, we have lost approximately 10% of our middle class jobs.? In the year 2000 there were about 72 million middle class jobs in the United States but today there are only about 65 million middle class jobs.

#48 In 1980, 52 percent of all jobs in the United States were middle income jobs.? Today, only 42 percent of all jobs are middle income jobs.

#47 Back in 1980, less than 30% of all jobs in the United States were low income jobs.? Today, more than 40% of all jobs in the United States are low income jobs.

#46 According to Paul Osterman, a professor of economics at MIT, approximately 20 percent of all employed Americans are making $10.65 an hour or less.

#45 Half of all American workers now earn?$505 or less per week.

#44 Since December 2007, median household income in the United States has declined by a total of 6.8% once you account for inflation.

#43 New home sales in the United States are now down 80% from the peak in July 2005.

#42 The all-time record for fewest number of new homes sold in the United States was broken in 2009.? Then it was broken again in 2010.? It is on pace to be broken once again in 2011.

#41 At one point this year, U.S. home prices had fallen a whopping 33% from where they were at during the peak of the housing bubble.

#40 U.S. home values have fallen approximately 6 trillion dollars since the housing crisis first began.

#39 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 18 percent of all homes in the state of Florida are sitting vacant.? That figure is 63 percent larger than it was just ten years ago.

#38 Historically, the percentage of residential mortgages in foreclosure in the United States has tended to hover between 1 and 1.5 percent.? Today, it is up around 4.5 percent.

#37 According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, at least 8 million Americans are currently at least one month behind on their mortgage payments.

#36 According to a Harris Interactive survey taken near the end of last year, 77 percent of all Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck.? In 2007, the same survey found that only 43 percent of Americans were living paycheck to paycheck.

#35 Starting on January 1st, 2011 the Baby Boomers began to hit retirement age.? From now on, every single day more than 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach the age of 65.? That is going to keep happening every single day for the next 19 years.

#34 According to a new poll by Americans for Secure Retirement, 88 percent of all Americans are worried about "maintaining a comfortable standard of living in retirement".? Last year, that figure was at 73 percent.

#33 One out of every six elderly Americans now lives below the federal poverty line.

#32 In 1950, each retiree's Social Security benefit was?paid for by?16 U.S.?workers.? According to new data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are now only 1.75 full-time private sector workers for each person that is receiving Social Security benefits in the United States.

#31 According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Social Security system paid out more in benefits than it received in payroll taxes in 2010.? That was not supposed to happen?until at least 2016.

#30 The U.S. government now says that the Medicare trust fund will run out five years faster than they were projecting just last year.

#29 According to one study, the 50 U.S. state governments are collectively 3.2 trillion dollars short of what they need to meet their pension obligations.

#28 A different study has shown that individual Americans are $6.6 trillion short of what they need to retire comfortably.

#27 Between 1991 and 2007 the number of Americans between the ages of 65 and 74 that filed for bankruptcy rose by a staggering 178 percent.

#26 According to a shocking AARP survey of Baby Boomers that are still in the workforce, 40 percent of them plan to work "until they drop".

#25 Last year, 2.6 million more Americans dropped into poverty.? That was the largest increase that we have seen since the U.S. government began keeping statistics on this back in 1959.

#24 Back in the year 2000, 11.3% of all Americans were living in poverty.? Today, 15.1% of all Americans are living in poverty.

#23 More than 50 million Americans are now on Medicaid.? Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.? Today, approximately one out of every 6 Americans is on Medicaid.

#22 More than 45 million Americans are now on food stamps.

#21 The number of Americans on food stamps has increased 74% since 2007.

#20 Approximately one-third of the entire population of the state of Alabama is now on food stamps.

#19 Right now, one out of every four American children is on food stamps.

#18 It is being projected that approximately 50 percent of all U.S. children will be on food stamps at some point in their lives before they reach the age of 18.

#17 The poverty rate for children living in the United States increased to 22% in 2010.

#16 There are 314 counties in the United States where at least 30% of the children are facing food insecurity.

#15 In Washington D.C., the "child food insecurity rate" is 32.3%.

#14 More than 20 million U.S. children rely on school meal programs to keep from going hungry.

#13 It is estimated that up to half a million children may currently be homeless in the United States.

#12 The number of Americans that are going to food pantries and soup kitchens has increased by 46% since 2006.

#11 According to a recent report from the AFL-CIO, the average CEO made 343 times more money than the average American did last year.

#10 The wealthiest 1% of all Americans now own more than a third of all the wealth in the United States.

#9 The poorest 50% of all Americans collectively own just 2.5% of all the wealth in the United States.

#8 The percentage of millionaires in Congress is more than 50 times higher than the percentage of millionaires in the general population.

#7 According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 16.6 million Americans were self-employed back in December 2006.? Today, that number has shrunk to 14.5 million.

#6 According to one recent poll, 90 percent of the American people believe that economic conditions in the United States are "poor".? To put this in perspective, only 11 percent of Americans rated economic conditions in the U.S. as "poor" back in January of 1999.

#5 According to another recent poll, 80 percent of the American people believe that we are actually in a recession right now.

#4 Our dollar is being systematically destroyed by the Federal Reserve.? An item that cost $20.00 in 1970?will cost you $116.78 today.? An item that cost $20.00 in 1913 will cost you $457.67 today.

#3 The Federal Reserve made $16.1 trillion in secret loans to their friends during the last financial crisis.

#2 The Federal Reserve is a perpetual debt machine.? Today, the U.S. national debt is more than 4700 times larger than it was when the Federal Reserve was created back in 1913.

#1 According to a new CNN/ORC International Poll, 27 percent of all Americans have never even heard of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

We need to educate America.

Please share this with as many people as you can.? Time is running out for America, and 2012 is going to be an absolutely pivotal year in the history of this nation.

We are in the midst of a long-term economic decline that is rapidly accelerating.? If dramatic changes are not made very quickly, we will soon witness a full-blown collapse of the economy.

Wake up as many people as you can.

We are running out of time.


View the original article here

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

When Should You Shoot A Cop

by Larken Rose, CopBlock.org

That question, even without an answer, makes most ?law-abiding taxpayers? go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest, to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist ?law enforcement.? In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of ?law enforcement,? than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chairman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, ?When should you shoot a cop?? Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of ?law enforcement.? And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE ?cop-killers? around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.

...Continued


Latest Commentary
- Why the Left Fears Libertarianism
- Paternalism and the Drug War
- The King's Censors
- How Whitey Bulger Bought Boston
- Idolizing Absolute Power: The Pro-Assassination Crowd
- How Can Anyone Not Realize the War on (Some) Drugs Is Racist?
- No Good Guys in the War on Drugs
- The Costs of Compulsory Education

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.
About Us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened..." - Winston Churchill


View the original article here