Is There Anything We Can Do About Mass Murder?

...that we have these shootings almost ritualistically is horrible.  Here is a good article at Mother Jones - it's quite complete.   Is There Anything We Can Do About Mass Murder?
Update, December 15: Click here for our coverage of the Newtown school massacre. This story has been updated to include data from that event.

In the fierce debate that always follows the latest mass shooting, it's an argument you hear frequently from gun rights promoters: If only more people were armed, there would be a better chance of stopping these terrible events. This has plausibility problems—what are the odds that, say, a moviegoer with a pack of Twizzlers in one pocket and a Glock in the other would be mentally prepared, properly positioned, and skilled enough to take out a body-armored assailant in a smoke- and panic-filled theater? But whether you believe that would happen is ultimately a matter of theory and speculation. Instead, let's look at some facts gathered in a two-month investigation by Mother Jones.

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in other recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.  (Click on the link above to read the entire story).

The Ongoing Battle Between To Have Guns Or Not To Have

The shooting of young children and teacher in their classroom is beyond horror and makes one think about the human mind and how it can become horribly corrupted.  But what one has to realize is that guns cannot act by themselves...just as knives, bombs and arrows cannot act by themselves.  They need a human agent to trigger them into activity.  If we had better collection of data that could be processed for information about  whether the purchaser of a gun had medical issues or was a previous felon then that would solve the majority of the problem.  Guns can be used to protect oneself and family or it can be used for murder.  The two have to be distinguished and a sane policy arrived at.  Not this knee jerk reaction every time one of these killings happen.

The Obama Record

The Obama Record: The chief executive who swore to faithfully execute the nation's laws picks those he'll ignore and makes up others through regulation and executive order. He sees no need for a Congress or Constitution...  

...In his State of the Union address a year later on Jan. 27, 2010, he shamefully scolded the justices on national television for "having reversed a century of law" in the Citizens United ruling in which the court was protecting the freedom of political speech enshrined more than two centuries ago in the First Amendment. We agree with Justice Samuel Alito's eloquent rebuff of the president, in which he was seen mouthing the words "Not true."

Then came ObamaCare, which would prove to be a monumental assault on the First and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. ... Never before had a citizen of the United States been required to purchase a product just for being a citizen of the United States.

The Constitution according to President Obama also requires a suspension of the First Amendment guarantee that Congress shall make no laws restricting the free exercise of religion. Arguably, the Congress did no such thing in passing ObamaCare. But it left the door open when it replaced "We The People" of the Constitution with "the Secretary shall determine," a phrase that appears in the bill a mind-boggling 1,563 times.  READ here...

We are Losing Our Liberties and Becoming a Government Run Corporate State

READ "The Immorality of Obamanomics" and you'll learn a lot about why we are no longer a free republic...but rather slaves to the state and favored corporate groups.  Read below and click on the title for the rest of the article by Austin Hill at Townhall.com

"I only care about moral issues."

If I’ve heard that phrase once, then I’ve heard it a few hundred times. It’s a common response among
social conservatives during campaigns and election cycles.
And this year, as Washington compromises our nation’s future with profligate spending and economic
turmoil threatens nations abroad, we need to add to that category called “moral issues.” It’s time to
recognize that economic policy matters are, themselves, moral concerns, and America is currently on
a very immoral economic path.  As a writer and talk show host I covered the last presidential election cycle in detail. Hosting daily talk radio in Washington, DC in 2008, it would become apparent when I was speaking with a socially conservative caller to my show - such callers would frequently express concerns over a specific set of issues. “I don’t think McCain is really pro-life” was a common concern. And “Obama says he opposes gay marriage, but I don’t believe him” was another.

To these types of statements about abortion and the definition of marriage, I would often respond with
questions about economics, just to see where the discussion would go. “But what do you think of
Senator Obama’s plan to raise taxes on rich people – is that a good idea?” I might ask. Or “Do you
think John McCain is right about the stock market crash when he says that it’s all because of ‘greed
on Wall Street?’”
Generally speaking, my economic questions would bring these brief talk show conversations to an
abrupt end. “I only care about the moral issues” was the response I’d usually hear – as though
economic issues are morally neutral or of no moral significance at all – and then the caller would say
goodbye.
That was in 2008. Today, all Americans – social conservatives included - need to be resolute, and
recognize that our government’s disposition towards private enterprise and wealth must change.
Simply allowing politicians to control more of our economic resources is a formula for more trouble,
and more trouble lies ahead if our current President – and his ideology – remain in power.
Given what has happened over the course of the Obama presidency thus far, it should be apparent
that America is now in the midst of an economic policy revolution. Both by legislation from the
Congress, and by executive orders from the White House, President Obama has in less than three
years emerged as a de facto CEO over huge chunks of our economy.

