Slashdot Mirror

The two parties are working together to make sure no one else gets in and spoils their "party". For example, there is an excellent article describing how the presidential "debates" are controlled to prevent any other parties from gaining traction. They realized that Ross Perot got 90% of his support after the debates, so they created a system to prevent any other parties from being able to join by raising the bar high enough. The "Commission on Presidential Debates" which runs the debates, is totally run by the two parties. In the article, it quotes Walter Cronkite as calling the CPD an "unconscionable fraud".

The "debates" are also very carefully controlled (according to the article) of presenting the appearance of being a debate without actually being a debate, so as to pose no danger to the candidates, and so that important issues can be avoided.

Ron Paul, a current presidential candidate and member of the Republican party, said recently on the Daily Show that he is only a Republican because he couldn't get elected if he were a member of another party. He wrote an essay on how the two-party system disenfranchises voters.

• He opposes the separation of Church and State, and wants a Christian USA as he panders to the religious right.
• He claimed to oppose Roe v Wade because regulating abortion isn't an enumerated federal power. Yet, he has no problem seizing that power to ban D&X abortions. No matter how you feel about D&X, either regulating abortion is a federal power or it isn't. He doesn't care, he just wants to fight abortion however he can.

William Lind, a scholar on the subject of this new style of war, which he calls "4th Generation of Modern Warfare" (to distinguish it from the other 3 common types of military organization: organized battlefield; top-down order-based hierarchic army; and blitzkrieg) as a shortcut for something that is fast-paced, non-centralized, stateless, guerrilla-based, multi-polar and simultaneously global, international and local, says that the best way for one to defend himself from it is by doing two things:

a) Focus inwardly, trying to be on the smallest possible number of 4GW organization target lists. The less people hate you, the better you are;

b) Focus locally, building your defensive strategy on fast deployed forces stationed where they act and, if possible, made up of residents of the area, as well as lowering the dependency each area has on resources deployed from too much away. The more centralized and distant and your military force is, the weaker you are. The more dependent you are on goods and services coming from other cities, states and countries, the weaker you are. (Note that this isn't the same as neglecting a strong and big army. It's more of the way said army is built.)

USA fails on both aspects. It fails "a" miserably by making its presence felt all over the world, thus entering the list of almost everyone. And it fails "b" by encouraging a false sense of security on its population, when it should be making local militias and weapon usage proficiency as much widespread as possible, as well as by having an absolute, complete, all-embracing dependency on foreign natural resources, goods, services and work.

On a 4GW world, this is a recipe for disaster.

• (1) He opposes the separation of church and state and wants a Christian America, he says as he panders to the religious right.
• (2) While he claims that abortion is not a federal matter and thus should be left to the states, he had absolutely no problem seizing the power to Federally outlaw D&X abortions. No matter how you feel about D&X, this is not intellectually honest - either this is a Federal realm or it isn't.

Yes, but the idea is that without government requirements and regulations (and taxes!), it would be so much easier to start a business, create new jobs, and switch jobs that the poor would be better off.

Listen to Ron Paul's ideas on how to help the poor. He really tells the truth-- everyone else just says to raise taxes or lower taxes, but he comes up with actual plans. The Federal Reserve rewards Wall Street at the expense of poor people with inflation.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul334.html
http://youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

While he opposes "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA", he is NOT a protectionist. He favors trade with all nations, and generally opposes protectionist tariffs."

"For example, he opposed CAFTA because it took the power away from Congress to regulate international trade. Check out his speech, CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html. Congressman Paul is an absolute free trader. I wouldn't expect any less of someone whose entrance into politics was the result of a study of economics. His solution to protectionist policies is to decrease taxes and regulations here that make our businesses competitive abroad. To quote the article, "CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body."

Oh I get it, this is debate by quips! Let me provide you with fleshed out explanations.

Abortion: Ron Paul is most definitely pro-life. No question about it. He is against it because he feels that the unborn child is a human being worthy of the same protections as any other. Lest you throw out the old hypocrite canard, he is most definitely against the death penalty as well.

He has made it clear that the abortion is a state matter. So why the vote for partial birth abortion ban at the federal level? Because the current state of affairs HAS made it a federal issue! Ron Paul held his nose while voting for this. Let's say this was assault instead of abortion. Imagine there was a congressional bill banning a particular kind of assault. Would you vote for this bill even though it's properly a state issue? What do you do if you're a strict constitutionalist and fervent anti-assaulter? You hold your nose and vote for it! Just like Ron Paul did with partial birth abortion ban.

