Thursday, 20 June 2013

Consumer Reports IDs The Best Toilet Papers








--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

A Commercial Full Of Men Masturbating








--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

FRANCE: Come one, come all! Islamic Magreb ‘Gasball’ is sure to bring out your inner savage





BareNakedIslam posted: "Can everyone say "multiculturalism?" Not sure what the object of this game is but anyone and everyone can play. You'll need long sticks, several gas canisters, and an AK-47 for the goalie. Balls are optional. Love the announcer's North African tribal chan"

New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM

FRANCE: Come one, come all! Islamic Magreb 'Gasball' is sure to bring out your inner savage

by BareNakedIslam

Can everyone say "multiculturalism?" Not sure what the object of this game is but anyone and everyone can play. You'll need long sticks, several gas canisters, and an AK-47 for the goalie. Balls are optional. Love the announcer's North African tribal chant. H/T Vlad Tepes

Read more of this post

BareNakedIslam | June 18, 2013 at 3:50 am | Categories: Laughing at Islam | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-UNu

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/06/18/france-come-one-come-all-islamic-magreb-gasball-is-sure-to-bring-out-your-inner-savage/




--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: Syria and Egypt Can't Be Fixed

Syria and Egypt Can't Be Fixed
---
don't tell that to the interventionists in our government. They won't believe you.

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:17:56 AM UTC-5, Travis wrote:




PJ Media, June 18, 2013

 

Syria and Egypt Can't Be Fixed

By David P. Goldman (Spengler)

Cross-posted from Asia Times Online.


Syria and Egypt are dying. They were dying before the Syrian civil war broke out and before the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Cairo. Syria has an insoluble civil war and Egypt has an insoluble crisis because they are dying. They are dying because they chose not to do what China did: move the better part of a billion people from rural backwardness to a modern urban economy within a generation. Mexico would have died as well, without the option to send its rural poor – fully one-fifth of its population – to the United States.

It was obvious to anyone who troubled to examine the data that Egypt could not maintain a bottomless pit in its balance of payments, created by a 50% dependency on imported food, not to mention an energy bill fed by subsidies that consumed a quarter of the national budget. It was obvious to Israeli analysts that the Syrian regime's belated attempt to modernize its agricultural sector would create a crisis as hundreds of thousands of displaced farmers gathered in slums on the outskirts of its cities. These facts were in evidence early in 2011 when Hosni Mubarak fell and the Syrian rebellion broke out. Paul Rivlin of Israel's Moshe Dayan Center published a devastating profile of Syria's economic failure in April 2011. [1]

Sometimes countries dig themselves into a hole from which they cannot extricate themselves. Third World dictators typically keep their rural population poor, isolated and illiterate, the better to maintain control. That was the policy of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party from the 1930s, which warehoused the rural poor in Stalin-modeled collective farms called ejidos occupying most of the national territory. That was also the intent of the Arab nationalist dictatorships in Egypt and Syria. The policy worked until it didn't. In Mexico, it stopped working during the debt crisis of the early 1980s, and Mexico's poor became America's problem. In Egypt and Syria, it stopped working in 2011. There is nowhere for Egyptians and Syrians to go.

It is cheap to assuage Western consciences by sending some surplus arms to the Syrian Sunnis. No-one has proposed a way to find the more than US$20 billion a year that Egypt requires to stay afloat. In June 2011, then French president Nicholas Sarkozy talked about a Group of Eight support program of that order of magnitude. No Western (or Gulf State) government, though, is willing to pour that sort of money down an Egyptian sinkhole.

Egypt remains a pre-modern society, with nearly 50% illiteracy, a 30% rate of consanguineal marriage, a 90% rate of female genital mutilation, and an un- or underemployment rate over 40%. Syria has neither enough oil nor water to maintain the bazaar economy dominated by the Assad family.

Both were disasters waiting to happen. Economics, to be sure, set the stage but did not give the cues: Syria's radical Sunnis revolted in part out of enthusiasm for the ascendancy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and partly in fear of Iran's ambition to foster Shi'ite ascendancy in the region.

It took nearly two years for the chattering classes to take stock of Egypt's economic disaster. The New York Times' Thomas Friedman, the benchmark for liberal opinion on foreign policy, gushed like an adolescent about the tech-savvy activists of Tahrir Square in early 2011. Last week he visited a Cairo bakery and watched the Egyptian poor jostling for subsidized bread. Some left hungry. [2] As malnutrition afflicts roughly a quarter of Egyptians in the World Health Organization's estimate, and the Muslim Brotherhood government waits for a bumper wheat crop that never will come, Egypt is slowly dying. Emergency loans from Qatar and Libya slowed the national necrosis but did not stop it.

This background lends an air of absurdity to the present debate over whether the West should arm Syria's Sunni rebels. American hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, to be sure, argue for sending arms to the Sunnis because they think it politically unwise to propose an attack on the Assad regime's master, namely Iran. The Obama administration has agreed to arm the Sunnis because it costs nothing to pre-empt Republican criticism. We have a repetition of the "dumb and dumber"consensus that prevailed during early 2011, when the Republican hawks called for intervention in Libya and the Obama administration obliged. Call it the foreign policy version of the sequel, "Dumb and Dumberer".

Even if the Sunnis could eject the Assad family from Damascus and establish a new government – which I doubt – the best case scenario would be another Egypt: a Muslim Brotherhood government presiding over a collapsed economy and sliding inevitably towards state failure. It is too late even for this kind of arrangement. Equalizing the military position of the two sides will merely increase the body count. The only humane thing to do is to partition the country on the Yugoslav model, but that does not appear to be on the agenda of any government.

Notes:
1. See Israel the winner in the Arab revolts, Asia Times Online, April 12, 2011.
2. Egypt's Perilous Drift, New York Times, June 15, 2013.

 

 

 



__._,_.___





   
__,_._,___


--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Re: War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today’s National Security State

some persons have a peculiar view of the Holocaust
---
the Holocaust? There have been many holocausts.

are we going to try every soldier in history who participates in war crimes or just those who kill jews?

