uncleharp

radio stations and talk shows

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:12:08 +0200

listen to all kinds of radio stations
http://www.live365.com/index.live

Audio Books and free radio
http://www.radiofreeworld.com/page10.html

The Right Perspective- Frank of Queens & John of Staten Island
Grassroots InfoMedia- All about 9/11 conspiracy
We the people radio- Stephanie Miller show. MSNBC chic. Her website has audio.

Stimulatedboredom.com

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/bossmodel/stimulatedboredom.html

Randy Goat Radio
http://www.randygoat.com/index.php

Uncle DeerCamp
http://www.uncledeercamp.com/

Comments

Humor stories/links

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:30:33 +0200

All kinds of stories
http://www.dmoz.org/Recreation/Humor/Stories/

Funniest Stories Ever
http://www.randygoat.com/pipermail/goatboysfunnylist_randygoat.com/

a place to post ur funny stories and read others
http://www.uncleba.com/

Funny site about masturbation
http://www.jackinworld.com/

Improving the sex life
http://www.sexinfo101.com/is_index.shtml

Comments

title-2645191

Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:15:03 +0200

every newspaper

http://onlinenewspapers.com/

Job Ads in major cities

http://www.backpage.com/classifieds/index

AFL-CIO News

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/

Templar Knights

http://www.templarhistory.com/

Love&Sexuality (David Deida author of sex books)

http://harusami.com/soul2soul/lovesex.html
-click links

aricles on spirituality and sex
http://www.wie.org/j13/andrew.asp
http://www.experiencefestival.com/sex_and_spirituality

Star Children and Indigo Children
http://www.crystalinks.com/childrensic.html
http://www.thestarchildren.com/star_children-fl.html

http://www.penis-enlargement-secrets.com/

SIGTINGS TV SHOW

Comments

9/11: Why They Attacked Us

Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:11:01 +0200

Please sit and take a deep breath, or even two, before you begin reading this article.
Sometimes the truth can hurt -- a lot. This may be one of those times. It was for us.
Before continuing, please remember: we are only the messengers; we deal with facts, not opinions; the Country and the Government are two separate things; we will forever love our Country and be willing to give our lives in defense of its system of governance – as designed and set forth in our founding document – but, we should always distrust the Government; we avoid all political questions; we seek only to hold those in Government accountable to Truth, Justice and the Constitution, regardless of their political stripes; we have confronted Democrat and Republican administrations with equal fervor.
The last few months have been difficult ones for us. We have gone through an uncomfortable paradigm shift in our understanding of how our government has become unaccountable to the People and in coming to grips with the incredible risks our beloved Republic now faces.
We knew, of course, that the Government was bad, occasionally breaking the rules by violating the Constitution and refusing to be held accountable for its behavior, an insufferable arrogance for sure, but what we did not fully comprehend was the fact that our Government had actually turned evil.
We now realize that the Government has apparently jettisoned altogether its primary function as a protector and enhancer of individual, unalienable Rights and Freedoms, Life and Liberty, Truth and Justice. What remains of our former Republic is merely a shadow, a cardboard movie set for our children to marvel and for our despotic leaders hold press conferences.

The time for radical truth telling and acts of conscious resistance is now upon us.

Osama bin Laden
We have just finished studying the report, “Messages To the World; The Statements of Osama Bin Laden”, authored by Osama Bin Laden, edited by Bruce Lawrence, and published by London-based Verso Books. (available on Amazon.com)
This is bin Laden, in his own words, dating back to 1994, explaining WHY he attacked our nation’s economic and military icons.
To our knowledge, no U.S newspaper has published any of these statements, no U.S. television network has broadcast any of these videos, and no U.S. radio station has broadcast any of these audiotapes explaining his motive.

