Government Is Force

A license to aggress.
by Sheldon Richman

Some pundits really don?t understand why libertarians dislike government and therefore want it to do little, if anything at all. Unable to grasp the reason, the pundits assign bad motives to those who disparage government: They don?t like poor people, or workers, or the sick, or education.

But what?s so hard to understand? Government is significantly different from anything else in society. It is the only institution that can legally threaten and initiate violence; that is, under color of law its officers may use physical force, up to and including lethal force ? not in defense of innocent life but against individuals who have neither threatened nor aggressed against anyone else. ?Government is not reason. It is not eloquence,? George Washington reportedly said. ?Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant ? and a fearful master.?

That?s not a controversial description of the State. Even people enthusiastic about government would agree.

Given this unique feature, then, why isn?t everyone wary of the State? Whether or not one thinks it?s necessary, it?s dangerous by its very nature, and we ought to assume it will remain so no matter how many paper checks and balances and bills of rights are thought to contain it.

Yet if you talk about government this way, you will be eyed warily and even marginalized. (Observe the current presidential campaign.) This is not confined to just one side of the political spectrum. Progressives and conservatives each have their pet areas where they enthusiastically wish to see the force of government unleashed. Each then regards anyone else?s wariness as a defect. So Progressives, who reputedly care about privacy, have no problem, for example, with intrusion into that most personal of matters: medical care. Here they trust power and dismiss rational fears of arbitrary bureaucratic control over health and life. On the other hand, conservatives, who preach freedom and free enterprise, are eager to trust power when the objective is policing the world, hounding unauthorized immigrants, and persecuting manufacturers, merchants, and consumers of unapproved substances.

We are all raised to believe that using force (except in self-defense) is wrong. We?re taught not to hit other people or take their things. This applies to our associations as well. Yet as we grow, we are expected to believe that one institution ? government ? gets to operate by different rules. No one ever explains why.

Tacit Consent

Sure, if you push hard enough, you will hear pseudo explanations. Someone will inevitably invoke tacit consent. You know: You choose to live here and those are the rules ? love it or leave it. But the assertion that we all somehow agreed to be coerced is ludicrous, and Charles Johnson asks if consent is even possible when the withholding of consent is deemed impossible.

Moreover this argument implies that the government owns the country, including your property, which begs a big question.

Push harder, and someone will invoke democracy, but again that really gets us nowhere. In my lifetime the only elections have been to determine who would run the government, not what its powers, if any, would be. (Yes, candidates sometimes promise to reduce government power, but since one officeholder can?t keep such a promise, it?s not terribly meaningful.) The fiction of democratic representation is more intended to contain dissent than to describe reality. Let?s get real: The average congressional district has more than 600,000 residents. Taxation with representation has yet to be realized.

Most people would agree that the sign of an individual?s maturity and rationality, not to mention social skills, is her understanding that the cooperation of others must be obtained exclusively through persuasion. If you want something from someone you make an offer or an argument. You don?t demand, bully, or terrorize. And yet we tolerate an institution that demands, bullies, and terrorizes as a matter of course across a large and growing range of matters. It doesn?t demand merely that we not harm others or take their belongings. It bullies us into turning over our money for all kinds of purposes. It demands that we comply with its (ever-changing) rules about what we consume, how we manage our medical care, and in what manner we trade with others ? and whom those others may be. And it increasingly terrorizes us in its brutal crusade against self-medication.

Routinely Hassled

It matters not for my purpose today whether the government?s officers think they are looking out for our welfare, indulging their taste for power, or doing the bidding of well-connected and well-heeled interests. The result is the same: We are routinely hassled in our efforts to live, to cooperate, and to mutually benefit one another. We are the economy they presume to manage.

Apologists for power will claim that without expansive government, the weak will be vulnerable to the strong, the masses to the rich. But that appeal falls apart when one reviews the history of government and realizes that, appearances aside, power ultimately sides with the strong and the rich against the rest. Indeed, power ? what Bastiat called ?legal plunder? and shelter from competition ? is the source of their strength and a good deal of wealth.

Economic and social theory furnish ample reason for wariness about the State. But we mustn?t let moral theory take a back seat. Government, even when it appears to do good, diminishes our freedom and humanity. How revoltingly ironic that people who claim to champion goodwill and cooperation regard violence as a legitimate means to their ends.

Latest Commentary
- Two Kinds of Selfishness
- Automated Killing: The Total Immorality of the U.S. Government and Its Military
- Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming
- WashPo: 'Why Ron Paul is winning the GOP primary'
- We the Ruled
- Back Room Deals Revealed
- We Will Execute Who We Want, When We Want, And F-You If You Disagree
- Why the Government Is WORSE than a Gang of Criminals

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

Absent Government, What Will Keep Our Food Safe?

Stefano R. Mugnaini

Any conversation about the superfluity of the federal government or her legion of agencies will invariably turn to this question: "Who will keep our food safe?" It is as sure as Godwin's law ? except in this case, the fascists have, inexplicably, become the good guys.

Apparently, the FDA and the USDA have a stellar and unblemished track record of keeping the populace safe from tainted food and dangerous medicines. It is a measure of the success of state propaganda that such a glaring untruth is so commonly seen as axiomatic and beyond question.

One of the great challenges for advocates of a truly free society is to present their vision of how certain functions of government would be replaced by the free market and voluntary cooperation. We are no less presumptuous than advocates of central planning if we dogmatically claim a comprehensive vision of how things will be in our "libertopia."

As Murray Rothbard pointed out, the libertarian's primary task is to

offer a few guidelines on how markets might develop where they are now prevented or restricted from developing; but he can do little more than point the way toward freedom, to call for government to get out of the way of the productive and ever-inventive energies of the public as expressed in voluntary market activity.

While we cannot be about the business of substituting one group of central planners for "our sort" of central planners, the nature of our argument behooves us to offer a vision of freedom ? not what it must be, but what it could be.

As it pertains to the role of agencies like the FDA and USDA, we need look no further than the sustainable- and organic-food movement to see how the free market makes up for government failures; and it is no great leap to imagine the same market forces supplanting the public option altogether.

