Government Seizures Part 2

The case of the Body Snatchers was to the working title of this piece. This is the second in my series on the ways in which our government uses its power of seizure to harm its own as well as the world's citizenry. Over the years the Government has gotten good at kidnapping. Don’t believe me? Let’s discuss it a bit. The Federal and State Governments have the ability to “legally” kidnap anyone from anywhere for any reason they dictate. From Child Protective Services taking kids from their parents to profit from foster placement to the federal government’s “decreed” ability to detain anyone from anywhere indefinitely with no reason or charges given.

Child Protective Services

CPS has gotten really good at taking children from their parents for multifarious reasons. Parental rights have taken a backseat to the will of bureaucrats and their henchmen in the Child Protective Services.

 {The Adoption and Safe Families Act, set in motion by President Bill Clinton, offered cash “bonuses” to the states for every child they adopted out of foster care. In order to receive the “adoption incentive bonuses,” local child protective services need more children. They must have merchandise (children) that sells and you must have plenty of them so the buyer can choose. Some counties are known to give a $4,000.00 bonus for each child adopted and an additional $2,000.00 for a “special needs” child. Employees work to keep the federal dollars flowing. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect in 1998, reported that six times as many children died in foster care than in the general public and that once removed to official “safety,” these children are far more likely to suffer abuse, including sexual molestation than in the general population.}- Senator Nancy Schaefer 50th District of Georgia November 16, 2007

This shows that the CPS or DFCS will conduct these seizures in the interest of their own departments. This is a sad state of affairs in this country as well as others around the world. The name of these departments seems to imply that they are enacted on the pretense of being in the interest of the children, innocent and helpless, their name signals these emotions in the general populace but is certainly contradictory to their actions and their records.

NDAA Indefinite detention

The National Defense Appropriations Act has given the Federal Government and its military arm of violence the ability to capture and incarcerate anyone at any time for any reason they dictate. In sections 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 edit the US Congress reinforced this ability by refusing any language to protect American citizens from these seizures. Standing language brought in from previous versions of the bill was unchanged and allows the seizures according to existing US law. Multiple instances of this ability being utilized by the Government have included the cases of Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Brandon Raub. Both of these cases were covered by national and international media agencies, yet no change in policy or even change in attitude in the populace has taken place.

This doesn't just affect US citizens, the abuse of the US government to snatch whoever they want has gone worldwide. The US base in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay has been a cage for these people picked up for various charges around the world. It is used by the US military and other federal agencies as a torture and rendition place outside of the “law” of the US or any other countries borders. As it is a military installation it enjoys complete immunity from Cuba’s laws and seemingly from any other international laws. 

Local Police

As of 2009, the incarceration rate in the United States was 743 per 100,000 or 0.743% of national population. And while the US has only 5% of the world population it houses 25% of worldwide prisoners, costing taxpayers nearly $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditures. Doesn’t really sound like the home of the free, does it?

A contributing factor to United States' spike in the number of prisoners is the War on Drugs, formally initiated by Richard Nixon with the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 and avidly pursued by Ronald Reagan according to a Wikipedia search, and I would have to agree. Also noted is the fact that America has longer sentencing than any other nation. This leads to more people incarcerated for longer periods of time. To add to this are the multitude of ludicrous laws and restrictions we have in the States leading to non-violent “offenders” being placed in cages with violent ones.

Government Seizures Part 1

Did you hear the story of the family who found gold coins worth millions of dollars? Now the government wants their “Fair Share” of it in new taxes, at the top rate no less. This brought to mind the countless ways federal and state government seizes property never belonging to them. From real estate properties, gold and currency, even people, the Government makes it common practice to take what they want and what THEY deem their just deserves. This will be part 1 in a 3 part series on government seizures.

NSA Reforms

The Obama administration stated in January 2014 that the National Security Agency would be getting reforms to protect citizens from the bulk collection of information. The President announced he wanted to end intelligence gathering practices that involved the government storing broad collections of phone and electronic communication data.