Why not? Considering the price our nation is now paying due to the “War on Terror,” would it not have been prudent to take heed to the openly broadcast messages of our attackers?
What would the world be like today if the United States Government had listened and properly responded to bin Laden’s proper Petitions to America and the rest of the world for redress of his grievances – decades worth of unjustified attacks and illegal military occupations by America and Israel targeting Muslims -- and on Muslim territory? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if the United States Government had listened and properly responded to bin Laden who had been constructing and articulating a consistent, convincing case that an attack on Islam was under way and was being orchestrated and directed by the government of America? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if, following 9-11, the United States Government had not had conducted a telephone conference call directing the heads of the five dominant American television networks to agree to censor free speech, public discourse and debate by suppressing from broadcast any statements by bin Laden, and suppressing the horrific video images that the rest of the “civilized” world was watching – i.e., the pictures of the United States military killing tens of thousands of innocent people while intentionally bombing civilian facilities and homes in Afghanistan. Prime Minster Blair did the same in England, wrestling a similar agreement from the three T.V. networks of the United Kingdom. In all likelihood, there would have been more knowledge about the truth, more public condemnation of the “coalition” governments, no invasion of Iraq, no Police State and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
What would the world be like today if Secretary of State Madeline Albright had not responded with, “Its worth it,” when questioned on CBS’s 60 Minutes, about the deaths of over 600,000 [Muslim] children in Iraq as a direct result of malnutrition and disease directly caused by the United States’ ten-year boycott and blockade of badly needed medicine and food? What if there was no such boycott and blockade? In all likelihood, there would have been no attack on the World Trade Center, no War on Terror, no Police State, and no erosion of individual Liberties in America.
Indeed, what is now apparent is the fact that for decades preceding 9-11, the Government of the United States of America, under the leadership of both Democrats and Republicans, has been responsible in whole or in part, for the deaths of over one million innocent men, women and children of the Middle East, and the reduction to rubble of tens of thousands of individual homes, businesses and vital community services in the Middle East -- and most of these were exclusively Muslim targets.
In addition to these evil, un-Godly, un-American and inhuman acts of terror sponsored and sanctioned by the United States Government and the State of Israel, it is now apparent that during this time, both Democrat and Republican administrations have been responsible in whole or in part for deliberately censoring from the American public the true nature of the results of this intervention in the internal affairs of, and on the human beings that reside in these Middle East countries.
Given the extent of bin Laden’s public statements over many years which explain, in stark language that Islam itself was under attack from the combined forces of Israel and America, and given our nation’s vast experience involving decades of morally reprehensible meddling and intervention in Middle East affairs, are we to believe that the U.S. Government was honestly unaware of the intent of one Osama bin Laden -- himself a former CIA operative? Are we to believe that bin Laden attacked us because he thought we were “too free”?

Comments

title-2583994

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:54:27 +0200

"wow i can get sexual"
-say anything

"float on" "save room"
-golspot -john legend

"seince 84" "mafioso" "something u should know" "bleezys and heem" "get stupid" "isolated"

-mac dre

the National industrial revovery act introduced by Roosevelt. This took all the different industries and put them under a central power. This kind of delegation of power to private partys was later said to be "unknown to our laws"

The federal reserve is essentially the same thing in the way every bank is controlled by an elite board of governors or private bankers. Why hasnt the constitutionality of the Fed Reserver ever made its way to the supreme court.

Accomodates big government beuracrats and politicians in the way the fed can be set up like a money pipeline to government spending.

The income tax was introduced the same year the fed came into play. The Fed was created on an Island of the coast of Georgia by 6 elite bankers. Rockerfellar was one of them.
W-sites and Columnists

Big Government destroys individual liberties. Get rid of the Fed. Reserve and the Income tax. We should live within our means and not put so much trust in Government to take care of us from cradle to the grave. Defend and honor our constitution

Aaron Russo Prisonplanet.com
Edward Griffin G4TV.com
Alex Jones (9-11 guy) Realityzone.com (news links)
Steve Watson Constitution.org
Dave Ramsey (financial guy)

Comments

nuksurvival

Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:18:30 +0200

Posted: August 24, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Shane Connor

What possible good news could there ever be about nuclear destruction coming to America, whether it is dirty bombs, terrorist nukes or ICBMs from afar?

In a word, they are all survivable for the vast majority of American families, if they know what to do beforehand and have made even the most modest preparations.

Tragically, though, most Americans today won't give much credence to this good news, much less seek out such vital life-saving instruction, as they have been jaded by our culture's pervasive myths of nuclear un-survivability.

Most people think that if nukes go off, then everybody is going to die, or will wish they had. That's why you hear such absurd comments as: "If it happens, I hope I'm at ground zero and go quickly."

