President Barack Obama outlined a financial plan in his February 24 address to Congress that meshes eerily with the fascist economic plan Benito Mussolini enacted after his ascent to power in Italy before the Second World War. More…
Though the rampant corruption of our leadership class has led to the term â€œpoliticalâ€ being a curse word in nearly any context, â€œplaying politicsâ€ does not preclude someone from being principled. In fact, if sound principles on things like fiscal responsibility and size of government are ever to be translated into political victories, someone is going to have to â€œplay the game.â€ A popular Southern governor – with a voting record that matches Ron Paulâ€™sâ€”might be just the man to talk the talk, and walk the walk.
Maybe it would be better if the government scrapped its present budget entirely, and provoked the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor again. Then we could fight World War II over. Yes, yes, many people would have to die, but the Pentagon could compensate these unfortunates by awarding each of them a posthumous Silver Star, and in a strictly financial sense, this plan would be much cheaper than what the government is doing now. The largest deficit of the war, incurred in fiscal year 1943, was, in todayâ€™s dollarâ€™s, about $546 billion, or less than a third of the deficit the Obama regime (building on the Bush regimeâ€™s proligacy, to be sure) will run this year.
But the hypocrisy â€“ the literally murderous hypocrisy â€“ of claiming that this plan “leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war,” as Obama asserted in his State of the Union speech, is sickening. It does no such thing, and he knows it.
Instead, it entrenches the United States more and more deeply in a “counter-insurgency” war on behalf of whichever clique or faction of sectarian parties in Iraq is most effective in adhering to America’s dominationist agenda in the region. It sends an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions.
This BALLOT is for members and key supporters of the Second Amendment Foundation, so please read my letter very carefully and return it to me as soon as possible.
Supporter Ballot Second Amendment Foundation
Question: Should the Second Amendment Foundation fund a legal challenge to the Chicago gun ban that will incorporate the recent Supreme Court decision that says individual citizens have the right to own a gun for self-defense to all 50 states?
I do not exaggerate when I say this is a very urgent vote for you to cast.
The United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. v. Heller has overturned the ban on handgun ownership in the Nation’s Capital and ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual right.
We immediately filed suit in Federal Court against the Chicago Gun Ban so we can get the Heller ruling applied to all 50 states through 14th Amendment Incorporation. The gun grabbers are fighting our Chicago Gun Ban Suit and are out raising millions of dollars and hiring high-priced, well-connected lawyers to make sure our historic D.C. victory is not applied to all 50 states.
Now we have to defend our gun rights victory and make it permanent.
In the 1930s, Hitler was widely viewed as just another protectionist central planner who recognized the supposed failure of the free market and the need for nationally guided economic development. Proto-Keynesian socialist economist Joan Robinson wrote that "Hitler found a cure against unemployment before Keynes was finished explaining it."
The Articles of Confederation, (formed in 1778,) contained no recognition of slavery. The only words in them, that could be claimed by anybody as recognizing slavery, are the following, in Art. 4, Sec. 1.
“The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and redress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of [*52] trade and commerce, subject to the same duties impositions and restrictions, as the inhabitants thereof respectively.”
There are several reasons why this provision contains no legal recognition of slavery. Continue reading →