Next topic, defense of marriage act: Again, the quick quip rebuttal does no justice to his position. He does not feel that marriage is an institution to propped up and supported by the government. So how does gay marriage fit into this? Because at one level, marriage IS a federal issue. If one state allows homosexual marriages, do other states have to recognize it? That is the question. Ron Paul's answer is no. Individual states can legalize gay marriages all they want, but other states don't have to recognize it. The very link you provide explains this. It also points out that he is dead set against constitutional amendments in this regard.

There is no inconsistancy here. Why does he support the Marriage Protection Act? To "protect each states right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

If more corn is dedicated to Ethanol production, then perhaps this is a reason to stop putting High Fructose Corn Syrup in everything. It's a lousy sweetener, and inhibits leptin secretion, so you don't know when to stop eating. HFCS is one major reason why America is getting fatter.

More at LewRockwell.com

Furthermore, instead of running your mouth, I'd like to ask you to actually visit the first of those links the gp poster provided, scroll down to the bottom, and read the last two bills mentioned there. Explain to me again how this is only caring for oneself?

The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.

The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.

What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.

To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.

Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.

Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.

It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.

Links to good info:

Lowering the Cost of Health Care, Dr. Ron Paul

Free Market Medicine, Dr. Ron Paul

Subsidizing Sickness, Llewellyn Rockwell

The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.

The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.

What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.

To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.

Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.

Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.

It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.

Links to good info:

Lowering the Cost of Health Care, Dr. Ron Paul

Free Market Medicine, Dr. Ron Paul

Subsidizing Sickness, Llewellyn Rockwell

The biggest impediment to a great health care system is, and will always be, regulation. Regulation comes from one monster: the State.

The US had the greatest healthcare system in the world. Then the U.S. Federal State decided to start destroying it, piece by piece, through regulation. After the HMO Act of 1973, healthcare quickly degraded. Instead of removing the regulations, the State decided to make new ones, creating more aggressive monopoly powers (see: AMA), making costs go up (by providing tax relief for corporations and not individuals), and then tossing new entitlements into the system (medicare, medicaid, VA, etc) that made everyone's prices go up.

What's the old adage about insurance? Invite all your friends to dinner, and most will have burgers instead of steak. Agree to split the bill equally, and a few will order steak, but pay less for their share. Eventually, everyone will want steak, and they'll wonder why no one can afford dinner. It is no different with State-forced health care, and State-regulated healthcare.

To fix healthcare, start by dumping your AMA doctors. Ask your doctor if they are affiliated with the AMA, and if they are, walk. Find a great AAPS doctor, and pay them cash (they are MUCH cheaper paying cash than most deductibles with insurance). Start saving a nice nest egg, and then start increasing your deductible as high as you can -- $10,000 or more once your nest egg gets there. Insurance is for detrimental emergencies, not to check out that cough or find out why your nose is running.

Then, lose weight. Watch your carbs (starches and sugars). You'll have little need likely for doctors once you are healthy.

Finally, go the self-employment route. It works, once you have a big savings account, a high deductible, and are truly healthy because you're not another fat American. By being self employed, you can walk away from the monstrosity that is called "employer-sponsored health care." What a farce.

It isn't the market that made healthcare bad, it isn't corruption or greed -- it is your very government, trying to fix mistakes that the State of past generations has slowly caused. Don't spew garbage about the U.K. either, I have a few ex-patriate friends living there who has mentioned how terrible it is.

Links to good info:

Lowering the Cost of Health Care, Dr. Ron Paul

Free Market Medicine, Dr. Ron Paul

Subsidizing Sickness, Llewellyn Rockwell

Also the simple fact that many people like the freedom of being able to actually hold and move around the thing they are looking at.

It's far worse than that. I'd love to repost the information here but it's more efficient to just provide links on America's Debtor Prisons, on The Failing Court System regarding Welfare and Child support. That should get you started.

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more...
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more...
  
  

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more regretfully, see Part II
  
  

I have a real hard time believing scientists/enviro-nazis that have an agenda. Remember how bad Freon and CFCs were? They were going to destroy the ozone layer. Not so much... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html

• Election staff convicted in recount rig in Ohio 2004 presidential election that gave President Bush the electoral votes he needed to defeat Democratic Sen. John Kerry
  
  
• Bush signs landmark executive order increasing White House power over federal agencies
  
  
• Bush's Signing Statement Dictatorship
  
  
• Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant
  
  
• Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
  
  
• US Attorney General Questions the Right to a Fair Trial
  
  
• The White House is replacing U.S. Attorneys throughout the country
  
  
• Attorneys for the District of Columbia argue that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies only to militias, not individuals
  
  
• U.S. citizens to be required "clearance" to leave the United States
  
  
• plenty more, regretfully...
  
