My DOT post of 11 Sep 2005 favoring Central Time for Indiana

Title: Time Zone Boundaries in the State of Indiana
Docket: OST-2005-22114

To: Joanne Petrie
via "http://dms.dot.gov/submit/"
Office of the General Counsel (C-50)
400 7TH ST SW
WASHINGTON DC 20590-0001

PETITION FAVORING CENTRAL TIME
==============================
I request that the Department of Transportation issue a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which will solicit public comment, and schedule public hearings on the proposed time zone change for Indiana.

I respectfully petition the DOT to seriously consider moving Bartholomew County and the entire state of Indiana back to the Central time zone. When time zones were first enacted by Congress (Standard Time Act of 1918), the Central-Eastern line bisected Ohio, so the western half of Ohio and virtually all of Michigan and Kentucky fell within the natural boundaries of the Central time zone. All of Indiana was located in the Central time zone. This was because, with longitude ranging from 85 to 88 degrees, it falls well within the 15-degree range for Central time from 82.5 to 97.5 degrees longitude.

I think it would be less confusing for Indiana residents, as well as for the rest of the country, if as many Indiana counties as possible all observe the same time. Central time appears the most logical choice to me, from business as well as personal perspectives.

The primary selling point that Governor Daniels made for Indiana's switch to daylight saving time was to put Indiana in sync year-round with most of the rest of the United States. From this perspective, either Eastern or Central time would be equally advantageous -- we would still change our clocks with the rest of the country twice per year, and always be the same number of hours different from just anywhere else in the U.S. that observes Daylight Saving Time.

And the rest of the country is already accustomed to dealing with Indiana businesses on both Central and Eastern time for about six months of each year, so neither zone should require more of an adjustment for our business partners than the other.

Since 1963 or so, most of Indiana has been three hours ahead of the west coast from October through April, and two hours ahead through the summer. We have observed year-round Eastern Standard Time (UTC -0500), which based on our longitude, is equivalent to year-round Central Daylight Saving Time.

Being on Central time would serve the convenience of commerce by putting Indiana businesses at most two hours away from all of our customers and suppliers in the continental U.S., rather than being up to three hours different from the rest of the country on Eastern time. This would expand opportunities for business with the west coast, without harming our relations with the east coast, which is already accustomed to being one hour ahead of us half the year anyway.

Kevin Brinegar, President, Indiana Chamber of Commerce, points out that 39 percent of Indiana's exports are with states that observe Eastern DST. This implies that the remaining 61 percent is with states that lie west of Indiana, with whom our time difference would be the one hour less if we observed Central time.

Another argument for Central time is to align ourself most closely with the population center of the country. The mean center of population of the United States is in Missouri, and moving westward with every census.

One argument for Eastern time is that Indiana borders more states that are in the ETZ than the CTZ. However, counting states gives only a superficial assessment. Michigan, Ohio and part of Kentucky are in the ETZ. Illinois and the western part of Kentucky are in the CTZ. The shared border with ETZ states is approximately 400 miles, while the border shared with those in CTZ is approximately 390 miles. A difference of only ten miles makes this argument nearly pointless. And, even those parts of Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky that currently observe eastern time where they border Indiana actually fall within the Central time zone according to their longitude as well.

Obviously, wherever a time zone boundary occurs, residents living near that boundary have to learn to live with it, so I see no compelling argument for or against Indiana's observing either time zone. It's just a question of whether residents on the west and south or those on the north and east sides of the state need to make the adjustment, and there are about as many miles of border affected either way.

Some worry that if Indiana is on Central time that we will not enjoy the benefit of Daylight Saving Time, but by observing year-round Eastern time while lying geographically in the Central zone, we were effectively already enjoying year-round Daylight Saving Time and would not lose out on the additional hour of summer evening sunlight by observing Central Daylight Saving Time. On Central time, we will continue to enjoy the same additional sunlight in the summer evenings -- about 1.5 hours more evening sun than morning sun per day on average, while gaining one hour additional morning sunlight during the late fall and winter months of the school year.

Some Indiana business people like being an hour behind when the stock markets in New York close, so they can leave work an hour earlier and spend more time with their family.

Drive-in theater owners also favor Central time because families can get home an hour earlier after a night at the movies.

After we have begun to observe Daylight Saving Time in 2007 on Sunday, March 11, it appears much more sensible to be on Central time and have the sun rising in Indianapolis at 7am rather than 8am and setting at 6:50pm rather than 7:50pm. This gives motorists commuting to work, and schoolchildren walking and catching buses to school, in the morning an additional hour for well-lit safe travel compared to Eastern Time.

In addition to the concern about children waiting outside in the dark for their school buses in the morning, many argue that sending children to bed while it's still daylight can be difficult and might even affect a child's performance at school.

Some point out that having to stay up later to watch television shows will be an inconvenience for many people, possibly even affecting their performance at work the following day.

On Central Daylight Time, we would still have 1.8 hours more evening sun than morning sun on March 12. Shifting the time by one hour is intended to give a net two surplus hours in the evening versus the morning, and this is about what we would have with Central Daylight Time. Eastern Daylight Time would effectively be double daylight time, with almost two hours shifted from morning to evening, giving 3.8 hours more evening sun than morning sun.

When the time zones were initially established in the United States, they were approximately 15 degrees wide, centered every on every even multiple of 15 degrees longitude. This layout had the effect of putting local mean time for every point in the country within 30 minutes of the standard time for its time zone.

Indianapolis is about 15 minutes east of the 90-degree central meridian for the Central zone, but about 45 minutes from the 75-degree central meridian for Eastern, making Central the obvious choice for the whole state.

If Indiana remains in the Eastern zone, I understand that we would be the only state in the U.S. that lies completely within the mathematical boundaries of one time zone (Central) and yet observes a different time zone.

Sincerely, Bill Starr
Bartholomew County resident
http://hoosiersforcentraltime.com
Sun, 11 Sep 2005

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.cfm?documentid=345026&docketid=22114

WorldNetDaily: Is it permissible? -- federal hurricane relief unconstitutional

Dr. Walter E. Williams writes:

"Last week, President Bush promised the nation that the federal government will pay for most of the costs of repairing hurricane-ravaged New Orleans...

"There's no question that New Orleans and her sister Gulf Coast cities have been struck with a major disaster, but should our Constitution become a part of the disaster? ...

"In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, 'I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.'

"President Cleveland added, 'The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.' ...

"In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, 'I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.' To approve such spending, argued Pierce, 'would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.' ...

"James Madison, the father of our Constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, 'I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.' ...

"In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, 'If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?'

"Don't get me wrong about this. I'm not being too critical of President Bush or any other politician. There's such a broad ignorance or contempt for constitutional principles among the American people that any politician who bore truth faith and allegiance to the Constitution would commit political suicide."

WorldNetDaily: Is it permissible?

Hurricane Katrina Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State

Robert Tracinski writes:

What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider 'normal' behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. They don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

"But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

"The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting."

WorldNetDaily: What independence?

Vox Day writes:

"There is always an inherent conflict between government and freedom. Nearly every act of government, almost every law and regulation that is imposed from above, is intended to limit freedom. What conservatives must understand is that it is not always possible to be a fine, upstanding, law-abiding citizen and be a free man at the same time. In fact, for most of human history, it has been impossible. The American revolutionaries were lawbreakers of the worst kind, for they were directly challenging those who were their rightful masters in the eyes of the law. And yet even today, few would argue that their disobedience was both just and right.

"The question of justice turns on the point of whether government – on all levels – has overstepped its lawful bounds. For if the laws of government have passed those limits, they are not law, but mere dictatorial assertions, with no more force than that which the government can muster. And while it is wise to obey under the threat of force, one has no moral obligation to do so, and as the recent history of Eastern Europe shows, once the people become aware that the threat of force is empty, they will begin to ignore both the government and its illegitimate laws with alacrity.

"It is impossible to know what the future holds for the United States, but one thing is sure. All governments fall in time. Ironically, governments that rely on force are more fragile than most and tend to fall even faster. The merciless totalitarians of the Soviet Union lasted a mere 72 years, a historical blip when compared with the lifespan of the British monarchy, the Roman Empire or even the neo-democratic oligarchy of the United States of America.

"The genius of America was its independence. As that independence has been systematically reduced over the years, so too has its competitive advantage over other, less free, nations declined. The best and brightest have been leaving the country for years, and the American brain drain is accelerating as the Internet has made it possible to run a software company from the Bahamas or an import-export operation from Ireland, where the taxes are lower and there's no danger of losing your home to a Wal-Mart.

"In summary, this is not a day to celebrate American independence. It is, instead, a day to mourn America's passing and pray for its eventual rebirth."

WorldNetDaily: What independence?

WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?

Pat Buchanan writes:

"While Bush continues to insist Iraq is the central front in the war on terror and will never be abandoned 'on my watch,' U.S. war policy is emerging as a 21st-century version of 'Vietnamization.'

"For the president just wagered the ultimate success or failure of this mission on the ability of Iraqis themselves. 'As the Iraqis stand up,' said Bush, 'we will stand down.'

"Clearly, the president has heard the message of an impatient country. His rhetoric has been reconfigured to conform to reality...