Cayman vs Belize: Capitalism vs Statism

To see in a microcosm what the difference is between a free nation and one that practices statism you only have to compare Cayman and Belize.  I spent a week in Belize last year and I can tell you the except for the lush hotels right on the beach, which were off limits to Belizeans most of the people live in dire poverty.  The story is very different in Cayman.   Where are we headed with all our taxation, rules, regulations and our almost police state?  Not anywhere good.  Read "Tale of Two Small Countries" (Washington Times).

Cayman is rich, and Belize is poor. Why? Both are small Caribbean countries with the same climate and roughly the same mixed racial heritage, and both were English-speaking British colonies. Belize (the former British Honduras) received its independence in 1981, while Cayman is still not fully independent but is self-governing at the local level, with its own currency, laws and regulations.

Belize should be richer: It has a larger population than Cayman (345,000 as contrasted with Cayman’s 54,000). Belize has a much larger and more varied land area with many more natural resources, including gas and oil, and some rich agricultural land that Cayman lacks. Both have nice beaches, but Belize has the second-largest barrier reef in the world after Australia and also has Mayan ruins. Yet Cayman, with fewer points of interests, has done more to attract tourists.

Back in the early 1970s, Cayman was as poor on a per capita basis as isBelize today. Both countries had ambitions to be tourist and financial centers. Cayman succeeded and has about six times the real per capita income of Belize. What did Cayman do right and Belize do wrong?

Perhaps most important is that Cayman had and maintained a competent and honest judicial system, which gave foreign investors confidence that their property would be protected. Cayman also has a very low crime rate. Tourists and other visitors walk around freely day or night in Cayman without fear. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many parts of Belize, where crime is often a problem. In addition, many judges in Belize are poorly trained, incompetent and, in some cases, corrupt. These issues cause foreign investors to consider higher-risk factors for projects in Belize as contrasted with Cayman....read the rest of article here.

Flight from ObamaCare Starts

Health Reform: Faced with being forced to abandon its conscience while emptying its bank account, a Catholic university finds its students can't keep the health insurance they like as it becomes prohibitively expensive.

Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio, finding itself at the nexus of cost and conscience regarding the demands and expenses imposed on it and other Catholic institutions by the onslaught of ObamaCare, has announced it will neither comply nor participate in the nationalization of health care and drop the health coverage it offers to its students.

It's the first shoe to drop in what will be a cascade of such decisions. Franciscan University was able to drop its coverage, but as the U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops has warned, other institutions and charities may be forced to close, sell off their assets or turn them over to secular operators in the wake of ObamaCare's unacceptable mandates and costs.

"This is putting people in a position where they are having to choose between their faith and their morality — and now an unjust cost," said Mike Hernon, vice president of advancement at the university. "These sorts of regulations from the government are forcing our hand in a way that's really wrong."  Read the rest HERE.  First Shoe Drops: Catholic School Drops ObamaCare

We are Losing Our Right to Property and With It Our Right to Life

As we watch our government dedicated to the proposition that all property rights are secured by the goodness of government it is a good time to re-read the philosopher Ayn Rand's famous writings on this issue.

The right to Life is the source of all rights-and the right to property is their only implementation.  Without property rights, no other rights are possible.  Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life.  The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others:  it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object.  It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it.  It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.  ("Man's Rights,"  The Virtue of Selfishness, 125; pb94).

We need schools (or parents) that will teach our children the rights bestowed on us by our Constitution and that government that rules least is best.  Government is so much in every aspect of our lives that we are seriously running the risk of becoming ever more slaves of the state.

"Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand" by Don Watkins

Although Ayn Rand's influence is felt everywhere...there is still a long way to go before people realize the great achievement of Rand's code of morality.  The world could sure use the knowledge.