On Thursday, June 20, 2013 10:53:51 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote:

War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today's National Security State
by Charles A. Burris

In the sixty-seven years since the ending of the Second World War it is indeed shocking to find that some persons have a peculiar view of the Holocaust, who believe the systematic mass murder of millions never happened and is a historical hoax.

You'll find this hard to imagine but there are still people in 2013 who hold such ahistorical beliefs. They generally fall into two broad categories: the arrogantly agnostic ("How do you know it happened? You weren't there!) and the willfully ignorant motivated not by objective historical evidence but by a predetermined conclusion based upon prejudicial hatred of Jews which they couch in anti-Semitic or feigned ideological language.

I raise this issue because of its relevance to the case of Edward Snowden and the NSA.

Vocal defenders of the National Security State loudly proclaim that such extra-constitutional intrusions into the privacy of Americans, indeed the whole egregious array of invasive and belligerent actions the State has taken since September 11, 2001, are justified on the grounds of "national security" because we are at total war with Radical Islam and its alleged supporters.

9/11 changed everything.

The rule of law and constitutional safeguards are to be suspended during this national emergency. Everything is to be permitted. Operating outside the norms of previously impermissible conduct has become the new standard operating procedure. The Constitution is not a "suicide pact." Survival of the state is the only thing that counts.

These are precisely the very arguments used by Otto Olendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, and his fellow defendants in their Nuremberg War Crime Trials following World War Two.

The Einsatzgruppen were "special action groups" or SS mobile death squads which accompanied German military forces in the June 22, 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. They systematically butchered over one million persons in this first phase of the Holocaust.

The defendants claimed that they acted under the assumption that the National Socialist Third Reich had been under a state of siege by " Judeo-Bolshevism" since its inception, and that the 1939 preemptive invasion of Poland, the genocidal Holocaust of millions, and all that followed up until May of 1945, were acts of anticipatory self-defense.

These central articles of the Nazi faith were constantly put forth to the German populace by the National Socialist State's propaganda apparatus via every communication media, reinforced by Adolf Hitler (in his book, Mein Kampf), by the NSDAP chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg (in his book, The Myth of the 20th Century), in the widely circulated disinformation hoax, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and in virulent anti-Semitic propaganda films which were mandatory viewing and shown in all German theaters, such as Fritz Hippler's The Eternal Jew.

Here is a pertinent statement from Olendorf's testimony:

I knew the history of communism. From the theory of Lenin and Stalin and from the strategy and tactics of the Bolshevist world revolution, I knew that bolshevism was to let no rules prevail other than those which would further and promote its aim. The practice of bolshevism in the Russian Civil War, in the war with Finland, in the war with Poland, in the occupation of the Baltic countries and Bessarabia, gave us the assurance and certainty that this was not only theory, but that this was carried out in practice, and in the same manner it therefore was to be expected that in this war no other laws would have any validity. This was true for the international conventions which Russia officially denounced to the German Government, as well as the international customs and usages of war, and it was true because according to this same communist ideology the customs and usages could only develop between partners who were on the same ideological basis. Just as the other class is the opponent internally who must be destroyed at all costs, according to the same ideology the other state which does not represent a Bolshevist system is the external opponent who is to be destroyed, just as the class is to be destroyed internally. The rules in this are adjusted according to the state of emergency of the moment. In this respect it was clear to me that in this war against bolshevism the German Reich found itself in a state of war emergency and of self-defense. What measures are to be taken in such a war in order to fight such an opponent on his own ground ­ to determine this could be only a matter to be decided by the supreme leadership which waged this war for the life or death of its people; and which, in my opinion, they certainly believed they waged also for Europe and even more for there was no doubt for us that the Four Year Plan, as well as the events of 1938 and 1939, were nothing else for Hitler but the securing of the point of departure for this war against bolshevism which was considered by him to be inevitable . . . The experiences in Russia showed me once and for all that here the propaganda of Goebbels had not stated the truth clearly enough. I was convinced that this state, which in order to gain its ends internally, had torn many millions from their families; in the process of separating the Kulaks [well-to-do farmers] they took the adult population away three times from rural districts. This state would have even less consideration for a foreign population.

It was obvious that the number of Jews in the general population in Russia, in relation to their number in the higher administration, was very, very small. The prosecution has submitted a report from my Einsatzgruppe to the army. In this report in enclosure No. 2 it explained the situation of Jewry in the Crimea. Unfortunately, this enclosure was not available. It would have shown that in the Crimea, for example, up to 90 percent of the administrative and leading authoritative positions were occupied by Jews. The information service in the same field, conversations with innumerable Ukrainians and Russians and Tartars, and the documents which the prosecution submitted show that this was not only the case in the Crimea. For us it was obvious that Jewry in Bolshevist Russia actually played a disproportionately important role.
Three times I was present during executions. Every time I found the same facts which I considered with great respect, that the Jews who were executed went to their death singing the "International" and hailing Stalin. That the Communist functionaries and the active leaders of the Communists in the occupied area of Russia posed an actual continuous danger for the German occupation the documents of the prosecution have shown.
It was absolutely certain that by these persons the call of Stalin for ruthless partisan warfare would be followed without any reservation. Orally and in written form, the Bolshevists have attested enthusiastically to the fact that this partisan warfare was not only waged by the Communist Party and not only by the Communist functionaries; but as Stalin requested, it was waged by the population, by peasants, by workers, men, women, and children. This same literature is proud of the fact that it was waged with great treachery and cunning which the call of Stalin evoked in order to wage this war successfully. Thus our experiences in Russia were a definite confirmation of the Bolshevist theory and of the practice as we had learned about it before.

This is precisely the same sordid rationale or justification for state terror and repression enunciated by both the Bush and Obama regimes and their apologists.

Simply substitute for "Bolshevist" the words "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Evidently these "associated forces" includes tens of millions of Americans under the PRISM surveillance program of the NSA, or who are listed in the Terrorist Screening Database.

As I strongly supported impeachment procedures against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, I fully support in addition their indictment as war criminals before the respected international tribunal established since Nuremberg for this purpose under international law, the International Criminal Court.