  

That's simply wrong. I wish they had, but they haven't. Non-military, discretionary spending under Bush has increased at twice the rate it did under Clinton. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/browne4.html/

Decreased spending on medicine? Does the prescription drug giveaway, the first new entitlement in 40 years, ring a bell?

And besides, when the media / politicians say "cut", they mean "decrease in the rate of interest". I can't recall, in my lifetime, anything being truly cut.

Yes, there has come to be a fairly gaping chasm between "National Security" in the literal sense and "National Security" in the sense that it is now used, which is: "security for the Regime that has overthrown the United States Federal Government and is now committed to holding power by any means necessary".

Why now, then, do we surrender to the government so easily?

Well, you're not the only one asking that question, that's for sure. I think the answer is what I've heard called "Boiling Frog Syndrome". While I see that the term is now being more popularly applied to "environmental issues", I think the concept applies equally well to the problem you're addressing when you say "When will America riot?"

In short,

"if people become acclimated to some policy or state of affairs over a sufficient period of time, they come to accept the policy or state of affairs as normal." -Stephen Yates, The Boiling Frog Syndrome

Of course, I would argue that in the current situation, the frog was stunned [WTC, 2001/09/11] by a sap applied sharply and just behind the ear before being tossed in the pot... i don't know, maybe chloroform is a better analogy, but I think you get the idea, at least...

It doesn't need to be violent, but the suggestion that violence is still possible, that the Government may not be permitted to isolate itself from the First Amendment and our rights to due process. Ten Million in Washington, armed but calm, would probably let them know that this is NOT okay. It really doesn't have to be Congressional heads on pikes.

This is brilliant. Really. I think there may be some infrastructural problems, though - perhaps not insurmountable, but ...

1. When was the last time you were in DC? I was there in early 2006... Do you really think you could get even 10,000, let alone, 10,000,000 armed citizens into the city at the same time? Maybe unarmed, but ... do you trust the police/Army/DHS not to turn arms against citizens who present even such a subtle threat as you describe? Hell, there's probably some law against even standing around in DC, let alone standing around in large groups packing heat. I seem to recall that there was some recent statute against tourists going about in groups larger than 3 people.
2. Who's going to show up? Who has time for all that? Most of the population is too busy trying to pay the bills, and honestly believes that what goes on in "politics" really doesn't affect them in the least...
3. At a minimum, you'll need a good bit of corporate [employer] support to give people a chance to engage in something like you suggest. The problems of work and money faced by the average citizen trying to support a family simply do not allow for things like activism on any level that requires them to take a day off - again, I strongly suspect this is by design...
4. Do you think something like this could be organized without decisive "black ops" action being taken against the organizers? I would like to think so, but ...
5. Remember that, even if you do manage to stage the event, the only thing the other 300-odd million people in the country, and all those in the rest of the world, will know is what gets reported - which will almost certainly have nothing at all to do with the actual reason and cause of the protest. This has been demonstrated over and over in the last 7 years. There's no particular reason to believe this would be any different, and in fact every reason to believe that a) the numbers involved would be staggeringly under-reported, b) the agenda would be characterized as "minor civil unrest", "gang activity", or simply "terrorism" - also, participants will be c

Benjamin Franklin is credited with the invention of "daylight savings time", but it he was only making a joke. Unfortunately, politicians aren't too bright, and someone took Dr. Franklin seriously. It's all been downhill from there.

Read Time Out of Mind for more info.

Small detail : in the US, the capitalists control the government, as well as the sh^H^Hpeople; So, what is this anarcho-capitalism because it has obviously nothing to do with capitalism?

Wrong, in the US, the mercantilists control the government. Capitalists are only concerned with the mutual exchange of labor/currency for the mutual profit of both parties. Capitalists don't use the force of government to mandate THEIR way -- mercantilists do. Our bloodiest war in the US was founded on mercantilists principles, based on the mercantilist viewpoint of dictator Abraham Lincoln.

This page has a table that shows the number of vetoes each president has made (including a surprisingly high number of pocket vetoes). You'll notice that those numbers are quite high amongst some of our more respected presidents of late (Reagan: 78, Eisenhower: 181, Truman: 250, FDR: 635). Of course you said, "presidents aren't likely to use it when it needs to be used", so perhaps the emphasis is on "when it needs to be used". Do you have any examples in mind? (I'm not disputing your point, I just can't say I've paid that much attention to it.)