This defeatist attitude was born as the disarmament movement ridiculed any alternatives to their agenda. The sound Civil Defense strategies of the '60s have been derided as being largely ineffective, or at worst a cruel joke. With the supposed end of the Cold War in the '80s, most Americans neither saw a need to prepare, nor believed that preparation would do any good. Today, with growing prospects of nuclear terrorism, we see emerging among the public either paralyzing fear or irrational denial. People can no longer envision effective preparations for surviving a nuclear attack.

In fact, though, the biggest surprise for most Americans, if nukes are really unleashed, is that they will still be here!

Most will survive the initial blasts because they won't be close enough to any "ground zero," and that is very good news. Unfortunately, few people will be prepared to survive the coming radioactive fallout, which will eventually kill many times more than the blast. However, there is still more good news: Well over 90 percent of the potential casualties from fallout can be avoided if the public is pre-trained through an aggressive national Civil Defense educational program. Simple measures taken immediately after a nuclear blast, by a trained public, can prevent agonizing death and injury from radiation.

The National Planning Scenario No. 1, an originally confidential internal 2004 study by the Department of Homeland Security, demonstrated the above survival odds when they examined the effects of a terrorist nuke going off in Washington, D.C. They discovered that a 10 kiloton nuke, about two-thirds the size of the Hiroshima bomb, detonated at ground level, would result in about 15,000 immediate deaths and another 15,000 casualties from the initial blast, thermal flash and radiation release. As horrific as that is, the surprising revelation here is that over 99 percent of the residents in the D.C. area will have just witnessed and survived their first nuclear explosion. Clearly, the good news is most people will survive the initial blast.

The study also determined that another 250,000 people would soon be at risk from lethal doses of radiation from the fallout drifting downwind toward them after the blast. These much larger casualty numbers are avoidable, and that's more good news, but only for those pre-trained by a Civil Defense program in what to do before it arrives.

Another study, released this month by the Rand Corporation, looked at a terrorist 10-kiloton nuke arriving in a cargo container and being exploded in the Port of Long Beach, Calif. Over 150,000 people were estimated to be at risk downwind from fallout, again, many more than from the initial blast itself.

Today, lacking any meaningful Civil Defense program, millions of American families continue to be at risk and could perish needlessly for lack of essential knowledge that used to be taught at the grade school level.

The public urgently needs to be instructed in Civil Defense basics, like the good news that thousands can be saved employing the old "Duck and Cover" tactic, without which most people will instead run to the nearest window to see what the big flash was just in time to be shredded by the glass imploding inward from the shock wave. They need to know when promptly evacuating, doing so perpendicular to the coming downwind drift of the fallout would be their best strategy. They must also be taught how to effectively shelter in place for a brief time while the radioactive fallout loses 90 percent of it's lethal intensity in the first seven hours and 99 percent of it in two days. For those requiring sheltering from fallout, the majority would only need a couple or three days of hunkering down, not weeks on end.

This good news is within easy grasp of most people because an effective improvised family fallout shelter can be put together at home both cheaply and quickly, but only if the public is trained beforehand, as was begun in the '60s with our national Civil Defense program.

Unfortunately, our government today is doing little to promote nuclear preparedness and Civil Defense instruction among the general public. Regrettably, most of our officials, like the public, are still captive to the same illusions that training and preparation are ineffective against a nuclear threat.

Department of Homeland Security head Michael Chertoff demonstrated this attitude last year when he responded to the following question in USA Today:

Q: In the last four years, the most horrific scenario – a nuclear attack – may be the least discussed. If there were to be a nuclear attack tomorrow by terrorists on an American city, how would it be handled?
A: In the area of a nuclear bomb, it's prevention, prevention, prevention. If a nuclear bomb goes off, you are not going to be able to protect against it. There's no city strong enough infrastructure-wise to withstand such a hit. No matter how you approach it, there'd be a huge loss of life.

Mr. Chertoff fails to grasp that most of that "huge loss of life" is preventable if the survivors of the blast and those downwind knew what to do beforehand. He only acknowledges that the infrastructure will be severely compromised – responders won't be responding. Civil Defense training of the public is clearly the only hope for those in the fallout path. Of course, the government should try and prevent it happening first, but the answer he should have given to that question is: "preparation, preparation, preparation" for when prevention might fail.

The federal government must launch a national mass media, business-supported and even school-based effort, superseding our most ambitious public awareness campaigns like for AIDS, drug abuse, drunk driving, seat belts, anti-smoking and smoke detectors. The effort should percolate down to every level of our society. Let's be clear – we are talking about the potential to save, or lose, many times more lives than those saved by all these other noble efforts combined!