Indictment of Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, John Kerry (as well as other supporters of pre-emptive wars of aggression and crimes against humanity) for aiding and abetting in the commission of war crimes against the Afghan and Iraqi peoples should also be undertaken by these international jurists.

Father of the U. S. Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist Paper Number 47, said that consolidation of legislative, executive and judicial functions into one person or branch of the state was the very definition of tyranny.

The murderous tyrant Barack Obama has continued (and enhanced) the fascist Bush policies of waging aggressive, undeclared and unconstitutional pre-emptive wars abroad, murdering untold numbers in vicious drone attacks.

Via executive orders and presidential kill lists, he has vastly centralized presidential executive authority by claiming the extra-constitutional power not merely to detain citizens without judicial review and legal counsel but to assassinate them.

He supports the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial, or attorney;

He supports the warrantless spying on American citizens, upon their phone calls, emails, financial and medical records;

He has waged an unprecedented war on domestic dissenters and whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Sibel Edmonds, dusting off Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more than double the number of whistleblowers than all prior presidents combined.

And he has draped his dictatorial executive actions with at least as much deadly secrecy, if not more so, than any other presidents in US history (excepting the tyrants Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR).

Actions have consequences. Let these war criminals bear the full weight of their heinous behavior and conduct.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris39.1.html

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Fwd: [I-S] Is Rand Paul’s Love of Ayn Rand a ‘Conspiracy’? -- Daily Intelligencer

Oops


Is Rand Paul's Love of Ayn Rand a 'Conspiracy'?

Military Marks Afghan Withdrawl by Destroying $7 Billion of Its Own Equipment Senators Agree to Complete the Dang Fence
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) (L) waves to the crowd while Jenny Beth Martin (R) introduces the next speaker during a Tea Party rally in front of the U.S. Capitol, June 17, 2013 in Washington, DC. The group Tea Party Patriots hosted the rally to protest against the Internal Revenue Service's targeting Tea Party and grassroots organizations for harassment.

My item on Rand Paul the other day, predictably, went over quite badly in the libertarian community. The Insomniac Libertarian, in an item wonderfully headlined "Obama Quisling Jonathan Chait Smears Rand Paul," complains that my Paul piece "never discloses that [my] wife is an Obama campaign operative." A brief annotated response:

1. I question the relevance of the charge, since Rand Paul is not running against Obama.

2. In point of fact, my wife is not an Obama campaign operative and has never worked for Obama's campaign, or his administration, or volunteered for his campaign, or any campaign, and does not work in politics at all.

3. I question the headline labeling me an "Obama quisling," a construction that implies that I have betrayed Obama, which seems to be the opposite of the Insomniac Libertarian's meaning.

4. For reasons implied by points one through three, I urge the Insomniac Libertarian to familiarize himself with some of the science linking sleep deprivation to impaired brain function.

A more substantive, though still puzzling, retort comes from the Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf, a frequent bĂȘte noire of mine on subjects relating to Ayn Rand and Ron or Rand Paul. Friedersdorf raises two objections to my piece, which traced Rand Paul's odd admission that he is "not a firm believer in democracy" to his advocacy of Randian thought. Friedersdorf first charges that the intellectual connection between Paul and Rand is sheer paranoia:

Chait takes the quote and turns it into a conspiracy … As I read this, I couldn't help but think of Chait as a left-leaning analog to the character in Bob Dylan's "Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues." Those Objectivists were coming around/They were in the air / They were on the Ground/ They wouldn't give me no peace. For two thousand years, critics of unmediated democracy have warned about the masses abusing individuals and minorities. The American system was built from the very beginning to check democratic excesses.

But if Rand Paul distrusts democracy he must've gotten it from Ayn Rand. 

A conspiracy? Am I imagining that Rand Paul has been deeply influenced by Ayn Rand? Paul himself has discussed the deep influence her work had on his own thinking. In college he wrote a series of letters and columns either quoting Rand or knocking off her theories. He used a congressional hearing to describe one of her novels at tedious length. How is this a conspiracy?

Friedersdorf proceeds to argue that Rand is not really very militant anyway:

It's also interesting that Chait regards Rand's formulation as "militant." Let's look at it again. "I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life, or property, or freedom away from him." Does Chait believe that a democratic majority should be able to vote a man's life or freedom away? …

In the political press, it happens again and again: libertarian leaning folks are portrayed as if they're radical, extremist ideologues, even when they're expressing ideas that are widely held by Americans across the political spectrum.

Well, here we come to a deeper disagreement about Ayn Rand. My view of her work is pretty well summarized in a review-essay I wrote in 2009, tying together two new biographies of Rand with some of the Randian strains that were gaining new currency in the GOP. My agenda here is not remotely hidden, but maybe I need to put more cards on the table. I've described her worldview as inverted Marxism — a conception of politics as a fundamental struggle between a producer class and a parasite class.

What I really mean is, I find Rand evil. Friedersdorf's view is certainly far more nuanced and considerably more positive than mine. He's a nice, intelligent person and a good writer, but we're not going to agree on this.

Friedersdorf waves away Rand's (and Rand Paul's) distrust of democracy as the same fears everybody has about democracy. Well, no. Lots of us consider democracy imperfect or vulnerable, but most of us are very firm believers in democracy. Rand viewed the average person with undisguised contempt, and her theories pointed clearly in the direction of cruelty in the pursuit of its fanatical analysis. A seminal scene in Atlas Shrugged described the ideological errors of a series of characters leading up to their violent deaths, epitomizing the fanatical class warfare hatred it's embodied and which inspired Whitaker Chambers to observe, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To the gas chambers — go!'"

Randism has never been tried as the governing philosophy of a country, so it remains conjecture that her theories would inevitably lead to repression if put into practice at a national level. But we do have a record of the extreme repression with which she ran her own cult, which at its height was a kind of totalitarian ministate. You can read her biographies, or at least my review, to get a sense of the mind-blowing repression, abuse, and corruption with which she terrorized her followers.