Perhaps ironically, it is luminaries of the modern movement toward "sustainable" food, generally confirmed statists, who furnish the crux of our argument.

There is a general consensus among those who are deeply devoted to such things that the USDA Certified Organic sticker is, at best, a limited indicator of the agricultural practices involved in the production of various foodstuffs. The USDA program is, like any government agency, bloated, inefficient, and inconsistent. It is rife with corruption and requires expenditures of time and money that preclude many small farmers from participating.

As a result, many small producers are eschewing the USDA label as simply not worth it. Michael Pollan, an icon in the sustainable-food movement, consistently encourages people to forgo Certified Organic produce for local, reasoning that

It often is organic, even if not certified, and you can always ask the farmer. The cost of organic certification can also become burdensome for a small grower.

The farm that runs the CSA (community-supported agriculture) to which I belong is explicit in their disclosure of their growing methods, all the while explaining that they have not received "official" organic certification. In short, there seems to be a general consensus among advocates of organic and sustainable agriculture that the government seal of approval is limited in its value.

But simply buying everything from a local producer is a difficult proposition for the majority of us; time and geographic concerns preclude this as a viable option. How, then, can the average consumer be assured that they are buying food products that have been produced in a manner that is consistent with their ideals? In the face of the failure of the government's program, as usual, the free market has provided a solution. And it is in this free-market solution that we see the germ of an idea that could totally supplant the government's role in the inspection and regulation of agriculture and medicine ? and do it more cheaply, efficiently, and with far greater accountability.

In the absence of a reliable government organic-food regulatory agency, the market has provided several voluntary options. The Certified Naturally Grown program offers "a non-profit organization offering certification tailored for small-scale, direct-market farmers and beekeepers using natural methods." They rely on voluntary participation and a peer-review system that is less expensive, less paperwork intensive, and more efficient than the USDA program.

Whole Foods Market has developed their own alternative for certifying certain production techniques for livestock and poultry, through a partnership with an animal-welfare nonprofit.

These are two options, but there are several others. All share a focus on voluntary cooperation between food producers and certifiers, and greater accountability to the consumer, as they can't hide their flaws behind the veil of government immunity. These programs, and others like them, are infinitely scalable, completely voluntary, and represent a real challenge to the notion that "only the government can ?"

The same organizational structure that has rendered the Certified Organic label obsolete could immediately step in to fill the void left by the absence of the FDA and USDA. Private, third-party certifiers could inspect livestock and produce and affix their seal of approval only when certain standards are met. That the reputations of the inspectors and the farmers are truly on the line would preclude much of the graft and inefficiency that is a constant feature of the current system. Certified, inspected produce would compete with uninspected produce for shelf space and consumer demand. I've focused on the grocery side of the equation, but the same general principles would apply to drug development and regulation.

As Rothbard continues,

No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know ? by economic theory and by historical insight ? that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.

__
Stefano R. Mugnaini is the minister of the Essex Village Church of Christ in Charleston, South Carolina. He holds a master of divinity from Amridge University. See his blog. Send him mail. See Stefano R. Mugnaini's article archives.

Latest Health
- Do TSA Scanners Cause Cancer?
- Study says marijuana no gateway drug
- Damning New Study: Eco Bulbs Cause Cancer
- Unintended Consequences: New Formula of OxyContin Leads to Heroin Addiction and Overdose
- 8 Conspiracy Theories About Health That The Mainstream Media Has Been Forced To Admit Are Actually True
- Why are Americans so fat? Thanks to the government, of course!
- Lew Rockwell Podcast. Keeping Us Sick, Stupid, and Broke
- Corn syrup producers to change name to 'corn sugar' as awareness over health concerns grow

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

How the Government Can Create Jobs

Testimony by Peter D. Schiff
Offered to the House Sub-Committee on Government Reform and Stimulus Oversight

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, and all distinguished members of this panel. Thank you for inviting me here today to offer my opinions as to how the government can help the American economy recover from the worst crisis in living memory.

Despite the understandable human tendency to help others, government spending cannot be a net creator of jobs. Indeed many efforts currently under consideration by the Administration and Congress will actively destroy jobs. These initiatives must stop. While it is easy to see how a deficit-financed government program can lead to the creation of a specific job, it is much harder to see how other jobs are destroyed by the diversion of capital and resources. It is also difficult to see how the bigger budget deficits sap the economy of vitality, destroying jobs in the process.

In a free market jobs are created by profit seeking businesses with access to capital. Unfortunately Government taxes and regulation diminish profits, and deficit spending and artificially low interest rates inhibit capital formation. As a result unemployment remains high, and will likely continue to rise until policies are reversed.

It is my belief that a dollar of deficit spending does more damage to job creation than a dollar of taxes. That is because taxes (particularly those targeting the middle or lower income groups) have their greatest impact on spending, while deficits more directly impact savings and investment. Contrary to the beliefs held by many professional economists spending does not make an economy grow. Savings and investment are far more determinative. Any program that diverts capital into consumption and away from savings and investment will diminish future economic growth and job creation.

Creating jobs is easy for government, but all jobs are not equal. Paying people to dig ditches and fill them up does society no good. On balance these ?jobs? diminish the economy by wasting scarce land, labor and capital. We do not want jobs for the sake of work, but for the goods and services they produce. As it has a printing press, the government could mandate employment for all, as did the Soviet Union. But if these jobs are not productive, and government jobs rarely are, society is no better for it.

This is also true of the much vaunted ?infrastructure spending.? Any funds directed toward infrastructure deprive the economy of resources that might otherwise have funded projects that the market determines have greater economic value. Infrastructure can improve an economy in the log-run, but only if the investments succeeds in raising productivity more than the cost of the project itself. In the interim, infrastructure costs are burdens that an economy must bear, not a means in themselves.

Unfortunately our economy is so weak and indebted that we simply cannot currently afford many of these projects. The labor and other resources that would be diverted to finance them are badly needed elsewhere.

Although it was labeled and hyped as a ?jobs plan,? the new $447 billion initiative announced last night by President Obama is merely another government stimulus program in disguise. Like all previous stimuli that have been injected into the economy over the past three years, this round of borrowing and spending will act as an economic sedative rather than a stimulant. I am convinced that a year from now there will be even more unemployed Americans than there are today, likely resulting in additional deficit financed stimulus that will again make the situation worse.