Today, on the 107th anniversary of her birth, it’s hard to doubt that the world has indeed heard of Ayn Rand. Her books—including titles like "The Fountainhead" and "The Virtue of Selfishness"—have sold nearly 30 million copies, with sales of her 1,100-page opus, "Atlas Shrugged," surpassing a million copies in the last three years alone.

Rand has clearly inspired millions. But a debate has emerged over the question of Rand’s political influence, with many commentators claiming her ideas have played a key role in shaping the political landscape. As former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said in 2011, “Ayn Rand has a large and growing influence on American politics.”

But to gauge Rand’s influence, we need to know more about her views than the sound bytes we’re typically offered.

Rand is usually thought of as a political philosopher, but that is not how she viewed herself. “I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality,” she once said. Whereas previous moral codes bestowed sainthood on those who served and sacrificed for others, Rand’s morality extolled “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

This is the philosophy embodied by fictional characters such as Hank Rearden, the industrialist in "Atlas Shrugged," who—in the tradition of Thomas Edison—creates a new metal that’s stronger and cheaper than steel, and who—in the tradition of countless entrepreneurs—struggles to produce his revolutionary product in the face of government obstacles. At one point, Rearden is brought to trial for violating the government’s economic edicts, and he proudly defends his right to produce and prosper:

 READ HERE  "Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand"  Printed in 

Politicians Promise Heaven and Deliver Hell

Thomas Sowell always gets to the core of any issue....

How long do politicians have to keep on promising heaven and delivering hell before people catch on, and stop getting swept away by rhetoric?

Have you noticed that what modest economic improvements we have seen occurred during the much-lamented "gridlock" in Washington? Nor is this unusual. If you check back through history, doing nothing has a far better track record than that of politicians intervening in the economy.

With all the talk about people paying their "fair share" of income taxes, why do nearly half the people in this country pay no income taxes at all? Is that their "fair share"? Or is creating more recipients of government handouts, at no cost to themselves, simply a strategy to gain more votes?

Some people are puzzled by the fact that so much that is said and done by politicians seems remote from reality. But reality is not what gets politicians elected. Appearances, rhetoric and emotions are what get them elected. Reality is what the voters and taxpayers are left to deal with, as a result of electing them.

Instead of following the tired old formula of having politicians and bureaucrats give college commencement speeches, in which they say how superior it is to follow a career as politicians and bureaucrats — "public service" — why not invite someone like John Stossel to tell the graduates how much better it is to go into the private sector, supplying what people want, instead of imposing the government's will on them?

In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensations for injustices — leading to worsening behavior by the recipients...READ here.

The Only Men Who Count

What's To Celebrate about Obama Killing COAL?

Everyday Obama confirms with both his words and his actions that he WANTS the demise of The United States.  We have to confess that we made a huge mistake that will cost us in precious time and precious dollars to fix.  He is ravaging this economy and tilting our government drastically to the left - in other words to less freedom.  Americans are realizing more and more that this is a call to fight for our liberties and our Constitution.  The latest idiotic act by Obama's regime?  Kill Coal. Why?  There is only one answer and it's not the environment.  The reason that more and more people are thinking of is the unthinkable.  We voted into office and anti-American plain and simple.

Enviro-Whack jobs are celebrating the demise of America‘s most abundant energy resource, coal. Because coal has just been given the death sentence by Obama and the EPA just as Obama planned.

“So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can,” said candidate Obama “it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

The EPA has issued new proposed rules on carbon emissions that will help Obama keep one campaign promise: Builders of new coal fired power plants won’t be prevented from building coal-fired power plants, they’ll just go bankrupt if they try...

“Proposed emission rules for new power plants unveiled by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 27 spell the gradual demise of coal-fired power generation and entrench the current cost advantage for natural gas,” reports Reuters’ John Kemp.

If Obama can’t get the tax portion of the Cap and Tax, I guess he figures he might just as well get the cap portion done. The problem of course is that you and I are going to pay higher electric rates because of it.   

“The agency's proposed rule, signed yesterday, would set a standard well within the capability of modern gas-fired plants but impossible for coal-fired units to meet unless they employ (unproven) carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.”

Even before this proposed new rule, Obama has been using a variety of stratagems to stop the construction of new coal-fired plants.

“Power developers have scrapped plans for more than 100 coal-fired electricity plants over the past decade,” says a Reuters newswire report, “due to difficulty obtaining construction and pollution permits or because they were simply too expensive.”  READ HERE 

Unanimous: Obama Budget Defeated 414-0

In a rare instance of bipartisanship, President Barack Obama's reckless $3.6 trillion budget for next year was defeated 414-0 late last night on the House Floor.