But the upshot is that I strongly dispute Friedersdorf's premise that Rand's theories are a variant of democracy, any more than Marx's are. In fact, I find the existence of powerful elected officials who praise her theories every bit as disturbing to contemplate as elected officials who praise Marxism. Even if you take care to note some doctrinal differences with Rand, in my view we are talking about a demented, hateful cult leader and intellectual fraud. People who think she had a lot of really good ideas should not be anywhere near power.

Get more: the national interest, politics, rand paul, ayn rand, chaitfeuds, conor friedersdorf Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images


__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

.

__,_._,___

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Trying for Three Lanes of Wealth on a Two-Lane Road


Trying for Three Lanes of Wealth on a Two-Lane Road
JUNE 20, 2013
by BRUCE YANDLE

Have you ever been driving flat out on an interstate highway and suddenly encountered a flock of orange barrels and a "lane closed" sign? I'm sure you have. Or worse, have you ever had that happen with less than an eighth of a tank of gas, expecting to fill up at the next major intersection? Meanwhile, everyone around you is in park.

Now, imagine you've run out of gas while sitting in traffic on that expressway. A Good Samaritan comes along with a Georgia Credit Card (a hose) and another nice guy agrees to give you enough gas to make it to the next exit. You thank both of them, get back into your car and drive to the exit­just making it to a large filling station. But your heart skips a beat when you read the sign: NO GAS. 

If all this has happened to you, I extend sympathy. But I also hasten to tell you that you understand the current U.S. economic predicament.
 
As the next chart tells us, the nation's real GDP growth, must recently running at 2.4 percent and now headed to 1.8 percent, has not broken 3.1 percent­the norm­in years. In fact, we have only broken the long-run average growth one time since 2001. We are operating on a 2 percent highway. One lane is closed. We should be growing at 3 percent.

[]
 
The gap between how much GDP we might be producing on a three-lane highway and how much we are producing with one lane closed is shown next. The potential GDP line is based on an assumed "normal" level of unemployment, something like 5.5 percent, not the 7.6 percent we are experiencing now. Not a pretty picture, is it?
 
[]
 
But it gets worse. We are running on borrowed fuel. As the next chart shows, we have deficits as far as the eye can see. We are borrowing from the Chinese, Japanese, and anyone else who will take our promise to pay. Those happy lenders are funding some of Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Social Security and our other fuel needs.

[]
 
Because of this, transfer payments­the borrowed fuel­continue to keep us moving. We see this in the next chart, which shows U.S. total personal income and, get this, total personal income minus transfer payments. The gap between income and income minus transfer payments gives an indication of how much fuel we are borrowing. Now, not all those transfer payments are coming from dear old Uncle Sam­our lenders. Some of it is coming from earned retirement funds. But, notice how the gap has widened since 2007. That's when the orange barrels showed up.
 
[]
 
But things are getting a bit scary. Recent reports from Social Security trustees tell us that the Medicare cupboard will be bare in 2026. That's just 13 years from now. Social Security will expire in 2033, and Social Security Disability funds, which now support close to 6 percent of the labor force, will be gone in 2016. That's just three years away.
 
We are out of gas, running on borrowed fuel, and running out of that. The music is stopping. We are sequestering. But we are not coming to grips with the closed lane expressway. Instead we are debating whether rich people should pay more taxes and poor people given another boost, somehow confusing tax rates with tax revenue.
 
Consider the next charts. These were produced by Antony Davies, an economist at George Mason University's Mercatus Center. The first chart shows the highest marginal rate for income taxes for many years. Notice how high the highest rate stood in 1954. 90 percent! Then, notice how marginal rates have fallen. As they've dropped, revenues have just gone their merry way. No matter its height, the highest marginal rate has had no effect.
 
[]
 
So why are politicians popping blood vessels over whether or not rich people pay a higher rate than Warren Buffett's secretary? Because the politicians believe those arguments will get votes in the next election. There are far more secretaries than there are Warren Buffetts; if the former believe the latter should struggle more under their tax burdens, there are votes to be had.
 
But why not get serious about increasing revenues by opening up closed lanes in the expressway? Why not have hearings nationwide on how to get the economy running at full speed?  We did that in 1975 when President Gerald Ford faced a tough closed-lane economy. And we got some good answers. So we don't need to do it again.
 
Cut taxes. Reduce the burden of regulation. Get control of the money supply.
 
Yes, Gerald Ford got some answers, but it wasn't until Ronald Reagan came to town that the orange barrels finally came down. And bringing them down wasn't fun.
 
The longer we wait, the more painful it will be. Meanwhile, we will coast along, trying to create three-lane wealth on a two-lane road.
 
[]

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/trying-for-three-lanes-of-wealth-on-a-two-lane-road#ixzz2WmCMV0DP

Replacing the Welfare-Warfare State with a Free Society


Replacing the Welfare-Warfare State with a Free Society
by Jacob G. Hornberger June 20, 2013

The following is a non-verbatim rendition of a talk entitled "Replacing the Welfare-Warfare State with a Free Society" that FFF president Jacob Hornberger delivered to the Fairfax County, Virginia, Young Republicans on June 19, 2013:

Thank you. It's very nice to be here to share ideas on liberty with the Fairfax County Young Republicans.

Everywhere you look, there is a crisis.

Social Security. There isn't a fund, there never has been a fund, and there never will be a fund. The system is busted, bankrupt.

Medicare and Medicaid. Healthcare costs continue to soar. Doctors are retiring early in disgust over the medical system. This program is busted too.

The war on immigrants. A perpetual series of crises. In fact, I thought they told us that that long, expensive Berlin Fence that they were constructing on the U.S.-Mexico border was going to finally bring an end to never-ending immigration crises. Yet, here we are, in the midst of another big crisis.

The war on drugs. Decades of warfare and all we have are the same mantras and the same death, destruction, and ruination of lives. You're too young to realize that the mantras you're hearing today are the same ones that they were using when I was your age. When I went back to my hometown of Laredo, Texas, to practice law, the very first case I handled was a criminal case in federal court involving drugs. The DEA agents and the prosecutors were saying the same things that theirs successors are saying today. It's just one great big federal machine that continues grinding on despite its manifest failure, death, and destruction. How many dead people are there in Mexico now? 60,000 in the last 6 years alone. That's due to the drug war, not drugs.