Recently Senator Diane Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee accused the CIA of hacking the committee’s computers in a move to silence their opposition to a practice of torture by the CIA. Senator Feinstein was of course dismayed that her personal information could have been at risk for snooping by Federal Officials completely ignoring the fact that the CIA and NSA continue this practice on the citizenry of this country on a daily he underlying issue with the Senator’s argument is, “It is ok to spy on them, but wrong to spy on us.” That is a dangerous notion indeed.

In a bipartisan move Reps. Mike Rogers  and Dutch Ruppersberger , the chairman and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee respectively , said, “the End Bulk Collection Act will ensure the federal government doesn’t retain logs about calls made within the United States. The bill would also ban bulk collection of “electronic communications records” Still allowed under this act is the ability for telephone and cellular phone companies to continue to collect the info, but the federal government would have to request the info from them. This is similar to the FISA 1978 and its secret court system for which the NSA acquired their power to spy on American citizens without their knowledge. In the end your information is still being collected and it can still be obtained by the federal and state governments, this bill is simply sugar to soothe the wounds instead of salt.

The NSA and its information and intelligence collection has come under fire since the most popular whistle blower in history, Edward Snowden, released confidential and top secret information to these programs. Though Snowden wasn’t the first to reveal the details of mass surveillance by the United States Government, that honor belongs to Russ Tice who had in December of 2005 alleged that the NSA was engaged in unlawful and unconstitutional intellegience gathering on the American people via clandestine eavesdropping programs outside the ordinances of FISA and it's secret court.

Former President Jimmy Carter has said recently that he hand writes letters to foreign and domestic leaders because of his fear of the NSA’s power. Now that is ironic since it was under Jimmy Carter that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 was drafted and signed giving the CIA and NSA the power to collect all information from all sources on anyone in the world. The monster he unleashed has grown too large and now even he doesn’t feel safe, so why would anyone else?

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is taking a bit of credit for the recent progress on this matter saying, “I don’t want to take all the credit for ending this, but I think our lawsuit had something to do with bringing the president to the table.”

Paul continues to say that he would still like to see a investigation of the abuse of power by the CIA and NSA saying, “. I favor a select committee like they had in the 1970s, the Church Committee, to look into all of these. There is a certain amount of arrogance here that needs to be checked.”

I wrote previously on the abuses and institutions of the surveillance here and here and I would direct all those interested in the actions and effects of FISA, The Patriot Act and the NSA’s use of intelligence gathering around the world to read Glenn Greenwald’s book  How Would A Patriot Act?

Anarchist, Libertarian or Voluntarist: Why I use one word over another.

 I have been thinking about the meaning of these words and of their reaction in society lately. There seems to me to be a very large majority of people who have a negative connotation to two of them and not so much knowledge of the last. So it is here that I will begin.

What Anarchy is and what it is not.

The vast majority of the public will react negatively to the use of the word anarchy. Through false description and definition imposed on them through government run schools and reinforced by media and social entertainment they have been lead to believe that only bad things could happen in a world with no government. Thunder Dome would become reality in their minds. Would it really though, would they allow that to happen in their presence, would everyone just go around murdering and looting?

Fred Phelps is dead, so why are there people rejoicing?

Fred Phelps the founder of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church has died of natural causes at the age of 84.  I have seen a few friends, acquaintances, news agencies and online writers begin to revel in the death of this man and I have to ask why. Why are we rejoicing in the death of any man, no matter their behavior or actions in their lives? Why would we hold a grudge against someone in their death? Quite a few people have even talked of replicating this man’s behavior by picketing his own funeral. So my question to them would be; for what end? What would be the point of continuing the behavior and hate of this man and his “church”? What purpose does it serve to continue the vitriol of the ilk of Westboro Baptist Church?

My thoughts on this topic began well before the passing of Mr. Phelps and could best be traced to the killing of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. 

Many people rejoiced in the news that these two notorious people had been killed, but I sat wondering why? What joy did they get from the death of a man? What had been gained or lost? What does it say about the mindset of those individuals? Some call themselves strong pro-life believers yet here they are rejoicing in death. It is a strange paradox to me. how can one hold the thought that all life is precious and in the same breath say that a man should die for his actions? 

