What "Religion" Should You Follow?

CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Anarchy for All

The Best Plan: No Plan

By Larken Rose

Suppose you were given the task of coming up with a master plan to make sure that everyone in this country, all 300,000,000 or so of us, had enough food to eat. It's all up to you!

The first obvious question would be, "What do I have to work with?" You would need to know what resources would be available to you, what powers you would have, and so on. For example, if you had to work with what you now personally own, you wouldn't have a prayer. So how much of OTHER people's money would you be given for the project? And, if you're going to plan and manage the thing, you'll need control over all sorts of things, including all the farms, lots of trucks or trains to distribute food, all the buildings, equipment and personnel for distribution locations, and so on. Try to imagine what the price tag would have to be on such an endeavor. But even if you had all the money in the world, could you do it? Do you know enough about how everything works, and could you solve all the problems that might arise?

No. You still wouldn't have a prayer of making it work. Neither would any other individual, no matter how educated, knowledgeable, or wise. (When you think of centralized control of food production, think of the bread lines in Soviet Russia.) In short, the assigned task CAN'T BE DONE, not by you or anyone else, because no person has all the knowledge required to plan, organize, or carry out such a complex, massive operation.

Luckily, no one's trying to (in this country, anyway). But if even your best effort--or the best effort of any other person--would fail, and no one's even TRYING, why aren't we all starving? In short, we have a huge excess of food in this country, with a huge variety of products at an amazingly low price, at many thousands of locations across the country, precisely because there is NO "master plan."

But isn't that terrifying? There is NO centralized scheme to feed us all! No one is being forced to produce any food, or ship it anywhere. There is NO guarantee that YOU will have anything to eat tomorrow! No one is making sure we all have food! AAAAH!!!

So why do we? Why do we have, not merely enough food to survive (which by itself is an impressive accomplishment), but a huge variety of high-quality, low cost food, even in places hundreds of miles from where most kinds of food can be grown? There wasn't even a big, centralized, concerted effort TRYING to make that happen. So what made it happen?

A guy in Florida, who figured out a new way to keep bugs off his oranges, made it happen. But not by himself. A guy who started a little trucking company in Texas, who figured out how to make things run just a bit faster and more efficiently, made it happen. But not by himself. A farmer in Iowa, who put in the extra time to cultivate that extra field, made it happen. But not by himself. MILLIONS of individuals, not governed or guided by any central plan, most of them not even aware of the rest of the picture, made it happen. But if there was no master plan making them all do what they do, and making them all work together in harmony, what could possibly have made it all work?

Simple: the quest for PERSONAL GAIN. The amazingly complex arrangements, intricate organization, ongoing adaption and problem solving, all come from what is often termed "greed." (This is nothing new to those familiar with "Austrian" economics.) The self- interest of millions of individuals, most of whom know only their tiny little piece of the big picture, is capable of doing what no centralized plan ever has, or ever could.

But let's suppose you had all those people under your command. Let's suppose you could boss them around, and let's suppose they would all gladly obey. You STILL would do a horrendous job of things. (Don't feel bad; anyone else would, too.) You wouldn't know the best route for the trucker to take, or what time of day he should drive. You wouldn't know the best time to plant and harvest corn, or how to rotate the crops most efficiently. There would literally be MILLIONS of choices to be made, and in almost every case, you wouldn't have the first clue about the right way to do anything.

In a free market, each person's bottom line creates a constant incentive for each person to figure out and make better choices. The economics phenomenon known as "the market" quickly and automatic corrects most errors. But if YOU were making all the choices, and everyone below you was just blindly following orders, it would be a complete disaster. How much wheat should go to Chicago, as opposed to Orlando? Does Los Angeles need more corn than Detroit? How could you ever hope to answer every question about how much crop each farm will produce, how fast it will get to somewhere else, how much is needed there, and so on? Of course, you could always "delegate," by giving some other busy-body a smaller number of questions that he couldn't answer correctly either. Then you'd just have a bigger bureaucracy, with similar horrible results (and more opportunity for corruption).

Actually, there is ONE way you could accomplish the stated goal, but it's really radical. You could address the nation, and boldly proclaim, "I don't KNOW how to make everything work! Figure it out for yourselves!" In other words, you could advocate ANARCHY--a complete ABSENCE of a central plan, a total departure from the whole idea of centralized planning and control. In other words, you could do NOTHING, and achieve an infinitely better result than you could have accomplished any other way.

Americans have outstanding examples of how this works, in lots of different areas (food production, transportation technology, information technology, and so on). Nonetheless, there are still areas of life in which most Americans are terrified of the idea of NOT having things centrally managed and controlled (defense and road-building being two common examples). But the laws of economics don't CHANGE from one industry to another. Human nature doesn't function one way when it comes to roads and another way when it comes to cars. The arguments showing how idiotic it is to have "government" managing food production can be applied just as well to show how idiotic it is to have "government" managing ANYTHING.

Nonetheless, we now have millions of people discussing what centralized, authoritarian, forcibly-impose "plan" might fix health care. Last week the discussion was about which centralized, authoritarian, forcibly-imposed "plan" might fix the economy. And next week there will be some other crisis--real or imagined--for which the politicians will propose yet another "master plan."