The President asserted that the spending in the plan will be ?paid for? and will not add to the deficit. Conveniently, he offered no details about how this will be achieved. Most likely he will make non-binding suggestions that future congresses ?pay? for this spending by cutting budgets five to ten years in the future. In the meantime money to fund the stimulus has to come from someplace. Either the government will borrow it legitimately from private sources, or the Federal Reserve will print. Either way, the adverse consequences will damage economic growth and job creation, and lower the living standards of Americans.

There can be no doubt that some jobs will in fact be created by this plan. However, it is much more difficult to identify the jobs that it destroys or prevents from coming into existence. Here?s a case in point: the $4,000 tax credit for hiring new workers who have been unemployed for six months or more. The subsidy may make little difference in effecting the high end of the job market, but it really could make an impact on minimum wage jobs where rather than expanding employment it will merely increase turnover.

Since an employer need only hire a worker for 6 months to get the credit, for a full time employee, the credit effectively reduces the $7.25 minimum wage (from the employer?s perspective) to only $3.40 per hour for a six-month hire. While minimum wage jobs would certainly offer no enticement to those collecting unemployment benefits, the lower effective rate may create some opportunities for teenagers and some low skilled individuals whose unemployment benefits have expired. However, most of these jobs will end after six months so employers can replace those workers with others to get an additional tax credit.

Of course the numbers get even more compelling for employers to provide returning veterans with temporary minimum wage jobs, as the higher $5,600 tax credit effectively reduces the minimum wage to only $1.87 per hour. If an employer hires a ?wounded warrior?, the tax credit is $9,600 which effectively reduces the six-month minimum wage by $9.23 to negative $1.98 per hour. This will encourage employers to hire a ?wounded warrior? even if there is nothing for the employee to do. Such an incentive may encourage such individuals to acquire multiple no-show jobs form numerous employers. As absurd as this sounds, history has shown that when government created incentives, the public will twist themselves into pretzels to qualify for the benefit.

The plan creates incentives for employers to replace current minimum wage workers with new workers just to get the tax credit. Low skill workers are the easiest to replace as training costs are minimal. The laid off workers can collect unemployment for six months and then be hired back in a manner that allows the employer to claim the credit. The only problem is that the former worker may prefer collecting extended unemployment benefits to working for the minimum wage!

The $4,000 credit for hiring the unemployed as well as the explicit penalties for discriminating against the long-term unemployed will result in a situation where employers will be far more likely to interview and hire applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. Under the law, employers would be wise to refuse to interview anyone who has been unemployed for more than six months, as any subsequent decision not to hire could be met with a lawsuit. However, to get the tax credit they would be incentivized to interview applicants who have been unemployed for just under six months. If they are never hired there can be no risk of a lawsuit, but if they are hired, the start date can be planned to qualify for the credit.

The result will simply create classes of winners (those unemployed for four or five months) and losers (the newly unemployed and the long term unemployed). Ironically, the law banning discrimination against long-term unemployed will make it much harder for such individuals to find jobs.

At present, I am beginning to feel that over regulation of business and employment, and an overly complex and punitive tax code is currently a bigger impediment to job growth than is our horrific fiscal and monetary policies. As a business owner I know that reckless government policy can cause no end of unintended consequences.

As I see it, here are the biggest obstacles preventing job growth:

Monetary policy

Interest rates are much too low. Cheap money produced both the stock market and real estate bubbles, and is currently facilitating a bubble in government debt. When this bubble bursts the repercussions will dwarf the shock produced by the financial crisis of 2008. Interest rates must be raised to bring on a badly needed restructuring of our economy. No doubt an environment of higher rates will cause short-term pain. But we need to move from a ?borrow and spend? economy to a ?save and produce? economy. This cannot be done with ultra-low interest rates. In the short-term GNP will need to contract. There will be a pickup in transitory unemployment. Real estate and stock prices will fall. Many banks will fail. There will be more foreclosures. Government spending will have to be slashed. Entitlements will have to be cut. Many voters will be angry. But such an environment will lay the foundation upon which a real recovery can be built.

The government must allow our bubble economy to fully deflate. Asset prices, wages, and spending must fall, interest rates, production, and savings must rise. Resources, including labor, must be reallocated away from certain sectors, such as government, services, finance, health care, and educations, and be allowed to into manufacturing, mining, oil and gas, agriculture, and other goods producing fields. We will never borrow and spend our way out of a crisis caused by too much borrowing and spending. The only way out is to reverse course.

Fiscal policy

To create conditions that foster growth, the government should balance the budget with major cuts in government spending, severely reform and simplify the tax code. It would be preferable if all corporate and personal taxes could be replaces by a national sales tax. Our current tax system discourages the activities that we need most: hard work, production, savings, investment, and risk taking. Instead it incentivizes consumption and debt. We should tax people when they spend their wealth, not when they create it. High marginal income tax rates inflict major damage to job creation, as the tax is generally paid out of money that otherwise would have been used to finance capital investment and job creation.

Regulation

Regulations have substantially increased the costs and risks associated with job creation. Employers are subjected to all sorts of onerous regulations, taxes, and legal liability. The act of becoming an employer should be made as easy as possible. Instead we have made it more difficult. In fact, among small business owners, limiting the number of employees is generally a goal. This is not a consequence of the market, but of a rational desire on the part of business owners to limit their cost and legal liabilities. They would prefer to hire workers, but these added burdens make it preferable to seek out alternatives.

In my own business, securities regulations have prohibited me from hiring brokers for more than three years. I was even fined fifteen thousand dollar expressly for hiring too many brokers in 2008. In the process I incurred more than $500,000 in legal bills to mitigate a more severe regulatory outcome as a result of hiring too many workers. I have also been prohibited from opening up additional offices. I had a major expansion plan that would have resulted in my creating hundreds of additional jobs. Regulations have forced me to put those jobs on hold.

In addition, the added cost of security regulations have forced me to create an offshore brokerage firm to handle foreign accounts that are now too expensive to handle from the United States. Revenue and jobs that would have been created in the U.S. are now being created abroad instead. In addition, I am moving several asset management jobs from Newport Beach, California to Singapore.