"Bush appears to have begun to understand that for many Iraqis, the cause of this war – why they fight – is that we are there. They do not have to love Saddam to want Americans gone...

"There is another reason Bush will not be sending 100,000 more troops. The Army, Reserves, Marines and National Guard are failing to meet recruiting and re-enlistment quotas. Soon, Bush will not even have the option of sending another 100,000 troops, unless he is prepared to go to Congress and ask for a draft...

"Democracy may be the antidote to terrorism, Bush is saying, and democracy may be the future of the Middle East, but democracy is not going to be brought in on the turrets of Abrams tanks. Whether the Arabs are free will depend on the Arabs themselves. And that is as it should be...

"Thus, whether we win or lose this war is going to come down to the question it came down to for Nixon – as he pungently put it in the early 1970s – 'Can the Vietnamese hack it?'

"Can the Iraqis hack it? Can Iraqis build up their political institutions and military and security forces not only to take over from the Americans, but to win a war the Americans were unable to win? The answer to that question will give us the answer to a far greater question: Will Iraq be a historic triumph for the United States and George Bush, or is it destined to end in a defeat and a debacle more disastrous than Vietnam?

"What persuades me we are headed for a crisis is that, within the president's speech, lies a contradiction. He calls the war in Iraq 'vital to the future security of our country' – i.e., defeat would be life-threatening for America.

"But if victory is vital to this country, how can President Bush ever entrust the outcome of this war to Iraqis? If victory is vital, how can he rule out more troops? If victory is vital, how can he even rule out a draft?

"Has President Bush thought this through?"

WorldNetDaily: Is Bush adopting a Nixon strategy?

WorldNetDaily: Let's end the drug problem tomorrow

James Rutz writes:

"We now have a way to halt the illegal drug trade.

"It will require twin solutions – one at the supply end of the pipeline, the other at the demand end.

"Let's look at the demand problem this week. That's the easy one because it can be solved by government decree: Just get Congress to pass a law legalizing drugs and setting up super-discount outlets for heroin, pot, and other flavors of dunce drugs, and – poof! – the game is 90 percent over.

"A baggie of white powder that would sell for five dollars in the Colombian bush (or $1,000 in Boston) will then sell for $5.95 in Uncle Sam's Death Emporiums from coast to coast.

"Initially, a few people will overdose and die, of course, but they will amount perhaps to half a percent of the 100,000 drug-related homicides that we would otherwise expect by 2015 in our present pursuit of the increasingly insane dream of Prohibition II, the Great Drug-Free Society.

"The magic of the forbidden fruit will evaporate...

"Think back to the 1920s. Marijuana could often be found growing wild down by the river in most states, and all the kids knew what it would do if you smoked it, but no child with any social standing would have anything to do with a loser who was brainless and pathetic enough to try it more than once. That, I suggest, would soon become the prevailing attitude again if we demystified drugs by putting them where they'd be readily available...

"One big factor that keeps drugs attractive to the young is the excitement of getting away with something forbidden. So we'll take that away and give them instead the embarrassment of being the laughingstock of their peers.

"Liberals don't understand sin. They prefer to pretend that people are basically good. That way, they don't have to repent and submit their personal habits to the lordship of Jesus Christ and the standards of the Bible. They prefer to maintain their righteous self-image by howling about the horrors of a few dope dens in Amsterdam or Kathmandu. Unfortunately, people are basically flawed. The Bible says the default condition of the human heart is evil. Even the most saintly believer starts off sinful in life. Conclusion? Forget the liberal utopia. Drug dabbling is going to be with us for awhile.

"But that doesn't mean regular drug use will continue to be a problem. In any other country of the world, drugs are hardly more than a blip on the national consciousness – regardless of how lax their laws are. As Yale law professor Steven Duke says, 'Neither cocaine nor heroin is habitually consumed by more than a small fraction of the residents of any country in the world. There is no reason to suppose that Americans would be the single exception.'

"The main force that keeps drugs so popular in the United States is the war against drugs. As Paul says in Romans, the power of sin is in the Law, which goads us to sin.

"So let's change the law."

WorldNetDaily: Let's end the drug problem tomorrow

Phyllis Schlafly: Republican appointees disappoint again

Phyllis Schlafly writes:

"An unacceptable decision by Congress or the president can be corrected in the next election cycle. Yet a bad decision by the Supreme Court can burden us for decades.

"Republican presidents are elected by promising to appoint good Supreme Court justices, but have abysmally failed to deliver on their campaign pledges. Congress has promised to pass laws curbing judicial abuse, so when will it honor its pledge?

"The only good news is that the Supreme Court rendered only 76 full decisions in the past year, far fewer than its average of a decade ago. Just imagine the damage that could have been done had it worked harder!"

Phyllis Schlafly: Republican appointees disappoint again

May God save the United States from this honorable court

Judge Roy S. Moore writes:

"'All told this Court's jurisprudence leaves courts, governments, and believers and nonbelievers alike confused--an observation that is hardly new.' With these words Justice Clarence Thomas accurately described the Supreme Court's latest efforts in McCreary County v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry to determine whether public displays of the Ten Commandments on state property are consistent with the U.S. Constitution...

"No wonder the American people are confused by such conflicting results contained in 10 separate writings that have no consistent legal analysis. The text of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses reads, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' but was quoted in its entirety only one time in all the writings of the justices.

"As Justice Thomas so appropriately noted, one may, and indeed must, question why the court cautiously avoids the words of the First Amendment. We need to restore the original definitions of 'law,' 'establishment' and 'religion' in the First Amendment. A monument or display could never be a 'law,' the mere posting or installation of it is not an 'establishment,' and the recognition of God by the public display of the Ten Commandments is not 'religion...'

"With these cases, it should be clear that, as Justice Antonin Scalia opined in his McCreary County dissent, 'nothing stands behind the court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the court's own say-so.'

"In 1952, Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the court, stated in Zorach v. Clauson, 'We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.' And in 1961 in McGowan v. Maryland, Justice Douglas observed that the 'institutions of our society are founded on a belief that there is an authority higher than the authority of the state, that there is a moral law which the state is powerless to alter, and that the state possesses rights conferred by the Creator which government must respect.' However, this week in McCreary County and Van Orden, the high court contradicts history, logic and law in denying our inalienable right to acknowledge God.

"Certainly our courts have become arbitrary in depriving Americans of life by legal abortion or starvation, by snatching property rights for private economic gain (as we saw in Kelo v. New London), and now this week by restricting our freedom to acknowledge God. Every state constitution acknowledges God and so does our national motto, 'In God we trust.' Ironically, the Supreme Court itself opens with what they called a prayer in Engel v. Vitale, 'God save the United States and this honorable court.'

"A remedy is available in the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005--pending in both houses of Congress as H.R.1070 and S.520--which would enjoin the federal courts and the Supreme Court, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, from interfering with the right of public officials to acknowledge God, and prevent those courts from ruling by foreign law rather than the United States Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

"Article VI of the Constitution requires all state and federal officials to support that Constitution as the 'supreme Law of the Land.' The American people ask no more and they deserve no less.

"May God save the United States from this honorable court."

Wall Street Journal OpinionJournal - Extra

WorldNetDaily: No sex, brands or politics in choosing next Justice

Mychal Massie writes:

"The speculation with bated breath for the announcement of President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has begun...

"But from my perspective, what is oftentimes argued as best for the country is not what is best for America, because what is best for America is that which upholds our Constitution...

"In my opinion, Sandra O'Connor's replacement... should be an originalist that understands their singular function is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not rewrite it...

"Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States have the sole authority to interpret the Constitution and render final decisions pertaining to all federal laws; nothing more – nothing less.

"The Framers provided for a federal government superior to that of state governments within the confines of its enumerated powers, i.e., those powers absolutely necessary to fulfill the limited role of the federal government. All other powers were to be invested with and in the citizenry of the individual states, thus creating a unique system of checks and balances that were divided among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government.

"It was the will and intent of the Framers that '[A]ll political power rested with the people.'... Such was the reasoning of James Madison when he wrote: 'The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Government are numerous and indefinite...'

"And such was the order of America until Roosevelt's 'New Deal...'

"Roosevelt unleashed a flood of legislation creating expansive federal programs purportedly to curb the effects of the Depression. These New Deal programs dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government above and beyond its historic – and constitutionally mandated – role...

"Those Rooseveltians who would subvert and further undermine the Constitution and the will of the Framers are the offspring of Charles Evans Hughes, chief justice of the Supreme Court, 1930-1941, who uttered the words: 'We are under the Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is ...'

"Maintaining control of a court that finds a right to privacy where none exists; that finds a phrase in the First Amendment that is not only nonexistent, but is contradictory to every state constitution on at least some level; that finds in the Fifth Amendment the right of government to seize the private property of citizens for the financial benefit of the elite and influential is the type of court those unable to achieve same legislatively on any level are determined to maintain control over...

"We must insist the president appoint one who will benefit all Americans as the Framers intended. We must insist on one who has the temperament and requisite constitutional learnedness and understanding the Framers foresaw."

WorldNetDaily: No sex, brands or politics

WorldNetDaily: How O'Connor Supreme Court justice got job

Joseph Farah writes:

"Sandra Day O'Connor is stepping down as a Supreme Court justice after 24 years, and most Americans still have no idea how she got the job in the first place.