If you think ANY centralized plan can make "health care" work, you don't understand human nature or economics. If you think ANY centralized plan can protect people from crime, you don't understand human nature or economics. If you think ANY centralized plan can lead to a prosperous country, you don't understand human nature or economics. In short, if you think that having a small group of people FORCIBLY CONTROLLING everyone else will ever make society better, you don't understand reality. And if you're scared to death of the alternative, especially when it's called "anarchy" (oh, heavens!), you need to grow up.

The next time you visit the local grocery store, take a good look around, because you'll be standing in ANARCHY!

(Actually, thanks to the myriad of "regulations" and "taxes" that interfere with food production and distribution in this country, what you see is really what voluntary interaction can achieve, even with a huge number of obstacles thrown in its way.)

Larken Rose
http://www.larkenrose.com

Secret Obama/Democrat Plan Exposed!!!

YOU know what this really means! These are code words to unregulated, uncontrolled, unresponsible fruit salad making!!! We must protect "the children!!" Call your Republican legislators! There must be MORE LAW!!! Will the Continental Congress 2009 protect us from the "Saladorists?"

Mapping the 7 Deadly Sins

Using U.S. Census data, a team of geographers from Kansas State University have plotted man's fall from grace in a unique way, creating color-coded maps showing the degree to which the seven deadly sins have taken root in cities and states across the nation.

The Las Vegas Strip claimed the No. 1 ranking for greed. The highest scores for the other deadly sins -- lust, greed, gluttony, sloth, wrath, envy and pride -- tended to congregate in the coastal areas, whereas southeast Minnesota and the rest of the Midwest were covered, map-wise, in a more virtuous blue rather than wicked red.

From WIRED Magazine

"We're gluttons for infographics, and a team at Kansas State just served up a feast: maps of sin created by plotting per-capita stats on things like theft (envy) and STDs (lust). Christian clergy, likely noting the Bible Belt's status as Wrath Central, question the "science." Valid point—or maybe it's just the pride talking."

CLICK HERE for the full color maps and slideshow

CONTINENTAL CONGRESS 2009

This too shall pass!

So many have been hurt. So many look to leaders for help. So many want answers. I am a gnostic agnostic. I know that I don't know. Things are not as they seem but that doesn't change the heartache or the sorrow. Loss is loss. Life, liberty or property. It is all the same pain. Pain so acute that you think you may die. Pain that you want to hide from it. Pain killers help but for only a a while. Facing it is the only way to deal. To deal or not to deal that is the reality. So the question is are you the kind of person who when faced with a swimming pool of water that is cold do you gradually enter or do you just jump in? That is how most of us deal with pain. One way or another you deal or you don't. The best thing to remember is that this too shall pass.

Larken Rose on the No State Project & Video

This Saturday, Oct. 10, 2009, from 3-5 pm cst Larken Rose on the No State Project 
he will be discussing solutions to "government", how to get to a voluntary society.   Larken is an unapologetic anarchist and the author of three books, 
How to be a Successful Tyrant, Kicking the Dragon, and his latest, The Iron Web, Larken's website is http://larkenrose.com. 
 
The show is live from 3-5 pm cst at http://americanfreedomradio.com and you can join us by calling (512) 879 - 3805. 

Larken Rose's New Video

Your Religion Stinks!!!

Amen Brother!!! Another great one from Larken Rose.

Your Religion Stinks!

Lots of people seem to think that it's good--or at least possible--to keep religion and politics separate. Trouble is, they're both mostly about how other people should be treated, and they almost always conflict. Maybe people try to keep them separate just so they don't have to come face to face with their own internal contradictions and hypocrisy.

Lots of people consider themselves righteous, moral, devout folks, and take pride in how religious they are. I have one simple question for such people: "Do you advocate my enslavement?" They always say no (which is rarely true), and then they usually wonder why I would ask such a thing.

The reason I ask is because their faith and loyalty to "government" usually completely dwarfs, and renders useless, their belief in what they call their religion. If they piously live by the rule of "thou shalt not steal"--except when they're advocating that the state forcibly confiscate wealth from almost everyone they know (via "taxation")--what good is their "religion"? The fact that they don't commit the robbery themselves, but instead beg to "authority" to do it for them, doesn't make them noble; it makes them thieves and cowards (instead of just thieves).

Let me make this perfectly blunt. (If this doesn't offend most people who read it, they weren't reading carefully enough.) If you advocate that "government" treat your neighbors in a way that you wouldn't treat them yourself, you are what's wrong with the world. If you are a Republican or a Democrat (or anything in between), your "religion" is worthless, empty window-dressing. You advocate theft, assault, harassment, terrorism and murder. Of course, when you support such things, you use euphemisms to describe them, such as "taxation," "regulation," "law" and "war."

Even I have to cringe when I say such things, because the statement applies to most of the people I know, even most of the people I like. But friends don't let friends advocate evil. When statist friends and family express horror at what the federal extortion machine did to me and my wife, I don't usually have the heart to say what I should: "Who do you think put that monster there?" Every Republican and Democrat supports a system of massive, forced extortion, which wears the label of "taxation." They may differ on how much it should steal, and how the stolen loot should be spent, but they all believe that "taxation" can be legitimate. And "taxes" are not a request; they are a threat of violence. Therefore, all statists--even the ones I like personally--advocate widespread forcible robbery of hundreds of millions of people.

My wife and I were wrongfully imprisoned and economically almost wiped out by the system that all statists advocate. So when statist friends express sympathy for what Tessa and I went through, I have to bite my tongue not to say, "Why? It was your belief system that put us there."