I certainly hope that the judges hearing the appeal (and the Supremes when it gets to them) have the intestinal fortitude to assert their authority. The problem with this whole case is that the Bush administraation does whatever it wants regardless of the law. A President who had any respect for the Constitution and the rule of law would never have started this program in the first place. The fact that Bush and his co-conspirators have decided to stop this program tells me that they have simply started another one somewhere within the government's huge espionage sector. They are indeed trying to remove themselves and their actions from scrutiny so that they can carry on as they want over in the dark corners of the room.

I have no confidence that Bush will obey any adverse ruling that comes out of this case. After all, to do so would undermine the "unitary executive" theory of government upon which he bases his dictatorial actions. I suspect that, in the back of his little twisted mind, he thinks he's immune to actions by the other branches of government. After all, "How many divisions does the Supreme Court have?" In the final analysis it's only the willingness of each branch of government to abide by decisions made by another that makes our form of government work. With his signing statements Bush has repeatedly demonstrated that only he, as the "unitary executive", will make the determination of how a law is to be interpreted or enforced. The Attorney General has recently stated in Senate hearings that the civil liberties embodied in our Constitution do not apply all the time: http://www.lewrockwell.com/eddlem/eddlem14.html. Given that mindset there is nothing to prevent this President from deciding that he is not subject to rulings of the courts and I'm sure that he will have no problem getting a ruling to that effect from his AG and others in his administration.

This country is facing a Constitutional crisis that makes the Watergate affair pale by comparison. Between a President who believes that he is not bound by the rule of law and willingly believes whatever twisted interpretation of same will allow him to achieve his ends while appearing to act within the law and a Congress whose members have, by and large, stood by while he has shredded most of the Consitution we have arrived at this point. President Bush has been allowed to carry out whatever course of action he wants, be it the suspension of habeus corpus, torture, secret imprisonment, warrantless wiretapping, etc. with nothing of substance being done to stop him. Indeed, the Congress has abetted him by passing such legislation as the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Anti-Torture Act of 2005 (which merely formalized AG Gonzales' interpretation of what constitutes torture, essentially allowing anything short of causing death). All he has had to do is to cloak himself in the flag and claim that Patriotism and a desire to "keep America safe" justify his actions. Congress is as much a part of this travesty as he is and the decision by the new Democratic leadership to "take impeachment off the table" can only have strengthened his view of the correctness of his actions. There is still some hope that our course can be reversed, but doing so will require a concerted effort by the Congress, the Courts, and the People to achieve it. Let's hope that the courts don't let us down and that they allow this suit to go forward. At least it would be a start.

Just my $.02,
Ron

While a government having an army may very well be a given, the US constitution still explicitly enumerates this in Article I section 8.

This explicit grant of authority for a military was necessary because of the way our constitution was intended to be understood (which has long since been discarded) - the government by default has no authority to do anything, and then authority for specific things is explicitly granted by the constitution.

People today like to claim the "general welfare" clause invalidates this interpretation (they don't say it in that way, of course, but that's what they really mean), but that's because there are three things they haven't read, or if they have, they haven't understood: amendment 9, amendment 10, and Federalist 41.

In the unlikely event they have read and understood these things, but still insist the general welfare clause lets the feds do whatever their pet cause may be, what they are really telling you is they are government junkies who have no love of freedom and no respect for their fellow citizens.

See also Stefan Molyneux's The Gun in the Room, Part 1 and Part 2.

While a government having an army may very well be a given, the US constitution still explicitly enumerates this in Article I section 8.

This explicit grant of authority for a military was necessary because of the way our constitution was intended to be understood (which has long since been discarded) - the government by default has no authority to do anything, and then authority for specific things is explicitly granted by the constitution.

People today like to claim the "general welfare" clause invalidates this interpretation (they don't say it in that way, of course, but that's what they really mean), but that's because there are three things they haven't read, or if they have, they haven't understood: amendment 9, amendment 10, and Federalist 41.

In the unlikely event they have read and understood these things, but still insist the general welfare clause lets the feds do whatever their pet cause may be, what they are really telling you is they are government junkies who have no love of freedom and no respect for their fellow citizens.

See also Stefan Molyneux's The Gun in the Room, Part 1 and Part 2.

First a story about a baby, then a suggested book and some links.

"Sally" knew there was something wrong with her second child soon after he was born. Every so often he'd stop breathing, but never when the Medical Doctor was around. The kid was always cranky. One day while Grandma was watching him, he stopped breathing and turned blue, and Grandma called the ambulance. Sally was like, "thank goodness, maybe they'll FINALLY believe me!" The doctor prescribed a "slant board". Every night for about six months she strapped baby to the slant board. Eventually he "grew out" of the respiratory distress, and the slantboard too.

