War is not the answer to life. In fact war deters the existence of peace and life on this planet. Hillary Clinton has made it painfully obvious that she is all in favor of showing Iran who is boss in this world. It makes me sad to see people here in Austin, Texas with signs in their windows or yards saying bring the troops home now next to the war mongering Hillary 08 signs. I, through research, have found that doing so is no different than including a McCain sign in your yard or window as well. There is no question about her intentions or the intentions of the previous Clinton administration. War with Iran seems inevitable unless a true non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy can be re-enacted by the one and only RON PAUL. Oh but wait what would we do with all those defense contractors, munitions producers, and casket makers? And how could we continue to steal the income of hard working American citizens to fund all of our world policing activities?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=fUiFcaWxn8o&feature=related
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Monday, May 5, 2008
Solar Industry Boom!!! Green Energy is Alive and Well!!!
Solar Energy Demand (click here to try our Solar Industry statistics section)
Worldwide photovoltaic installations increased by 1,744 MW in 2006, up from 1,460 MW installed during the previous year. In 1985, annual solar installation demand was only 21 Megawatts.
For comparison purposes, total worldwide wind energy installations in 2000 were around 4000 Megawatts, growing at about 35% pa.
Cumulative solar energy production accounts for less than 0.01% of total Global Primary Energy demand.
Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25% per annum over the past 15 years (hydrocarbon energy demand typically grows between 0-2% per annum).
The US market showed 33% growth in 2006. Japan's market reached 300 MW, a marginal increase from 2005.
The "Feed-in Law" in Germany permits most customer applications to receive 45.7 euro cents/kWh for solar generated electricity. The program now calls for a total of 1000 Megawatts to be installed. By the end of 2003, the Kreditanstaldt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) Bank who administer the 100,000 Roof Program in Germany, had approved loans for over 250 Megawatts of PV systems.
For the Fiscal Year 2002, the Japanese solar roof top program received applications from 42,838 households.
Jobs in the solar and renewable energy industries may be found at greenjobs.com
Photovoltaic Manufactured Solar Cells
On the supply side, the amount of product manufactured by PV cell manufacturers worldwide reached 2,083 megawatts in 2006.
Japan has taken over from the United States as the largest net exporter of PV cells and modules.
Japan accounted for around 39% of total global cell production in 2006.
Among the top five manufacturers, Sharp remains the largest and has shown the fastest growth over the last five years.
Click here to find worldwide solar energy product manufacturers.
Solar Energy Prices
Solar Energy (photovoltaic) prices have declined on average 4% per annum over the past 15 years. Progressive increase in conversion efficiencies and manufacturing economies of scale are the underlying drivers.
The Solarbuzz global price survey on this site shows that prices have consistently declined for over the last two years. A detailed analysis of the worldwide PV Market is in our premier industry report, Marketbuzz 2007. The US Grid Connect Market is analyzed in detail in this report.
A residential solar energy system typically costs about $8-10 per Watt. Where government incentive programs exist, together with lower prices secured through volume purchases, installed costs as low as $3-4 watt - or some 10-12 cents per kilowatt hour can be achieved. Without incentive programs, solar energy costs (in an average sunny climate) range between 22-40 cents/kWh for very large PV systems.
Other Solar Energy Facts
Did you know that solar energy is dependent upon nuclear power? Solar Energy's nuclear power plant, though, is 93 million miles away.
An average crystalline silicon cell solar module has an efficiency of 15%, an average thin film cell solar module has an efficiency of 6%. Thin film manufacturing costs potentially are lower, though.
A Megawatt is 1,000,000 Watts; a Gigawatt is 1000 Megawatts.
The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year.
Two billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar photovoltaics would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.
Crystalline Silicon cell technology forms about 90% of solar cell demand. The balance comes from thin film technologies.
Approximately 45% of the cost of a silicon cell solar module is driven by the cost of the silicon wafer, a further 35% is driven by the materials required to assemble the solar module.
Global Energy and Electricity Industry
The United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Canada were the world's five largest producers of energy in 1999, supplying 47.9 percent of the world's total energy. Worldwide oil consumption rose by slightly less than 1 million barrels per day in 2000 (vs 1999).
Source: US DOE
World energy consumption is projected to increase by 59% from 1999 to 2020. Much of the growth in worldwide energy use is expected in the developing world
Source: International Energy Outlook 2001, EIA
1999 World Production of Primary Energy (Quadrillion (10x15) Btu) Source: US DOE EIA
Petroleum
149.7
Hydroelectric
27.10
Natural Gas
87.31
Nuclear
25.25
Coal
84.90
Geothermal, solar, wind, wood, waste
2.83
Renewable energy use is expected to increaes 53% between 1999 and 2020. Much of the growth is attributable to large scale hydroelectricity projects in the developing world. Renewable Energy currently accounts for 9% of total energy consumption and is projected to decline to 8%.
Source: US DOE EIA
A conventional energy Power Plant can range in size from 500-3000 Megawatts.
Total USA Megawatt hour demand was 3,312,087,081 across 125,945,003 customers in 1999.
Source: US DOE, 1999
Total European Union Megawatt hour demand is around 2,300,000,000. (1999)
Electricity Price tariffs by country can be found on this site by clicking here.
Worldwide photovoltaic installations increased by 1,744 MW in 2006, up from 1,460 MW installed during the previous year. In 1985, annual solar installation demand was only 21 Megawatts.
For comparison purposes, total worldwide wind energy installations in 2000 were around 4000 Megawatts, growing at about 35% pa.
Cumulative solar energy production accounts for less than 0.01% of total Global Primary Energy demand.
Solar Energy demand has grown at about 25% per annum over the past 15 years (hydrocarbon energy demand typically grows between 0-2% per annum).
The US market showed 33% growth in 2006. Japan's market reached 300 MW, a marginal increase from 2005.
The "Feed-in Law" in Germany permits most customer applications to receive 45.7 euro cents/kWh for solar generated electricity. The program now calls for a total of 1000 Megawatts to be installed. By the end of 2003, the Kreditanstaldt fur Wiederaufbau (KfW) Bank who administer the 100,000 Roof Program in Germany, had approved loans for over 250 Megawatts of PV systems.
For the Fiscal Year 2002, the Japanese solar roof top program received applications from 42,838 households.
Jobs in the solar and renewable energy industries may be found at greenjobs.com
Photovoltaic Manufactured Solar Cells
On the supply side, the amount of product manufactured by PV cell manufacturers worldwide reached 2,083 megawatts in 2006.
Japan has taken over from the United States as the largest net exporter of PV cells and modules.
Japan accounted for around 39% of total global cell production in 2006.
Among the top five manufacturers, Sharp remains the largest and has shown the fastest growth over the last five years.
Click here to find worldwide solar energy product manufacturers.
Solar Energy Prices
Solar Energy (photovoltaic) prices have declined on average 4% per annum over the past 15 years. Progressive increase in conversion efficiencies and manufacturing economies of scale are the underlying drivers.
The Solarbuzz global price survey on this site shows that prices have consistently declined for over the last two years. A detailed analysis of the worldwide PV Market is in our premier industry report, Marketbuzz 2007. The US Grid Connect Market is analyzed in detail in this report.
A residential solar energy system typically costs about $8-10 per Watt. Where government incentive programs exist, together with lower prices secured through volume purchases, installed costs as low as $3-4 watt - or some 10-12 cents per kilowatt hour can be achieved. Without incentive programs, solar energy costs (in an average sunny climate) range between 22-40 cents/kWh for very large PV systems.
Other Solar Energy Facts
Did you know that solar energy is dependent upon nuclear power? Solar Energy's nuclear power plant, though, is 93 million miles away.
An average crystalline silicon cell solar module has an efficiency of 15%, an average thin film cell solar module has an efficiency of 6%. Thin film manufacturing costs potentially are lower, though.
A Megawatt is 1,000,000 Watts; a Gigawatt is 1000 Megawatts.
The earth receives more energy from the sun in just one hour than the world uses in a whole year.
Two billion people in the world have no access to electricity. For most of them, solar photovoltaics would be their cheapest electricity source, but they cannot afford it.
Crystalline Silicon cell technology forms about 90% of solar cell demand. The balance comes from thin film technologies.
Approximately 45% of the cost of a silicon cell solar module is driven by the cost of the silicon wafer, a further 35% is driven by the materials required to assemble the solar module.
Global Energy and Electricity Industry
The United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and Canada were the world's five largest producers of energy in 1999, supplying 47.9 percent of the world's total energy. Worldwide oil consumption rose by slightly less than 1 million barrels per day in 2000 (vs 1999).
Source: US DOE
World energy consumption is projected to increase by 59% from 1999 to 2020. Much of the growth in worldwide energy use is expected in the developing world
Source: International Energy Outlook 2001, EIA
1999 World Production of Primary Energy (Quadrillion (10x15) Btu) Source: US DOE EIA
Petroleum
149.7
Hydroelectric
27.10
Natural Gas
87.31
Nuclear
25.25
Coal
84.90
Geothermal, solar, wind, wood, waste
2.83
Renewable energy use is expected to increaes 53% between 1999 and 2020. Much of the growth is attributable to large scale hydroelectricity projects in the developing world. Renewable Energy currently accounts for 9% of total energy consumption and is projected to decline to 8%.
Source: US DOE EIA
A conventional energy Power Plant can range in size from 500-3000 Megawatts.
Total USA Megawatt hour demand was 3,312,087,081 across 125,945,003 customers in 1999.
Source: US DOE, 1999
Total European Union Megawatt hour demand is around 2,300,000,000. (1999)
Electricity Price tariffs by country can be found on this site by clicking here.
Difference between left and right
One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked about his bill and the barber replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The florist is pleased and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber
goes to open his shop, there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The Republican is very happy
and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a gift certificate for lunch at a nearby restaurant.
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The Democrat is very happy
and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up,there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the left and right.
goes to open his shop, there is a thank you card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The cop is happy and leaves the shop.
Next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a thank you card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Later a Republican comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The Republican is very happy
and leaves the shop. Next morning when the barber goes to open, there is a thank you card and a gift certificate for lunch at a nearby restaurant.
Then a Democrat comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his bill the barber again replies: 'I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week.' The Democrat is very happy
and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up,there are a dozen Democrats lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the left and right.
The democrat of the year...rudy giuliani
Could America operate without the income tax?
The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th
Social Security...will it be there for you?
Our nation’s promise to its seniors, once considered a sacred trust, has become little more than a tool for politicians to scare retirees while robbing them of their promised benefits. Today, the Social Security system is broke and broken.
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.
-Ron Pual
Those in the system are seeing their benefits dwindle due to higher taxes, increasing inflation, and irresponsible public spending.
The proposed solutions, ranging from lower benefits to higher taxes to increasing the age of eligibility, are NOT solutions; they are betrayals.
Imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. In Congress, I have introduced the Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 191), which repeals ALL taxes on Social Security benefits, to eliminate political theft of our seniors’ income and raise their standard of living.
Solvency is the key to keeping our promise to our seniors, and I have introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219) to ensure that money paid into the system is only used for Social Security.
It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor.
We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market.
Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.
-Ron Pual
War and Foreign Policy
he war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
-Ron Paul
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.
We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.
-Ron Paul
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.
Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Ron Paul
Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.
We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”
Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.
-Ron Paul
Debt and Taxes
Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
-Ron Paul
Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.
Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.”
Worse, our economy and our very independence as a nation is increasingly in the hands of foreign governments such as China and Saudi Arabia, because their central banks also finance our runaway spending.
We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States.
-Ron Paul
American Independence and Sovereignty
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.
-Ron Paul
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.
-Ron Paul
Education Monopoly?
The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.
-Ron Paul
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
To help parents with the costs of schooling, I have introduced H.R. 1056, the Family Education Freedom Act, in Congress. This bill would allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.
Another bill I have sponsored, H.R. 1059, allows full-time elementary and secondary teachers a $3,000 yearly tax credit, thus easing their financial burden and encouraging good teachers to stay in an underpaid profession.
Many parents have already shown their desire to be free of federal control by either enrolling their children in private schools or homeschooling them. And students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
Years of centralized education have produced nothing but failure and frustrated parents. We can resurrect our public school system if we follow the Constitution and end the federal education monopoly.
-Ron Paul
Giuliani billed obscure agencies for trips
s New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.
Giuliani’s relationship with Nathan is old news now, and Giuliani regularly asks voters on the campaign trail to forgive his "mistakes."
It’s also impossible to know whether the purpose of all the Hamptons trips was to see Nathan. A Giuliani spokeswoman declined to discuss any aspect of this story, which was explained in detail to her earlier this week.
Asked about this article after it was published on Wednesday, Giuliani said: "It's not true."
He said he had 24-hour security during his eight years as mayor because of "threats," adding: " I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."
The practice of transferring the travel expenses of Giuliani's security detail to the accounts of obscure mayoral offices has never been brought to light, despite behind-the-scenes criticism from the city comptroller weeks after Giuliani left office.
The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.
When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.
But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.
Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.
The letter, whose existence has not been previously reported, was also obtained under the Freedom of Information Law.
Long Island bills
The receipts tally the costs of hotel and gas bills for the police detectives who traveled everywhere with the mayor, according to cover sheets that label them “PD expenses” and travel authorizations that describe the trips.