(There is one possible philosophical "loophole" in our particular case. We didn't actually break the "law," because by the extortionists' own rules, we didn't "legally" owe the "tax" that we didn't pay. So I suppose a statist could say, "Well, if you had actually owed it, then I would have been glad that you were locked up for not complying, but you didn't actually owe it, so I feel bad that you were imprisoned." In other words, they sympathize with us based on a "technicality," not based on a principle.)

Interestingly, I don't think it would ever occur to any of our statist friends that they should feel the slightest shred of responsibility for what was done to us. Ironically, the Republican voters we know seem happy to blame the "pro-tax" leftists for what happened, even though my wife and I were both robbed and wrongfully imprisoned by a "judge" appointed by George Bush and a prosecutor appointed by Bush, with the help of an IRS Commissioner, a Secretary of the Treasury, an Attorney General, and the local U.S. Attorney, all appointed by Bush. Lots of our friends voted for the very monster that stomped on us, and yet they see no connection whatsoever between their actions and what happened to us.

When I see churches trying to get more followers, or otherwise spreading their message, I think, "What's the point? You still advocate that I (and everyone else) be robbed and controlled, so why should I give a damn [pun intended] about what you call your religion?" To put it as bluntly as I can, if what you call your "religion" doesn't stop you from advocating the theft, assault, harassment, terrorism and/or murder of millions of innocent people, then your religion stinks.

Larken Rose

http://www.larkenrose.com/

Thoughts on Glenn Beck's “Common Sense”

Glenn Beck's Common Sense: The Case Against an Out-of-Control Government, Inspired by Thomas Paine by Glenn Beck

A Review
By Tim Wingate

This is a well documented booklet. However, it is difficult to substantiate his seeming anecdotal claims with his sizable “Sources” list as he does not use any footnotes or chapter designations. To his credit his listings contain substantive references including an informal bibliography, web links and periodical sources.

His writing style is much like his spoken style. He incites and provokes, needles and cajoles the reader with emotionally laden terminology and appeals to an emotional response; while claiming it to be a reasoned rational reaction. It is actually a short “book” as the line leading (the vertical spacing between sentences) is for a larger font size than the one used, putting fewer words on each page and therefore using more pages. Also, one third of the book is a reprint of Thomas Paine's original pamphlet Common Sense. Thus giving it a deceptively larger appearance.

In its essence it is just another compendium of what is wrong with America from his newly nonpartisan position. Many other compendiums have been circulating from more astute authors for sometime now. (Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Herbert Spencer, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, Leonard Read, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Carl Watner, James Bovard, , Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr., Dr. Robert Altemeyer, Dr. Ron Paul, to just name a few from a much larger list spanning two hundred years.) However, due to Mr. Beck's public podium his message may reach and strike a responsive chord with more of America's dumbed down masses than a more erudite treatise.

The glaring problem with this “book” is on the first page. He writes, “In 1776, Thomas Paine's words sparked a revolution. Today, a new revolution of thought begins right now, with you.... You might find yourself wondering what can be done to change our nation's course. I lay out several options, but I want to be clear that none of them include violence. Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries shed their blood so that future generations would have access to weapons immeasurably stronger than muskets or bayonets: the weapons of democracy...”

Through out his book he uses the language of revolution. However, he wants to pacify it and turn it into a fist-shaking, foot-stomping plebiscite tantrum. Herein is the fault. You cannot compare a potentially future American revolution to the former American War for Independence without the possible use of violence. Several thoughts on this follow.

First, to ascribe the appellation “revolution” to the American War for Independence is to take the “British” point of view of the legitimacy of British rule rather than the legitimacy of independence. Second, I am sure by their subsequent writings that "Thomas Paine and his fellow revolutionaries" did not consider their blood shedding to be some kind of secular propitiation or substitutionary atonement for any future use of physical force to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from an infringing government. Furthermore, there is always violence used by one or all factions in a regime change. Third, the use of “democracy” as a weapon implies the use of force, in reality or by threat, by the majority against the minority. The only difference is that the minority, by “democracy,” agreed to their suppression in perpetuity via an implied social contract thus legitimizing the use of force against them and renaming it “police action” or “anti-terrorism.”

On page 106 he states, “...do the things you feel...”

Really Mr. Beck? Just demonstrate populist discord and the “rulers” will change their tune?

On page 107 he quotes Mr. Paine's conclusion, “...until an independence is declared, the Continent will feel itself like a man who continues putting off some unpleasant business from day to day, yet knows that it must be done, hates to set about it, wishes it over, and is continually haunted with the thoughts of its necessity.”

It seems to me that the founders heeded Mr. Paine's warning and made such a declaration resulting in the conflagration wherein most of the signers were held to their pledge of “our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” Furthermore, he goes on to claim that his words like Paine's “find their roots” in Common Sense.

Really Mr. Beck? If this is true and he wanted to follow and imitate the example of the founding fathers then why has he not joined the We the People Congress http://wethepeoplecongress.org for the Continental Congress to be held in Illinois this year? They have done and are doing an almost exact 21st century imitation of the actual 18th century example laid out by the founding fathers.

If we take Mr. Beck at his word and accept his implications as literal then he is saying the American people should treat the Federal Government as old England was treated by the 18th century Continental Congresses. Mr. Paine's work sparked a Declaration of Independence which sparked a violent war for control over land, resources and people. You cannot mince, parse or mollify the words of revolution by comparing a philosophical, or as he wrote, “a new revolution of thought,” to a violent one.