As the years started to go by, the ear infections started to add up. I guess they were almost constant. Eventually they sent him to a specialist, who decided to chop out the tonsils and adenoids. I guess he was 3 years old or so at the time, and the surgery mostly ended the ear infection cycle. The timetable's not mine, so I don't remember when the hole in the eardrum occurred - perhaps it was pre-surgery, perhaps it was post.

Fast forward to 2005. Sally was dating my father. The son had recently been hauled out of school on a stretcher, because one of his friends had introduced him to Tequila. I suggested a course of action a couple times, but they just ignored me. I begged, I pleaded, but as the year went by, nothing was done. I think his weight started to balloon upwards at this time - he's 5'10" or so, and over 300lbs.

At the marriage I told my "stepbrother" that I thought he'd benefit from some CranioSacral Therapy. A month or two later I set him up with a guy whom I'd had some experience with. Took him over, introduced them, left, came back, paid the guy myself. He liked the experience, and has been back several times. As we were driving away, he noted how he hadn't realized how tight he was on the drive over, but what a difference it was now that those layers of tension were gone.

Ear Infections and Respiratory Distress are red-flags indicating that Osteopathic Manipulation would be beneficial. I knew this because my ear infections have cleared up since I started getting worked on a year and a half ago.

In chapter 2 of Andrew Weil's Spontaneous Healing, Dr. Weil talks about meeting Robert Fulford, D.O., and how Dr. Fulford had remarkable success with children's chronic health complaints. Ear infections usually resolved after two or three visits. Hyperactivity and other "behavioral disorders" frequently resolve themselves when abnormal pressures in the brain are taken care of.

My doctor was good friends with Fulford (took over his practice in Ohio, before following him to Arizona), and told me the rest of the story of how Dr. Fulford got dragged out of his Tucson retirement. Dr. Fulford had a pediatrician friend, and one day the friend was losing a baby to respiratory distress. Nothing the pediatrician did made a damn bit of difference. Dr. Fulford was called in. He put his hands on the baby; five minutes later: *poof*, all better.

Dr. Weil witnessed Fulford's remarkable healing touch, and even experienced it himself when his jaw was knocked out of alignment. He tried - begged and pleaded - to get his fellow M.D.s to witness for themselves the Osteopathic difference, but they mostly weren't interested.

See Lew Rockwell's Medical Control, Medical Corruption for a good take on how "medicine" got so fucked up. Summary: Doctors wanted a monopolly to raise their incomes, Rockefellers wanted more business for their pharmaceuticals. AMA lobbied to shut down the private medical schools, Carnegie and Rockefeller "endowed" the remaining medical schools to indoctrinate teh doktors in pharamceutical-based medicine.

100 Years of Medical Robbery and Real Medical Freedom are also good, and get into how insuran

Chapter XII

Mediumship -- Mrs. Leonard (1)

We have seen that one factor in particular seems to encourage the emergence of /psi/. That is faith of some kind in something. Mrs. Curran implicitly believed that Patience Worth was the disembodied spirit she claimed to be. In both the Holland and Willett scripts the purported Myers and his friends insisted that the automatists' belief in their reality immensely increased their powers to communicate. Conversely, hostility and doubt on the part of any one involved, including the investigator, is water to flame, even in the case of straightforward experimental ESP between the living.

Beyond the Reach of Sense: An Inquiry into Extra-Sensory Perception, pg 95 (emphasis added)

Greg: The way you laid the book [Death By Modern Medicine] out is fantastic. You start out Chapter 1 with the title, "Death by Modern Medical Doctors." Tell us more about that?

Carolyn: A certain mentality exists in medicine where medical doctors believe they should have a monopoly on everything to do with a person's health. Anybody who does something other than treatments with drugs or surgery becomes the enemy. This mentality existed long before I became a medical doctor.

The history of modern medicine began in America with a survey that was done by Abraham Flexner. It was called the Flexner Report. Flexner was an educational reformer who was hired by the Carnegie Foundation to survey North American medical schools. Flexner had fallen in love with the German scientific model of education when he visited Berlin in 1906. He began to see this as the way to set up the North American medical education system. The German model was based on science and lab medicine using drugs, science, and treating very, very ill people.

In medical school, doctors are trained in the extremes of medicine (emergency and surgical medicine). But then when they go into practice, 80 percent of the patients have conditions that are lifestyle oriented (aches, pains, fatigue etc...). In medical school, students aren't trained in the area of diet and lifestyle.