Instead, Homeland Security continues to be focused primarily on two missions:

1. Interdiction – stopping nuclear materials and terrorists at the border
2. COG – Continuity of Government for when No. 1 fails

The most important mission has been largely ignored:

3. Continuity of the Public – proven mass media Civil Defense training of the public that would make the survival difference for the vast majority of Americans affected by a nuclear event.

This tragic and deadly oversight won't change until the crippling myths of nuclear un-survivability are banished by the good news that a trained and prepared public can, and ultimately has to, save themselves.

National Civil Defense is an issue we hope and pray will come to the forefront politically this fall, with both parties vying to outdo each other in proposing aggressive Civil Defense educational programs. We are not asking billions for provisioned public fallout shelters for all, like what already awaits many of our politicians. We are just asking for a comprehensive mass media, business- and school-based re-release of the proven practical strategies of Civil Defense education, similar to what already has been embraced by the Chinese, Russians, Swiss, Israelis and even Singapore.

In the meantime, though, don't wait around for the government to instruct and prepare your own family and community. Educate yourself today and begin establishing your own nuclear survival preparations by reading the free nuke prep primer "What To Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent!"

Then pass copies on to friends, neighbors, relatives, churches and even local news media – and to your local elected representatives – with a brief note attached saying simply: "We hope/pray we never need this, but just in case, read it now, and keep it close for later on!" You might also forward them a copy of this article to help spread the good news that's liberating American's from the deadly myths of nuclear un-survivability!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shane Connor is the CEO of www.ki4u.com and www.nukalert.com, consultants and developers of Civil Defense solutions to government, military, private organizations and individual families.

Comments

FreedomLibertySecurity

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:22:40 +0200

We are living in exciting times. From the Soviet Union, to Cuba, to East Germany, totalitarian socialism is crumbling and human liberty is advancing throughout the world. With little more than their bare hands and raw courage, ordinary people on every continent are defeating the tanks and secret police of tyrants. We are eyewitnesses to the realization of Victor Hugo's famous maxim, "An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come."

Liberty is the freedom to act as you please so long as you don't coerce others. Liberty means you can associate with others voluntarily, you can speak and publish freely, you can practice the religion of your choice (or none at all), keep what you earn, run your own business, and love and live as you please (so long as you don't violate the rights of others).

We need liberty to think, to create, and to fulfill our individual and unique potential. Liberty is as much a requirement of our psychological nature as food and air are requirements of our biological nature. When liberty is denied, economies stagnate, cultures deteriorate, science declines, living standards fall, and the human spirit languishes. Liberty is essential for any decent and humane society.

Liberty is such a compelling and important value that even brutal dictatorships claim to support it. Tyrants say they are promoting "higher" freedoms – such as "national security", "economic equality" , or "the common good." The graveyards of history are filled with the corpses of those deceived by such claims.

The Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany and other totalitarian nations, murdered and tortured over 100 million people in the name of "economic equality" and "the common good". Even the United States imprisoned over 115,000 Americans of Japanese descent during World War II in the name of "national security."

As Benjamin Franklin observed in 1759, those who give up their liberty in exchange for government promises of security, end up with neither liberty nor security.

Countries which deny liberty to their citizens are the most brutal, poor, and miserable places on earth. In the end, tyrannies fail because they are based upon coercion, and coercion is fundamentally incompatible with human nature.

Coercion vs. Voluntary Association
We need others for most of what we want out of life: companionship, friendship, family, recreation, and wealth. A hermit living alone on a desert island may be able to survive, but his living standard and lifestyle will be little better than that of an animal. There are only two basic ways of getting what you want from others: voluntarily or coercively. When you deal with others voluntarily, others deal with you because they want to, because they receive some benefit – material or psychological – by dealing with you. The tools of voluntarism are friendship, trade, compassion, and love. In coercive association, you get what you want from others by deception or fear. The tools of coercion are intimidation, threats, fraud, and physical violence. Voluntary association promotes trust and respect, and provides benefits for everyone. Coercive association creates fear and distrust, and victimizes some at the expense of others. A guiding principle of any free society is voluntary association. Individual Rights are Essential for a Free Society.