"She got it through deception.

"She fooled President Reagan into thinking she was a supporter of the Constitution as written, and she did it with the help of a conservative Republican icon named Kenneth Starr...

"I'm sure there will be many nice words expressed about the O'Connor legacy over the coming weeks and months. But the truth is that O'Connor has been a disaster on the court. She has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. She fancies herself a lawmaker, not a justice. And that is just how she has handled her long tenure on the court.

"She is also one of the majority members of the court who believes the U.S. Supreme Court should look to foreign courts for precedents. It is an astonishing betrayal of American sovereignty, independence and our Constitution.

"While others today are extolling Sandra Day O'Connor's tenure on the court, I say, 'good riddance.'

"What was Starr's role in elevating O'Connor to this position?

"In 1981, it was – as recounted by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak – 'a hurriedly prepared, error-filled memo by a young Justice Department lawyer' that convinced President Reagan to go through with the nomination of O'Connor to the court – despite tremendous opposition from those who believed she was unfit and unworthy of Reagan's support.

"That young Justice Department lawyer was Kenneth Starr.

"The memo gave O'Connor a clean bill of health on abortion by 'using legal gymnastics to explain her Arizona legislative record,' wrote Evans and Novak. He wrote that she had 'no recollection' of how she voted on a 1970 bill to legalize abortion when, in fact, she was a co-sponsor of the measure that was defeated 6-3 in committee.

"Starr misrepresented that O'Connor was something of a friend and associate of the leader of the state's Arizona pro-life leader, Dr. Carolyn Gerster. In fact, Gerster told Evans and Novak: 'I had an adversary position with Sandra O'Connor' and called her 'one of the most powerful pro-abortionists in the [Arizona] Senate.' ...

"The Starr historical legacy can best be summarized like this: He deceived President Reagan about O'Connor and let Clinton off the hook for monstrous crimes. Just what is it about the career of Kenneth Starr that some find so heroic and laudable?"

WorldNetDaily: How O'Connor got job

Separating school and state - The Boston Globe

Jeff Jacoby writes:

"Once there was a solid consensus about how public schools should be run.... But... that day is past.

"From issues of sexuality and religion to the broad themes of US history and politics, public opinion is fractured... No longer is there a common understanding of the mission of public education. To the extent that one camp's vision prevails, parents in the opposing camp are embittered. And there is no prospect that this will change -- not as long as the government remains in charge of educating American children.

"Which is why it's time to put an end to government control of the schools.

"There is nothing indispensable about a state role in education. Parents don't expect the government to provide their children's food or clothing or medical care; there is no reason why it must provide their schooling. An educated citizenry is a vital public good, of course. But like most such goods, a competitive and responsive private sector can do a much better job of supplying it than the public sector can.

"Imagine how diverse and lively American education would be if it were liberated from government control. There would be schools of every description -- just as there are restaurants, websites, and clothing styles of every description. Parents who wanted their children to be taught Darwinian evolution unsullied by leaps of faith about an Intelligent Designer would be able to choose schools in which religious notions would play no role. Those who wanted their children to see God's hand in the miraculous tapestry of life all around them would send them to schools in which faith played a prominent role.

"Rather than fight over whether reading should be taught with Phonics or Whole Language, parents who felt strongly either way could choose a school that shared their outlook. Those who wanted their kids to learn in single-sex classes would send them to schools organized on that model; other parents would be free to pick schools in which boys and girls learned together. Some schools would reflect a Christian or Jewish or Muslim philosophy; others would be quite secular. In some, athletics would have a high priority; in others, there might be an emphasis on music, language, technology, or art. And no doubt many parents would stick with schools that resembled the ones their children attend now.

"With separation of school and state, the education battles would come to a peaceful end. Robust competition and innovation would dramatically lower costs. Teachers, released from their one-size-fits-all straitjacket, would be happier in their chosen profession. Children would be happier, too -- and, perhaps best of all, better-educated to boot."

Separating school and state - The Boston Globe

Who is a terrorist and who is a patriot?

Lady Liberty writes:

"According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English language, terrorism is either 'the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion' or 'violent and intimidating gang activity.'

"The idea behind terrorism is basic: to generate terror. The methodology, regardless of the specifics, is just as simple: sudden and deadly violence of the kind that any rational human being would find terrifying. Terrorists hope their actions will engender whatever change it is they're aiming to facilitate through such intense fear...

"In its knee jerk reaction to the 9/11 attacks, the federal government rapidly defined its targets not only as terrorists but as those who are broadly defined as 'potential' terrorists... From the perspective of both the laws and the agencies, the most immediate result was that of a curtailment of civil liberties...

"Distilled down to its most basic premise, virtually any human being could loosely be termed a 'potential' terrorist...

"The biggest problem for those of us who are innocent is that some in government have gone much further. They've enaged in what is essentially a rewriting of definitions so as to target some people who are not... particularly popular with those same government authorities. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), many of the people falling under these more refined definitions are the same people who are the most likely to be railing against government inroads against various freedoms...

"For reasons that can easily be logically refuted, the government has determined that the ID cards are a great way to fight terrorism. Do you really think they're going to take any refusals to participate particularly well?

"recently... at a kind of educational seminar... conducted by the Department of Homeland Security... he was also informed that those supporting a strict interpretation of the Constitution are terrorists.

"Even as the label 'terrorist' is being redefined, so is the term 'patriot.' A patriot is, quit simply, one who loves his country. But now some government officials suggest that anyone who criticizes the war effort in Iraq is 'unpatriotic.' Others in positions of government authority... have made it clear that anyone who suggests that civil liberties might be more important than absolute safety are behaving unpatriotically...

"I do believe that the National ID card and similar tracking measures are evil because they undermine freedom... I am concerned at the rapidly growing mindset that potentiality is all but synonymous with actuality... I do support a literal interpretation of the Constitution as well as a return to the ideals of the Constitution as they were originally presented to the 13 colonies prior to ratification...

"In George Orwell's infamous novel 1984, one of the hallmarks of the tyrannical government under which his characters lived was something called 'newspeak.' By using 'newspeak,' the government redefined various words to mean whatever it wanted them to mean, and via incessant propaganda, it made sure the general population knew the 'correct' definitions as well. In the novel, bad was redefined as good, and war became peace; history was rewritten on an almost daily basis to conform.

"This habit of redefining words might be a little more subtle in the real world, but there's very little question that it's happening. The recent discoveries of government propaganda films released as 'news' stories was dismaying, but not unsurprising... In the short run, I suppose, then, I should consider any government attempts to label me and people like me as 'unpatriotic' or a 'terrorist' as actually being a compliment. But in the long run, government's predilection to change such definitions on a whim doesn't bode well for me...or for any of the rest of you, either."

03-13-05: By Definition

The Price of Patriotism ... by Christopher Manion

Christopher Manion explains why it's getting more and more difficult to fill the ranks of the all-volunteer army:

"as the war in Iraq grinds on, it offers a rare glimpse into market forces and their impact on patriotism...

"military recruiters are working night and day to fill the ranks of the U.S. government’s 'volunteer forces.' In spite of signing bonuses of $20,000.00, there are still not enough enlistees. When asked why recruiting is so tough, military recruiters... answer simply and truthfully: 'the war.'

"Second, the Financial Times reports that American mercenaries in Iraq, coyly referred to as 'private forces,' receive just under half a million dollars per man a year to perform the same duties, and run the same mortal risks, that most U.S. government troops do...

"As the war grinds on and troop strength continues to diminish, two options emerge clearly on the horizon. Either the pay received by the 'volunteer' forces will continue to rise toward the market value, or involuntary conscription will become the law of the land. A third option – that the war will end and the need for additional troops will subside – has been ruled out by the Bush Administration...

"Rousseau gave us that timeless slogan of ideological empire: the citizen 'must be forced to be free.' ...

"America’s Founding Fathers recognized the entire democratic charade as the nightmare of power-hungry madmen. They embraced instead the notion of a national government with strictly limited powers, where the voice of the states and of the people commanded the government, and not vice-versa. With regard to war, the Founders sided with Augustine and the Just War theory that had reigned in Christendom for a millennium and more...

"Increasingly, the American population is turning against the war. In a traditional democracy, where the people rule, that judgment would eventually lead to disengagement and peace...

"But not in Rousseau’s totalitarian democracy. There, instead of heeding the will of the people... the Sovereign imposes the 'General Will' – his ideological vision of what is good for them. And then, logically, 'they must be forced to be free,' and they are conscripted and sent into mortal combat...

"The rising demand for troops invites a closer look at the two alternatives. The first – the market – is unlikely to provide the necessary manpower. As the value of patriotic 'goodwill' declines even further, the bonus and pay formulae would have to approach the price of $450,000.00 per man per year already paid in the market – to the mercenary forces now serving by the thousands in Iraq.

"The only alternative is the draft. What the free market and natural law... cannot provide must be supplied by coercion – involuntary servitude of the youth who refuse to buy into the flag-waving happy-talk endless wars of the Leviathan state...

"Of course, this scenario reveals the profound contradiction between the symbolic language of 'democracy' that the U.S. government uses to justify its wars...

"And the future conscripts? 'They must be forced to be free.'