As Congress turns up the heat, more of my capital will continue to be diverted to my foreign companies, creating jobs and tax revenues abroad rather than in the United States.

To encourage real and lasting job growth the best thing the government can do is to make it as easy as possible for business to hire and employ people. This means cutting down on workplace regulations. It also means eliminating the punitive aspects of employment law that cause employers to think twice about hiring. To be blunt, the easier employees are to fire, the higher the likelihood they will be hired. Some steps Congress could take now include:

a. Abolish the Federal Minimum Wage

Minimum wages have never raised the wages of anyone and simply draw an arbitrary line that separates the employable from the unemployable. Just like prices, wages are determined by supply and demand. The demand for workers is a function of how much productivity a worker can produce. Setting the wage at $7.25 simply means that only those workers who can produce goods and services that create more than $7.25 (plus all additional payroll associated costs) per hour are eligible for jobs. Those who can?t, become permanently unemployable. The artificial limits encourage employers to look to minimize hires and to automate wherever possible.

By putting many low skill workers (such as teenagers) below the line, the minimum wage prevents crucial on the job training, which could provide workers with the experience and skills needed to earn higher wages.

b. Repeal all Federal workplace anti-discrimination Laws

One of the reasons unemployment is so high among minorities is that business owners (particularly small business) are wary of legal liability associated with various categories of protected minorities. The fear of litigation, and the costly judgments that can ensue, are real. Given that it is nearly impossible for an employer to control all the aspects of the workplace environment, litigation risk is a tangible consideration. Given all the legal avenues afforded by legislation, minority employees are much more likely to sue employers. To avoid this, some employers simply look to avoid this outcome by sticking with less risky employee categories. It is not racism that causes this discrimination, but a rational desire to mitigate liability. The reality is that a true free market would punish employers that discriminate based on race or other criteria irrelevant to job performance. That is because businesses that hire based strictly on merit would have a competitive advantage. Anti-discrimination laws titled the advantage to those who discriminate.

c. Repeal all laws mandating employment terms such as work place conditions, over-time, benefits, leave, medical benefits, etc.

Employment is a voluntary relationship between two parties. The more room the parties have to negotiate and agree on their own terms, the more likely a job will be created. Rules imposed from the top create inefficiencies that limit employment opportunities. Employee benefits are a cost of employment, and high value employees have all the bargaining power they need to extract benefits from employers. They are free to search for the best benefits they can get just as they search for the best wages.

Companies that do not offer benefits will lose employees to companies that do. Just as employees are free to leave companies at will, so too should employers be free to terminate an employee without fear of costly repercussions. Individuals should not gain rights because they are employees, and individuals should not lose rights because they become employers.

d. Abolish extended unemployment benefits

In addition to being a source of emergency funds, unemployment benefits over time become more of a disincentive to employment than anything else (although the disincentive diminishes with the worker?s skill level -- i.e. high wage workers are unlikely to forego a high wage job opportunity to preserve unemployment benefits). For marginally skilled workers unemployment insurance is a major factor in determining if a job should be taken or not.

Even if unemployment pays a significant fraction of the wage a worker would get with a full time job, the money may be enough to convince the worker to stay home. After all, there are costs associated with having a job. Not only does a worker pay payroll and income taxes on any wages he earns, the loss of unemployment benefits itself acts as a tax. Plus workers must pay for such job related expenses as transportation, clothing, restaurant meals, dry cleaning and childcare, and they must forgo other work that they could do in their free time (providing care for loved ones, home improvement, etc.).

Understandably, most people also find leisure time preferable to work. As a result, any job that does not offer a major monetary advantage to unemployment benefits will likely be turned down. This entrenches unemployment insurance recipients into a class of permanently unemployed workers.

It is no accident that employment increases immediately after unemployment insurance expires for many categories of workers. In fact, many individual will seek to max out their benefits, and remain unemployed until those benefits expire. If they work at all, it will be for cash under-the-table, so as not to leave any money on the table.

Latest Economy
- The True "Spread the Wealth Philosophy"
- More of the Same
- Marc Faber: Gold is "Dirt Cheap" -- Price Could Reach $10,000 per Ounce
- Marc Faber's September Outlook: The Calm Before the Storm
- Why Do Republicans Want to Raise Taxes?
- News Flash: U.S.P.S. is broke
- Labor Union Becomes Laughing Stock
- 70% of U.S. bonds mature in five years

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

Terminal cancer patient holds yard sale to help pay medical bills, government shuts it down

Chris | InformationLiberation

A neighborhood snitch rats on their terminally ill cancer patient neighbor for holding an "illegal" yard sale in her backyard and a government goon takes the call and shuts the dying woman's yard sale down. Welcome to life in the land of the free.

(KATU News) - A woman fighting a terminal form of bone cancer is trying to raise money to help pay bills with a few weekend garage sales, but the city of Salem says she?s breaking the law and is shutting her down.

Jan Cline had no idea, but the city of Salem has a clear law that states a person can only have three yard sales a year.

Cline has been selling her stuff in the backyard for a few weekends and said she thought she?d be fine by keeping the sale out of everyone?s way. [...]

So she decided to sell what she owned. The sale was bringing in several hundred dollars each weekend until one neighbor complained and she got a visit from the city.

?He said, ?I?m sorry. Rules are rules.??

Read the full story here.

Latest Tyranny/Police State
- Canton Cop Threatens To Kill Citizen In THIRD Dash Cam Video
- Despite no law, FL Highway Patrol illegally tickets motorists who warn others about speed traps
- DOJ raids Gibson guitars over "illegal" wood
- Police shut down 12-yr-old's green tea stand
- Veteran Says Deputies Shot Him in the Back
- FDA wages secret war on raw milk farmers using KGB-style spying and infiltration techniques
- Lemonade Protester Gets Assaulted, Then Threatened With Wiretapping Charges
- 17-yr-old student arrested and jailed for wearing skirt to school

rules? Assholes are assholes... period. The neighbor that snitched ought to be very proud. Find something better to do with your time. What the hell is wrong with some people? ...who wants to make SupportJanCline.com?!