Republicans said Democrats were afraid to vote for Obama's proposed tax increases and extra spending for energy and welfare. Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them.

In February, Guy reported the dirty details of the Obama budget and even the Associated Press was willing to admit the Obama budget is anything but responsible.

Taking a pass on reining in government growth, President Barack Obama unveiled a record $3.8 trillion election-year budget plan Monday, calling for stimulus-style spending on roads and schools and tax hikes on the wealthy to help pay the costs. The ideas landed with a thud on Capitol Hill. Though the Pentagon and a number of Cabinet agencies would get squeezed, Obama would leave the spiraling growth of health care programs for the elderly and the poor largely unchecked. The plan claims $4 trillion in deficit savings over the coming decade, but most of it would be through tax increases Republicans oppose, lower war costs already in motion and budget cuts enacted last year in a debt pact with GOP lawmakers.

Of course, the White House has brushed off the defeat as a "gimmick." Meanwhile, House Republicans are gearing up to pass Paul Ryan's latest Path to Prosperity.  click on this link to read the rest.  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/29/unanimous_obama_budget_defeated_4140

The Future Looks Dim for Obamacare

Obamacare is probably NOT going to pass and that is a good thing for our Constitution and our freedoms.  This article in "New York News and Features" explains it well.

How Paul Clement Won the Supreme Court's Oral Arguments on Obamacare

Paul Clement has been receiving rave reviews for his performance during the second day of oral arguments over health-care reform before the Supreme Court. (“[T]he best argument I’ve ever heard,” SCOTUSblog Tom Goldstein raved on Twitter). But Clement’s finest moment may have come when he was completely silent.

A little more than two minutes into Solicitor General Donald Verilli’s turn at the bar, Justice Anthony Kennedy interrupted him: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”

Kennedy’s query was an almost verbatim recital of Clement’s own talking point, part of the fundamental argument he has made against the individual mandate. In his brief to the Court, and later during his oral argument, he said Obama’s health-care law “represents an unprecedented effort by Congress to compel individuals to enter commerce in order to better regulate commerce.”

It’s a recasting of the original argument used by opponents of the mandate: that Congress has overstepped its constitutional authority by regulating inactivity rather than activity. As Clement explained to me a few weeks ago, “I wasn’t of the view that that was necessarily the best way to try to explain why this was unprecedented and why this was different, and that it might be more effective to kind of use the idea of basically forcing people to engage in commerce so that you can regulate the commerce.”

The fact that Kennedy — the Justice who many believe to be the swing vote in the health-care case — has apparently decided to view the case through this framework suggests just how effective Clement has been. It points to something else that Clement told me: that for all the sturm and drang surrounding these three days of oral arguments, the health-care case, like every Supreme Court case, will likely be won and lost in the briefs.

“I’m a big believer that oral argument makes a difference, but I’m also a big believer that comparably the briefs make even more of a difference,” Clement explained. “One way I think about it is, you start a case and maybe there’s a degree of skepticism that would generate 100 questions; nobody can answer 100 questions to the satisfaction of a skeptical justice in 30 minutes or whatever. But if you brief it really well and you kind of head off some of that at the pass and then you get it down to the point where even a skeptical justice only has a couple of questions, and you assume they’re really open to persuasion on those couple of questions, you’ve now kind of got it to a margin where the oral argument can make a difference.”

Seen through that lens, Clement has to be feeling pretty good about his experience at the Court earlier today. While he faced tough, bordering-on-hostile questions from the four liberal justices — most notably from Justice Steven Breyer, who seemed to be lecturing more than asking — the two justices who seem most open to persuasion by either side, Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, were far tougher on Verilli. And when they did have questions for Clement, he handled them with aplomb.  (READ THE REST HERE).  

No To American Empire-Yes To American Republic - Let's NOT Forget That

American Empire Before the Fall by Bruce Fein is a must read for all concerned Americans who want to retain the America of freedom and love of country.  We must stand up and say enough before the Republic that was designed for maximum freedom and minimum government is turned on its head - and maybe it's too late.

The following is from Mr. Fein's book page 157 in the paperback:

Obama also covets unbounded presidential power to blunt natural and inevitable economic downturns through staggering federal spending and budget deficits...