Individual rights is the recognition by others that voluntary association is fundamental and you should be free to live your life in peace. Your rights include:

freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly

freedom of association

the right to defend yourself (including the right to own the means of self-defense, such as guns)

the right to keep what you earn

freedom of enterprise and the right to own property.
The right to property – the freedom to acquire, control, use and dispose of material possessions – is essential. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Without the right to publish and read magazines and newspress papers, you have no freedom of and little freedom of speech. Without the right to own religious books and support houses of worship, you have no freedom of religion. Without the right to earn a living and keep what you earn, there is no right to life. Without the right to own and use weapons, you can't defend your life, home or family.

Freedom Is Practical As Well As Moral
Socialists often argue that liberty won't feed a starving man – implying that liberty is less important than government-guaranteed security. But it is the absence of liberty that produces starvation and poverty. The freer a country, the more prosperous it is. The poorest, most miserable countries in the world – Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, etc. – have an abundance only of government promises, fear, and suffering.

Coercion Is the Principal Impediment
To Human Happiness And Prosperity
The basic way you lose your liberty is when others coerce you; when others use force or the threat of force to compel you to surrender your property or labor, or prevent you from living as you please.

Not only does an aggressor harm you, he or she also frays the fabric of peaceful society by causing others to live in fear. When coercion becomes common, entire cities can become terrorized or destroyed. Just walk through downtown Los Angeles or Detroit after dark – if you dare.

Most of us reject and denounce coercion when it is committed by individuals. Thieves, swindlers, murderers, rapists, and thugs are generally scorned. Unfortunately there is a form of group coercion which is not always recognized as bad:

Coercive Government
A government is an association of men and women authorized by society to use force to compel obedience. The proper role of government is to protect your freedom and safety, from both domestic and foreign aggressors.

But as George Washington observed over 200 years ago, "Government is like fire. A dangerous servant and a fearful master." When government agents cross the line from defenders of your rights to violators, they become just another criminal gang.

Morally and legally, government agents are bound to protect our rights. When they don't – when police or federal agents rob, assault or kill innocent people, even if it's "by mistake" or for "good reasons" – they MUST be arrested and tried, like any other criminals – to preserve justice and the rule of law.

The End Of The Nation-State?
The growing authoritarianism of governments in the West, will eventually lead to their collapse, just as it led to the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Because of the rapid growth of privacy-enhancing technology, this collapse will probably come sooner rather than later.

As James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg explain in their prophetic book, The Sovereign Individual, "The process by which the nation-state grew over the past five centuries will be put into reverse by the new logic of the Information Age."

That process includes:

The spread of inexpensive, encryption technology, making possible, in theory, an unprecedented level of personal and financial privacy, and even widespread immunity from taxation.

Digital cash and the emergence of the "cyber-economy" through the Internet – "a region where government will have no more dominion than they exercise over the . . . outer planets."

Discrediting Of Centralized Governments
Governments throughout the world are offering ever-poorer services at ever-higher prices. As a result they are losing credibility. On May 5, 1997, "NBC Nightly News" reported that Mexican police have become so corrupt that most Mexicans no longer call police to catch thieves and murderers, but punish offenders themselves. In Italy, half of the entire economy is underground and untaxed. Similar disillusionment with government may be found throughout the world.

A Global Free Economy
From the concentration camps of Nazi Germany and the Soviet gulags, to Cambodia's killing fields, the 20th Century has witnessed hideous despotisms. But coercive government of every variety – socialism, fascism, and the democratic welfare state – simply doesn't work and eventually collapses.

Liberty is the wave of the future. The Internet, computer encryption, digital cash and other exciting new technologies have begun to free people throughout the world. With courage and dedication, the 21st Century will be the century of global liberty. Sooner or later liberty will triumph. Liberty is our destiny – an idea whose time has come

http://libertarianism.com/
http://judicialwatch.org/
http://ontheissues.org/default.htm

Comments

Libertarianism

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:16:00 +0200

Here are links to several short, outstanding explanations of the basic principles of libertarianism.

They are short and to-the-point -- a great way to quickly grasp the essence of the libertarian view.

But first, our own short introduction to the subject:

Libertarianism: Your Way to Freedom, Abundance, Peace, Justice

Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential.

The core idea is simply stated, but profound and far-reaching in its implications. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same.

Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.