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

Big Brother 2.0: 10 New Ways That The Government Will Be Spying On You And Controlling Your Behavior

by Michael Snyder

Are you ready for Big Brother 2.0?? If you think that the hundreds of ways that the government watches, monitors, tracks and controls us now are bad, just wait until you see what is coming.? We live in an age when paranoia is running wild.? As technology continues to develop at an exponential pace, governments all over the globe are going to discover a multitude of new ways to spy on us and control our behavior.? In a world where everyone is a "potential terrorist", we are told that things like liberty, freedom and privacy are "luxuries" that we can no longer afford.? We are assured that if we just allow the government to watch all of us and investigate all of us that somehow that will keep us all safe.? But it isn't just the government that is watching us.? Now we are being taught to spy on one another and to report any trace of "suspicious activity" to the government immediately.? The entire civilized world is being transformed into one giant prison grid, and many of the new technologies that are now being introduced are going to make things even worse.

The following are 10 new ways that the government will be spying on you and controlling your behavior....

#1 Are you ready for "electronic skin tattoos"?? One team of researchers has created an extremely thin, extremely flexible "smart skin" that will open up a whole new world of possibilities.? Wearing "skin-mounted electronics" might seem like a great idea to tech geeks, but it also could create a whole lot of new problems.? The following is how an article in one UK newspaper described this new breakthrough....

The "epidermal electronic system" relies on a highly flexible electrical circuit composed of snake-like conducting channels that can bend and stretch without affecting performance. The circuit is about the size of a postage stamp, is thinner than a human hair and sticks to the skin by natural electrostatic forces rather than glue.

Yes, this kind of technology would be a great way to connect wirelessly to the Internet and it would be helpful for doctors that need to monitor their patients, but the potential for abuse is also there.

Once this type of technology becomes widespread, governments will be able to monitor the location and activities of their citizens like never before.

In addition, this type of technology could one day become mandated by governments.? For example, someday you may be required to have an "electronic skin tatoo" in order to prove your identity or to participate in commerce.

Also, it is not too far of a stretch to imagine that "skin-mounted electronics" could be used to control large populations.? Just remember, if you connect yourself physically to the Internet, that also means that the Internet is connected to you.

#2 According to a shocking document obtained by Oath Keepers, the FBI is now instructing store owners to report many new forms of "suspicious activity" to them.? According to the document, "suspicious activity" now includes....

-paying with cash

-missing a hand or fingers

-"strange odors"

-making "extreme religious statements"

-"radical theology"

-purchasing weatherproofed ammunition or match containers

-purchasing meals ready to eat

-purchasing night vision devices, night flashlights or gas masks

According to WorldNetDaily, this document is part of a "series of brochures" that will be distributed "to farm supply stores, gun shops, military surplus stores and even hotels and motels."

#3 The U.S. military has developed an invisible "pain ray" that is remarkably effective.? The following is how a recent article posted on Alternet described this weapon....

It sounds like a weapon out of Star Wars. The?Active Denial System, or ADS, works like an open-air microwave oven, projecting a focused beam of?electromagnetic radiation to heat the skin of its targets to 130 degrees. This creates an intolerable burning sensation forcing those in its path to instinctively flee (a response the Air Force dubs the "goodbye effect").

Sadly, this weapon is already being used in American prisons.? How long will it be before it is used on the general population?

#4 Be careful about what you put up on Facebook or Twitter.? Law enforcement agencies all over the globe are now focusing on social media as never before.? For example, the NYPD has just created a special "social media" unit dedicated to looking for criminals on Facebook and Twitter.

#5 Facial recognition technology has now come of age.? With the millions of security cameras that are going up all over the world, such technology is proving to be very useful for law enforcement authorities.? In fact, police in London are using it to track down people that were involved in the London riots.? The following is an excerpt from a recent CBC report that described these efforts....

Facial recognition technology being considered for London's 2012 Games is getting a workout in the wake of Britain's riots, with officers feeding photographs of suspects through Scotland Yard's newly updated face-matching program.

Facial recognition technology is rapidly going to become part of our everyday lives.? In fact, now even Facebook is using it.? Eventually it is going to become very difficult to avoid the reach of this technology.

#6 "Smart meters" are going into homes all over North America and Europe.? These smart meters monitor your home every single minute of every single day and they transmit very sophisticated data about your personal behavior back to the utility company.

They are already being used by police all over the United States in drug cases.? If a smart meter catches you using an "unusual" amount of energy there is a good chance that your home will be raided.

The European Parliament has set a goal of having smart meters in the homes of 80 percent of all electricity consumers by the year 2020, and Barack Obama is working very hard to get them into as many American homes as he can.

#7 Our children are being trained to accept being under surveillance almost constantly.? For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending huge amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of U.S. public schools so that government control freaks can closely monitor what our children are eating.

#8 Perhaps you thought that only Tom Cruise had to worry about "pre-crime".? Well, now "pre-crime" is popping up in the real world too.? The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will?begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders"?in specific prevention and education programs.

#9 According to the ACLU, state police in Michigan are now using "extraction devices" to download data from the cellphones of motorists that they pull over.? This is taking place even if those pulled over are not accused of doing anything wrong.

The following is how an article on CNET News described the capabilities of these "extraction devices"....

The devices, sold by a company called Cellebrite, can download text messages, photos, video, and even GPS data from most brands of cell phones. The handheld machines have various interfaces to work with different models and can even bypass security passwords and access some information.

#10 LRAD sound cannons are already been used by law enforcement authorities to disperse large crowds inside the United States.? So how much "damage" can sound do?? Well, it turns out that sound can actually do a whole lot of damage.? The following is how Alternet describes these cruel weapons....

The?Long Range Acoustic Device, or LRAD, built by American Technology Corporation, focuses and broadcasts sound over ranges of up to hundreds of yards. LRAD has been around for years, but Americans first took notice when police used it in Pittsburgh to ward off protesters at the?2009 G-20 summit. It is generally used in?two ways:?as a megaphone to order protesters to disperse; or, if they disobey, as an "ear-splitting siren" to drive them away. While LRAD may not be deadly, it?can permanently damage hearing, depending on how it's used.