Over the past 100 years this mentality has caused medicine to treat normal individuals with abnormal therapies -- drugs and surgeries. To me, that became the basis of the modern medical monopoly and how we have been brainwashed into thinking this is the way it should be and it's not.

I'm a naturopathic doctor as well as a medical doctor. I always held out hope that naturopathic medicine would fill in this gap. ...

-Death by Modern Medicine, emphasis added

Then how does Fox news stay on the air? The hot air emanating from that desk is more speculation and opinion than I've ever seen. In fact, almost all news is opined spin now, so what types of accusations are allowed?

Stop drinking the Kool-aid. This was no better a result than the previous crowd staying in control...

Far from true. You rightly point out that the Democrats present us with new challenges, especially those of us who believe in copyright reform (in some respects they may be worse for that issue). But I'm not a one-issue voter. So here are some others:

• In times like these foreign policy is far more significant an issue than copyright, and the Repubs made a mess of foreign policy.
• Ditto with fiscal policy. We went from 90s 'tax-and-spend' to an entirely new idea: 'spend-and-spend'.
• Think you have privacy rights? The right to an attorney? The right to be charged with a crime if you're detained? Basic constitutional rights have been ignored by the executive branch and then (just a couple weeks ago) rolled back by the legislature. Have you read about the US citizen who was tortured yet?
• Congressional oversight died at some point in 2001. There has been virtually no oversight over the executive branch by the legislature since Clinton left office. During his terms, Congress logged 140 hours testimony into whether he used the White House Christmas card list to help with fundraising. Compare this to 12 hours of testimony into the Abu Ghraib scandal that helped fuel the Iraqi insurgency. Congress issued 1052 subpoenas for testimony during the Clinton years. It has issued 0 to the Bush White House.

The last item on the list is probably the most important. If I could choose between the president doing whatever he'd like without oversight and having a broadcast flag on my TV signal, I'll take the broadcast flag and feel lucky for it.

Ron Paul has written an extensive collection of editorials and essays which can be found at his archive at lewrockwell.com. He's the one politician I actually respect, and typically reasons and expresses his viewpoints extremely well. The above link includes articles covering everything from technology, to economics, to freedom. Highly recommended reading.

And there are many of us who hope he damn well does it again. He's the most sensible politician out there right now. Pragmatic, you might say.

- Sees technology as beneficial when well employed. Fosters it as a result and doesn't push hindering legislation (eg internet tax).
- Sees that guns don't cause crime, people do. Doesn't support gun bans or legislations which simply keep guns out of the hands of upstanding citizens.
- Sees that there is a fundamental issue with immigration more essential than Mexicans simply coming here. Reconsiders the sanity of birthright citizenship.
- He's observed that foreign financial/food/economic aid is often more harmful than helpful (both to us and them), and wants to do away with it.
- And a bunch more.

Basically, he's a straight-up Jeffersonian Constitutionalist. So, if your politics are "left" - socialistic, crippled by misplaced white male guilt, and in support of the "the government is here to help" mentality - or "green" - want to benigate the national security and economic interests in favor of saving trees - you'll likely hate his guts.

Public education is underfunded.

Public schools do not educate, according to reformed schoolteachers like John Gatto and John Holt. If they did, the populace wouldn't take the crap that 'we' do - teh masses would know how to recognize tyranny when it happened, and find a way to circumvent it.

The government is in debt because of the tax "cuts" Bush pushed through.

The government has been in debt for a very long time - Johnson started printing money to pay for Vietnam, and there was no turning back. Clinton only balanced the budget by borrowing money from social security. If the government had to abide by the same accounting standards as corporations, there would have never been a 'surplus', and the current deficits would be much, much worse than the numbers they currently put out.

Our medical and college education costs are out of reach because ... because the government subsidizes college, and has sent all the low-skill jobs (that used to pay well) to Mexico and Asia, and has looked the other way while corporations imported Mexicans for the jobs that couldn't be moved. College has, therefore, become the new highschool diploma, not that the original ever meant anything in the first place...

we're spending our money on things like the War on Drugs(which just makes illegal drugs more expensive)

If not for the war on drugs driving up prices, how could the various black-op agencies finance their nefarious operations? Read something about Clinton being in on cocaine smuggling through Arkansas - seems like a possibility to me...

and the War on Terror(abject failure due to our inability to concentrate on the nation that actually caused the terror).

You are refering to the traitors in the whitehouse, right?