Therefore, in conclusion let us address this “elephonkey” or “donkyphant” in the room. Is America ready for a “revolution"? Have the lines of philosophical differences been so well articulated that people can make an informed decision whether to chose between an uncertain future of an insurgent guerrilla war for independence against the FedGov or for the limitless limitation of freedom and “on-growing” burden of the Federal corporatist police-state leviathan?

Does his target audience (based upon his assertive description in the Introduction it appears to be middle class married men with children, struggling to make ends meet,) actually have the backbone and where-with-all to declare and defend an actual new declaration of independence? Does he? Or, as this writer suspects, is this just another opportunistic endeavor to stir up impotent resistance and controversy to sell books and garner viewers?

If you really want to know what is going on apart from the propagandist pablum spewed by the corporatist organs of the state then check out the sources below. Buckle up, bolt your socks to your shoes and get ready for Matrix like red pill revelations.

If you want the real philosophy of Liberty then look up the authors mentioned in paragraph three rather than his list on pages 110 and 111.

Furthermore, since he is wildly popular with the Repubicrats, copy this review and include it with copies of his book before you hand them out to friend and family, thereby giving them the means to a meal along with his appetizer.

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Front-Page.htm

http://freedomfighterradio.net/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

http://www.newswithviews.com/

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://www.rationalreview.com/news

http://www.eff.org/

http://antiwar.com/

Addendum

Glen Beck started a “9.12 Project” referenced on page 109. He lists 9 Principles and 12 Values that one should share with others. See, http://www.the912project.com/the-912-2/mission-statement/.

On his web site he also says what the purpose is; “This is a non-political movement. The 9-12 Project is designed to bring us all back to the place we were on September 12, 2001. The day after America was attacked we were not obsessed with Red States, Blue States or political parties. We were united as Americans, standing together to protect the greatest nation ever created.”

Why 9.12? Why recreate a the wheel or as in this case replace the existing wheel with a downsized spare? Why not emphasize and encourage what the founders already established? Or would that be too revolutionary?

In 1776, fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence declaring that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

What truths were “these truths”?

The whole of the Declaration of Independence and the instituted governments of the United States of America rest upon only 5 Truths. The signers of the Declaration of Independence believed that those who supported these 5 Truths were good people and supporters of freedom.

However, those who opposed the 5 Truths were against liberty as agents of dictators, tyrants and despots. Which one are you? Do you believe in the 5 Truths?

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Truth 1. All people are created equal.

Truth 2. All people created equal are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. (No commentary was given about the nature of, or, who this “Creator” was believed to be. However, the previous paragraph declares that people have “separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them.” Therefore, it can be inferred based on the common beliefs of the day that the implication was from a general “Christianized” worldview with an Enlightenment influence.)

Truth 3. Only by the consent of the created equal people with endowed certain unalienable rights, governments are formed to secure those endowed certain unalienable rights and derive their powers only from the consent of the equal people endowed with certain unalienable rights.

Truth 4. When any form of government becomes destructive of those endowed certain unalienable rights of the equal people, it is the “Right of the People” created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights to replace that government with one that will secure those, endowed certain unalienable rights of the equal people.

Truth 5. When it becomes evident that a form of government has a design to reduce the equal people with endowed certain unalienable rights under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a government.

Make no mistake in thinking that this is a light matter. We as a nation are approaching a fork in the road together.

There are those among us who believe that “government” is the source of rights and liberty. They are the modern day Tories, the royalists, and believers in the divine rights of kings. Only today their “king” is the Government.

We have almost come full circle in our experiment in liberty from where we started.

From:
an out of control constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government that reduced its loyal citizens to property of the State,

To:
a constitutional representative government that distorts words and meanings in the Constitution thereby reducing the people to property of the State.

True American Patriots still believe in the 5Truths of Freedom

To embrace these truths by believing in them and living by them is to be an American patriot, honoring the men and women who fought and died for liberty.

To infringe or alienate these truths by action or accepting government’s actions is to dishonor the patriots who have lived and died for us.

On which side do you stand?

(a)The promise of tranquil security by intrusive government, mouthing words of liberty while taking away rights by regulation forcing you to give up your “fair share” of freedom for privileged benefits that rest upon you as chains of control?

or,

(b)The 5Truths and the certain human rights endowed to an equal people that must not be infringed by your countrymen in your service in government leaving you to live the “animating contest of freedom” in liberty while pursuing the happiness of responsible self-ownership?

“If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

A Pause from Politcs

Soooo much BS out there in politicsland it is time for a break before we jump into the deep end. I mean the the real deeeeep end. Like the continental shelf deeeep end. YOU HAVE NO IDEA so stay tuned. In the mean time enjoy one of the hottest groups with a socially relevant message. If you don't get it then never mind the real deep end to American politics and what the future holds. Just be good sheeple and go along with what your masters want.

Sheep

One of Pink Floyd's best. It is you, it is me, it is most of USAll. Break out of the pasture. Break out of the fold.



It was originally titled "Raving and Drooling".
From Wikipedia.