LRAD sound cannons do not discriminate.? When they are being used to disperse protesters, any innocent bystanders in the area will be affected as well.? If anyone gets too close to an LRAD sound cannon while it is in use, permanent damage can result.? Small children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable.? Sadly, the use of LRAD sound cannons is becoming more common.? In fact, they have even been used to break up college block parties.

So is this the kind of world that you want to live in?

Do you want your children and grandchildren to live in a world where liberty and freedom are all but forgotten?

This world is headed toward a very dark place.? These "Big Brother" technologies are going to become even more pervasive and even more oppressive.? If this trend is not stopped now, someday these technologies will get into some very evil hands, and then all hell will be unleashed.

Latest Big Brother/Orwellian
- Terror Probes Have FBI's Informant Numbers Soaring
- Operation in Our Sites: Feds Arrest 19-Year-Old Streaming Site Admin
- CIA aided New York police in spying on Muslims: report
- 15-Year-Old Schoolboy On Trial After Head Teacher Tells Police About File-Sharing
- The FBI vs. Antiwar.com
- Pay with cash? Insist on privacy? Buying survivalist gear? FBI warns you might be a terrorist
- Wiki war: 3500 unpublished leaks destroyed forever as Assange hits out
- Pay Your Carbon Taxes To Al Gore Or Space Aliens Will Attack

Hi, I replaced your link, please do not link to NSFW sites. I find it interesting they say it could be used to fight "copyright infringement." i kind of view it literally as experiencing the death throes of a monster, in britland this includes a massive cointelpro operation and trying to punish people for what has been done against them where they cannot even do the punishment. e.g. fining poor people when they cannot pay.

people are waking up to consciously realise what they have been living in, seeing what the problems are. that changes everything.

of all the dangerous drugs, addiction to power is one that affects humankind as a whole.

The article reads:
"...someday these technologies will get into some very evil hands, and then all hell will be unleashed."
.:.
It's already in evil hands. They just haven't gotten to the phase in their operations for all hell to be unleashed. Make no mistake, if we don't reach a critical mass of Awakened & motiviated individuals SOON, we will be living that hell in the near future...
<>

!*!*!* Ron Paul r3/0|ution U.S.A *!*!*!
{__...we're taking our country back...__}

state ends when and wherever humanity is expressed

ibm and tavistock was one of the ugliest marriages i have seen, ibm recently publicly announcing their freudian chips. (my words).

humankind is living in an assault matrix, that is what the state is and for. there is a battle of technology (which includes constructed human archetypes) to destroy humanity.

chris (il) covered wilhelm reich, a man who developed his skills outside of the box he was supposed to operate in, from treating the psyche on to treating cancer. it was then textbook FBI eugenices, reich was terminated.

i was just told in a homeless centre 'we can't feed you because we are a charity'. a charity for the homeless feeds off the poor via the state economic prison. human beings make decisions in their perceived subjective context and typically with pre-existing psychological injury.

it is easier to go along with the state until you get killed off. i don't subscribe to that view, though the state is physically trying to kill me off and am all too conscious of what is going on. if you have seen reality to a revealing extent, how can you change your view?

Jung is often quoted, a lot of social engineering leaned on his work. to quote him:

- Jung

life on a meter

freedom, i think we know what that is as it is born in us. there are many distractions, illusions, threats and even imitations but i soon notice the folly.

we live in a giant holistic assault matrix, hiding truths from people, truths they already know. there is a flood of information, irritations trying to overload the senses that people do not come to their senses. the conditioned mind may not notice the scale and nature of what all official operations are.

Jung

designs are being laid on this earth as i write this. governments cannot run out of money but they play big games with big lies. in their alice in wonderland prison, there are economies, total state economy. centrepiece in the 'new age economy' in britland are universities, training armies of compartmentallised engineers (whether they know it or not) all over the world. they are being armed with the means and ignorance for the destruction of human life, presented quite differently and in a battery of social engineering boxes.

people have authentic knowledge within them. the more people recover their authentic self, the more they will ee through the smoke screen of public opinion, news and much human dialogue. the real matrix is in plain view. people have been told huges lies, given a massive array of injuries. those who cause these injuries consciously or not are not there to heal, likely as with life, that is a personal task.

meantime millions of people are remotely controlled by computer systems to destroy each other. if you see enough of life you can see the synchronisation real time.

quote dave: "people have authentic knowledge within them."

yes they do. but they don't know anyone else knows, and they feel so terribly alone. and if they weren't so terribly lonely, they would have no reason to be in the group. having real freedom of speech would solve that problem and people wouldn't feel so alone and wouldn't need the support (and security and protection) from the group. but instead we are ruled by our own denial of what is true and to be found only within. all of us. we aren't alone. never were. the group just wants to make you think you are.

i am not the only one to say these things. it's in every article about mkultra i ever read. they just use different words to talk about it, see it from a different perspective.

as for the article, the second sentence gives up the game: "If you think that the hundreds of ways that the government watches, monitors, tracks and controls us now are bad, just wait until you see what is coming." threats. this is what i might call the manufacture of fear. at least with this particular article, they aren't telling you what solution they want you to buy.

quote: "This world is headed toward a very dark place."

that would be denial. we are already there, been there for a couple thousand years now. where we are headed is somewhere completely different. and people fear the unknown, they fight against it tooth and nail. but the unknown doesn't have to hurt us. we don't have to be afraid of the future.

the outward impression of more and more controls is a reflection of the fact that those controls aren't working so well. though it tends to the man with the stick, the endurance of the dictatorship relies on the disguise of the brutality.

i was earlier (at a feed centre induction) sitting talking with psychopaths presenting self evident contradictions at me and life threatening ones (4th reich programming). there was a doctor (dr group) in training present in her 6th year. she said nothing, didn't have the integrity to live up to the hypocratic oath she would later swear to. her crowning glory likely will be an outright lie, the glory really being in the group to the loss of us all. i looked at her and she gave a pretty smile, too early to be a professional smile, too late to be human.

shiny and twinkly police cars, ambulances and fire engines were flooding the public theatre of the high street in exeter (brand uk) as they were in atlanta (brand us) in a parade of prosperity. attempting to present war it is now seen as the war.

on a trip to america, having passed through a battery of tsa assaults i was then confronted by another irritant, this time badged up as 'global security'. the badge symbolised the time that had come, it was another strike 13 in the empire, consumed by its own addiction to power it had nothing left to steal except for consuming its own.