New York's mayor receives round-the-clock police protection, and there's no suggestion that Giuliani used his detail improperly on these trips.
Many of the receipts are from hotels and gas stations on Long Island, where Giuliani reportedly began visiting Nathan’s Southampton condominium in the summer of 1999, though Giuliani and Nathan have never discussed the beginning of their relationship.
Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf.
The receipts have languished in city files since Giuliani left office, apparently in part because of City Hall's decision to bill police expenses to a range of little-known city offices.
"There is no really good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it," Carol O'Cleireacain, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was budget director under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, said of the unusual billing practices.
A Giuliani spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, declined to comment on any aspect of the travel documents or the billing arrangements.
A Giuliani aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity denied that the unorthodox billing practices were aimed at hiding the expenses, citing "accounting" and noting that they were billed to units of the mayor's office, not to outside city agencies.
The aide declined to discuss Giuliani's visits to Long Island.
The trips themselves were a departure for a mayor who had prided himself on spending every waking moment in the city and on the job, and offer a glimpse into the dramatic and controversial finale to his tenure in office.
Receipts show him in Southampton every weekend in August and the first weekend in September of 2001, before the terror attacks of Sept. 11 disrupted the routines of his city.
Both the travel expenses and the appearance that his office made efforts to conceal them could open Giuliani to criticism that his personal life spilled over into his official duties and his expenses grew in his final years in office.
It is impossible to say which of the 11 Long Island trips indicated by credit card receipts were to visit Nathan and which were for other purposes.
Eight of those trips, however, were not noted on Giuliani's official schedule, which is now available in the city's municipal archive and contains many details of Giuliani's official and unofficial life.
The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.
One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.
Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.
The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.
Increasing costs
"The Comptroller's Office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002 but was informed that, due to security concerns, the information could not be provided," said Simmons. Thompson took office in 2002.
Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.
Most of that travel also was billed to obscure agencies, though portions — much of it trips to and from Washington by Giuliani deputies — were accounted for more conventionally, with a more visible charge to the mayor's office.
Thompson suggested Bloomberg "review ... the cost of mayoralty travel expenses, given your administration's focus on fiscal constraints."
A spokesman for Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said: "When we received the letter from the comptroller, we referred the matter to the Department of Investigations, as we would in any case like this."
A spokeswoman for the Department of Investigations declined to comment.
The executive director of the Loft Board referred Politico to Bloomberg's office for comment.
The first trip to Southampton appearing in the travel documents runs from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1, 1999.
Four police officers spent the night at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to an approval request for official out-of-city travel, billing the city $1,016.20.
Giuliani’s private schedule, available from the municipal archive, lists no events on Long Island that day.
The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.”
The neighbors called their relationship and their time in Nathan's two-bedroom condo overlooking Noyack Bay "an open secret.”
"Several residents of the condo sometimes asked Giuliani's driver and members of his security entourage to turn off their car engines," the Post reported.
That first trip was followed by at least 10 more, according to the travel and credit card documents.
One of those trips, on Aug. 20-21, 1999, included a fundraiser on the evening of Aug. 21. Giuliani’s four-man detail arrived 24 hours early, billing the city $1,704.43 at the Southampton Inn, according to their approval request.
More trips followed in the summer of 2000, after the mayor's affair with Nathan became public and they were seen together publicly in Southampton. The trips accelerated in the summer of 2001, when he visited Southampton every weekend in August, as well as on Sept. 2.
Many of the trips show expenses only for gas, though his police detail billed the city $1,371.40 for the nights of Aug. 3-4, 2001, at the Village Latch Inn in Southampton.
Giuliani's police detail also spent a night in Palm Beach, Fla., according to the bill for the American Express card under Giuliani's name. The detectives spent $1,714.99 at The Breakers, a sprawling hotel and resort.
There is no indication that Nathan visited Palm Beach. Giuliani's aide did not recall the trip.
The 2001 travel expenses were billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, a little-known unit of the mayor's office involved in programs that provide lawyers to poor defendants.
None of the 2001 trips to Southampton appear in Giuliani's official schedule. However, the schedule does contain a potential clue to his destination. Before three of them, Giuliani paid a visit to his barber, Carlo Fargnoli, on York Avenue near the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion.
The documents, obtained by Politico under New York’s Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.
At the time, the mayor’s office refused to explain the accounting to city auditors, citing “security.”
The Hamptons visits resulted in hotel, gas and other costs for Giuliani’s New York Police Department security detail.
Giuliani’s relationship with Nathan is old news now, and Giuliani regularly asks voters on the campaign trail to forgive his "mistakes."
It’s also impossible to know whether the purpose of all the Hamptons trips was to see Nathan. A Giuliani spokeswoman declined to discuss any aspect of this story, which was explained in detail to her earlier this week.
Asked about this article after it was published on Wednesday, Giuliani said: "It's not true."
He said he had 24-hour security during his eight years as mayor because of "threats," adding: " I had nothing to do with the handling of their records, and they were handled, as far as I know, perfectly appropriately."
The practice of transferring the travel expenses of Giuliani's security detail to the accounts of obscure mayoral offices has never been brought to light, despite behind-the-scenes criticism from the city comptroller weeks after Giuliani left office.
The expenses first surfaced as Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York drew to a close in 2001, when a city auditor stumbled across something unusual: $34,000 worth of travel expenses buried in the accounts of the New York City Loft Board.
When the city's fiscal monitor asked for an explanation, Giuliani's aides refused, citing "security," said Jeff Simmons, a spokesman for the city comptroller.
But American Express bills and travel documents obtained by Politico suggest another reason City Hall may have considered the documents sensitive: They detail three summers of visits to Southampton, the Long Island town where Nathan had an apartment.
Auditors "were unable to verify that these expenses were for legitimate or necessary purposes," City Comptroller William Thompson wrote of the expenses from fiscal year 2000, which covers parts of 1999 and 2000.
The letter, whose existence has not been previously reported, was also obtained under the Freedom of Information Law.
Long Island bills
The receipts tally the costs of hotel and gas bills for the police detectives who traveled everywhere with the mayor, according to cover sheets that label them “PD expenses” and travel authorizations that describe the trips.
New York's mayor receives round-the-clock police protection, and there's no suggestion that Giuliani used his detail improperly on these trips.
Many of the receipts are from hotels and gas stations on Long Island, where Giuliani reportedly began visiting Nathan’s Southampton condominium in the summer of 1999, though Giuliani and Nathan have never discussed the beginning of their relationship.
Nathan would go on to become Giuliani’s third wife, but his second marriage was officially intact until the spring of 2000, and City Hall officials at the time responded to questions about his absences by saying he was spending time with his son and playing golf.
The receipts have languished in city files since Giuliani left office, apparently in part because of City Hall's decision to bill police expenses to a range of little-known city offices.
"There is no really good reason to do this except to have nobody know about it," Carol O'Cleireacain, a Brookings Institution senior fellow who was budget director under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins, said of the unusual billing practices.
A Giuliani spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, declined to comment on any aspect of the travel documents or the billing arrangements.
A Giuliani aide who would speak only on the condition of anonymity denied that the unorthodox billing practices were aimed at hiding the expenses, citing "accounting" and noting that they were billed to units of the mayor's office, not to outside city agencies.
The aide declined to discuss Giuliani's visits to Long Island.
The trips themselves were a departure for a mayor who had prided himself on spending every waking moment in the city and on the job, and offer a glimpse into the dramatic and controversial finale to his tenure in office.
Receipts show him in Southampton every weekend in August and the first weekend in September of 2001, before the terror attacks of Sept. 11 disrupted the routines of his city.
Both the travel expenses and the appearance that his office made efforts to conceal them could open Giuliani to criticism that his personal life spilled over into his official duties and his expenses grew in his final years in office.
It is impossible to say which of the 11 Long Island trips indicated by credit card receipts were to visit Nathan and which were for other purposes.
Eight of those trips, however, were not noted on Giuliani's official schedule, which is now available in the city's municipal archive and contains many details of Giuliani's official and unofficial life.
The billing practices, however, drew formal attention on Jan. 24, 2002, when Thompson, the city comptroller, wrote the newly elected mayor, Michael Bloomberg, a confidential letter.
One of his auditors, he wrote, had stumbled upon the unexplained travel expenses during a routine audit of the Loft Board, a tiny branch of city government that regulates certain apartments.
Broadening the inquiry, the comptroller wrote, auditors found similar expenses at a range of other unlikely agencies: $10,054 billed to the Office for People With Disabilities and $29,757 to the Procurement Policy Board.
The next year, yet another obscure department, the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, was billed around $400,000 for travel.
Increasing costs
"The Comptroller's Office made repeated requests for the information in 2001 and 2002 but was informed that, due to security concerns, the information could not be provided," said Simmons. Thompson took office in 2002.
Thompson also warned that travel costs had increased by 151 percent in Giuliani's final fiscal year, to more than $618,000, a number which also includes police security on campaign swings for Giuliani’s abortive 2000 Senate run and trips to Los Angeles by Donna Hanover, who remained Giuliani's wife and the city's official first lady, in the fall of 2000.
Most of that travel also was billed to obscure agencies, though portions — much of it trips to and from Washington by Giuliani deputies — were accounted for more conventionally, with a more visible charge to the mayor's office.
Thompson suggested Bloomberg "review ... the cost of mayoralty travel expenses, given your administration's focus on fiscal constraints."
A spokesman for Bloomberg, Stu Loeser, said: "When we received the letter from the comptroller, we referred the matter to the Department of Investigations, as we would in any case like this."
A spokeswoman for the Department of Investigations declined to comment.
The executive director of the Loft Board referred Politico to Bloomberg's office for comment.
The first trip to Southampton appearing in the travel documents runs from Aug. 31 to Sept. 1, 1999.
Four police officers spent the night at the Atlantic Utopia Lifestyle Inn, according to an approval request for official out-of-city travel, billing the city $1,016.20.
Giuliani’s private schedule, available from the municipal archive, lists no events on Long Island that day.
The New York Post reported the following year that Giuliani "had long weekend visits with gal pal Judi Nathan at her Southampton, L.I., condo last summer, according to neighbors who said the mayor did little to conceal their relationship.”
The neighbors called their relationship and their time in Nathan's two-bedroom condo overlooking Noyack Bay "an open secret.”
"Several residents of the condo sometimes asked Giuliani's driver and members of his security entourage to turn off their car engines," the Post reported.
That first trip was followed by at least 10 more, according to the travel and credit card documents.
One of those trips, on Aug. 20-21, 1999, included a fundraiser on the evening of Aug. 21. Giuliani’s four-man detail arrived 24 hours early, billing the city $1,704.43 at the Southampton Inn, according to their approval request.
More trips followed in the summer of 2000, after the mayor's affair with Nathan became public and they were seen together publicly in Southampton. The trips accelerated in the summer of 2001, when he visited Southampton every weekend in August, as well as on Sept. 2.
Many of the trips show expenses only for gas, though his police detail billed the city $1,371.40 for the nights of Aug. 3-4, 2001, at the Village Latch Inn in Southampton.
Giuliani's police detail also spent a night in Palm Beach, Fla., according to the bill for the American Express card under Giuliani's name. The detectives spent $1,714.99 at The Breakers, a sprawling hotel and resort.
There is no indication that Nathan visited Palm Beach. Giuliani's aide did not recall the trip.
The 2001 travel expenses were billed to the Assigned Counsel Administrative Office, a little-known unit of the mayor's office involved in programs that provide lawyers to poor defendants.
None of the 2001 trips to Southampton appear in Giuliani's official schedule. However, the schedule does contain a potential clue to his destination. Before three of them, Giuliani paid a visit to his barber, Carlo Fargnoli, on York Avenue near the mayor's official residence, Gracie Mansion.
The American Freedom Campaign Agenda
(The American Freedom Agenda Act of 2007 (H.R. 3835), which addresses most of the issues outlined below, was introduced by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul on October 15, 2007. Click here (http://afagenda.nonprofitsoapbox.com/storage/afagenda/documents/AFA%20Act%20text.pdf ) to read the text of the bill.)
At critical moments in our history, Americans have been called upon to protect our Constitutional guarantees of liberty and justice. We face such a moment today. The American Freedom Campaign is a non-partisan citizens' alliance formed to reverse the abuse of executive power and restore our system of checks and balances with these ten goals:
Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.
Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.
Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.
H.R.3835
Title: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 10/15/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. COSPONSORS(2), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 11/15/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 11/15/2007
At critical moments in our history, Americans have been called upon to protect our Constitutional guarantees of liberty and justice. We face such a moment today. The American Freedom Campaign is a non-partisan citizens' alliance formed to reverse the abuse of executive power and restore our system of checks and balances with these ten goals:
Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.
Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.
Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.
H.R.3835
Title: To restore the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 10/15/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 11/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. COSPONSORS(2), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 11/15/2007
Rep Welch, Peter [VT] - 11/15/2007
The DamNotice
This is just too great not to pass on to you to read & enjoy. Just another
perfect example of Big Brother's nonsense for the GOOD of ALL of US! Yeah,
Right!
This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond
on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Quality, State of Pennsylvania . This guy's response is hilarious, but read
the State's letter before you get to the response letter.
SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County
Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality
that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced
parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or
contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and
maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A
review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued.
Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation
of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and
Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being
sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws,
annotated.
The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially
failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream
locations.
We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be
permitted.
The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at
this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by
removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All
restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2008.
Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that
a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply
with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may
result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We
anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please
feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.
Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County
Dear Mr. Price,
Your certified letter dated 11/25/07 has been handed to me to respond to.
I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout
Run,Pennsylvania .
A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of
constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream
of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their
dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their
skillful use of natures building materials "debris."
I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam
project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state
there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam
resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam
determination and/or their dam work ethic.
These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I
do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam
permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.
My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said
dam request?
If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through
the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those
other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.
(Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301,
Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental
Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections
324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)
I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled
to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute
and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to
provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one
or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is
proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to
protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone
rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.
If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please
contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously
did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read
English.
In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their
unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water
flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy
Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources
(Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).
So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be
referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until
1/31/2008? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there
will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real
environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears
are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be
persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are
going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not
careful where they dump!
Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact
you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam
office.
THANK YOU,
RYAN DEVRIES
& THE DAM BEAVERS
perfect example of Big Brother's nonsense for the GOOD of ALL of US! Yeah,
Right!
This is an actual letter sent to a man named Ryan DeVries regarding a pond
on his property. It was sent by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Quality, State of Pennsylvania . This guy's response is hilarious, but read
the State's letter before you get to the response letter.
SUBJECT: DEQ File No.97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County
Dear Mr. DeVries:
It has come to the attention of the Department of Environmental Quality
that there has been recent unauthorized activity on the above referenced
parcel of property. You have been certified as the legal landowner and/or
contractor who did the following unauthorized activity: Construction and
maintenance of two wood debris dams across the outlet stream of Spring Pond.
A permit must be issued prior to the start of this type of activity. A
review of the Department's files shows that no permits have been issued.
Therefore, the Department has determined that this activity is in violation
of Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and
Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being
sections 324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws,
annotated.
The Department has been informed that one or both of the dams partially
failed during a recent rain event, causing debris and flooding at downstream
locations.
We find that dams of this nature are inherently hazardous and cannot be
permitted.
The Department therefore orders you to cease and desist all activities at
this location, and to restore the stream to a free-flow condition by
removing all wood and brush forming the dams from the stream channel. All
restoration work shall be completed no later than January 31, 2008.
Please notify this office when the restoration has been completed so that
a follow-up site inspection may be scheduled by our staff. Failure to comply
with this request or any further unauthorized activity on the site may
result in this case being referred for elevated enforcement action.. We
anticipate and would appreciate your full cooperation in this matter. Please
feel free to contact me at this office if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
David L. Price
District Representative and Water Management Division.
Here is the actual response sent back by Mr. DeVries:
Re: DEQ File No. 97-59-0023; T11N; R10W, Sec. 20; Lycoming County
Dear Mr. Price,
Your certified letter dated 11/25/07 has been handed to me to respond to.
I am the legal landowner but not the Contractor at 2088 Dagget Lane, Trout
Run,Pennsylvania .
A couple of beavers are in the (State unauthorized) process of
constructing and maintaining two wood "debris" dams across the outlet stream
of my Spring Pond. While I did not pay for, authorize, nor supervise their
dam project, I think they would be highly offended that you call their
skillful use of natures building materials "debris."
I would like to challenge your department to attempt to emulate their dam
project any time and/or any place you choose. I believe I can safely state
there is no way you could ever match their dam skills, their dam
resourcefulness, their dam ingenuity, their dam persistence, their dam
determination and/or their dam work ethic.
These are the beavers/contractors you are seeking. As to your request, I
do not think the beavers are aware that they must first fill out a dam
permit prior to the start of this type of dam activity.
My first dam question to you is:
(1) Are you trying to discriminate against my Spring Pond Beavers, or
(2) do you require all beavers throughout this State to conform to said
dam request?
If you are not discriminating against these particular beavers, through
the Freedom of Information Act, I request completed copies of all those
other applicable beaver dam permits that have been issued.
(Perhaps we will see if there really is a dam violation of Part 301,
Inland Lakes and Streams, of the Natural Resource and Environmental
Protection Act, Act 451 of the Public Acts of 1994, being sections
324.30101 to 324.30113 of the Pennsylvania Compiled Laws, annotated.)
I have several concerns. My first concern is, aren't the beavers entitled
to legal representation? The Spring Pond Beavers are financially destitute
and are unable to pay for said representation -- so the State will have to
provide them with a dam lawyer. The Department's dam concern that either one
or both of the dams failed during a recent rain event, causing flooding, is
proof that this is a natural occurrence, which the Department is required to
protect. In other words, we should leave the Spring Pond Beavers alone
rather than harassing them and calling them dam names.
If you want the stream "restored" to a dam free-flow condition please
contact the beavers -- but if you are going to arrest them, they obviously
did not pay any attention to your dam letter, they being unable to read
English.
In my humble opinion, the Spring Pond Beavers have a right to build their
unauthorized dams as long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and water
flows downstream. They have more dam rights than I do to live and enjoy
Spring Pond. If the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection lives up to its name, it should protect the natural resources
(Beavers) and the environment (Beavers' Dams).
So, as far as the beavers and I are concerned, this dam case can be
referred for more elevated enforcement action right now. Why wait until
1/31/2008? The Spring Pond Beavers may be under the dam ice then and there
will be no way for you or your dam staff to contact/harass them.
In conclusion, I would like to bring to your attention to a real
environmental quality, health, problem in the area. It is the bears! Bears
are actually defecating in our woods. I definitely believe you should be
persecuting the defecating bears and leave the beavers alone. If you are
going to investigate the beaver dam, watch your step! The bears are not
careful where they dump!
Being unable to comply with your dam request, and being unable to contact
you on your dam answering machine, I am sending this response to your dam
office.
THANK YOU,
RYAN DEVRIES
& THE DAM BEAVERS
McCain’s Other War Frauds
Here’s an excerpt on the case from an article I did for Playboy in 1997. (Full text of the piece, which details how many congressmen’s kin escaped hard time for drug offenses, is here).
* Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. McCain stole the pills over several years. She became addicted to the drugs after undergoing back surgery.
But rather than face prosecution, McCain was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish on her record. McCain did suffer from the incident, though: Shortly after the scandal broke, a Variety Club of Arizona ceremony at which she was to receive a humanitarian of the year award for her work with the medical team was canceled because of poor ticket sales.
* Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. McCain stole the pills over several years. She became addicted to the drugs after undergoing back surgery.
But rather than face prosecution, McCain was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish on her record. McCain did suffer from the incident, though: Shortly after the scandal broke, a Variety Club of Arizona ceremony at which she was to receive a humanitarian of the year award for her work with the medical team was canceled because of poor ticket sales.
ANTIWAR.COM MISSION
This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, "greens," and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism. Our initial project was to fight for the case of non-intervention in the Balkans under the Clinton presidency and continued with the case against the campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo and the bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Our politics are libertarian: our opposition to war is rooted in Randolph Bourne's concept that "War is the health of the State." With every war, America has made a "great leap" into statism, and as Bourne emphasizes: " . . . it is during war that one best understands the nature of that institution [the State]." At its core, that "nature" includes the ever-increasing threat to individual liberty and the centralization of political power.
Antiwar.com is one project of our parent foundation the "Randolph Bourne Institute." It is a program that provides a sounding board of interest to all who are concerned about US foreign policy and its implications.
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:
"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."
This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.
Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America's foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.
The pressing need for "citizen experts" is the reason we set up Antiwar.com. In this process, the site evolved very quickly into an online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government. The history of our site and of American foreign policy demonstrates the demand for such experts.
The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten.
Forged in the experience of the first Balkan war, Antiwar.com has become the Internet newspaper of record for a growing international movement, the central locus of opposition to a new imperialism that masks its ambitions in the rhetoric of "human rights," "humanitarianism," "freedom from terror" and "global democracy." The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite - or perish alone.
Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.
THE FUTURE
Antiwar.com is already fighting the next information war: we are dedicated to the proposition that they (war hawks and our leaders) are not going to be allowed to get away with it, unopposed and unchallenged. The War Party is well-organized, well-financed, and very focused. They know what they want: a renewal of the Cold War, increased military spending, and a globalist mission that would project American power from the Middle East to the Korean peninsula and all points in between. And they know how to get it: mobilizing special interest groups and key corporate allies in a propaganda war designed to win the hearts if not the minds of the American people. The antiwar forces, on the other hand, are not so well-positioned: everyone is for peace, in theory at least, but there is no one group of Americans especially disposed to work for it, outside of small religious groups such as the Quakers and the Catholic Worker movement.
Lacking a centrally-coordinated leadership, without financial resources of any significance, and incredibly diverse, the organized opposition to the first Balkan war was unfocused and of limited effectiveness. Currently, the antiwar movement against a war on Iraq is considered anti-American and left-wing. However, we are changing this perception by leading the cause of the patriotic peace movement, which understands the true costs of war. Unfortunately, the organizations pushing for actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas around the world are stronger and even more focused. Antiwar.com is an integral part of the movement against these groups and for peace by disseminating accurate news and commentary.
Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets. But we can't do it without you. Tell your friends about Antiwar.com, spread the word and also help us do our job by bringing items to our attention. We are always looking for material, and we welcome your suggestions, whether of links or in the form of original articles submitted to the editors.
Antiwar.com is a ward of the nonprofit Randolph Bourne Institute. Your contribution to Antiwar.com is tax-deductible. Your contributions, whether a one-time donation or a monthly pledge, will make the difference between success and failure. While the propaganda machine of the War Party is well-oiled with money, Antiwar.com carries on the fight with little in the way of resources - except the intellectual resources to bring the facts to light. But we can't do it without your material support. To find out how, just click on the secure credit card form at the bottom of this page: you can strike a blow against the War Party, and cast your ballot for peace by making a contribution today.
Antiwar.com is one project of our parent foundation the "Randolph Bourne Institute." It is a program that provides a sounding board of interest to all who are concerned about US foreign policy and its implications.
In 1952, Garet Garrett, one of the last of the Old Right "isolationists," said it well:
"Between government in the republican meaning, that is, Constitutional, representative, limited government, on the one hand, and Empire on the other hand, there is mortal enmity. Either one must forbid the other or one will destroy the other."
This is the perception that informs our activism, and inspires our dedication. Non-interventionism abroad is a corollary to non-interventionism at home. Randolph Bourne echoes this sentiment: "We cannot crusade against war without implicitly crusading against the State." Since opposition to war is at the heart of our philosophy, and single-issue politics is the only avenue open to us, Antiwar.com embodies the politics of the possible.
Our dedication to libertarian principles, inspired in large part by the works and example of the late Murray N. Rothbard, is reflected on this site. While openly acknowledging that we have an agenda, the editors take seriously our purely journalistic mission, which is to get past the media filters and reveal the truth about America's foreign policy. Citing a wide variety of sources without fear or favor, and presenting our own views in the regular columns of various contributors, we clearly differentiate between fact and opinion, and let our readers know which is which.
The pressing need for "citizen experts" is the reason we set up Antiwar.com. In this process, the site evolved very quickly into an online magazine and research tool designed to keep the American people and the world informed about the overseas plans of the American government. The history of our site and of American foreign policy demonstrates the demand for such experts.
The founders of Antiwar.com were active in the Libertarian Party during the 1970s; in 1983, we founded the Libertarian Republican Organizing Committee, to work as a libertarian caucus within the GOP. Today, we are seeking to challenge the traditional politics of "Left" and "Right." At present, none of the existing parties or activist groups offers an effective vehicle for principled libertarian politics. Yet, even in the absence of a party of liberty, we cannot abstain from the struggle. We strive to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements that many respected institutions have forgotten.
Forged in the experience of the first Balkan war, Antiwar.com has become the Internet newspaper of record for a growing international movement, the central locus of opposition to a new imperialism that masks its ambitions in the rhetoric of "human rights," "humanitarianism," "freedom from terror" and "global democracy." The totalitarian liberals and social democrats of the West have unilaterally and arrogantly abolished national sovereignty and openly seek to overthrow all who would oppose their bid for global hegemony. They have made enemies of the patriots of all countries, and it is time for those enemies to unite - or perish alone.
Antiwar.com represents the true pro-America side of the foreign policy debate. With our focus on a less centralized government and freedom at home, we consider ourselves the true American patriots. "America first!" regards the traditions of a republican government and non-interventionism as paramount to freedom - a concept that helped forge the foundation of this nation.
THE FUTURE
Antiwar.com is already fighting the next information war: we are dedicated to the proposition that they (war hawks and our leaders) are not going to be allowed to get away with it, unopposed and unchallenged. The War Party is well-organized, well-financed, and very focused. They know what they want: a renewal of the Cold War, increased military spending, and a globalist mission that would project American power from the Middle East to the Korean peninsula and all points in between. And they know how to get it: mobilizing special interest groups and key corporate allies in a propaganda war designed to win the hearts if not the minds of the American people. The antiwar forces, on the other hand, are not so well-positioned: everyone is for peace, in theory at least, but there is no one group of Americans especially disposed to work for it, outside of small religious groups such as the Quakers and the Catholic Worker movement.