"May they rest in peace."

The Price of Patriotism ... by Christopher Manion

Spy vs. Spy in the Drug Wars :: PEJ News

Bill Piper writes:

"Proposed legislation would compel people to spy on their family members and neighbors, forcing all Americans to become foot soldiers in the war on drugs.

Neighbors spying on neighbors? Mothers forced to turn in their sons or daughters?

These are images straight out of George Orwell's 1984, or a remote totalitarian state. We don't associate them with the land of the free and the home of the brave, but that doesn't mean they couldn't happen here. A senior congressman, James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), is working quietly but efficiently to turn the entire United States population into informants--by force..."

Spy vs. Spy in the Drug Wars :: PEJ News

Why I prefer Indiana in the Central timezone

Indiana's Governor Daniels signed Senate Bill 127 into law on May 13. This act requires Indiana to observe daylight saving time (DST) throughout the state, beginning in 2006.

In addition, this act also requires the governor to petition the United States Department of Transportation within ten days to initiate proceedings to hold hearings on the location of the boundary between Eastern and Central Time in Indiana.

Now that we will be observing DST, I would very much like to see as much of Indiana as possible on Central Time.

State Representative Jackie Walorski of Lakeville says, "If we do nothing, we'll end up in Eastern Time. If we're proactive and do something, we can probably petition to be in Central Time.

"Several of the counties are going to go together and give a resolution to the governor in a couple of weeks and say we're petitioning to be on Central time. I really want us to be in this consortium of counties that makes a presentation to the governor, because we have a lot more power when we come together, as separate counties in a region instead of being all by ourselves on the issue..."

A "Central Time coalition... plans to make a presentation to the governor in a few weeks, which is well in advance of the federal hearings that will probably take place this summer."

I would like to see as many counties as possible be part of this consortium or coalition.

Because most localities prefer to have their clock read 12:00 at local noon, the earth has been divided up into 24 natural time zones, each 15 degrees wide on the average. This results in approximately the same number of hours of sunlight in the morning (before noon) as in the evening (after noon) in the middle of each zone. The Eastern zone is centered on 75 degrees and the Central on 90. This puts the natural boundary between Eastern and Central time at 82.5 degrees.

If you look in the atlas, with Fort Wayne at 85 degrees in the northeast and Evansville at 87 degrees in the southwest, you can see that all of Indiana lies well within the natural boundary of the Central timezone, as well as virtually all of Kentucky and Michigan, and the western half of Ohio.

Over the years, the statutory boundary has gotten moved quite a bit west of the 82.5 degree line in the U.S., especially north of Kentucky. I would like to see this boundary moved back closer to the natural boundary in Indiana by being drawn up our eastern border, aligning our time with our neighboring states to the west rather than those to the east.

Because most of Indiana has been observing Eastern time, and since Indiana is well within the natural boundary for Central time, there is already plenty of daylight in the evening to suit me. Even as we have been from 1966 until now (year round Eastern Standard) we already have anywhere from nearly an hour (November) to nearly two hours (February) more daylight in the evening than in the morning.

If Indiana successfully petitions to go to Central time, this would stay the same in the summer. If we continue on Eastern time, the sun would rise in July about 6:40 am and set about 9 pm, giving us only 5.3 hours before noon and 9 hours after noon, or a whopping 3.7 hours more sun in the evening than in the morning. Our clocks would read 1:50 pm at local noon. This just seems excessive to me.

I find it helpful to be able to wait until twilight before trying to get the family to bed. I find 8:45 pm already late enough for that in the summer months. It would be even tougher to get children to bed at a decent hour if we had to to wait until 9:45 pm for twilight on Eastern Daylight time.

Central Daylight Time, which most of Indiana effectively observes now in the summer, would still give us nearly two extra hours of sunlight in the summer evenings. Observing Central Standard Time in the winter would give us one more hour of morning sunlight than we have now. Having the sun up by 7am instead of 8am in December would be a nice help to dispel the mid-winter gloom.


Ref: http://www.wndu.com/news/052005/news_41952.php (3 May 2005, Jackie Walorski quote)
Ref: http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~oliver/ast3722/lectures/CoordsNtime/time.htm
Ref: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/docs/us_tzones.html (timezone history)
Ref: http://www.mccsc.edu/time.html (more Indiana time history)


Following are some of the e-mail addresses and websites at which Indiana citizens can contact politicians and bureaucrats who are likely to have some influence on Indiana's timezone.

http://www.dot.gov/ost/ogc/subject/faqs/regulation/timezone.html
- joanne.petrie@ost.dot.gov { U.S. Department of Transportation }

Governor Mitch Daniels
- http://www.in.gov/gov/contact.html

Indiana state legislators
- http://www.in.gov/cgi-bin/legislative/contact/contact.pl

U.S. legislators
- senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
- http://bayh.senate.gov/LegForm.htm
- http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

The case for sweatshops and child labor in developing countries

Radley Balko makes an interesting case for sweatshops and child labor in developing countries.

--[ Libertarian International. Network of liberty-minded individuals and organizations in Europe. ]--

WorldNetDaily: The law or good ideas?

Dr. Walter E. Williams writes:

"Whether 'evolving standards,' the 'weight of international opinion' and good ideas should determine court decisions underlies much of the ongoing conflict over President Bush's federal court appointees. A federal court appointee who'd say his decisions are guided by the letter and spirit of our Constitution would be tagged by Democrat senators and a few Republican senators, such as Arlen Specter, as an extremist. They'd prefer justices who share former Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes' vision that, 'We live under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.' Translated, that means we don't live under the Constitution; we live under tyrannical judges.

"Many law professors, and others who hold contempt for our Constitution, preach that the Constitution is a living document. Saying that the Constitution is a living document is the same as saying we don't have a Constitution. For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed. How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be 'living'? Depending on 'evolving standards,' maybe my two pair could beat your flush.

"The founders were right about a lot of things, but they were dead wrong when they bought into Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 78 prediction that the judiciary was the 'least dangerous' branch of government."

WorldNetDaily: The law or good ideas?

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder by Nat Hentoff

Nat Hentoff writes:

"For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

"She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state...

"I saw no sign that [the ACLU] has ever examined... the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

"Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993... He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

"Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET scan, nor a thorough neurological examination. Republican Senate leader Bill Frist... said reasonably, 'I would think you would want a complete neurological exam' before determining she must die.

"In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been — 19 judges in six courts is the mantra...

In his book Forced Exit (Times Books), Wesley quotes neurologist William Burke: 'They feel the pangs of hunger and thirst. Imagine going one day without a glass of water! . . . It is an extremely agonizing death.' ...

"Contrary to what you've read and seen in most of the media, due process has been lethally absent in Terri Schiavo's long merciless journey through the American court system.

"'As to legal concerns,' writes William Anderson — a senior psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and a lecturer at Harvard University — 'a guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit.'

"Ralph Nader agrees. In a statement on March 24, he and Wesley Smith... said: 'If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent, disabled woman is receiving less justice. . . . This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live.' ...

"What kind of a nation are we becoming? The CIA outsources torture — in violation of American and international law — in the name of the freedoms we are fighting to protect against terrorism. And we have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court.

"And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: 'The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead.'

"In this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way."

village voice > news > Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder by Nat Hentoff

WorldNetDaily: The culture of death advances

Pat Buchanan writes:

"Terri Schiavo will not have died a natural death. She will have been put to death by the state. The coroner's report should read: This was a state-sanctioned killing of a woman because she was brain-damaged, and the method of execution was by starvation and denial of water. These are methods most of us would protest if imposed on the Beltway snipers.

"Why did Florida put Terri Schiavo to death? Because that was the demand of a husband who refused to divorce her and denied her medical care, while he lived with another woman. Michael Schiavo is the ACLU poster boy for family values.

"In the Old Testament, King Solomon ruled that the mother who had been willing to give up her baby to the woman who had kidnapped the child rather than see the baby cut in half should have the child. Our Florida Solomon ruled that the husband who wanted Terri dead should have custody of her, not the parents who wanted her alive.

"Under the Constitution, no person may be deprived of life without due process of law. This has traditionally meant a trial of one's peers, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a heinous crime and no cruel or unusual punishment. Though she committed no crime, Terri was put to death in a manner most decent men and women would not use to put a suffering animal out of its misery...

"Americans must face a hard truth. The state of Florida put Terri Schiavo to death. Before Holy Week, she was neither dead nor dying. For 15 years, she had been cared for by nurses and visited by loving parents. She was not dying until the judge ordered her dead, by ordering her feeding tube removed. Then it has taken her nearly two weeks to die, as he blocked the reinsertion of the feeding tube and ordered police to prevent anyone from giving her water.

"When the courts failed Terri, and Congress and the Florida Legislature failed Terri, the governor of Florida, who took an oath to defend the constitutional rights of Florida's citizens, should have taken custody of Terri, ordered the tube reinserted and let the federal courts proceed with the de novo hearing of the evidence, while Terri was still alive... He should have rescued Terri from the death sentence unjustly imposed upon her. If the court held him in contempt, so what? Who does not hold that Florida court in contempt?"