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

U.S. Government Loaning $500M for Solar Power Projects -- In India

By Terence P. Jeffrey

The U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, says that it has $500 million in loans in the ?pipeline? to fund new solar energy projects?in India.

The $500 million in new loans will come on top of $75 million in financing that the Export-Import Bank has already provided this year for solar power projects in India.

?In fiscal year 2011 to date, the Bank has approved financing totaling approximately $75 million for four solar projects in India,? the bank said in a July 18 press release. ?The Bank also has about $500 million of India solar projects in the pipeline that will generate an estimated 315 MW of solar power.?

While in India last month, Export-Import Bank Chairman Fred Hochberg, an Obama appointee, announced two of the new solar projects the U.S.-government bank will be financing.

Read More

Latest Politics/Corruption
- 9/11 First Responders To Be Excluded From 10th Anniversary Ceremony
- Government Regulators Shake Down Google For $500,000,000
- How Government Decides Who Is Qualified
- Ricky the Rent Boy
- Planning board politico allegedly assaults disabled man and smashes his cell phone after he took a picture of him illegally parked in two handicap spots
- The Battle For Brooklyn: Eminent Domain Abuse Gone Wild
- Small Arkansas Town Wants To Ban Free Speech And Freedom Of Assembly, No "Group" Will Be Able To Meet Without City's Permission
- New York's Gang of Thieves

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

How Government Decides Who Is Qualified

By Anthony Gregory

An Air Force sergeant has been discharged for being a vocal ?birther,? someone denying that the president was born in the United States. Meanwhile, three ATF agents involved in ?Operation Fast and Furious,? a highly controversial plan to permit illegal gun sales that end up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, have new jobs at ATF headquarters.

Now perhaps the sergeant should have lost his post--and for those who resent not being allowed to quit the military, maybe this exemption should be made more universal--yet I?m struck by the implied lesson here: Conduct that questions the legitimacy of the head of the U.S. government, however fallacious and misguided, will get you fired; conduct that violates the law and arms alleged warlords said to be great threats to civil peace does not necessarily preclude a promotion in your future.

The modern examples of this in U.S. government are too numerous to list. Hayek?s insight that ?the worst rise to the top? would seem to have an application not just in electoral politics, but all throughout the bureaucracy, including the state?s enforcement apparatuses.

A look at Obama?s appointments to high office would seem to confirm our suspicions that what would pass as poor job performance throughout the rest of the economy does not necessarily mean poor future job prospects in the government sector.

This does not mean, however, that government has no standards. Pointing out that official estimates for war costs are probably greatly understated can easily get you canned. Blowing the whistle on government atrocities will lose you your job and more. Simply standing up against established wisdom is a great risk, everywhere from public academia to the military, the federal executive branch down to the local police.

But arming dangerous criminals? There might be a raise in your future. Helping an illegal weapons trade coverup? You?ll be called back to a high-level counter-terrorism gig. Were you involved in multiple shady foreign policy operations, including an entire secret and illegal war in Cambodia? You?re just the kind of guy we need to investigate 9/11! Interfere with humanitarian aid to detainees in Iraq? Expect to be asked to run America?s biggest war. Shame the country and enrage its enemies with the most callous thing said in recent memory about governmental killing of innocent children? You?ll soon be made Secretary of State. Failed in predicting or dealing with the financial crisis? Expect to be reappointed. Shot a helpless woman in the head while she stood in the kitchen holding her infant? We expect to see you at the next major federal raid, as well.

Government accountability is practically an oxymoron, and this is not hyperbole. Because the state is a unique social institution--a monopoly on legal violence--it cannot be held liable for its actions in the same way as are individuals and private institutions. The only remedy is a vigilant public. And so where?s the outrage?

Latest Politics/Corruption
- 9/11 First Responders To Be Excluded From 10th Anniversary Ceremony
- Government Regulators Shake Down Google For $500,000,000
- Ricky the Rent Boy
- U.S. Government Loaning $500M for Solar Power Projects -- In India
- Planning board politico allegedly assaults disabled man and smashes his cell phone after he took a picture of him illegally parked in two handicap spots
- The Battle For Brooklyn: Eminent Domain Abuse Gone Wild
- Small Arkansas Town Wants To Ban Free Speech And Freedom Of Assembly, No "Group" Will Be Able To Meet Without City's Permission
- New York's Gang of Thieves

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

The Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution

by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[Extracted from On the Impossibility of Limited Government and the Prospects for a Second American Revolution, Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains why limited government is an impossibility and how we could change things to create a truly free society.]

After more than two centuries of "constitutionally limited government," the results are clear and incontrovertible. At the outset of the American "experiment," the tax burden imposed on Americans was light, indeed almost negligible. Money consisted of fixed quantities of gold and silver. The definition of private property was clear and seemingly immutable, and the right to self-defense was regarded as sacrosanct. No standing army existed, and, as expressed in George Washington's Farewell Address, a firm commitment to free trade and a noninterventionist foreign policy appeared to be in place. Two hundred years later, matters have changed dramatically.[16]

Now, year in and year out, the American government expropriates more than 40 percent of the incomes of private producers, making even the economic burden imposed on slaves and serfs seem moderate in comparison. Gold and silver have been replaced by government-manufactured paper money, and Americans are being robbed continually through money inflation. The meaning of private property, once seemingly clear and fixed, has become obscure, flexible, and fluid. In fact, every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated and re-regulated by ever-higher mountains of paper laws (legislation). With increasing legislation, ever more legal uncertainty and moral hazards have been created, and lawlessness has replaced law and order.