Every Empire seeks to shield its people from economic shocks or dislocations by government interventions in pursuit of a risk-free existence....


Presidents in the American Empire bow to its orthodoxies because their preoccupation is day-to-day popularity and re-election.  Obama is no exception  He is no statesmanlike leader who breathes overarching convictions about defending and enforcing the Constitution irrespective of the immediate political fall-out.  Only a person of uncommon intellectual courage will defy the American Empire's political culture and disparage the primitive excitement of dominating other countries or people.  Obama has failed that test of courage over Afghanistan and at every other turn.


Expediency is Obama's North Star.  He was against the state secrets privilege to conceal constitutional wrongdoing, until he was in favor of it.  He was in favor of whistle-blower legislation covering intelligence agencies, until he was against it.  He was against presidential power to hold American citizens or residents as enemy combatants indefinitely without accusation of charge, until he was in favor of it.  He was favor of public financing of his presidential campaign, until he was against it.  He was against the death penalty for rape of children, until he was in favor of it.  He was in favor of releasing photos of United States interrogation abuses, until he was against it.  He was against individual Second Amendment rights to own handguns, until was in favor of it.  He was in favor of government  transparency, until he was against,.  He was against military commissions for the trial of war crimes, until he was in favor it.


A President who wished to restore the American Republic would assail unchecked executive power in favor of a separation of powers and checks and balances.  He would insist on the exclusive responsibility of Congress to decide whether to initiate war; acknowledge the sovereignty of "We the People" in lieu of an omnipotent executive branch; immediately withdraw all America troops from abroad and revoke all common defense treaties or executive agreements; treat international terrorists as criminal thugs, not warriors or combatants; and inculcate in ordinary citizens a pride in self-government and a recognition that securing unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for Americans is the sole mission of the United States.


As Mr. Fein continues he writes that Obama has done none of the above because he is a "mental prisoner of the American Empire.  Obama, as well as numerous other Presidents before him (Bush #1 and #2 come to mind) refuses to see that our country would be safer, freer and more prosperous by returning to our roots which is an AMERICAN REPUBLIC which used to confine the military to protecting the United States - period.

Bernanke The Inflation King

BERNANKE CAUGHT BETWEEN DECEPTION AND DEPRESSION

Amidst many widely followed data points that show that inflation, consumer spending, and employment levels are on the rise, today's FOMC statement conspicuously avoided any hint that monetary tightening is even being considered. Instead, the Fed indirectly patted itself on the back for some perceived economic gains without committing to any of the logical monetary steps that these improvements should have triggered. Their stance appears to remain that although a full recovery is nigh, the economy will remain dependent on near-zero interest rates through 2014. They hope that no one notices the contradiction.     

  

Some might suggest the Fed's failure to explicitly forecast QE3 is evidence that some degree of tightening is in the offing. They are grasping at straws. The Fed is running QE with or without an overt policy behind it, and will likely only show its hand if it feels it is necessary to prop up a faltering stock market, which currently we do not have.

Otherwise, the Fed would prefer to keep quiet about the flood of inflation it is creating. If it were to speak the name of this growing threat, it might be called on to stop it. But Chairman Bernanke knows that any policy designed to restrain inflation will also derail the phony recovery that the Fed has labored so hard to engineer. The higher rates needed to bring inflation under control, and knock down the price of oil for instance, would trigger a greater financial crisis than the one seen in 2008. read the rest at Townhall Finance.com

The Deceit of Barack Obama

If Obama's Past Isn't A Concern, Why Cover It Up?

Public Trust: The Beltway elite mock critics who say the president's hiding his radical past from voters. They say there's nothing there, move along. But if there's nothing to hide, why is so much hidden?

And if the White House isn't worried about the public seeing another side of President Obama, why is it trying to reinforce the image of him as a post-racial, pro-American moderate with a slick new Hollywood-produced 17-minute documentary?

The answer, of course, is that it is very much concerned.

The Obama campaign knows its carefully manicured narrative is wearing thin against the drip-drip-drip of revelations about his extremism. And it can't risk the incumbent being reintroduced to voters this election as an untrustworthy imposter who's hiding things about himself and his agenda.

Indeed, these are things that must be hidden from the average voter. They are unpatriotic and unelectable things. Things that would concern any red-blooded American, if not the parlor Bolsheviks inside the Beltway media and the Ivory Tower.