Sheep in Animals are not so different from the ones in George Orwell's 1945 novel Animal Farm. The sheep represent the lowest class of the social system, the proletariat. They are oblivious and exploited, "only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air". In the first verse they are described to be peacefully grazing - unaware that they are soon to be brought to a slaughterhouse. They are warned of the presence of dogs, the iron-handed guardians of the system. It is also described in the first few lines that the artist had "looked over Jordan and I have seen / Things are not what they seem," which is a reference to Swing Low, Sweet Chariot, and has become an idiom for having an ecstatic vision, especially one involving death, particularly one's own. In the book of Exodus, the Israelites must cross the river Jordan to get to the "Promised Land" after their escape from Egyptian Slavery.

In the second verse the awful truth suddenly dawns on them and with "terminal shock in (their) eyes" they realize that they are being led into the "valley of steel", which is a metaphorical phrase, because it also represents the high-rise buildings (hence the steel framework), home of the corporate world as well as the slaughterhouse. The song continues into a mock biblical verse in which the sheep describe their dedicated belief in their master with "great power and great hunger." But in a humorous turnabout the sheep, "through quiet reflection and great dedication" master the art of karate and rebel against the dogs.

The third verse describes the sheep's revolt, as they fall "on his neck with a scream." They might have had enough but they are still undereducated and uncivilized as they are described as "demented avengers." The song is completed with a cheerful announcement: "Have you heard the news? / The dogs are dead!" The sheep, because of their strength in numbers, overpower and kill the dogs. Despite popular belief, this is not a possible reference to the Russian October Revolution as represented in Animal Farm because the album critiques western capitalism rather than communism.

Lyrics:-

Harmlessly passing your time in the grassland away;
Only dimly aware of a certain unease in the air.
You better watch out,
There may be dogs about
I've looked over Jordan, and I have seen
Things are not what they seem.

What do you get for pretending the danger's not real.
Meek and obedient you follow the leader
Down well trodden corridors into the valley of steel.
What a surprise!
A look of terminal shock in your eyes.
Now things are really what they seem.
No, this is no bad dream.

The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we'll make the bugger's eyes water.

Bleating and babbling I fell on his neck with a scream.
Wave upon wave of demented avengers
March cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told.
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.

What's Wrong with "Constitution" Day?

Everything!

Two links to two great sources of education concerning the myth of "Constitutionality."

First Is Our Government Legitimate? by Laurence M. Vance. Here is a teaser and I dare you to follow the link and read the rest of it.

Buried in section 111 of Title I, "Miscellaneous Provisions and Offsets," of Division J, "Other Matters," in H.R. 4818, "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005," which became Public Law 108-447 on December 8, 2004, is the congressional decree that redesignates September 17th as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day instead of what was just Citizenship Day.

This law requires the head of each federal agency or department to provide:

• each new employee of the agency or department with educational and training materials concerning the U.S. Constitution as part of the orientation materials provided the new employee; and
• educational and training materials concerning the U.S. Constitution to each of its employees on September 17 of each year.

It also stipulates that "each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year to hold an educational program on the U.S. Constitution on September 17 of such year for its students."

September 17th was so designated because it is the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787. In fact, this year is somewhat special because it is the 220th anniversary of that event. But what if, instead of being a cause for celebration, the adoption of the Constitution was "the most successful fraud in American history"?

The question, then, is a simple one: Is our government legitimate? I am not asking whether the U.S. government in its current state is legitimate based on its adherence to the Constitution. That it is not legitimate in that respect is obvious since the current government is about as far removed from the Constitution as it could ever be and still claim to be the government of a constitutional republic.

The Constitution was written by the delegates from twelve states to the Philadelphia Convention, which met from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was debated and refined by some of the greatest political minds of the day. Some of the delegates had been members of Congress, some had written state constitutions, some had been state governors, and a few had even signed the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation. Three members of Convention were current members of Congress, including James Madison.

Correct, but is our government legitimate?

The Constitution was sent to the states for ratification on September 28, 1787. On December 7, 1787, Delaware became the first state to ratify the Constitution. The ninth state needed for ratification was obtained on June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire ratified.

Yes, but is our government legitimate?

After Virginia (on June 25, 1788) and New York (on July 26, 1788) ratified the Constitution, the Confederation Congress passed a resolution on September 13, 1788, to put the new Constitution into effect. The operation of the new government under the Constitution began on March 4, 1789.

All true, but is our government legitimate? MORE HERE

Second is a marvelous treatise that has yet to be disputed well. Lysander Spooner's NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE:
A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY, A USURPATION, AND A CRIME.

Another teaser and link. If you are addled brained and squishy between the ears this may cause your indoctrinated and propagandized brain to hurt a little. Muddle on through it because it is the cure for what ails USAll.

THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE.

Section I.

The science of mine and thine --- the science of justice --- is the science of all human rights; of all a man's rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person.
It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other.
These conditions are simply these: viz., first, that each man shall do, towards every other, all that justice requires him to do; as, for example, that he shall pay his debts, that he shall return borrowed or stolen property to its owner, and that he shall make reparation for any injury he may have done to the person or property of another.
The second condition is, that each man shall abstain from doing so another, anything which justice forbids him to do; as, [*6] for example, that he shall abstain from committing theft, robbery, arson, murder, or any other crime against the person or property of another.
So long as these conditions are fulfilled, men are at peace, and ought to remain at peace, with each other. But when either of these conditions is violated, men are at war. And they must necessarily remain at war until justice is re-established.
Through all time, so far as history informs us, wherever mankind have attempted to live in peace with each other, both the natural instincts, and the collective wisdom of the human race, have acknowledged and prescribed, as an indispensable condition, obedience to this one only universal obligation: viz., that each should live honestly towards every other.
The ancient maxim makes the sum of a man's legal duty to his fellow men to be simply this: "To live honestly, to hurt no one, to give to every one his due."
This entire maxim is really expressed in the single words, to live honestly; since to live honestly is to hurt no one, and give to every one his due. MORE HERE

Audit the Fed Street Shenanigans - Chicago

Picture Worth a Thousand Words...