Last but not least, the commitment to free trade and noninterventionism has given way to a policy of protectionism, militarism, and imperialism. In fact, almost since its beginnings the US government has engaged in relentless aggressive expansionism and, starting with the Spanish-American War and continuing past World War I and World War II to the present, the United States has become entangled in hundreds of foreign conflicts and risen to the rank of the world's foremost warmonger and imperialist power. In addition, while American citizens have become increasingly more defenseless, insecure, and impoverished, and foreigners all over the globe have become ever more threatened and bullied by US military power, American presidents, members of Congress, and Supreme Court judges have become ever more arrogant, morally corrupt, and dangerous.[17]

What can possibly be done about this state of affairs? First, the American Constitution must be recognized for what it is ? an error.

As the Declaration of Independence noted, government is supposed to protect life, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet in granting government the power to tax and legislate without consent, the Constitution cannot possibly assure this goal but is instead the very instrument for invading and destroying the right to life, property, and liberty. It is absurd to believe that an agency that may tax without consent can be a property protector. Likewise, it is absurd to believe that an agency with legislative powers can preserve law and order. Rather, it must be recognized that the Constitution is itself unconstitutional, i.e., incompatible with the very doctrine of natural human rights that inspired the American Revolution.[18]

Indeed, no one in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed one's alleged protector to determine unilaterally, without one's consent, and irrevocably, without the possibility of exit, how much to charge for protection; and no one in his right mind would agree to an irrevocable contract which granted one's alleged protector the right to ultimate decision making regarding one's own person and property, i.e., of unilateral lawmaking.[19]

Second, it is necessary to offer a positive and inspiring alternative to the present system.

...Continued

Latest Commentary
- The Private Fireworks Show Of My Dreams
- Independence Day Propaganda
- Innovations in Technology | Jeffrey A. Tucker
- Show Love to the Merchant Class
- Conspiracies
- Fireworks: Taxpayer Money, Up in Smoke
- The Grand Holiday
- The New York Times' Broken Record: Whoops! We Rushed to Judgment, but the Charges Are Not True!

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

Geithner: Taxes on 'Small Business' Must Rise So Government Doesn't 'Shrink'

By Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to ?shrink the overall size of government programs.?

The administration?s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year?including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Read More

Latest Politics/Corruption
- Twisted ethics of an expert witness
- US Pledges $300 Million More for Central America Drug War
- 14 Reasons Why Rick Perry Would Be A Really, Really Bad President
- Supremes Rule EPA Final Arbiter on Carbon Dioxide
- Gov. worker claims to see shark off S.F. coast, Gov. bans surfing and swimming for five days
- NYT's Love Affair With Fascism Continues
- FDA sends US marshals to seize elderberry juice concentrate, deems it 'unapproved drug'
- Church fined $4,000 for 'excessive tree pruning'

Thats right! We have to tax those small businesses so our benevolent government can continue to metastasize, er, uh, I mean GROW! "Our Government" meaning Exxon, Walmart, GE, Raytheon, Monsanto, Dupont, Goldman Sachs, Google, Apple etc....................

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

Iraq war inquiry: UN expert exposes UK government cover-up

Iraq war inquiry: former UN expert accuses Whitehall of cover-up?

A key witness to the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war has accused Whitehall of trying to silence embarrassing testimony undermining the case for the invasion.

In today's Observer, Carne Ross, the UK's Iraq expert at the UN between 1997 and 2002, writes that the inquiry is being prevented by "deep state" forces from establishing the government's true motivation for invading Iraq.

Ross, who appeared before the inquiry this month, says he was not provided with key documents relevant to his testimony and was warned by officials not to refer to an internal Foreign Office memo that contradicted the government's public case for war.

Before his appearance, large files were sent to him to read in confidence at the UK mission to the UN in New York, but "most of the key documents I had asked for were not there". In the hours before his appearance, Ross visited the Foreign Office, where he says "an official repeatedly sought to persuade me to delete references to certain documents in my testimony".

Ross claims he was told his evidence must not refer to a memo from a senior Foreign Office official. The memo, to the special adviser to the then foreign secretary, Jack Straw, expressed concern that a briefing paper for the parliamentary Labour party had "dramatically" altered the assessment of Iraq's nuclear threat. Ross says the "paper claimed that if Iraq's programmes remained unchecked, it could develop a workable nuclear device within five years. The official's memo pointed out that this was not in fact the UK assessment, which was more or less the opposite: that the UK believed that Iraq's nuclear programme had been effectively checked by sanctions."

Despite the official's concern, the paper was used to brief the cabinet. Ross writes: "This paper was pure overstated propaganda, filled with almost ludicrous statements like 'one teaspoon of anthrax can kill a million people'."

He expressed incredulity that the Foreign Office wanted references to the briefing removed from his testimony, as it related to a public document. "It is very worrying that the government machine is still trying to withhold key documents, and silence those of us with detailed knowledge of the policy history. I have been told too... that members of the [inquiry] panel have been refused documents they have specifically requested."

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said: "The Chilcot inquiry will not be credible if relevant documents that do not now threaten national security are kept from the inquiry and the public."

Ross said he had wanted to use his appearance to highlight how ministers failed to consider alternatives to military action. "I had asked for specific records relating to the UK's failure to deal with the so-called Syrian pipeline, through which Iraq illegally exported oil, sustaining the Saddam [Hussein] regime. I was told that specific documents, such as the records of prime minister [Tony] Blair's visit to Syria, could not be found. This is simply not plausible." He also asked for joint intelligence committee assessments on Iraq, some of which he helped prepare and all of which he had seen. "Only three were provided ? 40 minutes before I was due before the Chilcot panel."

The claims come at the end of a week in which the former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, cast grave doubts on the case for invading Iraq and the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, described the invasion as "illegal".

A Cabinet Office spokesman said the inquiry was committed to being fair to all witnesses. "The inquiry wrote to Mr Ross four weeks prior to his appearance, highlighting that if he wished to refer to any specific documents he should notify the Iraq inquiry secretariat in advance so they could seek any necessary declassification. As Sir John Chilcot highlighted, Mr Ross did not ask in advance for any documents to be declassified."

SOURCE

The Guardian, "Iraq war inquiry: former UN expert accuses Whitehall of cover-up?", 25 July 2010.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/25/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-cover-up-claim

"The Insider" mailing list article, 26 July 2010.

View the original article here