The United States has the lowest tax levels of the Western world. We also have the highest debt and the worst healthcare. There is a connection.

'Highest debt' is because our Feral Government has had free reign to "print" money for its various programs for 35+ years, and no one's had the ability to call them on it. See Ron Paul's The End of Dollar Hegemony.

'Worst healthcare' is because a certain kind of doctor lobbied themselves a monopoly, and the government set the rules such that employers paid their employees' healthcare bills (wage ceilings during WWII led companies to pick up their workers' doctor bills). Medicare was created to pay for retired workers who'd gotten accustomed to the 'health insurance' paradigm, and that program's costs have been spiraling out of control ever since. See 100 Years of Medical Robbery and Real Medical Freedom.

More shenanigans

As an aside the habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln during the civil war so there is precedent for doing this during wartime.

Dunno about about the names of the governors of the countries in question, although according to this list, USA sure does seem to have a military presence in a lot of countries.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

This sort of thing is exactly why I rail against any form of compulsory government.

Democracy has the illusion of liberty without the substance of liberty because you don't have the freedom to make individual choices based on what is best for you. Instead you have only the freedom to lose election after election and forfeit right after right to those that need to satisfy their own sense of moral superiority by declaring that certain things are good for you whether you would choose them or not. Hence, "one size fits all" government.

To the math geeks on this site, I'd point out something that seems very obvious, but evidently isn't because few people have caught on. Let's say there are N issues of importance (Iraq, drug war, taxation, right to self-defense, etc.) and each has a minimum of two possible distinct stances. That puts the number of positions you can take on these issues at *at least* 2^N. Guess what? In a system like we have in the States, you have 2 choices. In a parliamentary system, you realistically have 4 or 5.

Good luck with that democracy thing. When you're interested in true liberty---that is, when you want to understand what "freedom" really means---read the book introduced by its author, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, here and begin to understand why democracy is doomed to fail under any metric measuring individual freedom.

The FDA trying to protect itself through bogus articles? Who would have believed that!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html
Talks about the failure of the FDA

http://www.mises.org/story/1805
Playing God at the FDA

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=56& sortorder=articledate
Dangers of Food Safety

In many cultures, childhood ends at puberty. Thereafter comes adulthood. Call it probationary adulthood if you like, but the person was expected to act like an adult.

Today in the United States, we treat people as children until they're 18/21. In some states they're allowed to stop going to the government school at age 16, other states lock 'em up in the name of "educating" them. Is it any wonder that, as John Gatto points out, many people never really grow up?

Sure, monitor your pre-pubescent kids' instant messaging. But if you want your kids to ever grow up, you'll have to act like you expect them to.

I completely disagree with the notion of federally financed elections. You really want the people who are corrupting the system to have control over who gets the money to enter the system??? They already control ballot access, and access to debates. Does that help the democratic process? I think not.

Additionally, such financing would force me (and you) to fund those we disagree (perhaps vehemently!) with, and that's simply immoral. "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

No, what we really need is a removal of all campaign finance laws, except public disclosure. You support whomever you want to, and I'll support whomever I want to. As long the records are open to be analyzed for corrupting influences and bribery, what's the problem? Plus, correlation does not equate to causation. Who's to say that Senator X voted against a gun ban because the NRA funded him, or that the NRA funded him because of his views against gun bans? That's a tough call. But I think the greater danger is having the politicians funding themselves.

I can see some of the benefits of proportional representation. I also see the benefits in "districted" representation. I'd very much like to see one house in state legislatures be determined proportionally, i.e. ideologically. The other should remain allocated by district, so that everyone is guaranteed someone "close to home" to represent them, too. The US Congress is based on the idea of two houses selected by different processes - states mimicking the bicameral approach but forgetting the other part are missing the point. I also believe the 17th Am. should be repealed, to get back to that objective - I don't think the US House is the place for PR though, we just need to ditch the 17th.

You're right that we are screwed by the two big parties. All the more reason to stop voting for them. Not meaning that we should simply stop voting, but stop voting for them. The truly wasted vote is the one not cast at all, or cast insincerely. If you're from Oregon, that message may sound familiar.

by Robert Blumen

We are living in Brazil. The future as foretold by Terry Gilliam's 1985 rich and multi-layered film masterpiece Brazil is upon us. First released fifteen years ago, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was astonishingly accurate in forecasting political trends. In a previous essay, I examined the film as a critique of socialist central planning. In this piece, I will discuss how Brazil portends Bush's War on Terror.