“Database of Ruin”

From my friend Don S, "Be careful on what you provide to various places on the internet. Information can be used to steal your identity. Below is an article from the Tech Republic on how your health information (and other information) could be abused. You may wish to contact your representatives and urge them to stop the collection of information and to make a law that all information gathered by any one company, organization, individual or government has to be kept within their protected environment to insure that no one can do what Dr. Latanya Sweeney had done with Governor Weld's information." Yeah right! Like they pay attention now to infringements on rights. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. ACT anyone? The only way these abusers will learn is if the information is used against them personally. We need hackers to obtain data on ALL representatives and release it to the public, for free. Show them that they are vulnerable first then they may fix it. Remember, strip searches of women in Chicago for traffic offenses ONLY stopped when a JUDGE'S wife got strip searched.

Electronic databases: What's new with privacy

Date: September 14th, 2009

Author: Michael Kassner

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=2350

A University of Colorado professor suggests that privacy laws governing electronic databases are insufficient, creating conditions where sensitive information is discoverable.

——————————————————————————————————–

There are thousands of databases floating around the Internet. Most contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII) about each of us. Driver’s license numbers, credit/debit card account numbers, and social security numbers to name a few. Everyone knows that. What may not be known is that our PII is not as private as we would like to think.

Balancing act

Databases are expensive to build and maintain, so managers try to discover different ways to monetize their holdings. Finding additional uses can be problematic, especially if the database contains PII, thus regulated by privacy laws. To address that, database administrators use a work-around called anonymization:

“The removal of person-related information that could be used for backtracking from, say, patient data to the actual patient.”

The trick is figuring out what to remove. There are regulatory guidelines, but no clear definition of what PII is. So, it’s left to the discretion of the database owner.

Not anonymous

Professor Paul Ohm in his paper Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization points out that anonymization is not working. He uses the following example to show why it’s not. Tables 5 and 6 (courtesy of Professor Ohm) are both anonymized databases. Separately, very little information can be gleaned.

All that changes when the two databases are joined in following table (courtesy of Professor Ohm). Potentially sensitive PII is now associated with individuals.

Real-life examples

In Massachusetts, a state agency Group Insurance Commission (GIC) decided to release anonymized data about state employee hospital visits. The professor explains:

“By removing fields containing name, address, social security number, and other “explicit identifiers,” GIC assumed it protected patient privacy, despite the fact that “nearly one hundred attributes per” patient and hospital visit were still included, including the critical trio, ZIP code, birth date, and sex.

At the time GIC released the data, William Weld, then Governor of Massachusetts, assured the public that GIC had protected patient privacy by deleting identifiers.”

Professor Ohm further explains that Dr. Latanya Sweeney, well-known for her demographic studies based on ZIP code, date of birth, and gender, decided to use the GIC database to test her theories:

“She knew that Governor

Weld resided in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a city of 54,000 residents and seven ZIP codes. For twenty dollars, she purchased the complete voter rolls from the city of Cambridge, a database containing, among other things, the name, address, ZIP code, birth date, and sex of every voter. By combining this data with the GIC records, Sweeney found Governor Weld with ease.

Only six people in Cambridge shared his birth date, only three of them men, and of them, only he lived in his ZIP code. In a theatrical flourish, Dr. Sweeney sent the Governor’s health records (which included diagnoses and prescriptions) to his office.”

Another example involves Dr. Arvind Narayanan and advisor Dr. Vitaly Shmatikov. They determined one-third of Twitter users also have a Flickr account. That was all they needed. Cross-referencing anonymized Twitter social graphs with Flickr connection information allowed the researchers to identify Twitter accounts.

Professor Ohm’s claim

The point, Professor Ohm wants to make is all information should be considered PII. No one knows for sure what other database could be used for re-identification:

“Data can either be useful or perfectly anonymous but never both.”

In the report, Professor Ohm writes about what he calls the “Database of Ruin”. He mentions that everyone has at least one fact about them stored on a database that is potentially injurious. For now, those tidbits remain hidden because a majority of databases are not sharing information. As databases interact, both re-identification and misuse of PII are more likely to occur.

Final thoughts

Currently, the U.S. government is spending billions of dollars trying to get electronic health records melded into a national database. After my phone conversation with Professor Ohm, I’m wondering if that could be his “Database of Ruin”.

Michael Kassner has been involved with with IT for over 30 years. Currently a systems administrator for an international corporation and security consultant with MKassner Net. Read his profile or Twitter at MKassnerNet.

I Am Barack Obama's Political Prisoner Now

Leonard Peltier, a Chippewa activist and member of the American Indian Movement who was convicted in 1977 of the murder of two FBI agents, has been denied parole. Peltier is serving two consecutive life sentences in the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Peltier had been previously denied parole in 1993.