Mr. Phelps spent some years protesting military service member’s funerals, causing great anguish for the families. So what does it say about those that would do the same for this man. Even the father of a fallen US soldier whose funeral was used in the attacks on gays and military members has said do not give him that satisfaction, do not honor him or his message by falling to his level.

A writer for the Washington Post who had been on the receiving end of the Westboro protests years earlier has left this same message, “Instead, what if those on the receiving end of Phelps’s ideology did the opposite, which is to say, let him go quietly — and without protest — into that good night? Imagine the karma lesson that would be to all those who have supported Westboro Baptist.”

I couldn’t have said it better

Addressing Moral Character

I was reading Lawrence Reeds Are We Good Enough For Liberty and something hit me as a profound thought I have been neglecting for some time. He says, “What those Founders were getting at is the notion that liberty is built upon the ability of a society to govern itself, without government intervention. This ability to self-govern is itself built upon – you guessed it- Individual Character.”

I do think this is an important part of self-governance and self-rule, to hold character that would be not harmful to any other man around you, so that no outside governance would be needed. But that is not how our society is, is it? Most would say no, and most would give plenty of reason why they would believe that, but many would also neglect to mention their own fear of what they would do without some sort of governing body telling them what is right and wrong and punishing them for their own transgressions.

Along these line Jeffrey Tuckers recent article in FEE’s (Foundation for Economic Education) publication The Freeman titled “Against Libertarian Brutalism” has caused a giant storm of backlash on what I see as a quite ironic misunderstanding. Mr. Tucker’s words reflected what I think is seen as a negative to the furtherance of the message of liberty. There are those that would use the idea of freedom to pursue name calling, derogatory messages or bullying in their words. When approached as being mean, insensitive or slightly ignorant in their choice they throw out, “I am free to do it” and right they would be in that aspect, but being right and having moral character enough not to do it are two entirely different things.  There are also those that use their freedom to help others, to further a recognition of what freedom can bring, to educate others that the ugliness we see doesn't have to remain, if only those with virtue and character step forward to the light and to do what needs to be done whether someone I watching or not.

I myself have had this run in on local Facebook forums and pages. Recently a “Leader” of a Young Republicans group began insulting those he disagreed with by calling them “retards” and Paultards”. When I pointed it out to him, and the rest of the silent group, I was attacked as if I was trying to silence him, to restrict his speech, but this was not the case. My point was to get him to understand that the words he has effects and to call anyone by those names is absolutely unacceptable in my eyes. He continued to assault me with constant derogatory names and continued to threaten me. I sent the National Group of the Young Republicans a screenshot of the conversation between him and I and simply stated that it may be of some interest to them that their local representation acts like this. No call for removal, no call to silence, no muting him, just that they should be aware. Apparently they contacted him quite quickly and he increased his assault on the online thread we had begun.  To make this shorter I can say I was removed from this group and it is for the best. It was a good lesson for me that even I had used those exact same words in a derogatory manner before, but I have progressed since then.

I think what counts in the end is to be able to look back and say that you have learned from your behavior, both bad and good, and have made amends to those who hurt, helped those you can and to live a life worth mention in some way to someone.

I think that individual character has a lot to do with individual liberty, and I think that the more people that embrace this idea the better the world can become. Mr. Reed sums it up quite well on the back cover of his book, “Without character, a free society is not just unlikely…. It is impossible.”

And the young will take the mantle of liberty...

This is a letter to the editor of "The Citizen" a newspaper in Peachtree Georgia. It is written by a 15 year old in response to her high schools practice of infringing on inherent rights of individuals. Her understanding of private property rights and the no victim no crime principle is encouraging to me. 

[Editor’s note: The following email is from a 15-year-old freshman girl at McIntosh High School. Although she provided her name and address, we are not printing that information.]

Many students might have and should have signed the “Student Code of Conduct” in the beginning of the year. This “contract” had to be signed for students to attend classes.

Most students, me included, did not read the Code of Conduct. It was just another silly form students had to sign to please the administrators.

As it turns out we should have read the 30-page “rule book.” When I signed my name at the bottom of the green slip of paper, I did not realize I was signing away my basic human and constitutional rights.