Lacking a centrally-coordinated leadership, without financial resources of any significance, and incredibly diverse, the organized opposition to the first Balkan war was unfocused and of limited effectiveness. Currently, the antiwar movement against a war on Iraq is considered anti-American and left-wing. However, we are changing this perception by leading the cause of the patriotic peace movement, which understands the true costs of war. Unfortunately, the organizations pushing for actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and other areas around the world are stronger and even more focused. Antiwar.com is an integral part of the movement against these groups and for peace by disseminating accurate news and commentary.
Antiwar.com is dedicated to building an awareness to the globalist and interventionist forces that would enslave us all in a New World Order on which the sun never sets. But we can't do it without you. Tell your friends about Antiwar.com, spread the word and also help us do our job by bringing items to our attention. We are always looking for material, and we welcome your suggestions, whether of links or in the form of original articles submitted to the editors.
Antiwar.com is a ward of the nonprofit Randolph Bourne Institute. Your contribution to Antiwar.com is tax-deductible. Your contributions, whether a one-time donation or a monthly pledge, will make the difference between success and failure. While the propaganda machine of the War Party is well-oiled with money, Antiwar.com carries on the fight with little in the way of resources - except the intellectual resources to bring the facts to light. But we can't do it without your material support. To find out how, just click on the secure credit card form at the bottom of this page: you can strike a blow against the War Party, and cast your ballot for peace by making a contribution today.
this must end...period
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.
Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.
Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?
We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.
Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.
by Ron Paul, Dr. December 26, 2005
Public concerns about the misnamed Patriot Act are having an impact, as the Senate last week refused to reauthorize the bill for several years. Instead Congress will be back in Washington next month to consider many of the Act's most harmful provisions.
Of course most governments, including our own, cannot resist the temptation to spy on their citizens when it suits government purposes. But America is supposed to be different. We have a mechanism called the Constitution that is supposed to place limits on the power of the federal government. Why does the Constitution have an enumerated powers clause, if the government can do things wildly beyond those powers-- such as establish a domestic spying program? Why have a 4th Amendment, if it does not prohibit government from eavesdropping on phone calls without telling anyone?
We're told that September 11 th changed everything, that new government powers like the Patriot Act are necessary to thwart terrorism. But these are not the most dangerous times in American history, despite the self-flattery of our politicians and media. This is a nation that expelled the British, saw the White House burned to the ground in 1814, fought two world wars, and faced down the Soviet Union. September 11th does not justify ignoring the Constitution by creating broad new federal police powers. The rule of law is worthless if we ignore it whenever crises occur.
The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us. But the crucial point is this: Government assurances are not good enough in a free society. The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty. Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers. Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.
Some Senators last week complained that the Patriot Act is misunderstood. But it's not the American public's fault nobody knows exactly what the Patriot Act does. The Act contains over 500 pages of detailed legalese, the full text of which was neither read nor made available to Congress in a reasonable time before it was voted on- which by itself should have convinced members to vote against it. Many of the surveillance powers authorized in the Act are not clearly defined and have not yet been tested. When they are tested, court challenges are sure to follow. It is precisely because we cannot predict how the Patriot Act will be interpreted and used in future decades that we should question it today.
by Ron Paul, Dr. December 26, 2005
for all you mccain lovers
It does not matter if John McCain is an idiot. He wants to be president and his neocon handlers want to bomb all Muslims, regardless of sect. So thus it does not matter if McCain was unable to tell the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.
“Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran,” reports the Washington Post.
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
Do you want this moron in the Oval Office? It does not matter, of course, because guys like Joseph Lieberman will be pulling the strings if per chance the McManchurian candidate makes it to the White House. Say it ain’t so Joe wants to collaborate with the Israelis and kill Muslims, or at least intern them in hellish conditions like the Palestinians where they can be picked off in slow motion like fish in a barrel.
The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.
Again, does not matter, as McCain, if he is selected to be the decider-commander — and he will not — won’t be tapping into his supposed “foreign policy experience,” his neocon handlers will, who include: William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Richard Armitage, Eliot Cohen, and Ralph Peters. All want to invade Muslim lands and Cohen wants to kick off World War Four, as he calls it.
John McCain is a blithering idiot who probably couldn’t find Iran or Iraq on a map. He is a shell hollowed out by the neocons to trick somnolent Americans into believing he is a good, upright, patriotic American, war hero, a flag-waver who will protect us from al-Qaeda, never mind if McCain knows or not if they are Wahabi Sunni fanatics recruited by the CIA to stir up trouble.
Does not matter because Hillary-Obama, or Obama-Hillary will be in the White House come January, 2009. It’s funny to listen to brain-damaged Republicans rant and rave about the “liberal” Obama. It should be kept in mind that Obama is a sock puppet for Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who basically created al-Qaeda.
Hillary can find Iran on a map.
And she will insist the Pentagon put it in their sights, as she is fond of telling AIPAC.
“Sen. John McCain, traveling in the Middle East to promote his foreign policy expertise, misidentified in remarks Tuesday which broad category of Iraqi extremists are allegedly receiving support from Iran,” reports the Washington Post.
He said several times that Iran, a predominately Shiite country, was supplying the mostly Sunni militant group, al-Qaeda. In fact, officials have said they believe Iran is helping Shiite extremists in Iraq.
Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.”
Pressed to elaborate, McCain said it was “common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that’s well known. And it’s unfortunate.” A few moments later, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, standing just behind McCain, stepped forward and whispered in the presidential candidate’s ear. McCain then said: “I’m sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda.”
Do you want this moron in the Oval Office? It does not matter, of course, because guys like Joseph Lieberman will be pulling the strings if per chance the McManchurian candidate makes it to the White House. Say it ain’t so Joe wants to collaborate with the Israelis and kill Muslims, or at least intern them in hellish conditions like the Palestinians where they can be picked off in slow motion like fish in a barrel.
The mistake threatened to undermine McCain’s argument that his decades of foreign policy experience make him the natural choice to lead a country at war with terrorists. In recent days, McCain has repeatedly said his intimate knowledge of foreign policy make him the best equipped to answer a phone ringing in the White House late at night.
Again, does not matter, as McCain, if he is selected to be the decider-commander — and he will not — won’t be tapping into his supposed “foreign policy experience,” his neocon handlers will, who include: William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Richard Armitage, Eliot Cohen, and Ralph Peters. All want to invade Muslim lands and Cohen wants to kick off World War Four, as he calls it.
John McCain is a blithering idiot who probably couldn’t find Iran or Iraq on a map. He is a shell hollowed out by the neocons to trick somnolent Americans into believing he is a good, upright, patriotic American, war hero, a flag-waver who will protect us from al-Qaeda, never mind if McCain knows or not if they are Wahabi Sunni fanatics recruited by the CIA to stir up trouble.
Does not matter because Hillary-Obama, or Obama-Hillary will be in the White House come January, 2009. It’s funny to listen to brain-damaged Republicans rant and rave about the “liberal” Obama. It should be kept in mind that Obama is a sock puppet for Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who basically created al-Qaeda.
Hillary can find Iran on a map.
And she will insist the Pentagon put it in their sights, as she is fond of telling AIPAC.
dying to win...kind of a brief overview from wikipedia
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005; ISBN 1-4000-6317-5) is Robert Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism campaigns around the world from 1980 through 2003 and 462 individual suicide terrorists. Published in May 2005, Pape's volume has been widely noticed by the press, the public, and policymakers alike, and has earned praise from the likes of Peter Bergen, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Scheuer, and Noam Chomsky.
Dying to Win is divided into three parts, analyzing the strategic, social, and psychological dimension of suicide terrorism.
Contents [hide]
1 Detailed synopsis
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Ch. 1: The Growing Threat
1.1.2 Ch. 2: Explaining Suicide Terrorism
1.2 Part I: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.2.1 Ch. 3: A Strategy for Weak Actors
1.2.2 Ch. 4: Targeting Democracies
1.2.3 Ch. 5: Learning Terrorism Pays
1.3 Part II: The Social Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.3.1 Ch. 6: Occupation and Religious Difference
1.3.2 Ch. 7: Demystifying al-Qaeda
1.3.3 Ch. 8: Suicide Terrorist Organizations around the Globe
1.4 Part III: The Individual Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.4.1 Ch. 9: Altruism and Terrorism
1.4.2 Ch. 10: The Demographic Profile of Suicide Terrorists
1.4.3 Ch. 11: Portraits of Three Suicide Terrorists
1.5 Conclusion
1.5.1 Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
1.6 Appendices
1.6.1 Appendix I: Suicide Terrorist Campaigns, 1980-2003
1.6.2 Appendix II: Occupations by Democratic States, 1980-2003
1.6.3 Appendix III: Salafism in Major Sunni Muslim Majority Countries
2 External links
[edit] Detailed synopsis
[edit] Introduction
[edit] Ch. 1: The Growing Threat
Pape claims to have compiled the world’s first “database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 — 315 attacks in all” (3). “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (4). It is important that Americans understand this growing phenomenon (4-7).
[edit] Ch. 2: Explaining Suicide Terrorism
Caveat: the book's conclusions do not hold for terrorism in general (8-9). Pape distinguishes among demonstrative terrorism, which seeks publicity, destructive terrorism, which seeks to exert coercion through the threat of injury and death as well as to mobilize support, and suicide terrorism, which involves an attacker’s actually killing himself or herself along with others, generally as part of a campaign (9-11). Three historical episodes are introduced for purposes of comparison: the ancient Jewish Zealots (11-12; see also 33-34), the 11th-12th-century Ismaili Assassins (12-13; see also 34-35), and the Japanese kamikazes (13; see also 35-37). There was no suicide terrorism from 1945 to 1980 (13-14). Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s (14), followed by cases involving the Tamil Tigers (July 1990), Israel (1994), Persian Gulf (1995), Turkey (1996), Chechnya (2000), Kashmir (2000), and the U.S. (2001) (14-15). Five campaigns were still ongoing in early 2004, when Dying to Win was being written (15-16). Traditional explanations focus on individual motives, but fail to explain the specificity of suicide terrorism (16-17). Economic explanation of this phenomenon yields “poor” results (17-19). Explanation of suicide terrorism as a form of competition between radical groups is dubious (19-20). Pape proposes an alternative explanation of the “causal logic of suicide terrorism”: at the strategic level, suicide terrorism exerts coercive power against democratic states to cease occupation of territory terrorists consider homeland, while at the social level it depends on mass support and at the individual level it is motivated by altruism (20-23). “The bottom line, then, is that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation” (23).
[edit] Part I: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 3: A Strategy for Weak Actors
The willingness of an attacker to die has strategic value (27-29). As a weapon of weak groups incapable of “denial” as a “coercive strategy,” suicide terrorism relies on punishment and, especially, “the expectation of future damage,” which provides coercive leverage (29-33).
[edit] Ch. 4: Targeting Democracies
Pape claims that his is the first complete analysis of suicide terrorism, as such revealing that not religion but “to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terrorists’ national homeland” is its key (38). Patterns of timing (39-41), nationalist goals (42-44), and the targeting of democracies (44-45) reveal its logical, not irrational, nature. “At bottom, suicide terrorism is a strategy for national liberation from foreign military occupation by a democratic state” (45). Foreign occupation is defined in terms of control of territory (not military occupation alone) (46). The targets selected by suicide terrorists suggests nationalist, not religious, aims (46-47). Hamas (47-51) and Al-Qaeda (51-58) are analyzed in some detail. In general, the harshness of occupation does not strongly correlate with suicide terrorism (58-60).
[edit] Ch. 5: Learning Terrorism Pays
Terrorists are predisposed to attribute success to their technique whenever plausible (62-64). Pape claims that “recent suicide terrorist campaigns . . . are associated with gains for the terrorists’ political causes about half the time” (64-65). Hamas’s success is difficult to evaluate, but Hamas spokespersons express belief in their own success (65-73). Terrorists learn from each other; the spread of the method is therefore neither irrational nor surprising (73-75). But suicide terrorism has failed “to compel target democracies to abandon goals central to national wealth or security” (75-76).
[edit] Part II: The Social Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 6: Occupation and Religious Difference
“[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism” not religion (79). It is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists. He analyzes the notions of occupation (83-84), homeland (84-85), identity (85-87), religious difference as a contributor to a sense of “alien” occupation (87-88), foreign occupation reverses the relative importance of religion and language (88-92), and the widespread perception of the method as a “last resort” (92-94). A statistical demonstration leads to the conclusion that a “linear” rather than “self-reinforcing spiral” explanation of suicide terrorism is best (94-100). However, different future developments of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism are very possible, and more study of the role of religion is needed (101).
[edit] Ch. 7: Demystifying al-Qaeda
With increasing knowledge of al-Qaeda, we see that “the presence of American military forces for combat operations on the homeland territory of the suicide terrorists is stronger than Islamic fundamentalism in predicting whether individuals from that country will become al-Qaeda suicide terrorists” (103). “Al-Qaeda is less a transnational network of like-minded ideologues . . . than a cross-national military alliance of national liberation movements working together against what they see as a common imperial threat” (104). The nature of Salafism, a Sunni form of Islamic fundamentalism, is complex (105-07). Statistical analysis fails to corroborate Salafism-terrorism connection, but it does corroborate a connection to U.S. military policies in the Persian Gulf (107-17). Al-Qaeda propaganda emphasizes the “Crusader” theme, which is inherently related to occupation (117-24). Pape concludes that “the core features of al-Qaeda” are captured by his theory (125).