Peltier, along with Robert Robideau and Darelle “Dino” Butler, was charged with the murders of FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ronald Williams after a shootout during unrest on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Robideau and Butler were acquitted, the jury finding the shootings of Robideau and Butler having been in self defense, but Peltier had fled the country and was tried separately on his return and found guilty.

Peltier’s attorney, Eric Seitz, stated that the announcement of Peltier’s being denied parole was made without the courtesy of informing the defense, and noted that Peltier, currently 64 years of age, is in poor health with numerous complaints.

Peltier has consistently denied that he murdered Coler and Williams and maintains that the FBI framed him. Supporters of his release include a wide range of world figures, including Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama and Amnesty International.

The Denial of My Parole

I Am Barack Obama's Political Prisoner Now

By LEONARD PELTIER

The United States Department of Justice has once again made a mockery of its lofty and pretentious title.

After releasing an original and continuing disciple of death cult leader Charles Manson who attempted to shoot President Gerald Ford, an admitted Croatian terrorist, and another attempted assassin of President Ford under the mandatory 30-year parole law, the U.S. Parole Commission deemed that my release would “promote disrespect for the law.”

If only the federal government would have respected its own laws, not to mention the treaties that are, under the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land, I would never have been convicted nor forced to spend more than half my life in captivity. Not to mention the fact that every law in this country was created without the consent of Native peoples and is applied unequally at our expense. If nothing else, my experience should raise serious questions about the FBI's supposed jurisdiction in Indian Country.

The parole commission's phrase was lifted from soon-to-be former U.S. Attorney Drew Wrigley, who apparently hopes to ride with the FBI cavalry into the office of North Dakota governor. In this Wrigley is following in the footsteps of William Janklow, who built his political career on his reputation as an Indian fighter, moving on up from tribal attorney (and alleged rapist of a Native minor) to state attorney general, South Dakota governor, and U.S. Congressman. Some might recall that Janklow claimed responsibility for dissuading President Clinton from pardoning me before he was convicted of manslaughter. Janklow's historical predecessor, George Armstrong Custer, similarly hoped that a glorious massacre of the Sioux would propel him to the White House, and we all know what happened to him.

Unlike the barbarians that bay for my blood in the corridors of power, however, Native people are true humanitarians who pray for our enemies. Yet we must be realistic enough to organize for our own freedom and equality as nations. We constitute 5% of the population of North Dakota and 10% of South Dakota and we could utilize that influence to promote our own power on the reservations, where our focus should be. If we organized as a voting bloc, we could defeat the entire premise of the competition between the Dakotas as to which is the most racist. In the 1970s we were forced to take up arms to affirm our right to survival and self-defense, but today the war is one of ideas. We must now stand up to armed oppression and colonization with our bodies and our minds. International law is on our side.

Given the complexion of the three recent federal parolees, it might seem that my greatest crime was being Indian. But the truth is that my gravest offense is my innocence. In Iran, political prisoners are occasionally released if they confess to the ridiculous charges on which they are dragged into court, in order to discredit and intimidate them and other like-minded citizens. The FBI and its mouthpieces have suggested the same, as did the parole commission in 1993, when it ruled that my refusal to confess was grounds for denial of parole.

To claim innocence is to suggest that the government is wrong, if not guilty itself. The American judicial system is set up so that the defendant is not punished for the crime itself, but for refusing to accept whatever plea arrangement is offered and for daring to compel the judicial system to grant the accused the right to right to rebut the charges leveled by the state in an actual trial. Such insolence is punished invariably with prosecution requests for the steepest possible sentence, if not an upward departure from sentencing guidelines that are being gradually discarded, along with the possibility of parole.

As much as non-Natives might hate Indians, we are all in the same boat. To attempt to emulate this system in tribal government is pitiful, to say the least.

It was only this year, in the Troy Davis, case, that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized innocence as a legitimate legal defense. Like the witnesses that were coerced into testifying against me, those that testified against Davis renounced their statements, yet Davis was very nearly put to death. I might have been executed myself by now, had not the government of Canada required a waiver of the death penalty as a condition of extradition.

The old order is aptly represented by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who stated in his dissenting opinion in the Davis case, “This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged 'actual innocence' is constitutionally cognizable.”

The esteemed Senator from North Dakota, Byron Dorgan, who is now the chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, used much the same reasoning in writing that “our legal system has found Leonard Peltier guilty of the crime for which he was charged. I have reviewed the material from the trial, and I believe the verdict was fair and just.”

It is a bizarre and incomprehensible statement to Natives, as well it should be, that innocence and guilt is a mere legal status, not necessarily rooted in material fact. It is a truism that all political prisoners were convicted of the crimes for which they were charged.

The truth is the government wants me to falsely confess in order to validate a rather sloppy frame-up operation, one whose exposure would open the door to an investigation of the United States' role in training and equipping goon squads to suppress a grassroots movement on Pine Ridge against a puppet dictatorship.

In America, there can by definition be no political prisoners, only those duly judged guilty in a court of law. It is deemed too controversial to even publicly contemplate that the federal government might fabricate and suppress evidence to defeat those deemed political enemies. But it is a demonstrable fact at every stage of my case.

I am Barack Obama's political prisoner now, and I hope and pray that he will adhere to the ideals that impelled him to run for president. But as Obama himself would acknowledge, if we are expecting him to solve our problems, we missed the point of his campaign. Only by organizing in our own communities and pressuring our supposed leaders can we bring about the changes that we all so desperately need. Please support the Leonard Peltier Defense Offense Committee in our effort to hold the United States government to its own words.