There's also the terrorist crisis. And the crises in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Torture, assassination, and now the NSA crisis, arising out of the government's attempt to keep us safe –safe from the very threats that the government itself produces with its foreign policy.

And let's not forget the dollar crisis, one in which the Federal Reserve has debased the value of our currency over a period of several decades.

Out of control federal spending. That's a crisis most everyone is aware of.

And there's the debt-ceiling crisis which pops up every few years. The ceiling tells us that too much government debt is a bad thing. Yet, they keep raising the limit and adding to the debt. Their attitude is: Why worry? Just pass it on the young generation. That's you they're talking about.

We're told that all these crises are a normal and essential part of living in America, of living in a free society.

But they're not normal. They are aberrant and bizarre. And they have absolutely nothing to do with a free society.

The question naturally arises: Why do we have all these ongoing crises?

The answer is simple: We live under a governmental system that is rotten to the core. Notice that I didn't say that the people working within the system are rotten. I said that the system itself is rotten.

Consider the role of the federal government in our domestic lives. Its primary role is to take money away from those to whom it belongs and give it to people to whom it does not belong. That's what such welfare-state programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farms subsidies, education grants, food stamps, public housing, and aid to foreign dictators are all about­taking money from those to whom it belongs to give it to those to whom it does not belong.

If I were to do that on a private basis, everyone would recognize the fundamental immorality of my conduct. Suppose I rob everyone in this room and use all of the money to help the poor to get healthcare and an education. Would I be considered a good, compassionate person? On the contrary, I'd be considered a thief. If I pointed out how I had used the money to help the poor, your response would be: "Tell it to the judge at sentencing. You had no right, morally or legally, to take our money and be good with it. You should have used your own money. Or you could have asked us for a donation, a request that we would have the right to decline."

Yet, as soon as the federal government enters the pictures, people's attitudes change. That's because they have come to view the federal government as an idol, one that can magically convert an immoral act into a moral act. The entire welfare state is based on forcibly taking money from those to whom it belongs and giving it to people whom the government feels deserve it more.

And it's all considered to be moral, compassionate, and caring. In fact, Republicans call themselves "compassionate conservatives" for their support of the welfare state. Like liberals, they think that the welfare state reflects what a good, caring, and compassionate society in which we live.

Who are the saints in a welfare state? The IRS agents that terrorize people into paying their taxes? The bureaucrats who distribute the money? The members of Congress who enact the programs? The president, who signs the welfare-state bills into law? The taxpayers? The voters? The citizens?

The answer is: None of the above. Caring and compassion is antithetical to force, and it's force that drives the welfare-state and the taxes that fund it. When people are forced to care for others, care and compassion disappear from the scene. The only genuine meaning of care and compassion is when it comes from the voluntary, willing heart of the individual, not when it comes through the force of government.

That's why Americans are besieged with perpetual crises. They have embraced a system that is antithetical to basic principles of morality and fundamental religious principles. Moreover, they have abandoned the founding principles of America, a country that once rejected such socialist and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, farm subsidies, education grants, aid to dictatorships, immigration controls, drug laws, and economic regulations.

In fact, the term "free enterprise" meant something entirely different to our American ancestors than it does to modern-day Americans. Today's Americans think that "free enterprise" means enterprise that is regulated by the government. Our ancestors understood that the term meant "enterprise that is free of government regulation, control, or taxation."

When you've embraced a rotten governmental system, you're going to reap what you sow. God has created a consistent universe, one in which a bad tree is going to bear bad fruit.

And it doesn't matter one iota how convinced Americans are that all this is "freedom and free enterprise." In fact, one of my favorite parts of going to watch the Washington Nationals is what happens in the third inning or so. Most everyone stands and, with a tear in his eye, reverently sings, "Thank God I'm an American because at least I know I'm free" as they praise the troops for "protecting our freedom" by killing people thousands of miles away from American shores.

It's what might be called the "life of the lie" or "the life of delusion." The plight of the American people is best summed up in the words of the German thinker Johann Goethe, who said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

How can people honestly be considered free when the government has the power to take whatever amount of their income it wants and give it to others? With the income tax, people's income has effectively been nationalized. The government decides how much people are going to be permitted to keep. It's no different from an allowance that a parent gives a child.

Or consider drug laws, perhaps the clearest manifestation of the serf-like existence of the American people. We can all understand why a murderer, robber, or rapist should be punished by the state. But imagine a person quietly sitting in the privacy of his own home drinking booze, smoking cigarettes, smoking dope, snorting cocaine, and injecting heroin. The government wields the authority to bust his door down and punish him for engaging in purely self-destructive behavior. The notion is that he belongs to society. He belongs to the collective. He exists to serve the greater good. He must be fixed so that he can be made to be a healthy and productive member of society.

It would be difficult to find a clearer violation of the principles of freedom than that. Freedom doesn't entail the right to do the correct or responsible thing. It entails the right to do the incorrect or irresponsible thing, so long as it doesn't involve the initiation of force against someone else. When a person can be jailed and punished by the state for engaging in self-destructive behavior, there is no rational way that that can be considered a free society.

And believing that one is free, when it just isn't so, doesn't change reality. It just engenders psychosis. In fact, my hunch is that one of the big reasons why there is such a big drug problem in America is precisely because people honestly believe that they live in a free society. It is so despairing to them that a "free" society entails a bizarre life of perpetual crises that they turn to drugs to escape it.

The warfare state, of course, is no different. We live under a governmental system in which the president, the military, the CIA, and the NSA now wield powers that the greatest dictators in history have wielded. The powers to assassinate people, to indefinitely detain people without due process or trial by jury, to kidnap and rendition people, to torture people, to subject people to LSD experiments, to invade and occupy foreign countries, to support coups in foreign lands, to install, train, maintain, and support brutal dictatorial regimes, to spy on and monitor the activities of people everywhere. In other words, the dark type of things that Americans used to complain that communist or totalitarian regimes were engaged in. It's all become a normal part of American life.