[edit] Ch. 8: Suicide Terrorist Organizations around the Globe
Robert Pape examines other campaigns to see if the “dynamics that make religious difference important” are present in other terrorist campaigns, acknowledging the difficulty of the inquiry (126-29). He offers detailed analyses of Lebanon (129-39), Sri Lanka (139-54), the Sikhs in Punjab (154-62), and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey (162-66). His conclusion: “Religion plays a role in suicide terrorism, but mainly in the context of national resistance” and not Islam per se but “the dynamics of religious difference” are what matter (166-67).
[edit] Part III: The Individual Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 9: Altruism and Terrorism
Pape presents a Durkheimian analysis of suicide (173-79). “Many acts of suicide terrorism are a murderous form of what Durkheim calls altruistic suicide” (179). Analytical difficulties are acknowledged (180-81). Pape uses suicide rates in general as points of comparison (181-84). Team suicide, which is frequent in suicide terrorism, is an indicator of altruistic suicide, he argues (185-87). Altruistic suicide is a socially constructed phenomenon (187-88): e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon (188-91), Hamas (191-93), Tamil Tigers (193-95); al-Qaeda (195-96). The altruistic nature of suicide terrorism suggests the number of potential terrorists is large, that suicide terrorism is capable of growing in attractiveness and appeal, and that any attempt at profiling will miss a substantial number of potential suicide terrorists (197-98).
[edit] Ch. 10: The Demographic Profile of Suicide Terrorists
“In general, suicide attackers are rarely socially isolated, clinically insane, or economically destitute individuals, but are most often educated, socially integrated, and highly capable people who could be expected to have a good future” (200). Pape discusses problems of data-gathering (201-02). He establishes 462 individuals in his “universe” of suicide terrorists available for analytical purposes (203). Hezbollah suicide bombers in the period 1982-1986 were 71% Communist/Socialist, 21% Islamist, 8% Christian (204-07). In general, suicide terrorists are in their early 20s (207-08). Females are fewer in Islamist groups: “Islamist fundamentalism may actually reduce the number of suicide terrorists by discouraging certain categories of individuals” (208-09). Female suicide terrorists tend to be older than male (209-10). There is no documented mental illness in any case of suicide terrorism, though there are 16 cases of personal trauma (e.g. the loss of a loved one) (210-11). Arab suicide terrorists are in general better educated than average and are from the working or middle classes (211-16). “[T]hey resemble the kind of politically conscious individuals who might join a grassroots movement more than they do wayward adolescents or religious fanatics” (216).
[edit] Ch. 11: Portraits of Three Suicide Terrorists
Earlier work has tended to emphasize suicide terrorists’ irrationality, but this generalization fit 1980s data better than more recent data (217-20). Pape looks at three individual cases: Mohammed Atta (220-26); Dhanu, a young woman from Jaffna, “the most famous Tamil Tiger suicide bomber” (226-30); and Saeed Hotari, of Hamas (231-34).
[edit] Conclusion
[edit] Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
Though “we” cannot leave the Middle East altogether, Pape asserts, a “strategy for victory” is available (237-38). U.S. should define victory as the separate objectives of “defeating the current pool of terrorists” and preventing a new generation from arising (238-39). He rejects Frum-Perle view that the root of the problem is in Islam (241-44). “Rather, the taproot is American military policy” (244). The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is bent on world domination is “pure fantasy” (244-45). An attempt by the West to force Muslim societies to transform “is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face” (245). He calls for a policy of “‘off-shore’ balancing”: establishing local alliances while maintaining the capacity for rapid deployment of military forces (247-50).
[edit] Appendices
[edit] Appendix I: Suicide Terrorist Campaigns, 1980-2003
Analysis of 18 campaigns.
[edit] Appendix II: Occupations by Democratic States, 1980-2003
Fifty-eight occupations by democratic states are listed (265-67).
[edit] Appendix III: Salafism in Major Sunni Muslim Majority Countries
Thirty-four countries with Sunni majority populations of 1m or more and the importance of Salafism in these countries are the subjects of brief commentaries. Salafism is defined as “the belief that society should be organized according to the Quran and Sunna only” (269). Sunni Countries with Salafi-Influenced Populations: Afghanistan (10m Pashtuns); Algeria (19m/31m Sunni Muslims); Bangladesh (14m/114m); Egypt (23m/62m); Indonesia (26m/185m); Jordan (2m/6m); Nigeria (37m/68m); Oman (2m/2m); Pakistan (43m/149m); Saudi Arabia (18m/18m); Somalia (5m/10m); Sudan (21m/21m); Tunisia (5m/10m); Yemen (8m/11m) (270-74). Non-Salafi Sunni Countries: Albania, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan (274-77).
[edit] External links
Summary of a debate between and Pape and Martin Kramer, hosted by the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy
Downloadable audio interview with Scott Horton
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism "
Categories: 2005 books | Political science books | Suicide bombing
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Main Page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
This page was last modified on 7 March 2008, at 04:26. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005; ISBN 1-4000-6317-5) is Robert Pape's analysis of suicide terrorism from a strategic, social, and psychological point of view. It is based on a database he has compiled at the University of Chicago, where he directs the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism. The book's conclusions are based on data from 315 suicide terrorism campaigns around the world from 1980 through 2003 and 462 individual suicide terrorists. Published in May 2005, Pape's volume has been widely noticed by the press, the public, and policymakers alike, and has earned praise from the likes of Peter Bergen, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), Michael Scheuer, and Noam Chomsky.
Dying to Win is divided into three parts, analyzing the strategic, social, and psychological dimension of suicide terrorism.
Contents [hide]
1 Detailed synopsis
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Ch. 1: The Growing Threat
1.1.2 Ch. 2: Explaining Suicide Terrorism
1.2 Part I: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.2.1 Ch. 3: A Strategy for Weak Actors
1.2.2 Ch. 4: Targeting Democracies
1.2.3 Ch. 5: Learning Terrorism Pays
1.3 Part II: The Social Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.3.1 Ch. 6: Occupation and Religious Difference
1.3.2 Ch. 7: Demystifying al-Qaeda
1.3.3 Ch. 8: Suicide Terrorist Organizations around the Globe
1.4 Part III: The Individual Logic of Suicide Terrorism
1.4.1 Ch. 9: Altruism and Terrorism
1.4.2 Ch. 10: The Demographic Profile of Suicide Terrorists
1.4.3 Ch. 11: Portraits of Three Suicide Terrorists
1.5 Conclusion
1.5.1 Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
1.6 Appendices
1.6.1 Appendix I: Suicide Terrorist Campaigns, 1980-2003
1.6.2 Appendix II: Occupations by Democratic States, 1980-2003
1.6.3 Appendix III: Salafism in Major Sunni Muslim Majority Countries
2 External links
[edit] Detailed synopsis
[edit] Introduction
[edit] Ch. 1: The Growing Threat
Pape claims to have compiled the world’s first “database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 — 315 attacks in all” (3). “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (4). It is important that Americans understand this growing phenomenon (4-7).
[edit] Ch. 2: Explaining Suicide Terrorism
Caveat: the book's conclusions do not hold for terrorism in general (8-9). Pape distinguishes among demonstrative terrorism, which seeks publicity, destructive terrorism, which seeks to exert coercion through the threat of injury and death as well as to mobilize support, and suicide terrorism, which involves an attacker’s actually killing himself or herself along with others, generally as part of a campaign (9-11). Three historical episodes are introduced for purposes of comparison: the ancient Jewish Zealots (11-12; see also 33-34), the 11th-12th-century Ismaili Assassins (12-13; see also 34-35), and the Japanese kamikazes (13; see also 35-37). There was no suicide terrorism from 1945 to 1980 (13-14). Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s (14), followed by cases involving the Tamil Tigers (July 1990), Israel (1994), Persian Gulf (1995), Turkey (1996), Chechnya (2000), Kashmir (2000), and the U.S. (2001) (14-15). Five campaigns were still ongoing in early 2004, when Dying to Win was being written (15-16). Traditional explanations focus on individual motives, but fail to explain the specificity of suicide terrorism (16-17). Economic explanation of this phenomenon yields “poor” results (17-19). Explanation of suicide terrorism as a form of competition between radical groups is dubious (19-20). Pape proposes an alternative explanation of the “causal logic of suicide terrorism”: at the strategic level, suicide terrorism exerts coercive power against democratic states to cease occupation of territory terrorists consider homeland, while at the social level it depends on mass support and at the individual level it is motivated by altruism (20-23). “The bottom line, then, is that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation” (23).
[edit] Part I: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 3: A Strategy for Weak Actors
The willingness of an attacker to die has strategic value (27-29). As a weapon of weak groups incapable of “denial” as a “coercive strategy,” suicide terrorism relies on punishment and, especially, “the expectation of future damage,” which provides coercive leverage (29-33).
[edit] Ch. 4: Targeting Democracies
Pape claims that his is the first complete analysis of suicide terrorism, as such revealing that not religion but “to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terrorists’ national homeland” is its key (38). Patterns of timing (39-41), nationalist goals (42-44), and the targeting of democracies (44-45) reveal its logical, not irrational, nature. “At bottom, suicide terrorism is a strategy for national liberation from foreign military occupation by a democratic state” (45). Foreign occupation is defined in terms of control of territory (not military occupation alone) (46). The targets selected by suicide terrorists suggests nationalist, not religious, aims (46-47). Hamas (47-51) and Al-Qaeda (51-58) are analyzed in some detail. In general, the harshness of occupation does not strongly correlate with suicide terrorism (58-60).
[edit] Ch. 5: Learning Terrorism Pays
Terrorists are predisposed to attribute success to their technique whenever plausible (62-64). Pape claims that “recent suicide terrorist campaigns . . . are associated with gains for the terrorists’ political causes about half the time” (64-65). Hamas’s success is difficult to evaluate, but Hamas spokespersons express belief in their own success (65-73). Terrorists learn from each other; the spread of the method is therefore neither irrational nor surprising (73-75). But suicide terrorism has failed “to compel target democracies to abandon goals central to national wealth or security” (75-76).
[edit] Part II: The Social Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 6: Occupation and Religious Difference
“[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism” not religion (79). It is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists. He analyzes the notions of occupation (83-84), homeland (84-85), identity (85-87), religious difference as a contributor to a sense of “alien” occupation (87-88), foreign occupation reverses the relative importance of religion and language (88-92), and the widespread perception of the method as a “last resort” (92-94). A statistical demonstration leads to the conclusion that a “linear” rather than “self-reinforcing spiral” explanation of suicide terrorism is best (94-100). However, different future developments of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism are very possible, and more study of the role of religion is needed (101).
[edit] Ch. 7: Demystifying al-Qaeda
With increasing knowledge of al-Qaeda, we see that “the presence of American military forces for combat operations on the homeland territory of the suicide terrorists is stronger than Islamic fundamentalism in predicting whether individuals from that country will become al-Qaeda suicide terrorists” (103). “Al-Qaeda is less a transnational network of like-minded ideologues . . . than a cross-national military alliance of national liberation movements working together against what they see as a common imperial threat” (104). The nature of Salafism, a Sunni form of Islamic fundamentalism, is complex (105-07). Statistical analysis fails to corroborate Salafism-terrorism connection, but it does corroborate a connection to U.S. military policies in the Persian Gulf (107-17). Al-Qaeda propaganda emphasizes the “Crusader” theme, which is inherently related to occupation (117-24). Pape concludes that “the core features of al-Qaeda” are captured by his theory (125).
[edit] Ch. 8: Suicide Terrorist Organizations around the Globe
Robert Pape examines other campaigns to see if the “dynamics that make religious difference important” are present in other terrorist campaigns, acknowledging the difficulty of the inquiry (126-29). He offers detailed analyses of Lebanon (129-39), Sri Lanka (139-54), the Sikhs in Punjab (154-62), and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey (162-66). His conclusion: “Religion plays a role in suicide terrorism, but mainly in the context of national resistance” and not Islam per se but “the dynamics of religious difference” are what matter (166-67).
[edit] Part III: The Individual Logic of Suicide Terrorism
[edit] Ch. 9: Altruism and Terrorism
Pape presents a Durkheimian analysis of suicide (173-79). “Many acts of suicide terrorism are a murderous form of what Durkheim calls altruistic suicide” (179). Analytical difficulties are acknowledged (180-81). Pape uses suicide rates in general as points of comparison (181-84). Team suicide, which is frequent in suicide terrorism, is an indicator of altruistic suicide, he argues (185-87). Altruistic suicide is a socially constructed phenomenon (187-88): e.g. Hezbollah in Lebanon (188-91), Hamas (191-93), Tamil Tigers (193-95); al-Qaeda (195-96). The altruistic nature of suicide terrorism suggests the number of potential terrorists is large, that suicide terrorism is capable of growing in attractiveness and appeal, and that any attempt at profiling will miss a substantial number of potential suicide terrorists (197-98).