I thank you all who have stood by me all these years, but to name anyone would be to exclude many more. We must never lose hope in our struggle for freedom.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,

Leonard Peltier
Leonard Peltier #89637-132
USP-Lewisburg
US Penitentiary
PO Box 1000
Lewisburg, PA 17837

For more information on Leonard Peltier visit the Leonard Peltier Defense-Offense Committee website.

Lying by Omission

What the "Media" reported:

(from Chicago Tribune Washington News Bureau)

by Mark Silva

"You lie,'' Republican Rep. Joe Wilson called out in the middle of President Barack Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress.

"That's not true,'' Obama replied from the dais.

Wilson later apologized for a "lack of civility'' in challenging the president in this manner on the question of support for illegal immigrants in the health-care legislation. Neither the House nor Senate bills offers health care for the undocumented.

"This evening I let my emotions get the best of me," the South Carolina Republican said in a statement. issued by his office. "While I disagree with the president's statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the president for this lack of civility."

Wilson's outburst followed Obama's assurance to Congress and a television-viewing public that the undocumented will not benefit from the health care insurance that he is seeking for the uninsured.

Wilson's behavior was "totally disrespectful," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an appearance on CNN. "There is no place for it in that setting, or any other, and he should apologize for it immediately."

Presidential addresses to a joint session outside of the annual State of the Union address are rare. So is such an outburst. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said: "I have never in my 29 years heard an outburst of that nature with reference to a president of the United States speaking as a guest of the House and Senate."

Below, courtesy of Media Matters, is a section of HR 3200 on the subject on which the congressman crossed swords with the president.

What the TRUTH IS!!! (Thanks to ThommyT)

CLICK FACT CHECK: Health coverage for illegal immigrants CLICK

Obama, the impostor, fake president is the liar. The reason is because he knows that the democrats defeated two addendums to that provision which would effectively take the teeth out of the legislation.

First, they didn't include a provision as to HOW they would ENFORCE that part of the bill. Second, they took out a provision which would have required PROOF of legal status before availing oneself of the benefits......The practical effect of that is the law would become a toothless, forgotten RELIC as the illegals would click up their heels enjoying free health care from the sweat of our backs. Wilson knows this and THAT'S WHY HE GOT PISSED............

This is how Obama does EVERYTHING. He doesn't "lie," but HE LIES..... How else would a NOVICE politician with no record and no experience, who announced his candidacy with only 143 days in as a U.S. Senator become PRESIDENT of the United States? Run as a moderate. Conceal who you truly are and then unleash a radically left agenda once you gain power. This is precisely what he taught as a radical-reformer community activist. It is well-documented fact and can be confirmed and corroborated by ethical scholar Stanley Kurtz who wrote an article about Obama entitled "Senator Stealth: How To Put Forth A Radical Agenda Without Anyone Knowing." It is about ten pages but its well worth the read. Then you'll see just how in-the-tank the media was and still is for him, and how complicit the media was and still is in HIDING from the American public just exactly WHO this guy is.......When you voted for him, did you know who he REALLY was? Did you ask questions? Did you read up?

Everything about who he appoints (tax cheats, Marxists/racists) should tell you SOMETHING..........

Senator Stealth has become "president stealth." This is because of all his "Czars...." These are the people with whom he does the real business of governing the country.But he doesn't want you to KNOW that. In the time he has been "president," he has had very FEW formal meetings with Cabinet members (Secretaries of the various departments of government). These are people who are VETTED and properly approved by the House and Senate...But these "Czars" have NO vetting process and escape the scrutiny of our legislature. He just picks who he wants and they go to work for him... And these people are the ones who truly, REALLY pull the strings of government. People like radical racist Van Jones. People like his health "Czar," who believes in human sterilization and government imposed abortions.........The Secretaries are the ones on the front lines and are more or less centrist or moderate. But the real weirdo , way-out lefties who he really wants to run things are HIDDEN as these non-vetted, non-congressionally approved "Czars..." Has anyone heard of the guy he appointed who says that animals should have the right to sue human beings in their own status as an animal? These people are WACK JOBS ....

The Fathers of this country are spinning like the wheels of an Indy race car in their graves. And these are the people this guy picks to run the country on a day-to-day basis......

Open your eyes.This about power and the VOTES to keep that power. He got the banks and then he got the car industry. If you follow the Socialist's manifesto, you know health care's gotta come next because its MILLIONS of votes. And if you got a brain in your head, you know that votes mean you STAY in power. If you let him, this guy will "smile" and "charm" you right into the poorhouse with the taxes he will make you pay paying for everybody else who doesn't want to work.....Do you really want this administration to be in control of one-fifth of the nation's economy (health care) when it can't even run "Cash for Clunkers?" Yes, car dealers are STILL waiting for their money.....

And keep this in mind.... This FRAUD of a "president" wanted to pass YOUR health care legislation in less time than it took him to pick out his friggin' DOG.....

Look deeper than the Oprah Winfrey-spun euphoria and sheep-like zombies with their loving smiles that blindly follow this affirmative action clown. Don't let the talking heads cover for him as he leads us down the road to destruction of this country and destruction of the wonderful principles millions of courageous PATRIOTS died to establish and PROTECT.......