I have been told by multiple teachers and upperclassmen, “You’re a freshman, you’ll learn that in high school you have no rights.” I nodded in agreement and thought it was just another made-up stereotype of high school.

Recently I experienced this absolute lack of rights. Only the other day I was out in the hall before school started, showing my friend a picture on my phone. A staff member I didn’t recognize, later identified as [name omitted], approached me and asked for both our phones.

How was I to know she was a teacher? I had never seen her before and she was not wearing a badge, only a name tag.

While my friend handed hers over, I politely declined, stating that it is my private property, which it was. Not only had school not started yet, but she had no valid reason to ask for the phone.

It’s not as if I was showing something explicit (it was my dog) or that my phone was an explosive device. She then asked for my name which I also refused to give. In defense of this, I did not know who she was. When a random stranger approaches you and asks for both your phone and your name, do you just hand it over?

I later find myself with three days of ISS (in-school suspension) for “Insubordination: failure to comply with the directions of a staff member.”

There was no insubordination, only a student acting on the rights she believed she had as not a citizen of the United States but as a human.

In the agenda on the first page it states, “Positive relationships and mutual respect among students and staff enhance student learning.” While I showed respect, I received none from [name omitted]. She behaved as if I had committed a crime when I refused to hand her my phone, when in actuality it was the other way around.

According to [a school official], students are not permitted to have devices out unless supervised by a teacher.

We all know that at least half of the students are always on their phones, yet not all of them are punished. According to administrators this is because there is not a large enough staff to enforce it on every single student.

If you can’t enforce it on all students equally, you should not be picking out certain students. This is a form of bullying, and as I remember McIntosh has an “anti-bullying” policy.

We are also not allowed to have the devices unsupervised since the moment we step foot on campus. I’ll admit, I didn’t know this, but what troubled me most was that McIntosh is the only high school in the county with that rule.

My argument was that I have basic human rights to my own property, and as I was not violating anybody else’s right, there is no room for any type of punishment. [The official] then informs me that as soon as students step foot on campus theoretically they do not have rights.

Again on the first page of the agenda right under the bolded word “Belief Statements,” it states, “Public education is the foundation of a free society.” How is this true if we are treated with no rights whatsoever?

Students are not only bullied by teachers, but also have their rights taken away. Learn from my mistake; logic and human rights will not defend your case against the administration acting like children.

Name withheld at editor’s discretion
Peachtree City, Ga.

Originally published at http://www.thecitizen.com/articles/03-18-2014/freshman-decries-loss-rights

Liberty Quotes.

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            

-Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776

Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America; and a greater perhaps never was, nor will be, decided among men. A resolution was passed without one dissenting colony, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.

-John Adams

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her Americas heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.

-John Quincy Adams

Florida Liberty Summit 2014

This year I will be attending the Florida Liberty Summit.

Speaking at this event will be Dr. Ron Paul, Presidential Historian Doug Wead, Journalist Ben Swann, Campaign for Liberty Chair John Tate, CEO and Founder of  FreedomWorks Matt Kibbe and many more.
It is being held in Orlando Florida the first weekend of April, 4th - 6th.

On Site sponsors include the National Association for Gun Rights, Florida based James Madison Institute, FreedomWoks, Generation Opportunity, The Charles Koch Institute, The Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE), The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, and more.

This is a three day event and tickets can be purchased here.

Join me and the growing numbers of individuals working for liberty.

April 4th-6th in Orlando Florida. You do not want to miss this.

Charles Lindbergh was a Non-Interventionist on foreign policy.

Charles Lindbergh was a Non Interventionist when it came to the foreign policy of the United States. This is a transcript of a speech he gave in Des Moines Iowa on September 11th 1941.

"It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

Let us consider these groups, one at a time. 

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany.

Her geographical position is such that she cannot win the war by the use of aviation alone, regardless of how many planes we send her. Even if America entered the war, it is improbable that the Allied armies could invade Europe and overwhelm the Axis powers. But one thing is certain. If England can draw this country into the war, she can shift to our shoulders a large portion of the responsibility for waging it and for paying its cost.