WorldNetDaily: The culture of death advances

Four Years Growth by Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance writes:

"George Bush was right when he said a few years ago: 'The American people have been overcharged for Government, and they deserve a refund.' The only problem with his statement is that it is now Bush and the Republicans who have overcharged the American people for government, and there is no refund in sight."

Four Years Growth by Laurence M. Vance

Remarks at the Founding Meeting of Primary Challenge by James Ostrowski

James Ostrowski writes:

"Duh, if they [politicians] were going to spend your money the way you wanted, why would they have to get you to pay up by threatening to throw you into a dungeon if you don’t?"

Remarks at the Founding Meeting of Primary Challenge by James Ostrowski

Against the Central Planners of Left and Right by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Professor Thomas E. Woods, Jr. writes:

"Forget going after government armed with public-policy studies showing that federal farm policy has been an expensive boondoggle or that federal poverty policy has only entrenched social pathologies that have rendered our cities unlivable. True and valuable as these statements are, they do not penetrate to the fundamental immorality of a system that is based on fleecing ordinary citizens in order to bestow special privileges on sectors of the population that did nothing to earn them...

"this supposedly 'failed' government program hasn’t failed at all. It has done just what its architects wanted it to do: it enriched well-connected big farmers as well as a huge class of bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture. These people... are ripping us off...

"Rather than agitating for this or that reform, the entire system must be demystified and delegitimized. Superstitious reverence for Washington, D.C., must yield to the conviction that society, like the market itself, can order its affairs without the central direction of an imperial capital. Property owners, families, voluntary organizations, churches – in other words, all the institutions that the central state consistently seeks to marginalize or displace – can maintain a livable and decent social order far better than the would-be central planners of left and right."

Against the Central Planners of Left and Right by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Those Bush Vetoes by Laurence M. Vance

Laurence M. Vance writes:

"So for those who still think that Bush has a fiscally conservative bone in his body, read the following statement slowly and carefully: During his first term in office, George W. Bush did not veto a single bill sent to him by Congress. Not one. This means that Bush shares responsibility with the spendthrift Congresses that have for the past four years squandered not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money. To argue that Bush did not veto any bills because he was a Republican with a Republican Congress is ludicrous. Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Jimmy Carter were Democratic presidents with Democratic Congresses and it didn’t stop them from vetoing bills."

Those Bush Vetoes by Laurence M. Vance

Tangle Tongue by William Norman Grigg

William Norman Grigg writes:

"During a recent interview with the Washington Post, Mr. Bush was asked if significant changes needed to be made in his policy toward Iraq. After all, the administration now admits that Saddam did not possess a fearsome arsenal of Weapons of Mass Destruction. With casualties mounting, and scandals accumulating with respect to torture and faulty intelligence, the Post inquired, could we expect to see changes in policy or personnel? To judge from Mr. Bush’s astoundingly self-serving reply, the answer is – apparently not.

'We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections,' Mr. Bush told the Post. 'The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.'

This statement earns a full 9.0 on the Clinton Scale of artful dishonesty... the president did not say that his assessment was truthful or reliable, but only that a spare majority of the voting public bought into it. Rather than being subject to accountability, in other words, Mr. Bush and his handlers are now beyond accountability."

Tangle Tongue by William Norman Grigg

Walter E. Williams: Not yours to give

Walter Williams writes:

"What about President Bush's $350 million commitment for earthquake and tsunami relief... ? Charity is reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need. Reaching into someone else's pocket to assist one's fellow man hardly qualifies as charity. When done privately, we deem it theft, and the individual risks jail time...

"I'd like to ask President Bush and members of the 109th Congress whether they've discovered the constitutional authority for charitable expenditures undiscovered by James Madison, William Giles, Presidents Franklin Pierce and Grover Cleveland, and Davy Crockett...

"[T]he lion's share of the blame rests with 280 million Americans. Elected officials simply mirror public misunderstanding or contempt for constitutional principles. Tragically, adherence to the constitutional values of men like James Madison and Davy Crockett would spell political suicide in today's America."

Walter E. Williams: Not yours to give

Thomas Sowell: Ending slavery

Thomas Sowell writes:

"It seems so obvious today that, as Lincoln said, if slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. But no country anywhere believed that three centuries ago...

"Nothing could be more jolting and discordant with the vision of today's intellectuals than the fact that it was businessmen, devout religious leaders and Western imperialists who together destroyed slavery around the world. And if it doesn't fit their vision, it is the same to them as if it never happened...

"As anti-slavery ideas eventually spread throughout Western civilization, a worldwide struggle pitted the West against Africans, Arabs, Asians and virtually the entire non-Western world, which still saw nothing wrong with slavery. But Western imperialists had gunpowder weapons first and that enabled the West to stamp out slavery in other societies as well as in its own...

"It was a worldwide epic struggle, full of dramatic and sometimes violent episodes, along with inspiring stories of courage and dedication. But do not expect Hollywood to make a movie about anything so contrary to their vision of the world."

Thomas Sowell: Ending slavery

Iraq: Purple or Still Black and Blue?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Ivan Eland writes:

"When armed guerrillas roam the countryside, even a free and fair democratic vote may be irrelevant to the outcome. According to a New York Times article from 1967, the Johnson administration was pleased as punch then about an 83 percent voter turnout in South Vietnamese elections. We all know how that conflict turned out: the majority went to the polls and the armed minority eventually went to the halls of power.

"In Iraq, as in Vietnam, the key to peace and prosperity is to get the armed minority to cease committing acts of violence. To do that, the U.S. government must honestly examine why the Sunni insurgents are fighting. Instead, the president calls the rebels terrorists, criminals, and holdovers from Saddam’s regime. In fact, although some of them fall into those categories, experts agree that most are average Sunnis battling the perceived foreign occupier and fearing that any new Shiite government would exact reprisals for years of oppressive Sunni rule. The insurgency wouldn’t be nearly so effective without substantial support in the Sunni community.

"If the president and the Republican Congress really wanted to do the Iraqi people a favor—after authorizing an unneeded invasion, which caused widespread chaos and violence against Iraqis—they would abandon the illusion that merely allowing the Iraqis to vote will eventually make them free and prosperous."

Iraq: Purple or Still Black and Blue?: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Bullies and Their Pulpits - Mises Institute

P. Gardner Goldsmith writes:

"Bush has opted to put a government mask on private charity. The participants of the free market, though their money will be collected, will not be seen by those who are helped...

"The government of the United States will take the credit around the world...

"Of course, this is nothing new. In an abstract way, the US government has been taking credit for private international aid since the close of World War Two. When the federal Marshall Plan showered $1.7 billion in loans and direct aid on West Europe, it was heralded as a profound success. There was little mention that the money was expropriated from the citizens of America for an entirely unconstitutional program, and that the system actually worked to retard economic growth in the area... It... has been instrumental in creating a false impression in the minds of many Americans that if international help is needed, it must be done through the 'mighty' power of government...

"Government aid, be it direct financial aid, or below-market loans through quasi-governmental entities like the World Bank, can only exist at the expense of private citizens...

"There is no way that government aid can help rebuild a devastated economy as efficiently or as fast as private enterprise...

"It is the players in the free market, who risked their own capital, and now freely donate it to causes in which they believe, who ought to be seen around the world."

Bullies and Their Pulpits - Mises Institute

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Apply 'Ownership Society' to Government Schools by Terence P. Jeffrey

Terence Jeffrey writes:

"As in all socialist regimes, this one redistributes wealth in perverse ways. America's education bureaucracy takes money from working and middle class families who sacrifice to send their children to religious and private schools (because they prefer the values and perspectives taught there to those taught in government-owned schools) and spends it for the benefit of those rich families who don't mind sending their children to the government-owned schools in their neighborhoods.

"Parents who struggle to scrape together the tuition to send their children to religious and private schools are now doubly taxed--locally and federally--to support government-owned schools they do not like and do not use.

"When 'moderate' Bob Dole was the Republican presidential candidate in 1996, he ran on a platform calling for abolition of the federal Department of Education because the Constitution does not grant the federal government a role in primary and secondary education

"Conservatives in Congress should fight to kill Bush's new federal education spending plan and return to the principles of the Dole platform and the U.S. Constitution. If every American family cannot instantly be given sole ownership of their children's schooling, at least they shouldn't have to pay twice for the schools the government insists on owning."

HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: Apply 'Ownership Society' to Government Schools by Terence P. Jeffrey

Bush Reveals the Truth on Iraq :: PEJ News :: Features, Opinion and Analysis: Peace, Earth & Justice News

Kurt Nimmo writes:

"... the current political landscape of the Middle East is a result of American and European colonialism and direct and covert intervention in the political affairs of millions of Arabs for more than a hundred years. No mention of the fact that the borders of modern Iraq were not drawn by Iraqis, but an Oxford-educated “Arabist,” Gertrude Bell. No mention of the fact Britain spent forty years killing Iraqis, who resisted occupation from 1920 onward with the same ferocity they are now resisting the Americans. Not a word about Winston Churchill, who did “not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas” against “uncivilized tribes,” in other words Iraqis resisting occupation. No mention of the CIA’s role in the Ba’athist coup of 1961—that would result in Saddam Hussein’s brutal dictatorship—a coup the Ba’ath secretary-general at the time remarked upon as follows: “We came to power on a CIA train.” Certainly no mention of the fact Saddam Hussein “was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim” in 1959, according to United Press International. If there are “hate-ridden psychologies” in the Muslim Middle East, they were sustained and magnified—indeed, imported—by Americans and Europeans..."