Oh, and it's all considered "freedom" too. "Thank God I'm an American because at least I know I'm free." Praise the troops for defending our "freedom."

Never mind that it's the national- security state itself engenders the threats that they then use as the excuse to "temporarily" deprive us our rights and freedom. They go abroad with their sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, assassinations, regime-change operations, kidnappings, and support of brutal dictatorial pro-U.S. regimes. Then, when victims retaliate with terrorist strikes, U.S. officials cry, "We've been attacked because foreigners love our foreign policy but hate us for our freedom and values." We now have to have "temporary" emergency powers to "keep you safe."

It's one of the oldest rackets in history. Produce the threat and then convince people to surrender their rights and freedoms, "temporarily" of course, all the while convincing them of how tyranny constitutes  freedom when it comes at the hands of their own government that loves them, takes care of them with welfare, and keeps them "safe" from the dangers it produces, all the while convincing people that the Founding Fathers and the Framers were wrong to suggest that the federal government constitutes the biggest threat to the freedom and well-being of the American people.

So, what can be done about all this?

One option is to accept and embrace the welfare-state way of life. Just acknowledge that this is the system that you have been born and raised in and that it is here to stay, as a permanent part of American life. Dream about when you get to be 65 when you can say to yourself, "Finally I get the chance to plunder and loot people in their 20s, just like people in their 60s were doing to me when Jacob Hornberger gave that talk to the Fairfax County Young Republicans some 35 years ago."

You can spend your life, your energy, and your money trying to fix or reform the system. But I think that after 20 or 30 years going down that road, you are going to discover that you have wasted a large part of your life and your money. A rotten system cannot be fixed or reformed. In fact, any reforms inevitably produce new and bigger crises, which then necessitate bigger, more expensive and more intrusive reforms, as we have seen with Social Security, healthcare, immigration, drug laws, and the rest of the welfare-regulatory state.

But if you decide to go down the reform route, at least don't call it "freedom" or "free market approaches," as we often hear proponents of things like school vouchers, Medical IRAs, or Social Security reform plans refer to their proposals.

Think about it like this: Imagine that you were living in 1850 Virginia. I come to you and say, "Slavery is a rotten system." You agree and devote your life to getting a 5-day work week for the slaves, 50-hour work days, and families get to stay together. I say to you: You're doing fine work improving the life of the slaves. But please don't say to me or teach your children that the slaves are now free and living in a free society or that your reforms constitute a "free-market approach" to slavery. What you have done is improve the plight of the slaves, but that is not freedom.

The same applies to efforts to reform the welfare-warfare state. It might, or might not, improve the lives of the American people. But it is not freedom.

Genuine freedom entails a dismantling ­ repeal ­ of the welfare state and the warfare state, including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and the entire national-security state apparatus that was grafted onto our constitutional order without even the semblance of a constitutional amendment. Socialist programs as well as an enormous standing army, a vast military industrial complex, the CIA, and the NSA are antithetical to a genuinely free society.

So, you have another choice ­ to lead America and the world out of the statist muck in which our country and the world is stuck. I'm challenging you to rise to the occasion ­ to join the ranks of people who brought us Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Declaration of Independence, habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, religious liberty, and economic liberty.

People tell you that you are the key to future. I say: You are a key to the present.

No generation can bind you into accepting their particular economic or political system. The older generations have chosen socialism, interventionism, militarism, and imperialism.

That doesn't have to be your choice. You can choose individual liberty, free markets, and a constitutionally limited republic. You can change the system and bring an end to the never-ending crises. You can restore freedom, harmony, prosperity, and normality to the lives of the American people, including your own.

The country and the world are crying out for leadership. The choice is yours.

http://fff.org/2013/06/20/replacing-the-welfare-warfare-state-with-a-free-society/

Re: Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don’t Say Can and Will Be Used Against You

Troubling, to say the least.

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:54 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don't Say Can and Will Be Used Against You
by: Daisy Luther
June 18, 2013

Everyone knows that when building a police state, it's vital to strike a few Constitutional rights off the books.  Now, we can add the right to remain silent to the graveyard of the American justice system.  How can you expect the people to be properly subjugated with all those pesky freedoms that the Bill of Rights blathers on about?

The would-be totalitarians can chalk up another victory, because the Supreme Court has made the decision that if you opt to remain silent, that silence can (and will) be used against you in a court of law.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our right against self-incrimination.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Supreme Court said that unless a person specifically asks for their Fifth Amendment right to remain silence, that your silence can be used as an indication of guilt.  The case was brought to court on  the basis of an unconstitutional prosecution against Genovevo Salinas.  Justice Alito, who has a history of excusing the most disturbing abuses in favor of the government, said,"[Salinas'] Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question. It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

So, the advice to sit there and keep your mouth shut, should you be unfortunate enough to have been accused of committing a crime, is no longer the best option.  If the police fail to read you your Miranda warning, you must explicitly say that you are claiming your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.  In stating that, aren't you, in fact, letting the police know that a crime, has indeed been committed by you?  The right to remain silent is supposed to mean just that – you can refuse to answer questions and your silence will not be used against you.

Justice Breyer said, in his dissent:

"The need to categorize Salinas' silence as based on the Fifth Amendment is supported here by the presence, in full force, of the predicament I discussed earlier, namely that of not forcing Salinas to choose between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence. That need is also supported by the absence of any special reason that the police had to know, with certainty, whether Salinas was, in fact, relying on the Fifth Amendment­such as whether to doubt that there really was a risk of self-incrimination, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951), or whether to grant immunity, see Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 448. Given these circumstances, Salinas' silence was "sufficient to put the [government] on notice of an apparent claim of the privilege." Quinn, supra, at 164. That being so, for reasons similar to those given in Griffin, the Fifth Amendment bars the evidence of silence admitted against Salinas and mentioned by the prosecutor."

In 2001, Ohio vs. Reiner, the Supreme Court ruled that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

Apparently they have changed their minds.

As Justice Breyer said, you must now choose whether to incriminate yourself through speech and incriminate yourself  through silence.  I wasn't there when they wrote it, but I really don't think that "devil and the deep blue sea" decision is what the authors of the Fifth Amendment had in mind.