As you all know, we were left with the debts of the last European war; and unless we are more cautious in the future than we have been in the past, we will be left with the debts of the present case. If it were not for her hope that she can make us responsible for the war financially, as well as militarily, I believe England would have negotiated a peace in Europe many months ago, and be better off for doing so.

England has devoted, and will continue to devote every effort to get us into the war. We know that she spent huge sums of money in this country during the last war in order to involve us. Englishmen have written books about the cleverness of its use.

We know that England is spending great sums of money for propaganda in America during the present war. If we were Englishmen, we would do the same. But our interest is first in America; and as Americans, it is essential for us to realize the effort that British interests are making to draw us into their war. 

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish. 

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. 

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

The Roosevelt administration is the third powerful group which has been carrying this country toward war. Its members have used the war emergency to obtain a third presidential term for the first time in American history. They have used the war to add unlimited billions to a debt which was already the highest we have ever known. And they have just used the war to justify the restriction of congressional power, and the assumption of dictatorial procedures on the part of the president and his appointees.

The power of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the maintenance of a wartime emergency. The prestige of the Roosevelt administration depends upon the success of Great Britain to whom the president attached his political future at a time when most people thought that England and France would easily win the war. The danger of the Roosevelt administration lies in its subterfuge. While its members have promised us peace, they have led us to war heedless of the platform upon which they were elected.

In selecting these three groups as the major agitators for war, I have included only those whose support is essential to the war party. If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement. 

I do not believe that any two of them are powerful enough to carry this country to war without the support of the third. And to these three, as I have said, all other war groups are of secondary importance.

When hostilities commenced in Europe, in 1939, it was realized by these groups that the American people had no intention of entering the war. They knew it would be worse than useless to ask us for a declaration of war at that time. But they believed that this country could be entered into the war in very much the same way we were entered into the last one.

They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing.

There was no difficulty in obtaining billions of dollars for arms under the guise of defending America. Our people stood united on a program of defense. Congress passed appropriation after appropriation for guns and planes and battleships, with the approval of the overwhelming majority of our citizens. That a large portion of these appropriations was to be used to build arms for Europe, we did not learn until later. That was another step.

To use a specific example; in 1939, we were told that we should increase our air corps to a total of 5,000 planes. Congress passed the necessary legislation. A few months later, the administration told us that the United States should have at least 50,000 planes for our national safety. But almost as fast as fighting planes were turned out from our factories, they were sent abroad, although our own air corps was in the utmost need of new equipment; so that today, two years after the start of war, the American army has a few hundred thoroughly modern bombers and fighters--less in fact, than Germany is able to produce in a single month.

Ever since its inception, our arms program has been laid out for the purpose of carrying on the war in Europe, far more than for the purpose of building an adequate defense for America.

Now at the same time we were being prepared for a foreign war, it was necessary, as I have said, to involve us in the war. This was accomplished under that now famous phrase "steps short of war."

England and France would win if the United States would only repeal its arms embargo and sell munitions for cash, we were told. And then [illegible] began, a refrain that marked every step we took toward war for many months--"the best way to defend America and keep out of war." we were told, was "by aiding the Allies."

First, we agreed to sell arms to Europe; next, we agreed to loan arms to Europe; then we agreed to patrol the ocean for Europe; then we occupied a European island in the war zone. Now, we have reached the verge of war.

The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. The greatest armament program in our history is under way.

We have become involved in the war from practically every standpoint except actual shooting. Only the creation of sufficient "incidents" yet remains; and you see the first of these already taking place, according to plan [ill.]-- a plan that was never laid before the American people for their approval. 

Men and women of Iowa; only one thing holds this country from war today. That is the rising opposition of the American people. Our system of democracy and representative government is on test today as it has never been before. We are on the verge of a war in which the only victor would be chaos and prostration.

We are on the verge of a war for which we are still unprepared, and for which no one has offered a feasible plan for victory--a war which cannot be won without sending our soldiers across the ocean to force a landing on a hostile coast against armies stronger than our own.

We are on the verge of war, but it is not yet too late to stay out. It is not too late to show that no amount of money, or propaganda, or patronage can force a free and independent people into war against its will. It is not yet too late to retrieve and to maintain the independent American destiny that our forefathers established in this new world.