Bush Reveals the Truth on Iraq :: PEJ News :: Features, Opinion and Analysis: Peace, Earth & Justice News

To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply? by Harry Browne

Harry Browne writes:

"The important point is that the Constitution doesn't apply to Americans, it doesn't apply to citizens, it doesn't even apply to 'people.' It applies to the federal government. The body of the Constitution tells the federal government what it is allowed to do... The Bill of Rights tells the federal government what it is not allowed to do...

"[U]ntil a suspected 'terrorist' gets a fair and impartial trial, you don't know whether he is a terrorist. So even if you think non-citizen terrorists have no rights, how do you even know for sure that they are terrorists – or that they are non-citizens – until every facet of due process has been applied."

To Whom Does the Bill of Rights Apply? by Harry Browne

Campaign Launched Against Dietary Supplements by Bill Sardi

Bill Sardi writes:

"[A] concerted effort is being launched against dietary supplements. The obvious reason – don’t let the public discover dietary supplements as alternative to prescription drugs that can duplicate the biological action of most prescription medicines with far lower costs and side effects."

Campaign Launched Against Dietary Supplements by Bill Sardi

WorldNetDaily: Man battles state over working sons

WorldNetDaily: Man battles state over working sons

Evolution vs. Creationism by Steve Farrell at newsmax.com

"... when we take a view of the universe, in its parts, general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition...

"We see, too, evident proofs of the necessity of a superintending power, to maintain the universe in its course and order..."

"So irresistible are these evidences of an intelligent and powerful agent, that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed through all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal preexistence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent universe..."

Thomas Jefferson, 11 April 1823

Evolution vs. Creationism

Let's Look Within Ourselves for Iraq's WMD by Jacob G. Hornberger

Jacob G. Hornberger writes:

"Why were U.S. officials so certain that Saddam had WMD? Because they knew that the United States was one of the nations that had supplied them to him. The entire experience will ultimately go down as one of the biggest setups in history. Give a dictator WMD, encourage him to use them against others, and then invade his country for possessing them...

"But something went wrong along the way. What all the brilliant and calculating U.S. politicians and bureaucrats never figured on was that Saddam Hussein had already “disarmed”... that he could be telling the truth when he repeatedly told the world that he had, in fact, destroyed his WMD... that he might in fact have complied with the UN resolutions... that Saddam Hussein had in fact rid Iraq of the WMD that the United States and other Western nations had delivered to him during the 1980s.

"And so the principal justification for the invasion and war of aggression had to be shifted in the minds of the American people – to a supposed love for the Iraqi people, manifested by a need to “liberate” them, and to a purported devotion to “spreading democracy” in the Middle East, both of which could be achieved with a brutal war and military occupation that would kill upwards of a 100,000 Iraqi citizens, not to mention the tyranny and chaos that the war and occupation have produced...

"To do otherwise – to admit that tens of thousands of innocent people have been killed, maimed, tortured, sexually abused, and murdered as a result of a mistake or a lie is simply too painful, psychologically...

"After all, if love for the Iraqi people was the principal rationale for the war, then why the imposition and continuation of the brutal sanctions against the Iraqi people for some 11 years preceding the invasion? When it became increasingly clear that the sanctions were contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, wouldn’t people who were concerned about the well-being of the Iraqi people have called for the sanctions to be lifted? But they didn’t...

"... as the brutal effect of the sanctions imposed against Iraq increasingly became clear, year after brutal year, the U.S. response was to implement a deadly and corrupt new government policy on top of the old deadly and corrupt policy... the infamous “oil-for-food” program... a program that actually entrusted money to Saddam Hussein – the brutal dictator who we were told was refusing to disarm his WMD – in the supposed hope that he would use the money for the well-being of the Iraqi people. What a cruel joke...

"It is impossible to overstate the horrific consequences of an imperial foreign policy based on “regime change” that U.S. officials, especially those in the CIA, State Department, and the Pentagon, have wrought for the American people..."

Let's Look Within Ourselves for Iraq's WMD by Jacob G. Hornberger

Tsunami and Abortion

J. Dominguez writes:

"The death toll of the Tsunami topped 150,000 today, about 50,000 children, the greatest natural tragedy in centuries.

"By abortion, 54 million children have been killed worldwide in the last year, over one million per week."

Tsunami and Abortion

No tsunami compares to U.S. abortion law -- The Herald Democrat

Jerome J. Jones writes:

"If we compare the Indonesian tsunami deaths to American abortion deaths, simple mathematics demonstrate it would take 300 Indonesian-size tsunamis to equal the death toll from 32 years of abortions in the United States of America."

The Herald Democrat

America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past by Steven LaTulippe

Steven LaTulippe writes:

"In essence, the United States [in 1953] had engaged in a massive covert operation designed to remove a democratically elected [Iranian] leader from power and reinstall an authoritarian monarch (a move which makes a mockery of our currently stated desire to 'spread democracy' in the Middle East)...

"If Mossadeq’s regime had been permitted to continue, it is entirely possible that Iran could have evolved into an authentic democracy. American interventionism destroyed that opportunity and set the stage for many of the tragedies currently haunting the Middle East...

"If America is ever to have even remotely cordial relations with Iran, we must accept responsibility for the terrible effects of Operation Ajax and admit that we had no right to intervene in a controversy that was wholly the business of the Iranian people...

"While the American public often quickly forgets the interventions and mischievous actions of its government, our overseas victims seldom do. The current climate of international terrorism should prompt the American people to take a more active interest, since these transgressions often come back to haunt us in the most unexpected ways."

America, Iran, and Operation Ajax: The Burden of the Past by Steven LaTulippe

Joel on Software - Who hires the top one percent?

Joel Spolsky writes:

"By the way, it's because of this phenomenon—the fact that many of the great people are never on the job market—that we are so aggressive about hiring summer interns. This may be the last time these kids ever show up on the open market. In fact we hunt down the smart CS students and individually beg them to apply for an internship with us, because if you wait around to see who sends you a resume, you're already missing out."

Joel on Software - Thursday, January 27, 2005

WorldNetDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

Klinghoffer points out the circularity of the arguments of critics who insisted intelligent design was unscientific because if had not been put forward in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

"Now that it has," he wrote, "they argue that it shouldn't have been because it's unscientific."

WorldNetDaily: Smithsonian in uproar over intelligent-design article

What Does Tyranny's End Really Mean?

Doug Newman writes:

"Does 'tyranny’s end' mean:

An end to the income tax?
An end to social security?
..."

What Does Tyranny's End Really Mean?

Vox Popoli: Mailvox: Lay down the crack pipe

Vox Day asks about the Iraq elections:

"For whom are the people voting, and will the winner(s) be permitted by the occupation coalition to take sovereign power?"

Vox Popoli: Mailvox: Lay down the crack pipe

US lowers expectations for Iraq vote -- Reuters

Saul Hudson writes for Reuters:

"Unable to deliver on its lofty goal of bringing democracy to Iraq through the January 30 elections, the Bush administration is pressing a damage-control campaign to lower expectations for the vote.

"With fears for a low voter turnout among Sunni Arabs due to a boycott and insurgents' intimidation, the administration no longer touts the elections as a catalyst to spread democracy across the Arab world...

Instead, U.S. officials now emphasize the political process that will follow the vote.

"Almost two years after Operation Iraqi Freedom, a raging insurgency across mainly Sunni areas forced the White House this week to prepare the American public for elections it called 'less than perfect.'"

World News Article | Reuters.co.uk

Agape Press: Democracy Without Judeo-Christian Basis Doomed to Fail?

Fred Jackson writes:

An Indiana congressman is warning that an Iraqi-style democracy may not make much of a change there. Why? Because the Judeo-Christian ethic is critical to the success of such a venture, he says.

Earlier this week, Republican Mark Souder was one of the speakers at a bipartisan prayer service before the opening of the 109th session of Congress. He told the audience that religious faith is the conscience of democracy...

Without a faith grounded in such beliefs, the congressman said, democracy as it is known in the United States cannot work -- and he believes that could well be the case in Iraq.

"John Adams said, 'Our Constitution is made for a moral and religious people,'" Souder noted...

News from Agape Press

Most Iraqis Remain Committed to Elections, Poll Finds (washingtonpost.com)

Most Iraqis Remain Committed to Elections, Poll Finds (washingtonpost.com)

A Case for Conscientious Objection

Andrew Young writes:

"War violates principles most Americans hold dearly. It forces people to kill under false pretenses and denies the sanctity of human life. Governments, ours included, show reckless and wanton disregard for the lives of their own citizens during war, even though they always claim that war serves the public interest..."

A Case for Conscientious Objection

Can You Imagine?: Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong by Harry Browne

Harry Browne writes:

"You may remember that in 2002, the year before the Iraq War began, the United Nations Security Council ordered Iraq to produce a report detailing all of its biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons – past and present. Iraqi officials complied and produced an 11,800-page report on Iraq's weapons programs...

"Although the report was prepared for the United Nations, U.S. officials intercepted the report, edited out 8,000 pages (over two thirds) of it, and delivered its Reader's Digest version of the report to the UN...