The videotape of Obama praising and hugging his America-bashing, Constitution-trashing law professor Derrick Bell isn't the only evidence that's been hidden from the public. A 1998 video of Obama praising the late Marxist agitator Saul "The Red" Alinsky alongside a panel of hard-core Chicago communists also exists. Yet it, too, has been withheld.

So has a 2003 video of Obama speaking at a Chicago dinner held in honor of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi. Anger at Israel and U.S. foreign policy were expressed during the private banquet.

Why have Obama's remarks and actions during the controversial event been suppressed? Perhaps it's because the radical Khalidi — a close friend and neighbor of Obama, who held a 2000 political fundraiser in his home for him — has strongly defended the use of violence by Palestinians against Israel, while expressing clearly anti-American views.  READ THE REST HERE

Obama's Oil Scarcity Bolony!!

Scarce Oil? U.S. Has 60 Times More Than Obama Claims

By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 01:03 PM ET

When he was running for the Oval Office four years ago amid $4-a-gallon gasoline prices, then-Sen. Barack Obama dismissed the idea of expanded oil production as a way to relieve the pain at the pump ...Read the rest HERE at IBD.

Obama's Version of The Rule of Law

Obama Justifies FEMA imprisonment of civilians-indefinately!

The Real Argument Against Obamacare: Contractual Law

"Obamacare: Contract Killer" - Just when you think everything that can be said about Obamacare's constitutionality has been said, along comes another legal brief that makes a new point.

The latest was filed by the Arlington-based Institute for Justice, a nonpartisan, libertarian public-interest law firm. The institute points out that the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate — the requirement to purchase insurance — is not only an unprecedented expansion of federal power. It also undermines several centuries of contract law.

From Hugo Grotius in the 17th century through William Story in the 19th and up to the present, legal doctrine has held that contracts are not valid unless they are entered into by mutual assent. If one party signs a contract as the result of fraud or under duress, it cannot be valid. But if Congress compels people to buy insurance policies — not as a precondition of exercising a privilege such as driving, but as a consequence of having been born — then, the institute argues, this would undermine centuries of contract law...READ HERE at Richmond Times Dispatch - "Obamacare:  Contract Killer".

George Washington's Farewell speech against entangling alliances

Observe good faith and justice towards all Nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and Morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great Nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt, that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages, which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a Nation with its Virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential, than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular Nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The Nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the Government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The Government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of Nations has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one Nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite Nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite Nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the Nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained; and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, (who devote themselves to the favorite nation,) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the Public Councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. But that jealousy, to be useful, must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation, and excessive dislike of another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Good Intentions in Politics

Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own.  The harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional do-gooders, who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others--with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means.  This message is one we should all ponder.  Henry Grady Weaver in "The Mainspring of Human Progress".

A State Dedicated to War - America

As we continue to face war and more war regardless, it seems, as to who is the current President of the United States (except Ron Paul who has been challenging the notion of constant warfare) Thomas DiLorenzo wrote "What You're Not Supposed to Know About War" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.  Here is a sample of his essay about WAR.

  

It  is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are "defending freedom" by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not.

Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric...

...The importance of understanding the political economy of war is perhaps illustrated by this passage from Randolph Bourne's famous essay:

War is a vast complex of life-destroying and life-crippling forces. If the State's chief function is war, then it is chiefly concerned with coordinating and developing the powers and techniques which make for destruction. And this means not only the actual and potential destruction of the enemy, but of the nation at home as well. For the very existence of a State in a system of States means that the nation lies always under a risk of war and invasion, and the calling away of energy into military pursuits means a crippling of the productive and life-enhancing processes of the national life.  CLICK on link above to read the whole essay.

War is the Opposite of Peace and Growth

Thomas J. DiLorenzo over at The Ludwig von Mises Institute shows how war is antithetical to progress and wealth.  A warring nation DOES NOT grow!  Ron Paul has also been speaking for over 20 years about war and the terrible consequences of war on the economic life of a nation.  War brings inflation, stagnation, and poverty for all but mostly for the middle class.  It's time to follow a policy of friendship and commerce with all and NO entanglements.  Read DiLorenzo's essay below.