Libertarianism is thus the combination of liberty (the freedom to live your life in any peaceful way you choose), responsibility (the prohibition against the use of force against others, except in defense), and tolerance (honoring and respecting the peaceful choices of others).

Live and let live. The Golden Rule. The non-initiation of force.

Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles.

Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

If this interests you, please explore the material at this site. Evaluate these ideas. Kick their tires and take them for an intellectual "test drive."

We hope you will join us in embracing this ideal -- and in taking a stand to personally help bring about a world of liberty, abundance and peace.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer, from which this is excerpted.

The key concepts of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece, and Israel; they began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosophy in the work of such seventeenth- and eighteenth-century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine.

Individualism. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of each individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people -- to women, to people of different religions and different races -- is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the Western world.

Individual Rights. Because individuals are moral agents, they have a right to be secure in their life, liberty, and property. These rights are not granted by government or by society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take rights away.

Spontaneous Order. A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It's easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes. Over human history, we have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with intricate organization. The most important institutions in human society -- language, law, money, and markets -- all developed spontaneously, without central direction. Civil society -- the complex network of associations and connections among people -- is another example of spontaneous order; the associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own.

The Rule of Law. Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that "people can do anything they want to, and nobody else can say anything." Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own ways, not aim at any particular result or outcome.

Limited Government. To protect rights, individuals form governments. But government is a dangerous institution. Libertarians have a great antipathy to concentrated power, for as Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Thus they want to divide and limit power, and that means especially to limit government, generally through a written constitution enumerating and limiting the powers that the people delegate to government. Limited government is the basic political implication of libertarianism, and libertarians point to the historical fact that it was the dispersion of power in Europe -- more than other parts of the world -- that led to individual liberty and sustained economic growth.

Free Markets. To survive and to flourish, individuals need to engage in economic activity. The right to property entails the right to exchange property by mutual agreement. Free markets are the economic system of free individuals, and they are necessary to create wealth. Libertarians believe that people will be both freer and more prosperous if government intervention in people's economic choices is minimized.

The Virtue of Production. Much of the impetus for libertarianism in the seventeenth century was a reaction against monarchs and aristocrats who lived off the productive labor of other people. Libertarians defended the right of people to keep the fruits of their labor. This effort developed into a respect for the dignity of work and production and especially for the growing middle class, who were looked down upon by aristocrats. Libertarians developed a pre-Marxist class analysis that divided society into two basic classes: those who produced wealth and those who took it by force from others. Thomas Paine, for instance, wrote, "There are two distinct classes of men in the nation, those who pay taxes, and those who receive and live upon the taxes." Similarly, Jefferson wrote in 1824, "We have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious." Modern libertarians defend the right of productive people to keep what they earn, against a new class of politicians and bureaucrats who would seize their earnings to transfer them to nonproducers.

Natural Harmony of Interests. Libertarians believe that there is a natural harmony of interests among peaceful, productive people in a just society. One person's individual plans -- which may involve getting a job, starting a business, buying a house, and so on -- may conflict with the plans of others, so the market makes many of us change our plans. But we all prosper from the operation of the free market, and there are no necessary conflicts between farmers and merchants, manufacturers and importers. Only when government begins to hand out rewards on the basis of political pressure do we find ourselves involved in group conflict, pushed to organize and contend with other groups for a piece of political power.

Peace. Libertarians have always battled the age-old scourge of war. They understood that war brought death and destruction on a grand scale, disrupted family and economic life, and put more power in the hands of the ruling class -- which might explain why the rulers did not always share the popular sentiment for peace. Free men and women, of course, have often had to defend their own societies against foreign threats; but throughout history, war has usually been the common enemy of peaceful, productive people on all sides of the conflict.

... It may be appropriate to acknowledge at this point the reader's likely suspicion that libertarianism seems to be just the standard framework of modern thought -- individualism, private property, capitalism, equality under the law. Indeed, after centuries of intellectual, political, and sometimes violent struggle, these core libertarian principles have become the basic structure of modern political thought and of modern government, at least in the West and increasingly in other parts of the world.