[edit] Ch. 10: The Demographic Profile of Suicide Terrorists
“In general, suicide attackers are rarely socially isolated, clinically insane, or economically destitute individuals, but are most often educated, socially integrated, and highly capable people who could be expected to have a good future” (200). Pape discusses problems of data-gathering (201-02). He establishes 462 individuals in his “universe” of suicide terrorists available for analytical purposes (203). Hezbollah suicide bombers in the period 1982-1986 were 71% Communist/Socialist, 21% Islamist, 8% Christian (204-07). In general, suicide terrorists are in their early 20s (207-08). Females are fewer in Islamist groups: “Islamist fundamentalism may actually reduce the number of suicide terrorists by discouraging certain categories of individuals” (208-09). Female suicide terrorists tend to be older than male (209-10). There is no documented mental illness in any case of suicide terrorism, though there are 16 cases of personal trauma (e.g. the loss of a loved one) (210-11). Arab suicide terrorists are in general better educated than average and are from the working or middle classes (211-16). “[T]hey resemble the kind of politically conscious individuals who might join a grassroots movement more than they do wayward adolescents or religious fanatics” (216).
[edit] Ch. 11: Portraits of Three Suicide Terrorists
Earlier work has tended to emphasize suicide terrorists’ irrationality, but this generalization fit 1980s data better than more recent data (217-20). Pape looks at three individual cases: Mohammed Atta (220-26); Dhanu, a young woman from Jaffna, “the most famous Tamil Tiger suicide bomber” (226-30); and Saeed Hotari, of Hamas (231-34).
[edit] Conclusion
[edit] Ch. 12: A New Strategy for Victory
Though “we” cannot leave the Middle East altogether, Pape asserts, a “strategy for victory” is available (237-38). U.S. should define victory as the separate objectives of “defeating the current pool of terrorists” and preventing a new generation from arising (238-39). He rejects Frum-Perle view that the root of the problem is in Islam (241-44). “Rather, the taproot is American military policy” (244). The notion that Islamic fundamentalism is bent on world domination is “pure fantasy” (244-45). An attempt by the West to force Muslim societies to transform “is likely to dramatically increase the threat we face” (245). He calls for a policy of “‘off-shore’ balancing”: establishing local alliances while maintaining the capacity for rapid deployment of military forces (247-50).
[edit] Appendices
[edit] Appendix I: Suicide Terrorist Campaigns, 1980-2003
Analysis of 18 campaigns.
[edit] Appendix II: Occupations by Democratic States, 1980-2003
Fifty-eight occupations by democratic states are listed (265-67).
[edit] Appendix III: Salafism in Major Sunni Muslim Majority Countries
Thirty-four countries with Sunni majority populations of 1m or more and the importance of Salafism in these countries are the subjects of brief commentaries. Salafism is defined as “the belief that society should be organized according to the Quran and Sunna only” (269). Sunni Countries with Salafi-Influenced Populations: Afghanistan (10m Pashtuns); Algeria (19m/31m Sunni Muslims); Bangladesh (14m/114m); Egypt (23m/62m); Indonesia (26m/185m); Jordan (2m/6m); Nigeria (37m/68m); Oman (2m/2m); Pakistan (43m/149m); Saudi Arabia (18m/18m); Somalia (5m/10m); Sudan (21m/21m); Tunisia (5m/10m); Yemen (8m/11m) (270-74). Non-Salafi Sunni Countries: Albania, Burkina Faso, Chad, Guinea, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan (274-77).
[edit] External links
Summary of a debate between and Pape and Martin Kramer, hosted by the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy
Downloadable audio interview with Scott Horton
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
Categories: 2005 books | Political science books | Suicide bombing
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Main Page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page
This page was last modified on 7 March 2008, at 04:26. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
Obama Feigns Ignorance of CFR, NAU and support of patriot act
Is it possible Barack and Michelle are like ships passing in the night? Is it possible Michelle does not talk to her husband about the Council on Foreign Relations? Michelle Obama is on the board of directors of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. And yet here is Obama in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, telling people he is clueless about the elite organization. “I don’t know if I’m an official member. I’ve spoken there before. It basically is a forum where people talk about foreign policy. There is no official membership. I don’t have a card, or you know a special handshake or anything like that,” Raw Story reports.
Ha ha, Obama makes funny. But while he claims to be clueless about the CFR, even though his wife heavily involved in the globalist organization, Obama cannot deny the fact one of his key advisers is at the very epicenter of the CFR — Zbigniew Brzezinski. Chase Manhattan godfather David Rockefeller set Brzezinski up as the Trilateral Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In order to understand what Brzezinski, and thus Obama, have in mind for us, it is important to read Brzezinski.
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society,” writes Brzezinski. “Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
It’s rather amusing to hear Zbigniew diss the Bush neocons. But when the rubber meets pavement there is little difference, all are on a CFR schedule. “The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission — founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller — and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens,” says Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner.
“In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people,” explains Koeppl. “There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power…. All we have now are pseudo-democracies.”
It looks like Obama, chosen for his “loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power,” may have a shot at becoming the next decider-commander. He may play stupid when it comes to an impromptu question about the CFR, shrewdly turning such into a joke that makes the person who asked the question look like yet another conspiracy nut, sort of like Timothy McVeigh. It also helps to pretend to be clueless about the North American Union, as Obama would have us believe he is, acting like he has never heard the term before (see video; truly an Academy Award performance when it comes to denying knowledge of the NAU, once again making the man asking the question about it in Lancaster come off as another tinfoil hatter, probably in need of a gentle little prod with a taser, as suggested by members of the corporate media).
After addressing the conspiracy nuts, Obama told sweet little lies about NAFTA. It’s OK to diss NAFTA now because after he is “elected,” Obama will do whatever the global elite tell him to do, even send the last remains of good American jobs to the China slave labor gulag and preside over the third-worldization of the once great United States, destined for extinction as its economy is dismantled. As usual, the American people will be none the wiser. “The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people,” writes Koeppl.
Indeed, and as the laughter in this video reveals, when Obama sarcastically mentions the secret CFR handshake, most people are either blissfully unaware of the CFR and what they have in mind for them — read the Brzezinski quote above — or they are not sufficiently trained to scoff at mention of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers, and declare: you must be one of those black helicopter nuts.
Obama trips over North American Union, as if he has never heard of the NAU or the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the latter directly connected to NAFTA, a topic Obama, or his handlers, believe they can exploit. But you can’t have it both ways — declaring to be against NAFTA and at the same time feigning ignorance of the NAU. It doesn’t wash.
But then maybe it does, considering the people who will vote for Obama. Not only are Americans “trained to be good consumers,” they are trained to think every four years that all they have to do is throw the last set of bums out and install a new crew. Obama was selected because his only obvious experience is he can talk the talk and deflect questions about his association with the CFR.
And that’s the only experience required by the New World Order.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b2P1v7e_9M
Ha ha, Obama makes funny. But while he claims to be clueless about the CFR, even though his wife heavily involved in the globalist organization, Obama cannot deny the fact one of his key advisers is at the very epicenter of the CFR — Zbigniew Brzezinski. Chase Manhattan godfather David Rockefeller set Brzezinski up as the Trilateral Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. In order to understand what Brzezinski, and thus Obama, have in mind for us, it is important to read Brzezinski.
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society,” writes Brzezinski. “Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
It’s rather amusing to hear Zbigniew diss the Bush neocons. But when the rubber meets pavement there is little difference, all are on a CFR schedule. “The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, The Trilateral Commission — founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller — and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens,” says Dr. Johannes B. Koeppl, Ph.D. a former German defense ministry official and advisor to former NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner.
“In 1983/4 I warned of a take-over of world governments being orchestrated by these people,” explains Koeppl. “There was an obvious plan to subvert true democracies and selected leaders were not being chosen based upon character but upon their loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power…. All we have now are pseudo-democracies.”
It looks like Obama, chosen for his “loyalty to an economic system run by the elites and dedicated to preserving their power,” may have a shot at becoming the next decider-commander. He may play stupid when it comes to an impromptu question about the CFR, shrewdly turning such into a joke that makes the person who asked the question look like yet another conspiracy nut, sort of like Timothy McVeigh. It also helps to pretend to be clueless about the North American Union, as Obama would have us believe he is, acting like he has never heard the term before (see video; truly an Academy Award performance when it comes to denying knowledge of the NAU, once again making the man asking the question about it in Lancaster come off as another tinfoil hatter, probably in need of a gentle little prod with a taser, as suggested by members of the corporate media).
After addressing the conspiracy nuts, Obama told sweet little lies about NAFTA. It’s OK to diss NAFTA now because after he is “elected,” Obama will do whatever the global elite tell him to do, even send the last remains of good American jobs to the China slave labor gulag and preside over the third-worldization of the once great United States, destined for extinction as its economy is dismantled. As usual, the American people will be none the wiser. “The people of the western world have been trained to be good consumers; to focus on money, sports cars, beauty, consumer goods. They have not been trained to look for character in people,” writes Koeppl.
Indeed, and as the laughter in this video reveals, when Obama sarcastically mentions the secret CFR handshake, most people are either blissfully unaware of the CFR and what they have in mind for them — read the Brzezinski quote above — or they are not sufficiently trained to scoff at mention of the CFR, Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers, and declare: you must be one of those black helicopter nuts.
Obama trips over North American Union, as if he has never heard of the NAU or the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, the latter directly connected to NAFTA, a topic Obama, or his handlers, believe they can exploit. But you can’t have it both ways — declaring to be against NAFTA and at the same time feigning ignorance of the NAU. It doesn’t wash.
But then maybe it does, considering the people who will vote for Obama. Not only are Americans “trained to be good consumers,” they are trained to think every four years that all they have to do is throw the last set of bums out and install a new crew. Obama was selected because his only obvious experience is he can talk the talk and deflect questions about his association with the CFR.
And that’s the only experience required by the New World Order.
http://www.youtube.com/wat
What If Public Schools Were Abolished?
In American culture, public schools are praised in public and criticized in private, which is roughly the opposite of how we tend to treat large-scale enterprises like Wal-Mart. In public, everyone says that Wal-Mart is awful, filled with shoddy foreign products and exploiting workers. But in private, we buy the well-priced, quality goods, and long lines of people hope to be hired.
Why is this? It has something to do with the fact that public schools are part of our civic religion, the primary evidence that people cite to show that local government serves us. And there is a psychological element. Most of us turn our kids over to them, so surely they must have our best interest at heart!
But do they? Murray N. Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory explains that the true origin and purpose of public education is not so much education as we think of it, but indoctrination in the civic religion. This explains why the civic elite is so suspicious of homeschooling and private schooling: it's not fear of low test scores that is driving this, but the worry that these kids aren't learning the values that the state considers important.
But to blast public schools is not the purpose of this article. There are decent public schools and terrible ones, so there is no use generalizing. Nor is there a need to trot out data on test scores. Let me just deal with economics. All studies have shown that average cost per pupil for public schools is twice that of private schools (here is a sample studyDownload PDF).
This runs contrary to intuition, since people think of public schools as free and private schools as expensive. But once you consider the source of funding (tax dollars vs. market tuition or donation), the private alternative is much cheaper. In fact, the public schools cost as much as the most expensive and elite private schools in the country. The difference is that the cost of public schooling is spread out over the entire population, whereas the private school cost is borne only by the families with students who attend them.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
What's not to like? Well, there is the problem of the transition. There are obvious and grave political difficulties. We might say that public education enjoys a political advantage here due to network effects. A significant number of "subscriptions," etc. have been piled up in the status quo, and it is very difficult to change those.
But let's pretend. Let's say that a single town decided that the costs of public schooling are too vast relative to private schooling, and the city council decided to abolish public schools outright. The first thing to notice is that this would be illegal, since every state requires localities to provide education on a public basis. I don't know what would happen to the city council. Would they be jailed? Who knows? Certainly they would be sued.
But let's say we somehow get past that problem, thanks to, say, a special amendment in the state constitution, that exempts certain localities if the city council approves. Then there is the problem of federal legislation and regulation. I am purely speculating since I don't know the relevant laws, but we can guess that the Department of Education would take notice, and a national hysteria of some sort would follow. But let's say we miraculously get past that problem too, and the federal government lets this locality go its own way.
There will be two stages to the transition. In the first stage, many seemingly bad things will happen. How are the physical buildings handled in our example? They are sold to the highest bidder, whether that be to new school owners, businesses, or housing developers. And the teachers and administrators? All let go. You can imagine the outcry.
With tax-paid schools abolished, people with kids in public schools might move away. Property taxes that previously paid for schools would vanish, so there will be no premium for houses in school districts that are considered good. There will be anger about this. The collapse in prices might seem like robbery for people who have long assumed that high and rising house prices are a human right. For the parents that remain, there is a major problem of what to do with the kids during the day.
With property taxes gone, there is extra money to pay for schools, but their assets have just fallen in market value (even without the Fed), which is a serious problem when it comes to shelling out for school tuition. There will, of course, be widespread hysteria about the poor too, who will find themselves without any schooling choices other than homeschool.
Now, all that sounds pretty catastrophic, doesn't it? Indeed. But it is only phase one. If we can somehow make it to phase two, something completely different will emerge. The existing private schools will be filled to capacity and there will be a crying need for new ones. Entrepreneurs will quickly flood into the area to provide schools on a competitive basis. Churches and other civic institutions will gather the money to provide education.