What You're Not Supposed to Know about War

Mises Daily: Friday, February 24, 2012 by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

It is a testament to the power of government propaganda that several generations of self-described conservatives have held as their core belief that war and militarism are consistent with limited, constitutional government. These conservatives think they are "defending freedom" by supporting every military adventure that the state concocts. They are not.

Even just, defensive wars inevitably empower the state far beyond anything any strict constructionist would approve of. Prowar conservatives, in other words, are walking contradictions. They may pay lip service to limited constitutional government, but their prowar positions belie their rhetoric.

"War is the health of the state," as Randolph Bourne said in his famous essay of that title. Statism, moreover, means central planning, heavy taxation, fascist or socialist economics, attacks on free speech and other civil liberties, and the suffocation and destruction of private enterprise. Classical liberals have always understood this, but conservatives never have. (Neoconservatives either don't understand it or don't care.)  READ HERE

The FEDERAL RESERVE Must GO!

Bob Wallace over at the blog Carpe Libertatem writes about how prices have drastically risen over his short lifespan.  It is truly distressing - and rage must be directed at both our under educated politicians and the head of the Federal Reserve.  These people work in government to enrich themselves and their cronies.  Let's get rid of them and put in honest people who will not be corrupted by the system.  Question is how do we do this?  Read below Bob's column.

I blame this almost exclusively on the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank. It is in fact a legal counterfeiter which has 100% control over our money supply.
 
Of course, the Fed is thoroughly unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids anything but gold or silver being money. On top of that, it also forbids Bills of Credit, i.e., paper money.
 
Central banks were tried in the U.S. in the past. Andrew Jackson, for one, swore eternal enmity against them.
 
"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it," he once said. "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."
 
Jackson engaged in a lot of duels. Perhaps we need dueling to be legal today.
 
Since the creation of the Fed in 1917, the dollar has lost 99% of its value. This acceleration of this loss of value really took off in 1973, two years after Richard Nixon went completely off the gold standard in 1971. 
 
Not surprisingly, wages stopped going up in 1973, and have been flat or declining ever since. Except, of course, for the one percent whose income has been skyrocketing -- and they accomplished this by using the State to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense. http://www.strike-the-root.com/fed-against-everything-%E2%80%93-including-my-shoes   
 

Waste Deep in the Big Muddy

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/waist_deep_big_muddy

By: 

 Peter Schiff

Friday, January 27, 2012

With its announcement this week that it will keep interest rates near zero until at least late 2014, the Federal Reserve has put another large crack into the foundations underlying the US dollar. In a misguided attempt to provide clarity and transparency, Ben Bernanke has instead laid out a simple road map for economists and investors to follow. The signposts are easily understood: the Fed will stop at nothing in pursuing its goals of creating phantom GDP growth, holding down unemployment, propping up stock and housing prices, and monetizing government debt. To do so, it will continue to pursue a policy of negative interest rates, while ignoring the collateral damage of unsustainable debt, virulent inflation, misallocated resources and credit, suffering yield-dependent retirees, and a devalued U.S. currency.  

Not surprisingly, precious metals and foreign currencies rallied strongly on the news - with gold up more than 4.3% and the Dollar Index down nearly 1.6% in the days following the announcement. The Dollar Index is now down more than 3.5% from its highs in mid-January.

In coming to the momentous decision to extend the Fed's prior low-rate promises by another 18 months, Bernanke and his cohorts relied on a somber view of the economy that is at odds with the sunnier view presented the night before by President Obama in his State of the Union address. To justify holding rates so low for so long, the Fed is choosing to ignore the fact that CPI inflation is currently running north of 3%. Instead, it has conveniently chosen to look at a hand-picked alternative measure, the chain-weighted core PCE, which comes in just a shade below the Fed's arbitrary 2% target. How convenient.

After some changes in key membership at the Federal Reserve's policy-setting Open Markets Committee, in which a few long-time hawks were put out to pasture, the Fed has now established itself at the extreme dovish end of the policy spectrum. Among other central banks around the world, it may now be outflanked only by some very profligate ones in South America and sub-Saharan Africa. Unfortunately, the FOMC has its hands on the wheel of the world's reserve currency, and therefore its decisions may lead the planet into financial chaos as long as other nations are content to follow the Fed farther and farther into a swamp of liquidity. To paraphrase Pete Seeger's protest of the escalation of the war in Vietnam, "we are waist deep in the Big Muddy and the damn fool yells 'press on.'"