"... the missing parts covered the Iraqis' acquisition of chemical and biological weapons from the U.S., the delivery of non-fissionable materials for a nuclear bomb by the U.S. to the Iraqis, and the training of Iraqi nuclear scientists at U.S. nuclear facilities in Los Alamos, Sandia, and Berkeley...

"UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said the conclusions stated in the report were basically true – that Iraq no longer had dangerous weapons...

"Colin Powell dismissed the report, calling it a 'catalogue of recycled information and flagrant omissions.' Of course, as we now know, the information was recycled because it happened to be true, and the omissions were flagrant because U.S. officials had done the omitting...

"Now here we are, over two years later. What have we learned?

"The hunt for Weapons of Mass Destruction has turned up exactly nothing, and so the hunt was been called off.

"Everything Hussein said about the weapons has turned out to be true.

"Everything George Bush said about Iraq's weapons has turned out to be false...

"In other words, the Butcher of Baghdad was correct; the President of the United States of America was wrong. The Butcher of Baghdad will be put on trial for 'war crimes.' The President of the United States of America was reelected to 'lead' the country for four more years."

Can You Imagine?: Hussein Was Right & Bush Was Wrong by Harry Browne

The Tax-Reform Racket - Mises Institute

Excellent analysis of tax-reform proposals by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.:

"But let us focus on the first part of the tax reform message, the part that is undeniably true: the current tax code is a disaster...

"But the neutral tax is a myth. In one way or another, every tax punishes productivity in both seen and unseen ways...

"Actually, all of history shows that taxes are a leading cause of the breakdown of civilization. The higher the tax, the less wealth there is to create and sustain civilization. We have civilization despite taxes...

"The only tax plan anyone should trust is the most simple possible: the one that proposes to lower existing taxes...

"[T]he Bush administration genuinely believes in creating a new forced savings scheme... [T]hese people do not... trust people to manage their own money...

"Let me close with a proposal that we abolish the income tax. It took in $873 billion last year. If we cut the budget by that amount,... We would end up with a federal budget of about $1.5 trillion, where it was in the last year of Clinton's second term. If anyone thinks that the federal government was too small back then, I can only recommend a complete education in economics, politics, and the truth about human freedom...

"Thus do I end this talk with a call, not for reform, but for an end to the income tax. It should be replaced with nothing at all. In any case, that would be a good first step."

The Tax-Reform Racket - Mises Institute

The Neo-Conservative Subversion By Sam Francis, Ph.D

An interesting history of the U.S. neoconservative movement.

Council of Conservative Citizens

WorldNetDaily: Final fix for Social Security

On 7 August 2001, Harry Browne addressed several myths of Social Security, and proposed a solution:

"Shut Social Security down – completely, immediately and for good. End the Social Security tax tomorrow morning and stop making Social Security payments tomorrow evening. Anyone under 50 can have a better retirement putting 10 percent of his income in the bank instead of 15 percent into Social Security.

"And what happens to those who are currently dependent on Social Security and those too close to retirement to build a new nest egg?

"Have the government make a one-time purchase of private annuities – secure, non-political annuities that guarantee the same income Social Security is paying now to senior citizens...

"This approach doesn't appeal to politicians, because it takes tax money and power away from them. But the only alternative to it is to resign yourself to having more and more of your income taken from you and poured down the drain."

WorldNetDaily: Final fix for Social Security

Coming Up Empty - by Gordon Prather

"Scott Ritter, who was a chief UN inspector in Iraq in those years recently had this to say about the Duefler report:

"'One of the tragic ironies of the decision to invade Iraq is that the Iraqi WMD declaration required by security council resolution 1441, submitted by Iraq in December 2002, and summarily rejected by Bush and Blair as repackaged falsehoods, now stands as the most accurate compilation of data yet assembled regarding Iraq's WMD program\s (more so than even Duelfer's ISG report, which contains much unsubstantiated speculation).

"'Saddam Hussein has yet to be contradicted on a single point of substantive fact. Iraq had disarmed; no one wanted to accept that conclusion.'"

Coming Up Empty - by Gordon Prather

Absolutely? - by Juan Cole

Juan Cole writes:

"... Saddam without weapons of mass destruction could not have been 'dangerous' to the United States. Just parroting 'dangerous' doesn't create real danger. Danger has to come from an intent and ability to strike the US. Saddam had neither. He wasn't dangerous to the US. It is absurd that this poor, weak, ramshackle Third World state should have been seen as 'dangerous' to a superpower. That is just propaganda.

"Calling Saddam 'dangerous'... without regard to the evidence falls under the propaganda techniques of name-calling and stirring irrational fear..."

Absolutely? - by Juan Cole

DC at Coronation Time by C.T. Rossi

C.T. Rossi wrote on 15 Jan 2005:

"The new face of Washington is angular with a thick neck and a curled wire running into its ear... It is ominous and omnipresent... Though this face has slowly gained ascendancy over the past three years, it appears that its coming out party will be this month’s Presidential Inauguration activities...

"The actual inauguration ceremony of George W. Bush is of secondary importance – the more important event is a formal and overt display of force designed to make the masses cower. The haute couture of the festivities, with all due respect to the First Lady’s designer, will not be grand ball gowns nor even 'black ties and boots' but the S.W.A.T.-style assault jumpsuits. The special guest list of 'military personnel, FBI agents in full SWAT outfitting, snipers on rooftops and scores of bomb-detecting dogs' has also been confirmed. Just as important as the seating arrangement and placing of name cards is the 'inspecting miles of underground Metro and sewer tunnels, sealing manhole covers, closing streets and surveying the more than 450 downtown buildings.'...

"Like the Neanderthal bouncers outside of chic Hollywood nightclubs, the 'security force' will decide who gets in and who doesn’t. Without 'your papers,' residents of the Shaw neighborhood will not be allowed ingress and egress from their own homes. Other 'security' measures have had the (intended?) effect creating such inconvenience that law-abiding people plan to stay away.

"Once upon a time a man said that if the terrorists forced us to change our way of life, then they will have won. But things have changed. This means that either the terrorists are winning or that these changes were not forced – but desired – by our leaders."

DC at Coronation Time by C.T. Rossi

Hammurabi by Robert Klassen

Robert Klassen writes:

"I either missed something important in my education, or I am missing a critical gene, but I cannot understand what motivates people like Cyrus, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, or Bush. Military domination of people doesn’t produce anything except grief, an obvious truism, and it’s a tremendous waste of time, money, and energy. If somebody has something you want, why not trade for it? No, these guys want to pulverize them, even if that means destroying whatever it is they want. Where’s the point?"

Hammurabi by Robert Klassen

Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.

Congressman Ron Paul writes:

"Social Security reform promises to be the biggest domestic issue this year in Washington, but most of the proposals are nothing more than flim-flam. The only honest solution to the future insolvency of the program is for Congress to stop spending so much money. Unless Congress makes real cuts in spending -- and stops spending Social Security taxes on completely unrelated programs -- millions of Americans simply will not receive even a fraction of the money they paid into Social Security. Ignore the rhetoric about tax increases and cuts in benefits, as though you are to blame for the problem! All Social Security obligations could be met if Congress did not spend so much on other things...

"Notice that neither political party proposes letting people opt out of Social Security, which exposes the lie that your contributions are set aside and saved...

"The truth, of course, is that your contributions are not put aside. Social Security is simply a tax. Like all taxes, the money collected is spent immediately as general revenues to fund the federal government. The Social Security trust fund does not exist... Social Security benefits are paid each year from general funds, like other federal programs... Allowing people to opt out of Social Security would force the federal government to admit it has been stealing money from Social Security for decades...

"If the administration truly wants to give people more control over their retirement dollars, why not simply reduce payroll taxes and let them keep their own money to invest privately as they see fit? This is the true private solution...

"Your money has never been safe in the government’s hands, and it never will be. Governments spend money; it’s just their nature. It is preposterous to believe our government is capable of simply sitting on a huge pile of money without touching it because it’s earmarked for one purpose or another. No matter what politicians promise, Social Security reform will not change the fact that your money is taken from your paycheck and sent to Washington, where it will be spent..."

Want to Reform Social Security? Stop Spending.

U.S. Foreign Policy: Question All Assumptions: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Ivan Eland writes:

"Post-World War II U.S. foreign policy, including that of the Bush administration, has been based on certain assumptions about the nature of the world. Unfortunately, most of those assumptions are suspect...

"The most notable assumption is that if the U.S. government (USG) does not dominate the globe militarily and ensure security through wanton armed interventions, the world will fall apart...

"In addition to expending much blood and treasure, all U.S. wars have eroded civil liberties at home...

"The last assumption -- given to us by the president but eagerly embraced by the interventionist foreign policy elite -- is that al Qaeda is attacking the United States because of its freedoms. The Defense Science Board, made up of high-powered consultants to the Department of Defense, recently issued a report debunking this notion and accurately noting that al Qaeda attacks the United States because it hates U.S. interventionism in the Islamic world...

"Why doesn’t the public ask its government to explain why Saddam Hussein’s unnecessary invasion of Kuwait was bad and President Bush’s unnecessary invasion of Iraq was good? Also, why don’t they ask if killing innocent civilians, even as collateral damage, in an unnecessary and aggressive invasion is any better than deliberately targeting them as bin Laden does?