The entire future rests upon our shoulders. It depends upon our action, our courage, and our intelligence. If you oppose our intervention in the war, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Help us to organize these meetings; and write to your representatives in Washington. I tell you that the last stronghold of democracy and representative government in this country is in our house of representatives and our senate.

There, we can still make our will known. And if we, the American people, do that, independence and freedom will continue to live among us, and there will be no foreign war."

Source:http://www.charleslindbergh.com/americanfirst/speech.asp

If you like your gold you can keep your gold…Or can you?

Originally Published by and Written for TorchMedia.org

Remember when you were a kid and would find something, you would yell out “Finders Keepers!” Yeah, that doesn't work anymore.

A family in California is finding this out the hard way. The couple found a stash of 8 cans filled with gold coins while on a walk on their property in what is known to Californians as “Gold Country”. For the couple the location truly lives up to its name. The cans contain a total of 1,427 coins dating from the mid to late 19^th century, with face value of $27,000. What is being called The Saddle Ridge Hoard could possibly be “one of the greatest buried treasures ever unearthed in the United States”.

But the story isn't likely to bring tears of joy for very long, as tax experts are claiming the couple could have to claim their finding to the IRS. Another story coming out of this is that these coins may have been part of a series of bank robberies and heists in the California area in the late 1800’s, while a Mint Spokesman, Alan Stump has stated, “We do not have any information linking the Saddle Ridge Hoard coins to any thefts at any United States Mint facility”. He went on to say that all the surviving records from the agency have been retired to the National Archives and Records Administration. This will likely be a long drawn out affair between the couple and the Federal Government

This brings to mind a similar case involving lost gold coins and the government dictating what should be done with them.

In 2003 Joan Langbord and her two grandsons took 10 coins they had found in an inherited safety deposit box to the Philadelphia Mint for authentication. The Mint seized the coins and refused to return them to the Langbord family. The Mint claimed that these coins were removed from their possession illegally. The coins in question are 1933 Saint-Gaudens double eagles and were originally valued at $20 each. After the US abandoned the gold standard, Executive Order 6102 signed by President Roosevelt, a majority of the 445,000 double eagles were melted into gold bars by the Treasury. How they came to be in the possession of the Langbord family is by Joan’s father Israel Swift who had received them from a Mint cashier after the Executive Order was signed and the cashier, not identified, knew they would be destroyed. Israel Swift was a coin collector and dealer in the Philadelphia area.

Skip ahead to 2011, where a jury decided that the coins belonged to the government as they were illegally removed, the family decided to appeal this decision. Hearing the appeal Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the jury’s decision and reasoning.

“This is a case that raises many novel legal questions, including the limits on the government’s power to confiscate property” Says the family’s attorney Barry Berke.

Personally speaking, I see the reasoning of the jury to determine that the coins were removed in a manner not in accordance to law; theft is still theft and should still be treated as such. Though I have my own question, not to harken a certain politician but at this point what difference does it make if the family possesses these coins. Has the government been hurt by this for 70 years now? Have they searched for them or were they just waiting for them to turn up in time?

http://www.torchmedia.org/#!Finders-Keepers-Not-With-the-Federal-Government/c1fud/3DCB42A4-0AE3-433E-942C-C49B92CB5903

Bitcoin News Round-up.

A lot has been going on in the Bitcoin world lately, so let’s recap, review , and organize this for you.

Satoshi Nakamoto has been found! Or has he?

Newsweek may have jumped the gun on their story last week. Reporter Leah McGrath Goodman claimed to have found the inventor of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto.  She claims to have tracked him down to his home just outside of Los Angeles California. Living a humble life in relative solitude, Dorian S. Nakamoto, is this years target. Although the answers given by Dorian Nakamoto leave very little certainty to her claim it was published nonetheless.  Many attempts to put a face to the digital currency have been made since the release of the “Nakamoto Whitepaper” in 2008, all of which have been debunked. This Nakamoto lives a life very much unlike what you would think of someone who holds $400 Million in Bitcoin. This may have been just another attempt to unmask the ghost that is Nakamoto. As the story made its viral way around the internet something very strange happened, Satoshi’s account on the P2P Foundation website where he had introduced the world to Bitcoin, his account has been inactive for years, suddenly there appears this message, “ I am NOT Dorian S. Nakamoto.”