The only bright side of the announcement is that it provides precious-metal and foreign-equity investors a fairly good sense that they are on the right side of history. In order to keep rates low, especially at the long end of the yield curve where it matters most, the Fed must continually print money to buy U.S. Treasuries. This will likely push more investors into gold and away from dollar-denominated assets.

As a testament to their own faith in themselves to forecast economic conditions, 6 of the 17 voting FOMC members indicated that they would have preferred to keep rates close to zero at least through 2015. Some even had the audacity to prefer no change until 2016! This comes from the body that couldn't predict the 2008 financial crisis, even while it stared at them from point-blank range. To look into a completely uncertain future and determine that negative interest rates can persist for another four years without igniting inflation is to me the height of economic insanity. Sadly, the inmates have the keys to the institution.

The lunacy persists in the rest of the government as well, with Congress and the White House still failing to address our nation's long-term debt issues. The Fed's commitment gives these politicians a "Get Out of Jail Free" card to continue avoiding responsibility. The deficits will be monetized, so no real efforts need be made to cut spending or raise taxes on middle-class Americans. Central to these plans is the assumption that the rest of the world will happily park their savings in U.S. dollars forever. If the latest announcement does not disabuse the world of this notion, I don't know what will.

As long as interest rates remain far below the rate of inflation, the U.S. economy will fail to equitably restructure itself for a lasting recovery. As a secondary effect, U.S. savers will likely continue to suffer from a lack of yield and a weakening currency. In the end, the collapse of the U.S. economy will be that much more spectacular due to the great lengths we have gone to postpone it.

FED Plays PR Games

By: 

 John Browne

Friday, January 13, 2012

The world was taken by surprise recently by the Federal Reserve Board’s announcement that it would publish some of its economic forecasting that forms the basis for its short-term interest rate strategy. The Fed claims that the move will vastly increase so-called transparency, which has become a buzz word for honesty and virtue. However, the new policies do nothing to remove the cloak of secrecy that conceals still many of its most significant activities. This myth of new transparency will do little to lure investors back into the markets but as an unintended consequence will reveal just how profoundly the markets are currently guided from the top.

The Fed plays the markets like a football game, and Ben Bernanke is currently calling all the plays. Although investors are mere lineman in this struggle, there are things we can do to stay in the game. When tackling a ball carrier in football (or in the rugby played in my home country) it is best to ignore the movement’s of your opponent’s eyes or hands which can be used to obscure his true intentions. Instead, good coaches tell us to fixate on the runner’s feet as the best indicator of his actual path down the field. Likewise, when looking at any political body, like the Fed, it is best to look at their actions and ignore their words.

Bernanke offers endless words about the Fed’s willingness to keep the economy on track. In reality it appears as if he only wants to do one thing: keep asset bubbles from collapsing by continually debasing the currency and looting the savings of thrifty Americans.  Any other policy intentions should be considered misdirection.

The Fed was the enabler of the most massive asset and debt boom in history. Now, the unraveling of this profligacy threatens abject poverty for billions of people. Therefore, it is little wonder the Fed is unpopular and is seeking to retrieve its image. What is the reality of offering public access to Fed forecasts? Is it genuine transparency or is it done to add further weight to negative interest rates as a means of forcing consumers to spend rather than save?

In the past, the Fed has proved far from accurate in its economic forecasting. Indeed, former Fed Chairman Greenspan utterly failed to see the collapse of housing, banking and stock markets, all of which had been accurately forecasted by many others. Prudent investors are wary of Fed economic forecasts and give them guarded weight.

Furthermore, there is a distinct danger that investors may fail to appreciate the political forces which drive the Fed sometimes to act contrary to its economic forecasts. For example, while acknowledging privately that the economy can not be jump started, the Fed nevertheless presses Americans to spend when they should be saving and to hold depreciating paper dollars when they should be storing their wealth in precious metals.

It is widely known that the Fed uses its policy tools and public proclamations in order to influence the U.S. Treasury market. It is far less understood how its moves are equally directed at the stock market. From my perspective, it appears that the Fed have unstated policy directives to keep the Dow Jones index above 10,000. At the same time it seems it has striven mightily to keep the price of gold from rising too fast. The markets are not free, but the Fed talks as if they were...Read the rest here:

http://www.europac.net/commentaries/fed_plays_pr_games