The "Supreme Court" is a joke.

Yesterday it was announced that they struck down the need to prove your citizenship in order to vote in the United States – all you have to do is say you're an American, and then "poof – here's a ballot!" They have decided again and again in favor of huge, evil corporations like Monsanto. They have decided in favor of Obamacare.  The conflicts of interest within the Supreme Court, large corporations, the banking industry, and the government are so blatant that they don't even bother to defend themselves against accusations of such.

The checks and balances designed to be in place with the three branches of power are all leaning to one side – there is no balance.  We are collapsing into a police state, and the Judicial branch has just tipped us even further into that deep hole. It would be difficult to argue that this destruction of our freedom is not deliberate.

The Justices of the highest court in the land don their robes, they hear these cases, and they destroy the Constitution, amendment by amendment.

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/supreme-court-decides-anything-you-dont-say-can-and-will-be-used-against-you-06182013

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to politicalforum+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don’t Say Can and Will Be Used Against You


Bye-bye 5th Amendment! Supreme Court Decides: Anything You Don't Say Can and Will Be Used Against You
by: Daisy Luther
June 18, 2013

Everyone knows that when building a police state, it's vital to strike a few Constitutional rights off the books.  Now, we can add the right to remain silent to the graveyard of the American justice system.  How can you expect the people to be properly subjugated with all those pesky freedoms that the Bill of Rights blathers on about?

The would-be totalitarians can chalk up another victory, because the Supreme Court has made the decision that if you opt to remain silent, that silence can (and will) be used against you in a court of law.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees our right against self-incrimination.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Supreme Court said that unless a person specifically asks for their Fifth Amendment right to remain silence, that your silence can be used as an indication of guilt.  The case was brought to court on  the basis of an unconstitutional prosecution against Genovevo Salinas.  Justice Alito, who has a history of excusing the most disturbing abuses in favor of the government, said,"[Salinas'] Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in response to the officer's question. It has long been settled that the privilege `generally is not self-executing' and that a witness who desires its protection `must claim it.'"

So, the advice to sit there and keep your mouth shut, should you be unfortunate enough to have been accused of committing a crime, is no longer the best option.  If the police fail to read you your Miranda warning, you must explicitly say that you are claiming your Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate yourself.  In stating that, aren't you, in fact, letting the police know that a crime, has indeed been committed by you?  The right to remain silent is supposed to mean just that – you can refuse to answer questions and your silence will not be used against you.

Justice Breyer said, in his dissent:

"The need to categorize Salinas' silence as based on the Fifth Amendment is supported here by the presence, in full force, of the predicament I discussed earlier, namely that of not forcing Salinas to choose between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence. That need is also supported by the absence of any special reason that the police had to know, with certainty, whether Salinas was, in fact, relying on the Fifth Amendment­such as whether to doubt that there really was a risk of self-incrimination, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951), or whether to grant immunity, see Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 448. Given these circumstances, Salinas' silence was "sufficient to put the [government] on notice of an apparent claim of the privilege." Quinn, supra, at 164. That being so, for reasons similar to those given in Griffin, the Fifth Amendment bars the evidence of silence admitted against Salinas and mentioned by the prosecutor."

In 2001, Ohio vs. Reiner, the Supreme Court ruled that "a witness may have a reasonable fear of prosecution and yet be innocent of any wrongdoing. The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances."

Apparently they have changed their minds.

As Justice Breyer said, you must now choose whether to incriminate yourself through speech and incriminate yourself  through silence.  I wasn't there when they wrote it, but I really don't think that "devil and the deep blue sea" decision is what the authors of the Fifth Amendment had in mind.

The "Supreme Court" is a joke.

Yesterday it was announced that they struck down the need to prove your citizenship in order to vote in the United States – all you have to do is say you're an American, and then "poof – here's a ballot!" They have decided again and again in favor of huge, evil corporations like Monsanto. They have decided in favor of Obamacare.  The conflicts of interest within the Supreme Court, large corporations, the banking industry, and the government are so blatant that they don't even bother to defend themselves against accusations of such.

The checks and balances designed to be in place with the three branches of power are all leaning to one side – there is no balance.  We are collapsing into a police state, and the Judicial branch has just tipped us even further into that deep hole. It would be difficult to argue that this destruction of our freedom is not deliberate.

The Justices of the highest court in the land don their robes, they hear these cases, and they destroy the Constitution, amendment by amendment.

http://www.theorganicprepper.ca/supreme-court-decides-anything-you-dont-say-can-and-will-be-used-against-you-06182013

War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today’s National Security State


War Crimes, the Holocaust, and Today's National Security State
by Charles A. Burris

In the sixty-seven years since the ending of the Second World War it is indeed shocking to find that some persons have a peculiar view of the Holocaust, who believe the systematic mass murder of millions never happened and is a historical hoax.

You'll find this hard to imagine but there are still people in 2013 who hold such ahistorical beliefs. They generally fall into two broad categories: the arrogantly agnostic ("How do you know it happened? You weren't there!) and the willfully ignorant motivated not by objective historical evidence but by a predetermined conclusion based upon prejudicial hatred of Jews which they couch in anti-Semitic or feigned ideological language.

I raise this issue because of its relevance to the case of Edward Snowden and the NSA.

Vocal defenders of the National Security State loudly proclaim that such extra-constitutional intrusions into the privacy of Americans, indeed the whole egregious array of invasive and belligerent actions the State has taken since September 11, 2001, are justified on the grounds of "national security" because we are at total war with Radical Islam and its alleged supporters.

9/11 changed everything.

The rule of law and constitutional safeguards are to be suspended during this national emergency. Everything is to be permitted. Operating outside the norms of previously impermissible conduct has become the new standard operating procedure. The Constitution is not a "suicide pact." Survival of the state is the only thing that counts.

These are precisely the very arguments used by Otto Olendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, and his fellow defendants in their Nuremberg War Crime Trials following World War Two.