The world of Brazil shows a totalitarian society in which freedom has been forfeited for a false promise of protection from terrorist attacks. Gilliam shows how the threat of terrorism is manipulated by the state as a means of political control over the population. The threat of terror is created by the internal security police in order to generate public acceptance of totalitarian police powers.

Gilliam's exposition raises some important questions: Is the terror created by the power of the state in the alleged pursuit of terrorism worse than the terrorism itself? And are they really any different?

The ministers of state in Brazil have succeeded in creating a society organized around a continuous response to the threat of terrorism. Random bombings occur regularly. The protagonist Sam and his mother must go through a security check in order to enter a restaurant. And then during their meal a large explosion blows out the back of the dining room; they continue eating while bodies are dragged away.

As in modern America, there is some doubt about whether Brazil's "War on Terrorism" is really working. At the opening of the film Minister Helpmann, the Deputy Minister of information (the internal security agency), appears on TV immediately after a bombing takes place:

• INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?

  HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.

  INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.

  HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.

Now in the US, we are told by the Bush administration that the war on terrorism will become a more or less permanent state of affairs.

• U.S. war may last decades
  Military pushed to think broadly
  By KAREN MASTERSON

  WASHINGTON - The U.S. war on terrorism may rage for decades and has forced Pentagon strategists to think more broadly than they've had to since World War II, a top military official said Sunday.

  "The fact that it could last several years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday on ABC's This Week.

The film has been reissued on DVD with commentary by the director in which he states that it was his intention to convey that there were so many government plants, double agents, agents provocateurs, moles, infiltrators, etc. that at some point even the government did not know for sure whether there were any real terrorists or whether all of the terror was fabricated by the police as part of their anti-terror campaign.

In a conversation between Sam and Ministry of Information office Jack Lint, Lint reveals how he - as a key member of the internal security department - understands the events that are taking place:

• SAM: You don't really think Tuttle and the g

by Robert Blumen

We are living in Brazil. The future as foretold by Terry Gilliam's 1985 rich and multi-layered film masterpiece Brazil is upon us. First released fifteen years ago, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was astonishingly accurate in forecasting political trends. In a previous essay, I examined the film as a critique of socialist central planning. In this piece, I will discuss how Brazil portends Bush's War on Terror.

The world of Brazil shows a totalitarian society in which freedom has been forfeited for a false promise of protection from terrorist attacks. Gilliam shows how the threat of terrorism is manipulated by the state as a means of political control over the population. The threat of terror is created by the internal security police in order to generate public acceptance of totalitarian police powers.

Gilliam's exposition raises some important questions: Is the terror created by the power of the state in the alleged pursuit of terrorism worse than the terrorism itself? And are they really any different?

The ministers of state in Brazil have succeeded in creating a society organized around a continuous response to the threat of terrorism. Random bombings occur regularly. The protagonist Sam and his mother must go through a security check in order to enter a restaurant. And then during their meal a large explosion blows out the back of the dining room; they continue eating while bodies are dragged away.

As in modern America, there is some doubt about whether Brazil's "War on Terrorism" is really working. At the opening of the film Minister Helpmann, the Deputy Minister of information (the internal security agency), appears on TV immediately after a bombing takes place:

• INTERVIEWER: Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?

  HELPMANN: Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we're fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the game.

  INTERVIEWER: But the bombing campaign is now in its thirteenth year.

  HELPMANN: Beginner's luck.

Now in the US, we are told by the Bush administration that the war on terrorism will become a more or less permanent state of affairs.

• U.S. war may last decades
  Military pushed to think broadly
  By KAREN MASTERSON

  WASHINGTON - The U.S. war on terrorism may rage for decades and has forced Pentagon strategists to think more broadly than they've had to since World War II, a top military official said Sunday.

  "The fact that it could last several years, or many years, or maybe our lifetimes would not surprise me," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday on ABC's This Week.

The film has been reissued on DVD with commentary by the director in which he states that it was his intention to convey that there were so many government plants, double agents, agents provocateurs, moles, infiltrators, etc. that at some point even the government did not know for sure whether there were any real terrorists or whether all of the terror was fabricated by the police as part of their anti-terror campaign.

In a conversation between Sam and Ministry of Information office Jack Lint, Lint reveals how he - as a key member of the internal security department - understands the events that are taking place:

• SAM: You don't really think Tuttle and the g

and most of the Arab world is theocratic.

I seriously doubt anyone who is objective can think Israel is an ally of the United States.

The best thing the United States could do in the Middle East for itself is withdraw all support from any nation there.

Protection laws such as minimum wage or ADA were enacted to address the gaps between social responsibility and the free market.