However, three additional points need to be made: first, libertarianism is not just these broad liberal principles. Libertarianism applies these principles fully and consistently, far more so than most modern thinkers and certainly more so than any modern government. Second, while our society remains generally based on equal rights and capitalism, every day new exceptions to those principles are carved out in Washington and in Albany, Sacramento, and Austin (not to mention London, Bonn, Tokyo, and elsewhere). Each new government directive takes a little bit of our freedom, and we should think carefully before giving up any liberty. Third, liberal society is resilient; it can withstand many burdens and continue to flourish; but it is not infinitely resilient. Those who claim to believe in liberal principles but advocate more and more confiscation of the wealth created by productive people, more and more restrictions on voluntary interaction, more and more exceptions to property rights and the rule of law, more and more transfer of power from society to state, are unwittingly engaged in the ultimately deadly undermining of civilization.

Comments

radical college campus

Mon, 11 Jun 2007 13:21:09 +0200

It is hard to exaggerate the extent to which a left-wing ideology has captivated university life. I sometimes get the impression that the ghost of Antonio Gramsci is parading among academic faculties spreading his soteriology to “useful dupes.”

On March 29, I participated in a discussion on Iran at Columbia University sponsored by the college Democrats, Republicans, Hillel and various political action committees on campus. Although it was not a formal debate, one member of the panel, a self-described expert on Islam, injected a rather contentious spirit into the discussion by noting:

* Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a legitimate political leader like others in the world.

* There isn’t any difference between the Enlightenment world-view in the West and Islam.

* Iran is not a threat to Western interests.

* We should do nothing about its nuclear weapons program.

* The U.S. is suffering from a form of national hysteria over Iran.

* Suicide bombers could be compared to soldiers in World War I who were cannon fodder.

* Ahmadinejad never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map.

* What difference does it make if Iran possesses a few nuclear weapons?

* There isn’t any movement within Iran to oust Ahmadinejad as its national leader.

It was hard for me to believe that a serious scholar circa 2007 would be making claims of this variety. It was equally difficult for me to think that the majority of those assembled would embrace these fatuities. But I was wrong. As David Horowitz once pointed out, it is hard to caricature university life.

One student did have the temerity to say this noted professor was intellectually dishonest. He maintained there is a substantial difference between a suicide bomber who straps explosives to his waist with the intent of killing innocent women and children and soldiers who rush an entrenched fortification with the intention of overwhelming an enemy. This comment, of course, was treated with disdain as the professor moved to Iran’s legitimate nuclear ambitions.

Yet it is precisely this difference, it is precisely the divergent world views that make nuclear weapons possession in the hands of Ahmadinejad so dangerous.

Remarkably the student claque or one might say, the faithful, were undaunted. Logic was discarded replaced by ideological fervor. This professor was quite obviously an apologist for Islam. In his fevered imagination, it is the West that is the culprit in world affairs. “Why doesn’t the United States engage in bilateral talks with Iranian leaders?” he asked. When I pointed out that European negotiators have offered blandishments in the form of Air Buses and nuclear facilities for energy purposes in return for the cessation of Iran’s nuclear enrichment activity, he scoffed. After all, “that is not a negotiation with the United States,” he said.

One can only wonder what goes on in the confines of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall when other points of view aren’t considered. Do students actually embrace this claptrap? Are they given an opportunity to challenge Islamic apologies? Is this what Middle Eastern Studies programs have become or is Columbia on the left wing cutting edge, the legacy of Edward Said and his orientalist imaginings?

For a considerable period I’ve read about the politicization of university campuses, but I assumed that students could see through the ideological foolishness of professors weaned on sixties logic. Although it is only a sample of one (Columbia), I now have my doubts about student perceptiveness.

Students are easily taken in by the legions of professors with radical views. It is the professoriate that cuts against the grain, and that challenges the so-called establishment. How intoxicating to be on that side of the argument even when it is intellectually dishonest.

My hope, if I can call it that, is the one student who challenged the illogical claims of the Islamic scholar. Are there others like him sitting in quiet bemusement? I wonder, I fret and I pray that one day universities will come to their senses. That day is not yet over the horizon.

Comments

Democracy?

Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:18:09 +0200

It pains me when I hear President Bush – and so many others – talk about the need to spread democracy around the world.

America's founders knew what a rotten and corrupt system of government democracy was and did everything in their power to ensure our country would never become one.

Why is democracy rotten and corrupt?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

Even though no one is certain who first spoke or penned this statement, truer words were never uttered.

Democracy just plain doesn't work. And it inevitably leads to tyranny.