The Einsatzgruppen were "special action groups" or SS mobile death squads which accompanied German military forces in the June 22, 1941 invasion of the Soviet Union. They systematically butchered over one million persons in this first phase of the Holocaust.

The defendants claimed that they acted under the assumption that the National Socialist Third Reich had been under a state of siege by " Judeo-Bolshevism" since its inception, and that the 1939 preemptive invasion of Poland, the genocidal Holocaust of millions, and all that followed up until May of 1945, were acts of anticipatory self-defense.

These central articles of the Nazi faith were constantly put forth to the German populace by the National Socialist State's propaganda apparatus via every communication media, reinforced by Adolf Hitler (in his book, Mein Kampf), by the NSDAP chief ideologist Alfred Rosenberg (in his book, The Myth of the 20th Century), in the widely circulated disinformation hoax, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and in virulent anti-Semitic propaganda films which were mandatory viewing and shown in all German theaters, such as Fritz Hippler's The Eternal Jew.

Here is a pertinent statement from Olendorf's testimony:

I knew the history of communism. From the theory of Lenin and Stalin and from the strategy and tactics of the Bolshevist world revolution, I knew that bolshevism was to let no rules prevail other than those which would further and promote its aim. The practice of bolshevism in the Russian Civil War, in the war with Finland, in the war with Poland, in the occupation of the Baltic countries and Bessarabia, gave us the assurance and certainty that this was not only theory, but that this was carried out in practice, and in the same manner it therefore was to be expected that in this war no other laws would have any validity. This was true for the international conventions which Russia officially denounced to the German Government, as well as the international customs and usages of war, and it was true because according to this same communist ideology the customs and usages could only develop between partners who were on the same ideological basis. Just as the other class is the opponent internally who must be destroyed at all costs, according to the same ideology the other state which does not represent a Bolshevist system is the external opponent who is to be destroyed, just as the class is to be destroyed internally. The rules in this are adjusted according to the state of emergency of the moment. In this respect it was clear to me that in this war against bolshevism the German Reich found itself in a state of war emergency and of self-defense. What measures are to be taken in such a war in order to fight such an opponent on his own ground ­ to determine this could be only a matter to be decided by the supreme leadership which waged this war for the life or death of its people; and which, in my opinion, they certainly believed they waged also for Europe and even more for there was no doubt for us that the Four Year Plan, as well as the events of 1938 and 1939, were nothing else for Hitler but the securing of the point of departure for this war against bolshevism which was considered by him to be inevitable . . . The experiences in Russia showed me once and for all that here the propaganda of Goebbels had not stated the truth clearly enough. I was convinced that this state, which in order to gain its ends internally, had torn many millions from their families; in the process of separating the Kulaks [well-to-do farmers] they took the adult population away three times from rural districts. This state would have even less consideration for a foreign population.

It was obvious that the number of Jews in the general population in Russia, in relation to their number in the higher administration, was very, very small. The prosecution has submitted a report from my Einsatzgruppe to the army. In this report in enclosure No. 2 it explained the situation of Jewry in the Crimea. Unfortunately, this enclosure was not available. It would have shown that in the Crimea, for example, up to 90 percent of the administrative and leading authoritative positions were occupied by Jews. The information service in the same field, conversations with innumerable Ukrainians and Russians and Tartars, and the documents which the prosecution submitted show that this was not only the case in the Crimea. For us it was obvious that Jewry in Bolshevist Russia actually played a disproportionately important role.
Three times I was present during executions. Every time I found the same facts which I considered with great respect, that the Jews who were executed went to their death singing the "International" and hailing Stalin. That the Communist functionaries and the active leaders of the Communists in the occupied area of Russia posed an actual continuous danger for the German occupation the documents of the prosecution have shown.
It was absolutely certain that by these persons the call of Stalin for ruthless partisan warfare would be followed without any reservation. Orally and in written form, the Bolshevists have attested enthusiastically to the fact that this partisan warfare was not only waged by the Communist Party and not only by the Communist functionaries; but as Stalin requested, it was waged by the population, by peasants, by workers, men, women, and children. This same literature is proud of the fact that it was waged with great treachery and cunning which the call of Stalin evoked in order to wage this war successfully. Thus our experiences in Russia were a definite confirmation of the Bolshevist theory and of the practice as we had learned about it before.

This is precisely the same sordid rationale or justification for state terror and repression enunciated by both the Bush and Obama regimes and their apologists.

Simply substitute for "Bolshevist" the words "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners." Evidently these "associated forces" includes tens of millions of Americans under the PRISM surveillance program of the NSA, or who are listed in the Terrorist Screening Database.

As I strongly supported impeachment procedures against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, as well as Barack Obama and Joe Biden, I fully support in addition their indictment as war criminals before the respected international tribunal established since Nuremberg for this purpose under international law, the International Criminal Court.

Indictment of Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Lindsey Graham, John Kerry (as well as other supporters of pre-emptive wars of aggression and crimes against humanity) for aiding and abetting in the commission of war crimes against the Afghan and Iraqi peoples should also be undertaken by these international jurists.

Father of the U. S. Constitution, James Madison, in Federalist Paper Number 47, said that consolidation of legislative, executive and judicial functions into one person or branch of the state was the very definition of tyranny.

The murderous tyrant Barack Obama has continued (and enhanced) the fascist Bush policies of waging aggressive, undeclared and unconstitutional pre-emptive wars abroad, murdering untold numbers in vicious drone attacks.

Via executive orders and presidential kill lists, he has vastly centralized presidential executive authority by claiming the extra-constitutional power not merely to detain citizens without judicial review and legal counsel but to assassinate them.

He supports the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial, or attorney;

He supports the warrantless spying on American citizens, upon their phone calls, emails, financial and medical records;

He has waged an unprecedented war on domestic dissenters and whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Sibel Edmonds, dusting off Woodrow Wilson's Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute more than double the number of whistleblowers than all prior presidents combined.

And he has draped his dictatorial executive actions with at least as much deadly secrecy, if not more so, than any other presidents in US history (excepting the tyrants Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR).

Actions have consequences. Let these war criminals bear the full weight of their heinous behavior and conduct.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/burris/burris39.1.html