Mt. Gox Implosion.

The largest Bitcoin holding and trading company has vanished long with about 850,000 Bitcoins, worth roughly $474 million. The closing of Mt. Gox is a result of security breaches, bugs, and transaction malleability. It is unknown what has been done with the remaining Bitcoins held by Mt. Gox.  In its wake the US and Japanese governments have started to move on the regulation and taxation of the currency and its profits. Senator Joe Manchin [D] WV has called for the regulation of Bitcoin, and The Federal Reserve has answered. In one of her first acts being the new chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen gave this as her response to Sen. Manchin, “Bitcoin is a payment innovation that’s taking place outside the banking industry. To the best of my knowledge there’s no intersection at all, in any way, between Bitcoin and banks that the Federal Reserve has the ability to supervise and regulate. So the Fed doesn’t have authority to supervise or regulate Bitcoin in anyway,”

Greg Simon, Founding member of The Bitcoin Financial Association says this, “Mt. Gox was a private corporation that was offering financial services, mainly related to bitcoin. The management of that corporation has lost or stolen approximately $400 million worth of client funds.Those funds were in fiat currency and in bitcoin. Bitcoin the protocol did not steal it. Bitcoin itself did not disappear. Management of a corporation lost or stole it.”

This sudden closing has also taken to the internet forums and every financial magazine, website and show has blasted the company as well as the currency itself. Many people feel that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and a mal-investment, and I wouldn’t wholeheartedly disagree with them, though I don’t wholeheartedly agree with them either. Bitcoin is a currency, and like any other currency it is merely a tool for the transferability of wealth and the attainment of goods and services.

Mr. Simon also states, “The problem is not the integrity of digital bitcoin or digital US dollars or digital whatever currency. The problem is the need to centralize trust into humans. Humans are corruptible with power. When we centralize trust and control into humans that creates a risk, a single point of failure in the system. The single point of failure in the case of Mt. Gox was humans.”

And then there is the Suicide…

On February 28th 28-year-old Autumn Radtke, chief executive of First Meta, a Singapore-based virtual-currency exchange, was found dead in her home, a suspected suicide. As yet, nobody knows if her death was related to her business. This is a huge loss for her family, The First Meta Company as well as the entire Bitcoin community.

“Prior to taking the reins at First Meta in 2012, the 28-year-old Radtke had once closely worked with technology giant Apple to bring cloud-computing software to Johns Hopkins University, Los Alamos Labs and the Aerospace Corp., according to her biography. She then took up business development roles at tech start-ups Xfire and Geodelic Systems, according to information on her LinkedIn profile.” Says Javier E. David for CNBC online.

First Meta  “provides a safe & sanctioned place to bring all your virtual assets online or on your mobile devices, enabling you to organize, manage, and easily cash out your virtual assets” according to their website. 

Arizona and the Discrimination Law?

Arizona became a hotspot for news earlier this month due to its highly contested “Religious Freedom Bill” or as the opposition calls it “The Anti-Gay bill” or “The Freedom to Discriminate Bill”. What is Arizona Senate Bill 1062[1]? How does it affect the populace? Is it Constitutional? Is it a way for more people to find an excuse to discriminate? Let’s take a look at it from a view angles and you can make up your own mind.

Is Arizona Senate Bill 1062 Constitutional?

The United States Constitution DOES NOT lay out specific stipulations or protections for the lifestyle choices of individuals. Why Not? The US Constitution is a blanket document, meant to encompass every single person regardless of race, creed, nationality, or preference. The only mention of the separation of creeds is the Commerce clauses in regards to Native American Tribes. The Constitution does however lay out some other protections and stipulations. The 10^th amendment spells out that the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution shall be retained by each individual state, States Rights, but is this issue of state’s rights. Yes and No in my opinion. The Arizona Government should not in any way interfere in the religious or business practices of any individuals or groups. Do they have the power to? Absolutely, that power has been vested to them by the citizens of the state. Constitutionally speaking the entirety of this bill is admissible by the First Amendment , “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is it a discrimination bill?