"These are politically incorrect questions, but the American people should start asking them of their government. Instead, by accepting questionable assumptions on the part of its government, the American people are allowing it to unnecessarily turn the greatest nation on earth into an international rogue state."

U.S. Foreign Policy: Question All Assumptions: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

This Plastic Moment- by Justin Raimondo

Justin Raimondo writes:

"We have arrived at a plastic moment, during which we can jump out of the Iraqi quagmire in a single bound and leave the Iraqis to 'make their own way,' as our president put it the other day. Whether we take it or not is a fateful decision that will put George W. Bush's words to the test...

"This plastic moment will soon pass: in the next few weeks we either commit ourselves to a long, bloody course of empire in the Middle East, or we withdraw with honor and our dignity intact. Which will it be?"

This Plastic Moment- by Justin Raimondo

FREEDOM? NO THANKS -- Nealz Nuze January 21, 2005

While I disagree with Neal Boortz that the appropriate U.S. government role is to try to spread freedom to the rest of the world at the point of a gun, he does make some good points.

"What is the problem with freedom? I think that the biggest problem is that people realize that along with personal freedom comes personal responsibility... Introduce responsibility and consequences for irresponsibility, and the love of freedom suddenly wanes...

"Should you be free to negotiate with an employer on the basis of salary? No ... we need a minimum wage. Should you be free to buy a health insurance policy that doesn't include pregnancy benefits? No .. the government stands in the way. Should you be free to chose who is going to come into your home and tell you what drapery fabric would look good with your throw pillows? No. The government tells you who you can and can't hire for that job. Do people complain? Do they protest? Not a bit. Just accept the government controls and regulations and move on...

"When freedom isn't cherished people are opposed to paying a price to make freedom secure...

"I've been watching Inauguration and State of the Union speeches for years... Over the decades there were some obvious changes. Take the word 'democracy,' for instance. You never saw that word in a State of the Union speech until sometime around the 1930's. The idea of 'democracy' suddenly became popular when politicians sought to expand the power of the state beyond anything imagined by our Constitution. To do this they needed to cite the 'will of the people.' Majority rule moved the rule of law aside, and our modern 'democracy' was born. Along with the arrival of the 'D' word came disappearing references to freedom and more emphasis on security ... government-provided security..."

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze January 21, 2005

Homeland Intelligence Chief Hughes Warned Civil Rights Would Have to Be ‘Abridged’ -- CQ.com

Justin Rood writes:

"Eight months before the White House appointed him the Homeland Security Department’s top intelligence official, retired U.S. Army Gen. Patrick M. Hughes told a public forum at Harvard last year that the government would have to 'abridge individual rights' and take domestic security measures 'not in accordance with our values and traditions' to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States...

"'Therefore, we have to abridge individual rights, change the societal conditions, and act in ways that heretofore were not in accordance with our values and traditions, like giving a police officer or security official the right to search you without a judicial finding of probable cause,' said Hughes."

CQ.com

Graven Images by Paul Hein

Dr. Paul Hein writes:

"How absurd must life become before we begin to see things in their proper perspective? We’re kept trembling with fear from possible exposure to Alar, or DDT, or cyclamate (but never fluoride!) or Saddam Hussein, or some other pipsqueak tyrant (but never our own government!)... There seems to be some sort of deep-seated human instinct to be afraid of things: a fear upon which our rulers capitalize with gusto. But we seem oblivious to genuine danger... allowing ourselves, instead, to be afraid of shadows, or the possibility of the threat of shadows!"

Graven Images by Paul Hein

Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

Robert Scheer writes for the LA Times:

"Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist? ...

"Terrorism is deeply threatening, but it appears to be a much more fragmented and complex phenomenon than the octopus-network image of Al Qaeda, with Bin Laden as its head, would suggest...

"While the BBC documentary acknowledges that the threat of terrorism is both real and growing, it disagrees that the threat is centralized...

"The fact is, despite the efforts of several government commissions and a vast army of investigators, we still do not have a credible narrative of a 'war on terror' that is being fought in the shadows...

"Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy...

"Such a state of national ignorance about an endless war is, as 'The Power of Nightmares' makes clear, simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy."

Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

Destruction, Natural and Man-Made by Harry Browne

Harry Browne writes:

"This past week the TV screen has been full of pictures showing people in Southeast Asia returning to their villages after the tsunami, only to find their homes completely destroyed.

"Unfortunately, that isn't the only place where people are returning to devastation. The same thing is happening in Fallujah, Iraq...

"Why haven't we seen these pictures on TV? Because the U.S. military has banned TV cameras in the city. (For security reasons, I'm sure.)...

"Speaking of the tsunami: As soon as someone could find George Bush at his Texas ranch and inform him of the disaster... he immediately announced that the U.S. government would donate $15 million in relief funds, and within days had raised that to $35 million. After he was accused of being too stingy, he upped the figure to $350 million.

"Of course, this wasn't his own money he was pledging. He was being generous with your money. And he had no authority to commit even $1 of federal money to anything that hadn't been approved by Congress – which in turn had no Constitutional authority to commit even $1 of federal money to any charity, in the U.S. or overseas...

"Speaking again of the tsunami: One of the unfortunate aftermaths of the tidal wave is the epidemic of malaria that will follow in its wake. Forty years ago that wouldn't have been much of a problem, because the affected areas could have been sprayed with DDT. In fact malaria itself was pretty much eradicated throughout the world, because DDT helped kill the mosquitoes that cause malaria.

"But benevolent souls in the U.S. got together and saw to it that DDT was banned worldwide, because it had interfered with the procreation of bald eagles in America – and because Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring had asserted, without proof, that DDT could damage the health of human beings. And so every year more than a million souls die of malaria. Fortunately, some countries are repealing their DDT bans. But not the U.S., of course...

"A lot of people have come to realize the folly of saving birds at the expense of humans...

Destruction, Natural and Man-Made by Harry Browne

Congressman Ron Paul Denounces National ID Card

"Congressman Ron Paul today denounced the national ID card provisions contained in the intelligence bill...

"'A national identification card, in whatever form it may take, will allow the federal government to inappropriately monitor the movements and transactions of every American,' Paul continued. 'History shows that governments inevitably use such power in harmful ways. The 9-11 commission, whose recommendations underlie this bill, has called for internal screening points where identification will be demanded. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free nations...

"'Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple... regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state.'

"'Those who are willing to allow the government to establish a Soviet-style internal passport system because they think it will make us safer are terribly mistaken,' Paul concluded. 'Subjecting every citizen to surveillance and screening points actually will make us less safe, not in the least because it will divert resources away from tracking and apprehending terrorists and deploy them against innocent Americans! Every conservative who believes in constitutional restraints on government should reject the authoritarian national ID card and the nonsensical intelligence bill itself.'"

Paul Denounces National ID Card

Christianity and War by Laurence M. Vance

"Or, as the historian and economist, Murray Rothbard (1926–1995), said, in making his case that America has only had two just wars (1776 & 1861), 'A just war exists when a people tries to ward off the threat of coercive domination by another people, or to overthrow an already-existing domination. A war is unjust, on the other hand, when a people try to impose domination on another people, or try to retain an already existing coercive rule over them.'

"The fact that a government claims a war is just is irrelevant, for American history is replete with examples of American presidents who have exaggerated, misinformed, misrepresented, and lied to deceive the American people into supporting wars that they would not have supported if they had known the facts.

"Veritatis Amans, in his 1847 article 'Can War, Under Any Circumstances, Be Justified on the Principles of the Christian Religion?', wrote: 'But under what circumstances is war truly defensive? We reply, when its object is to repel an invasion; when there is no alternative but to submit to bondage and death, or to resist.'

"George Washington: 'The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible.' Thomas Jefferson: 'Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.' John Quincy Adams: 'America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy.'

"So the War on Terrorism, like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, is in so many ways just a tragic joke. But why Christians support any of these bogus 'wars' is an even greater tragedy."

Christianity and War by Laurence M. Vance

Christianity and War Revisited by Laurence M. Vance

"There is nothing 'Christian' about the state’s aggressive militarism, its senseless wars, its interventions into the affairs of other countries, and its expanding empire...

"... loving one’s country has nothing to do with loving the government, being patriotic does not mean blindly following whatever the government says, and some of the greatest critics of the military have been in the military..."

Christianity and War Revisited by Laurence M. Vance

Should the US Military Be Allowed to Torture People? by Harry Browne

"In all the arguing over the presumed rights of a terrorist, one thing is being overlooked: no one knows for sure whether the person being tortured really is a terrorist...

"The problem, as so often is the case, comes back to government schools. Because there is virtually no education covering the reasons for the Bill of Rights, very few people in America have an understanding of why we have a Bill of Rights and why it must be enforced without exception – in both civilian courts and in military justice...

"If the government is allowed to suspend the Bill of Rights for anyone, the security of all of us is diminished.

"P.P.S. What is truly amazing is that after the Abu Ghraib scandal erupted, George W. Bush was still tsk, tsking about Hussein's alleged use of torture."

Should the US Military Be Allowed to Torture People? by Harry Browne