At first, the new schools will be modeled on the public school idea. Kids will be there from 8 to 4 or 5, and all classes will be covered. But in short order, new alternatives will appear. There will be schools for half-day classes. There will be large, medium, and small schools. Some will have 40 kids per class, and others 4 or 1. Private tutoring will boom. Sectarian schools of all kinds will appear. Micro-schools will open to serve niche interests: science, classics, music, theater, computers, agriculture, etc. There will be single sex schools. Whether sports would be part of school or something completely independent is for the market to decide.
And no longer will the "elementary, middle school, high school" model be the only one. Classes will not necessarily be grouped by age alone. Some will be based on ability and level of advancement too. Tuition would range from free to super expensive. The key thing is that the customer would be in charge.
Transportation services would spring up to replace the old school-bus system. People would be able to make money by buying vans and providing transportation. In all areas related to education, profit opportunities would abound.
$10 $6
In short, the market for education would operate the same as any other market. Groceries, for example. Where there is a demand, and obviously people demand education for their kids, there is supply. There are large grocery stores, small ones, discount ones, premium ones, and stores for groceries on the run. It is the same for other goods, and it would be the same for education. Again, the customer would rule. In the end, what would emerge is not entirely predictable — the market never is — but whatever happened would be in accord with the wishes of the public.
After this phase two, this town would emerge as one of the most desirable in the country. Educational alternatives would be unlimited. It would be the source of enormous progress, and a model for the nation. It could cause the entire country to rethink education. And then those who moved away would move back to enjoy the best schools in the country at half the price of the public schools, and those without children in the house wouldn't have to pay a dime for education. Talk about attractive!
So which town will be the first to try it and show us all the way?
if you like to look at the links here they are....
http://www.mises.org/store/Education-Free-and-Compulsory-P94C18.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
http://mises.org/story/2937
Why is this? It has something to do with the fact that public schools are part of our civic religion, the primary evidence that people cite to show that local government serves us. And there is a psychological element. Most of us turn our kids over to them, so surely they must have our best interest at heart!
But do they? Murray N. Rothbard's Education: Free and Compulsory explains that the true origin and purpose of public education is not so much education as we think of it, but indoctrination in the civic religion. This explains why the civic elite is so suspicious of homeschooling and private schooling: it's not fear of low test scores that is driving this, but the worry that these kids aren't learning the values that the state considers important.
But to blast public schools is not the purpose of this article. There are decent public schools and terrible ones, so there is no use generalizing. Nor is there a need to trot out data on test scores. Let me just deal with economics. All studies have shown that average cost per pupil for public schools is twice that of private schools (here is a sample studyDownload PDF).
This runs contrary to intuition, since people think of public schools as free and private schools as expensive. But once you consider the source of funding (tax dollars vs. market tuition or donation), the private alternative is much cheaper. In fact, the public schools cost as much as the most expensive and elite private schools in the country. The difference is that the cost of public schooling is spread out over the entire population, whereas the private school cost is borne only by the families with students who attend them.
In short, if we could abolish public schools and compulsory schooling laws, and replace it all with market-provided education, we would have better schools at half the price, and be freer too. We would also be a more just society, with only the customers of education bearing the costs.
What's not to like? Well, there is the problem of the transition. There are obvious and grave political difficulties. We might say that public education enjoys a political advantage here due to network effects. A significant number of "subscriptions," etc. have been piled up in the status quo, and it is very difficult to change those.
But let's pretend. Let's say that a single town decided that the costs of public schooling are too vast relative to private schooling, and the city council decided to abolish public schools outright. The first thing to notice is that this would be illegal, since every state requires localities to provide education on a public basis. I don't know what would happen to the city council. Would they be jailed? Who knows? Certainly they would be sued.
But let's say we somehow get past that problem, thanks to, say, a special amendment in the state constitution, that exempts certain localities if the city council approves. Then there is the problem of federal legislation and regulation. I am purely speculating since I don't know the relevant laws, but we can guess that the Department of Education would take notice, and a national hysteria of some sort would follow. But let's say we miraculously get past that problem too, and the federal government lets this locality go its own way.
There will be two stages to the transition. In the first stage, many seemingly bad things will happen. How are the physical buildings handled in our example? They are sold to the highest bidder, whether that be to new school owners, businesses, or housing developers. And the teachers and administrators? All let go. You can imagine the outcry.
With tax-paid schools abolished, people with kids in public schools might move away. Property taxes that previously paid for schools would vanish, so there will be no premium for houses in school districts that are considered good. There will be anger about this. The collapse in prices might seem like robbery for people who have long assumed that high and rising house prices are a human right. For the parents that remain, there is a major problem of what to do with the kids during the day.
With property taxes gone, there is extra money to pay for schools, but their assets have just fallen in market value (even without the Fed), which is a serious problem when it comes to shelling out for school tuition. There will, of course, be widespread hysteria about the poor too, who will find themselves without any schooling choices other than homeschool.
Now, all that sounds pretty catastrophic, doesn't it? Indeed. But it is only phase one. If we can somehow make it to phase two, something completely different will emerge. The existing private schools will be filled to capacity and there will be a crying need for new ones. Entrepreneurs will quickly flood into the area to provide schools on a competitive basis. Churches and other civic institutions will gather the money to provide education.
At first, the new schools will be modeled on the public school idea. Kids will be there from 8 to 4 or 5, and all classes will be covered. But in short order, new alternatives will appear. There will be schools for half-day classes. There will be large, medium, and small schools. Some will have 40 kids per class, and others 4 or 1. Private tutoring will boom. Sectarian schools of all kinds will appear. Micro-schools will open to serve niche interests: science, classics, music, theater, computers, agriculture, etc. There will be single sex schools. Whether sports would be part of school or something completely independent is for the market to decide.
And no longer will the "elementary, middle school, high school" model be the only one. Classes will not necessarily be grouped by age alone. Some will be based on ability and level of advancement too. Tuition would range from free to super expensive. The key thing is that the customer would be in charge.
Transportation services would spring up to replace the old school-bus system. People would be able to make money by buying vans and providing transportation. In all areas related to education, profit opportunities would abound.
$10 $6
In short, the market for education would operate the same as any other market. Groceries, for example. Where there is a demand, and obviously people demand education for their kids, there is supply. There are large grocery stores, small ones, discount ones, premium ones, and stores for groceries on the run. It is the same for other goods, and it would be the same for education. Again, the customer would rule. In the end, what would emerge is not entirely predictable — the market never is — but whatever happened would be in accord with the wishes of the public.
After this phase two, this town would emerge as one of the most desirable in the country. Educational alternatives would be unlimited. It would be the source of enormous progress, and a model for the nation. It could cause the entire country to rethink education. And then those who moved away would move back to enjoy the best schools in the country at half the price of the public schools, and those without children in the house wouldn't have to pay a dime for education. Talk about attractive!
So which town will be the first to try it and show us all the way?
if you like to look at the links here they are....
http://www.mises.org/store
http://en.wikipedia.org/wi
http://mises.org/story/293
Inflation and the Public Consciousness
When central bankers blast central banks for being reckless, you know the problem is serious. Indeed, it seems that everyone suddenly really cares about inflation. Everywhere you go, this is the talk, at the grocery, the gas station, among your neighbors. Price increases have been persistent in major sectors such as medicine and education for decades, but today the trend is conspicuously hitting the stuff that people buy everyday. So the reminders are ubiquitous, and public anger is growing.
As the president of an institute that spends a vast amount of its resources on the issue of monetary policy and reform, I see this as both good and bad news. When no one else seems to care about these issues, we promote research and publish books that consider this topic from every angle. If you were going to reduce all these efforts to a single phrase, it would be, it's the government's doing. And the answer in a single phrase is, let the market, not government, manage the money.
But just as in the 1970s, and before people began to accept 3–5% annual price increases as part of the natural law, people today are still enormously confused about the cause. There is no obvious foreign demon to blame for our economic troubles. People generally suspect that something is wrong in Washington, but such is always the case. The most immediate culprit in people's mind is actually the merchant, or perhaps a cartel of merchants.
Already, enterprises are posting signs to explain the higher prices in terms of their higher costs. Panera Bread is taking the offensive by explaining that the higher price of wheat is to blame. That is true enough, but it's not the whole truth. Other retailers speak about the low dollar on international exchange — again true enough, but not the whole truth. Of course, the anger at oil executives is as predictable as it is unjustified.
In economics, finding the relationship between cause and effect isn't as easy as tracing through a sequence of events. There is a time lag — of unpredictable length — between the monetary expansion of the Federal Reserve and the response in producer and consumer prices.
There is also the major problem that when the experts speak about these issues, they talk about the price level as if it were like the sea level, or something else that rises and falls like the volume on an iPod. The truth is that the price increases following a monetary expansion affect different prices in different ways, and, again, in an unpredictable manner.
Past bouts of expansion have created bubbles in the financial sector, plus other sectors such as housing, and state-dominated sectors like medicine and education. But a high dollar internationally, the growth of the international division of labor, as well as technological advance kept the prices of consumer goods down, even falling. All these effects have been absorbed already, and the falling dollar relative to other international currencies has meant a higher price on imports. Lower productivity contributes as well, as does the general recessionary environment. So the downward price pressure on consumer goods is at an end.
Among the few who understand the role of money, there is the terrible problem that has grown up around the financial institutions created after deregulation. In short, hardly anyone knows what monetary instrument to measure to discover whether the Fed is creating a lot or a little new money. The only really reliable statistic is posted on Mises.org: the true money supply, which counts only immediately available money. It is here that we find the culprit: the great monetary expansion under Alan Greenspan that lasted from 2001 until 2005.
Despite all the complications, the fundamental cause is the Fed itself, which purports to be the great savior of the money system but in fact is its destroyer. By flooding the economy with ever more paper money, it reduces the value of our money — an insidious tax that the governing elites levy in ways that keep the people in the dark.
And here's the heck of it. When the Fed expands the money supply, it can funnel money to the elites long before the people are forced to pay the price. As Rothbard explains, those who get the money first are permitted to use it before prices rise for everyone else. By the time the new money circulates through the economic system and hits everyman's pocketbook, the elites who received the first round of injections have made off like bandits.
At times like these, there is a role for good economists to explain the true source of inflation to the public. In the 20th century, we were blessed by scholars like Rothbard, and public intellectuals like Henry Hazlitt who wrote for every possible venue to explain that
when the supply of money is increased, people have more money to offer for goods. If the supply of goods does not increase — or does not increase as much as the supply of money — then the prices of goods will go up. Each individual dollar becomes less valuable because there are more dollars. Therefore more of them will be offered against, say, a pair of shoes or a hundred bushels of wheat than before.
The problems the Fed faces today are eerily similar to those of 1930 and following. The boom was caused by a loose money policy by the Fed, and the inevitable bust has come. But now everyone looks to the Fed to provide the answer. In the early 1930s, the Fed tried very hard to inflate the currency, but it could not manage to accomplish it through the credit markets alone. When bankers are reluctant to lend to shaky enterprises, and worried businessmen are reluctant to borrow, there is no other way to flood the markets. Today's Fed has been exceedingly reckless in trying to forestall this program. It has engaged in direct bailouts of investment banks, and it is offering super-subsidized loans to banks by the tens of billions. This is Ben Bernanke's little trick to use the banking sector more fully in his inflationary schemes.
If Bernanke loses, we all lose. But if Bernanke wins, we lose even more. More inflationary finance can only make the present situation worse.
Some people speculate that we are going to see not inflation but deflation due to the barriers faced by the Fed. My only comment is this: we should be so lucky. The Great Depression would have been worse without its only saving grace: all goods were cheaper than before. The major mistake of Hoover and FDR was in thinking that low prices were somehow the cause of the Depression rather than the effect.
Will Bernanke make that mistake again? Anything is possible. Paul Volcker — who solved the last dollar crisis by shrinking the money supply — just gave a major speech in which he blasted the reckless manner in which Printing Press Ben is conducting policy.
-by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
As the president of an institute that spends a vast amount of its resources on the issue of monetary policy and reform, I see this as both good and bad news. When no one else seems to care about these issues, we promote research and publish books that consider this topic from every angle. If you were going to reduce all these efforts to a single phrase, it would be, it's the government's doing. And the answer in a single phrase is, let the market, not government, manage the money.
But just as in the 1970s, and before people began to accept 3–5% annual price increases as part of the natural law, people today are still enormously confused about the cause. There is no obvious foreign demon to blame for our economic troubles. People generally suspect that something is wrong in Washington, but such is always the case. The most immediate culprit in people's mind is actually the merchant, or perhaps a cartel of merchants.
Already, enterprises are posting signs to explain the higher prices in terms of their higher costs. Panera Bread is taking the offensive by explaining that the higher price of wheat is to blame. That is true enough, but it's not the whole truth. Other retailers speak about the low dollar on international exchange — again true enough, but not the whole truth. Of course, the anger at oil executives is as predictable as it is unjustified.
In economics, finding the relationship between cause and effect isn't as easy as tracing through a sequence of events. There is a time lag — of unpredictable length — between the monetary expansion of the Federal Reserve and the response in producer and consumer prices.