In fact, America reached a critical breaking point in this process earlier this month.

Gary Shilling, an economist in Springfield, N.J., released a study noting that 52.6 percent of Americans "now receive significant income from government programs."

That's 52.6 percent – more than a majority.

Just seven years ago, just about the time George Bush was preparing to enter the White House as a Republican president promising "compassionate conservatism," that number was 49.4 percent – still way too high, far too close to that breaking point, but at least slightly less than a majority.

Go back a little further in time, to 1950, and the number was a mere 28.3 percent.

How far and how fast into the depths of dependency Americans have fallen!

So where are we on that timeline to tyranny?

"From apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

That is not very reassuring for the preservation of freedom. It is not very promising for an immediate rebirth of freedom. It is not very reassuring for an expansion of freedom and liberty in America any time soon.

And chances are, with the results of last year's congressional elections installing into power a party that seems openly to embrace dependency as a method of capturing and retaining power, things are going to get worse before they get better.

Think about this as the 2008 elections get nearer.

It does not bode well for us.

According to the inherent truth above, the only place to go from here is bondage.

Whether it was Alexis de Tocqueville who said it, or Alexander Tytler, or Alexander Tyler, or Arnold Toynbee, or Lord Thomas Macaulay – all of whom have been credited with parts of the statement – the simple truth of the observation is undeniable.

America has reached a critical breaking point.

America has crossed a major divide.

America has peaked.

Will we learn from history?

Is it too late to reverse course?

Will we defy the odds?

Will we be the exception that proves the rule?

I sure hope so, but how are we going to outvote people whose livelihoods and slothfulness depend on casting ballots for the masters who serve them their slop?

Comments

Abolish the Federal Reserve

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:40:58 +0200

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a non stable monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of dotcom bubble, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial boom followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bursts. With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over moentary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the Federal Govt. to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary moentary policy.

Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to reture to the type of moentary system envisioned by our natons founders. A nation where the value of money is consistent because it is ties to a commodity such as gold. This kind of system is the basis of a true free market economy.

Comments

Fashion, confidence, sex/ moustache and midget stuff

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:20:13 +0200

Products for the man
http://menessentials.com/

Seduction
http://seductiontutor.com/ $$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.wikihow.com/Seduce-a-Woman

Presence****
http://www.wikihow.com/Have-Presence
Poise***
http://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Poise

Self Confidence$$$
http://www.wikihow.com/Build-Self-Confidence

Mustache March
http://www.mustachemarch.com/index.html
http://mustachesummer.com/

funny ass mustache article'''''''''
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/dispatch/2002-12-17/penny.html

Comments

Islamization of Europe

Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:18:12 +0200

The islamization of Europe is a virtual fate if the people don't fight to retain their democratic values against the inroads of Sharia law. The mayor of Amsterdam, "hand" Job Cohen has urged his people to accept "the conscious discrimination of women by certain groups of orthodox muslims". The Dutch are invited to approve a practice that most normal people consider rediculous. In W. Europe the islamic population is growing at a rate double that of native Europeans. Many Europeans have decided to leave the continent. The number of emigrants leaving Germany and the Netherlands has surpassed the number of immigrants moving in. In fact, Mohammed is the most popular name for new born boys in several major European cities such as Amsterdam, Brussels, and Rotterdam just to name a few. It seems that Europeans have not learned how to fight for their freedoms. In Europe there is a generation that is taking freedom for granted. This is a generation that is great at enjoying freedom, but piss-poor at preserving it. These people have already submitted to the dictates of Islam, thus undergoing a preemptive surrender. Europe's philosophical idea of relativism and nihilism has made them vulnerable to the ideology of jihadism. If democracy, the rule of law and human rights haven't any specific quality that make them superior to Sharia law, then there is no need to oppose the assault by the islamic extremists of hate and theocratic dictatorship.

The secular progressive movement in Europe has drained Christian morality from law and the new continental constitution compliments the acceptance of Islamic law. A vacuum has been created in Europe and it is being filled by an ideology and religion that uses Europe's liveral views to promote an illiberal and intolerant belief system.

If Europe wants to continue to prosper, it has no choice but to follow the lead of its avowed target-the U.S. The hopes and fears of the U.S. regarding Islam should be likewise for the Europeans, or we will see in our lifetime a Europe Islamized and returned to the dark ages.

Comments