Kate Kendall [2] of the National Center for Lesbian Rights notes, “It’s a flat out violation of well-established protections against discrimination based on race and gender”.  First let’s define discrimination. Merriam-Webster [3] defines it as: the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people

: the ability to recognize the difference between things that are of good quality and those that are not

: the ability to understand that one thing is different from another thing

The latter 2 definitions sound like decision making or comparative value to me. The first definition is a little more complex. Discrimination due to variances of color, creed, nationality, gender whatever is not new, actually it is very old, and it is part of the human condition. To analyze and value each separate thing or person differently is a matter of unconscious thought and conscious action. The ability to differentiate subjective values is what drives everyday human existence. Red car or blue car? Bagel for breakfast or eggs and toast? This job or that one?  All of these and more are small discriminations or choices based on previous knowledge, experiences or beliefs. Is this to say that actions that lead someone to treat others differently for preferences or uncontrollable circumstances are wrong?  Moral thought is to the individual’s subjective value or relative value; you cannot collect nor legislate morality or popular opinion without discriminating or leaving someone out.

Where does religion come into this?

The bill is being touted by some as “The Religious Freedom Bill” and as it is written it would seem this is the driving force behind its existence.  The bill allows business owners, pastors or any individual to assert religious beliefs when refusing service to gay, lesbian, and transgender people; among others. As written can  this bill can be construed to allow discrimination between faiths, as to say that those of Jewish faith could refuse service to any other practitioners of any opposing religion and vice versa.  Religious Freedom is a cornerstone to this country and to millions of people across it. It has been the foundation for numerous civil cases and appeals since its inauguration into the Constitution. It is an inherent right to be able to practice whichever faith one chooses without hindrance. This bill does not in any way stop that right but furthers the right of refusal based on religious beliefs. As written it would only protect those business owners in court who based on their religious beliefs refused service to someone.

Is this a case of Private Property Rights?

When this story first broke this was my assessment. The right of any property owner to refuse or allow whatever actions to take place on such property is the foundation for private property rights. This bill would allow these business owners to thereby escape from any suit in regards to this refusal of service on the basis of religious right. Is this discrimination? Yes and No. It is the sole decision of the property owners on how to handle their business. If a property owner dislikes tall people and makes a policy to not serve tall people he has reduced his marketable share in the economic sector, this is true of any restriction or regulation placed by business owners, on the other hand government does this without regard to marketable shares to very business with their ever increasing amounts of regulations and red tape politics. Private Property is a key element to a free society and as such should be protected by those who strive for free markets and economic prosperity.

What this bill is not.

In reading this bill and its amendments I have found no reference to gays, lesbians, same sex couples, or any other group of people. I have not seen in its pages any regards to any specific lifestyle choice or even religious choice. It is completely ambiguous in its terminology and meanings and would be highly contested if allowed to pass.

Think about this for a moment.

This bill, which was vetoed by Governor Jan Brewer, was a perfect storm of emotion over logic and fear over reason. Any discrimination that could go on with its passing can still go on after its veto, though the property owners run risk of civil suit if they attempt it. In my mind it is simply a case of property rights and owner’s discretion over religious beliefs or any form of discrimination. But I leave it for you to decide.

[1] http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/arizona-bill-controversy/push-behind-arizona-religious-freedom-law-has-long-history-n38611

[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination

Image Link https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=MyaeCqzn8lHymM&tbnid=bcyM1Fv0GRui9M:&ved=0CAQQjB0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fuptownmagazine.com%2F2014%2F02%2Farizona-governor-vetoes-sb-1062-transcript-remarks%2F&ei=eQ8VU96CJ82fkAeU4YHACQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNFrPthdy52DOPMPN9uPKknaUCaZ1Q&ust=1393975513306556

Other links:

http://m.blogs.christianpost.com/time-for-everything/transcript-of-arizona-state-bill-1062-20253/

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/02/jan-brewer-veto-speech-in-arizona.html

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140227arizona-spotlight-swings-new-bill.html