There is also the major problem that when the experts speak about these issues, they talk about the price level as if it were like the sea level, or something else that rises and falls like the volume on an iPod. The truth is that the price increases following a monetary expansion affect different prices in different ways, and, again, in an unpredictable manner.
Past bouts of expansion have created bubbles in the financial sector, plus other sectors such as housing, and state-dominated sectors like medicine and education. But a high dollar internationally, the growth of the international division of labor, as well as technological advance kept the prices of consumer goods down, even falling. All these effects have been absorbed already, and the falling dollar relative to other international currencies has meant a higher price on imports. Lower productivity contributes as well, as does the general recessionary environment. So the downward price pressure on consumer goods is at an end.
Among the few who understand the role of money, there is the terrible problem that has grown up around the financial institutions created after deregulation. In short, hardly anyone knows what monetary instrument to measure to discover whether the Fed is creating a lot or a little new money. The only really reliable statistic is posted on Mises.org: the true money supply, which counts only immediately available money. It is here that we find the culprit: the great monetary expansion under Alan Greenspan that lasted from 2001 until 2005.
Despite all the complications, the fundamental cause is the Fed itself, which purports to be the great savior of the money system but in fact is its destroyer. By flooding the economy with ever more paper money, it reduces the value of our money — an insidious tax that the governing elites levy in ways that keep the people in the dark.
And here's the heck of it. When the Fed expands the money supply, it can funnel money to the elites long before the people are forced to pay the price. As Rothbard explains, those who get the money first are permitted to use it before prices rise for everyone else. By the time the new money circulates through the economic system and hits everyman's pocketbook, the elites who received the first round of injections have made off like bandits.
At times like these, there is a role for good economists to explain the true source of inflation to the public. In the 20th century, we were blessed by scholars like Rothbard, and public intellectuals like Henry Hazlitt who wrote for every possible venue to explain that
when the supply of money is increased, people have more money to offer for goods. If the supply of goods does not increase — or does not increase as much as the supply of money — then the prices of goods will go up. Each individual dollar becomes less valuable because there are more dollars. Therefore more of them will be offered against, say, a pair of shoes or a hundred bushels of wheat than before.
The problems the Fed faces today are eerily similar to those of 1930 and following. The boom was caused by a loose money policy by the Fed, and the inevitable bust has come. But now everyone looks to the Fed to provide the answer. In the early 1930s, the Fed tried very hard to inflate the currency, but it could not manage to accomplish it through the credit markets alone. When bankers are reluctant to lend to shaky enterprises, and worried businessmen are reluctant to borrow, there is no other way to flood the markets. Today's Fed has been exceedingly reckless in trying to forestall this program. It has engaged in direct bailouts of investment banks, and it is offering super-subsidized loans to banks by the tens of billions. This is Ben Bernanke's little trick to use the banking sector more fully in his inflationary schemes.
If Bernanke loses, we all lose. But if Bernanke wins, we lose even more. More inflationary finance can only make the present situation worse.
Some people speculate that we are going to see not inflation but deflation due to the barriers faced by the Fed. My only comment is this: we should be so lucky. The Great Depression would have been worse without its only saving grace: all goods were cheaper than before. The major mistake of Hoover and FDR was in thinking that low prices were somehow the cause of the Depression rather than the effect.
Will Bernanke make that mistake again? Anything is possible. Paul Volcker — who solved the last dollar crisis by shrinking the money supply — just gave a major speech in which he blasted the reckless manner in which Printing Press Ben is conducting policy.
-by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Is obama really anti-war?
I am saddened by the inability of the American people to exercise critical thinking and research the rhetoric from the democratic presidential candidates. On the outset, it would appear that Obama is trying to show himself as an anti-war or pro-peace kinda guy. But contrary to this view is the truth of his ideas on foreign policy and the use of the military to police the world and extend the rule of the United States government. When a politician says they plan to do something, it should take it with a grain of salt unless they have the record to back up their claims. In the case of Hillary it is evident that she was completely supportive of the war from the beginning and has been voting to fund it along with Obama. Nowadays most of her supporters will say that she has apologized and that she was given incorrect information. But before we blindly accept this we must look at the people who voted against the war and what reasons were given to justify their vote. A few said that we should not conduct a preemptive war. For these few people, the idea was not to focus on the current sources of intelligence but rather to revert back to their own philosophy of just war. These few believed that military force should only be used to DEFEND the country and not to perpetuate fights with POTENTIAL aggressors. It is these beliefs that seem to be missing from people like Clinton and Obama. Both candidates have said they will not take the option of a NUCLEAR first strike against Iran. Again we are seeing some of the same rhetoric from them that The Bush Administration put forth to invade Iraq. Obama has said that he will concentrate military efforts on Pakistan and Afganastan. Instead of bringing the troops HOME, he wants to MOVE them to another foreign country. Doesn't seem to be a change or a move for peace around the world since military occupation of foreign lands tends to bring about death and destruction. If I have learned anything about politicians, it is that they say what they think the people want to hear to get into a position of power and then they do the opposite. Take George Bush for example...during his 2000 campaign, he advocated a non-interventionists foreign policy and the people have seen how that turned out...in bloody massacre around the globe.
Clinton said she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran
This year’s presidential election isn’t out of surprises.
When America had just settled into the Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain political equation, Ron Paul proved Monday night that his message still has a place in the fray.
Earlier Monday, Clinton said she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. She elaborated on that statement in later interviews, saying her goal was to reestablish a Cold-War-style deterrence.
The Chronicle asked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul about Clinton’s statement during a press conference immediately before his rally at the University of Montana.
“She doesn’t understand the presidency if she’s making this type of commitment,” he said, launching into a discussion on foreign affairs.
Paul explained his core position through the lens of the current Iraqi conflict. He asserted that we are in the midst of an unconstitutional war that was never declared by Congress. He also expressed his distaste of treaties under which America is obligated to go to war.
When asked what his response would be under the same circumstances, Paul said Israel is safer without our presence and could sufficiently wipe out Iran on its own. He pointed out that Iran ‘may’ have been working on ‘a’ nuke since 2003, while Israel possesses 300.
“Iran is the peacemaker over there right now,” Paul said. “We wouldn’t do anything unless Congress says we should declare war.”
Paul would promote non-interventionism, focusing on self-reliance and seeking to “avoid entangling alliances” to prevent unwanted conflict. He also felt that because of the U.S. acting as the “world police,” we have fewer allies and more enemies than ever before.
During his remarks at the subsequent rally, Paul thanked Missoula County and Montana for his second-place finish in the state, behind Mitt Romney but ahead of presumptive nominee John McCain.
Paul’s 25 percent showing in Montana in February is his best result to date anywhere in the country. As shown by the standing-room-only crowd of sign-waving Paul-supporters, Montana’s enthusiasm for Paul’s message has not dimmed since Super Tuesday.
He attributed his resonance here to the fact that Montanans generally support individual liberty, small federal government, and fiscal responsibility. He also said his many young supporters come from an upcoming generation concerned about inheriting problems that the current federal government is setting up for them.
One point of tension during the rally came during the Q & A session when a supporter said he was pro-choice, expressing that he had no say in matters of pregnancy because it was “not his body.” The statement was greeted with sparse claps and cheers, followed by resounding boos.
Paul politely thanked the individual and said as a right-to-life candidate, he opposes abortion. The law demonstrates that the unborn has rights, he pointed out. For example, as a doctor, he could be sued if there were complications with a pregnancy. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law recognizes it as a double homicide.
“I can’t use force or violence to hurt another,” Paul said in summary.
Paul also touched on education, saying that government should not be involved in education and that with less taxation, students will be more able to pay for college. He also supports a tax credit for the expenses students incur while at college. He noted that he paid his tuition by working at his University’s soda fountain.
Montana, among other states, has a strong pro-marijuana movement. Paul addressed this by detailing out a piece of legislation he carried in Congress several years ago. The bill called for the legalization of possessing and carrying raw milk. Simply put, Paul felt that the government shouldn’t further regulate what Americans eat, drink or smoke. He proclaimed that each American has the right to make decisions in regard to his or her soul and be able to live with the consequences. Though he may have raised his children and grew up himself with certain beliefs as to how he should treat his body, he obviously didn’t want to impress those upon all Americans.
Paul also agreed with supporters who said the mainstream media has not provided fair coverage of his campaign and his positions on issues, even though Paul received more votes than early front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
“I think I was marginalized… I don’t take it personal,” Paul said, “I was never seen as a viable candidate.”
Why is Paul remaining in the race?
“[McCain] looks like he’s going to be the nominee, he’s not [yet]” Paul said, “As long as there’s enthusiasm … I’ve continued to campaign.”
He will continue to run as long as there’s a strong base of support and it’s financially possible, he told supporters. Asked repeatedly whether he would run as a third party candidate, he would only say that he “can’t tell” what the next few months may hold for his campaign.
Monday afternoon Paul signed copies of his recently published book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” at the University Bookstore. The book lists our current problems: ever-expanding government, rising taxes, wars, inflation, and disappearing basic freedoms. Paul advocates a smaller, fiscally responsible government and an emphasis on self-reliance.
Nicholas R. Schwaderer
Clarkford Chronicle
April 23, 2008
When America had just settled into the Obama vs. Clinton vs. McCain political equation, Ron Paul proved Monday night that his message still has a place in the fray.
Earlier Monday, Clinton said she was prepared to “totally obliterate” Iran in response to a nuclear attack on Israel. She elaborated on that statement in later interviews, saying her goal was to reestablish a Cold-War-style deterrence.
The Chronicle asked Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul about Clinton’s statement during a press conference immediately before his rally at the University of Montana.
“She doesn’t understand the presidency if she’s making this type of commitment,” he said, launching into a discussion on foreign affairs.
Paul explained his core position through the lens of the current Iraqi conflict. He asserted that we are in the midst of an unconstitutional war that was never declared by Congress. He also expressed his distaste of treaties under which America is obligated to go to war.
When asked what his response would be under the same circumstances, Paul said Israel is safer without our presence and could sufficiently wipe out Iran on its own. He pointed out that Iran ‘may’ have been working on ‘a’ nuke since 2003, while Israel possesses 300.
“Iran is the peacemaker over there right now,” Paul said. “We wouldn’t do anything unless Congress says we should declare war.”
Paul would promote non-interventionism, focusing on self-reliance and seeking to “avoid entangling alliances” to prevent unwanted conflict. He also felt that because of the U.S. acting as the “world police,” we have fewer allies and more enemies than ever before.
During his remarks at the subsequent rally, Paul thanked Missoula County and Montana for his second-place finish in the state, behind Mitt Romney but ahead of presumptive nominee John McCain.
Paul’s 25 percent showing in Montana in February is his best result to date anywhere in the country. As shown by the standing-room-only crowd of sign-waving Paul-supporters, Montana’s enthusiasm for Paul’s message has not dimmed since Super Tuesday.
He attributed his resonance here to the fact that Montanans generally support individual liberty, small federal government, and fiscal responsibility. He also said his many young supporters come from an upcoming generation concerned about inheriting problems that the current federal government is setting up for them.
One point of tension during the rally came during the Q & A session when a supporter said he was pro-choice, expressing that he had no say in matters of pregnancy because it was “not his body.” The statement was greeted with sparse claps and cheers, followed by resounding boos.
Paul politely thanked the individual and said as a right-to-life candidate, he opposes abortion. The law demonstrates that the unborn has rights, he pointed out. For example, as a doctor, he could be sued if there were complications with a pregnancy. When a pregnant woman is murdered, the law recognizes it as a double homicide.
“I can’t use force or violence to hurt another,” Paul said in summary.
Paul also touched on education, saying that government should not be involved in education and that with less taxation, students will be more able to pay for college. He also supports a tax credit for the expenses students incur while at college. He noted that he paid his tuition by working at his University’s soda fountain.
Montana, among other states, has a strong pro-marijuana movement. Paul addressed this by detailing out a piece of legislation he carried in Congress several years ago. The bill called for the legalization of possessing and carrying raw milk. Simply put, Paul felt that the government shouldn’t further regulate what Americans eat, drink or smoke. He proclaimed that each American has the right to make decisions in regard to his or her soul and be able to live with the consequences. Though he may have raised his children and grew up himself with certain beliefs as to how he should treat his body, he obviously didn’t want to impress those upon all Americans.
Paul also agreed with supporters who said the mainstream media has not provided fair coverage of his campaign and his positions on issues, even though Paul received more votes than early front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.
“I think I was marginalized… I don’t take it personal,” Paul said, “I was never seen as a viable candidate.”
Why is Paul remaining in the race?
“[McCain] looks like he’s going to be the nominee, he’s not [yet]” Paul said, “As long as there’s enthusiasm … I’ve continued to campaign.”
He will continue to run as long as there’s a strong base of support and it’s financially possible, he told supporters. Asked repeatedly whether he would run as a third party candidate, he would only say that he “can’t tell” what the next few months may hold for his campaign.
Monday afternoon Paul signed copies of his recently published book, “The Revolution: A Manifesto,” at the University Bookstore. The book lists our current problems: ever-expanding government, rising taxes, wars, inflation, and disappearing basic freedoms. Paul advocates a smaller, fiscally responsible government and an emphasis on self-reliance.
Nicholas R. Schwaderer
Clarkford Chronicle
April 23, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)