is filling out his status report.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Scovillez: isn't that what you just did (assume and hate)? We had a saying in 'Nam: if you haven't been here, STFU.
The saying comes from front line troops that learned not to trust anyone pointing a weapon at them, regardless of their age or station in life.
My alias has double meaning; yet no connotative double entendre.
In 1969, I enlisted in The U.S. Army, as a food inspector (my background being Horticulture), in order to bring order to my life, after my mother interfered with an eight year goal of serving in the Peace Corps. Foolishly, I tried to skate by on general knowledge, instead of studying in my training. I was kicked out and had 32 plus months of commitment ahead of me.
My first tour in Viet Nam was with a strak 2/17 of 1st Field Force. I was sent back a month early and was reassigned to Fort Hood in Texas. It was a hellhole beyond a small book description. I decided that Viet Nam was safer and thus volunteered to go back. However, I landed in The 101st Airborne; known as The Screaming Eagles. I was assigned to Firebase Bastogne up north. It was very dangerous place to be. I survived that tour of duty, so the name Eagle Survivor.
Interestingly, it did not end there, as I was in a revolving commune, years later and spent considerable time on an Indian reservation in Princeton, Maine, although where we lived was technically in Waite. I was often called eagle eye or just eagle. Several folks around there said that I was the ultimate survivor.
Okay, probably far more information than you all might have had in mind, but hey: no stitches; no foul!
And the author is ... Donald W. Shorack
http://nbjr.speakupwny.com/
OldPro: I got out while the getting was at its peak a couple of months ago. These stocks with anemic volume drive me nuts.
wall_rus: maybe, just maybe ... society is the way it is today, because folks just are not so independent. Actually, in the American society, especially with the tool of the Internet, it is more possible for every one to be independent than even years earlier. I trust you to mean independent, not self-sufficient.
bleutigredancing: in a constitutional republic, the individual relinquishes a tiny bit of his/her personal liberties to accept a limited government. Those in "power" are to be the servants NOT the masters.
Argh! I just received an email from one of my sisters informing me that I was no longer a wordsmith but a lexophile.
Never mind!
wall_rus: when I truly grasped personal liberty, I wanted to multiple it for others. This brings us back to the individual. Each individual is responsible to explore and reach for their own greatness. Along the way, each must realize their personal weakness and thus partial limitations and form partnerships/alliances with those that have strengths in the area of one's weaknesses.
Each of us are equal as far as our value to be a loving vessel. Yet humans are specialists and that is good and fascinating. We, therefore, need each other to advance each other.
I had a kinesic boy that his own mother virtually gave up on as far as his learning capabilities. Kinesic children (people) need to be physically involved to maximize their learning experience. I was allowed to teach him to read. I removed him from the desk and took his hand and led him to a sofa. I had one arm around him as he sat close to me. A man, who had had a severe accident injury, sat across from us. He could identify with the boy. He was elated to hear the boy being able to read. He applied principles that I taught him to his own learning.
I do not support the "wolf" men. I do support their rights to be wolves.
wall_rus: the quote is but a reflection of one brick of my philosophies. A constitutional republic protects the basic rights of both the wolves and the sheep. The question of the township of wolves or cannibals does not seem to draw answers for the touters of democracy.
Slow starters takes on many forms, but I'll address the most obvious, for me. The marxist concept and plank of public schooling does not advance the slow starter. Having worked with children in a home school environment and tutoring, most were considered "slow." Almost all of these children were kinesic in their primary learning mode. Society relegates them to Ritalin, etal. Public schools refuse to group kinesic children together and let them play and sing. They must sit still and be detached from their primary mode and submit to the assembly line made for the visual and audio mode children. (Lest a reader think that I show favoritism, I am acutely visual in my primary learning mode.)
In a truly free society, the strong, out of voluntary goals, carry the weak, until the weak are then strong. This was done for centuries among quite a diversity of peoples and I often saw it in the parts of Africa that I frequented.
Still I say, let us remove the crutches and my brother shall walk. If he truly can't, then I will carry him. Just don't put a gun to my head and tell me that I have to do it. I'll then be looking to put something against your head.
BTW, you went too overboard with your wolves analogy, as wolves do not horde food. One man's sheep is another's wolf.
The One Lesson
By Henry Hazlitt
Posted on 10/12/2007
[This article is excerpted from Economics in One Lesson.]
Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics, or medicine — the special pleading of selfish interests.
While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.
In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.
In this lies almost the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.
The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn't everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn't every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn't the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn't the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn't the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?
Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: "In the long run we are all dead." And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.
But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.
From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence:
The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today are the result of ignoring this lesson. Those fallacies all stem from one of two central fallacies, or both: that of looking only at the immediate consequences of an act or proposal, and that of looking at the consequences only for a particular group to the neglect of other groups.
It is true, of course, that the opposite error is possible. In considering a policy we ought not to concentrate only on its long-run results to the community as a whole. This is the error often made by the classical economists. It resulted in a certain callousness toward the fate of groups that were immediately hurt by policies or developments which proved to be beneficial on net balance and in the long run.
But comparatively few people today make this error; and those few consist mainly of professional economists. The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the "new" economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole.
The "new" economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a revolutionary advance over the methods of the "classical" or "orthodox" economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long-run effects, they are making the far more serious error. They overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees. Their methods and conclusions are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised to find themselves in accord with 17th-century mercantilism. They fall, in fact, into all the ancient errors (or would, if they were not so inconsistent) that the classical economists, we had hoped, had once for all got rid of.
It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits because it is only "classicism" or "laissez faire" or "capitalist apologetics" or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as effective.
We have stated the nature of the lesson, and of the fallacies that stand in its way, in abstract terms. But the lesson will not be driven home, and the fallacies will continue to go unrecognized, unless both are illustrated by examples. Through these examples we can move from the most elementary problems in economics to the most complex and difficult. Through them we can learn to detect and avoid first the crudest and most palpable fallacies and finally some of the most sophisticated and elusive. To that task we shall now proceed.
The Broken Window
Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker's shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.
Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.
The glazier's gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor's loss of business. No new "employment" has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.
The Blessings of Destruction
So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.
Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see "miracles of production" which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a postwar world made certainly prosperous by an enormous "accumulated" or "backed-up" demand.
It is merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition.
http://www.mises.org/story/2727
Awaiting confirmation of the author ...
"Persons with no desire for self-control, anxious for the security of lives
planned and controlled for them by others, may view with patient resignation
the prevailing trend away from freedom in the United States and in most
other lands. Things are going their way. But anyone who views with alarm the
growing interventionism will want to plan his escape soon. By tomorrow, or
next month, or next year, he might have lost the will - and the capacity -
to be free. The escape route, the path to freedom, lies in self-help,
self-control, self-responsibility, self-reliance, self-improvement. And slow
starters are unlikely to make it."
woofer: actually, you have not articulated this information, in a post, to me, before. Please don't treat me as your enemy. I have always respected your differences with opinions. If I thought your actions were wrong, I dealt with them via email or PM.
1. Any individual that wants to actually work in this nation will automatically create a "living wage" for him or her self, somewhere. This differs greatly from someone that has a job and puts in time. The work incentive that I have always had for folks that work for me is simple: work or get fired. Otherwise, I'm as hands off as anyone could imagine. Some employees took quite a while to get used to it. I was maligned for allowing minors to work for me and paying them more than their parents made. I had a simple piecework system for everyone. Grown men hardly ever grasped it. Women and children were excited. Any unexpected profits, every quarter, was distributed via bonuses to everyone, pro-rated on their hours.
2. I am very anti- organized, cash-register medical system, i.e. The AMA, etal. They are the brokers of eugenics, in this nation, for over 100 years. They are the blood letters of yesteryear. Hitler learned the master race from them and the secret societies. They obtained monopolies to exclude folks like midwives, (from whom, only a few years ago, surgeons learned about the hygiene of scrubbing up first) holistic/wholistic healers and therapies, vitamins, herbs, natural and far more effective cancer cures and preventions, common sense health practices and in lieu of all this foisting vaccines and petrol-based pharmaceuticals upon the populace and doing everything in their power to prevent something like quinine sulphate from ever getting into public hands and sending the FDA dogs to terrorize ginseng growers and sellers as well as aloe purveyors, etc., etc., etc..
If someone, in this nation, wants to be healthy, then it is their personal responsibility to learn about their own bodies and to not trust in the snake oil peddlers and other charlatans. The soap operas were first dedicated to creating the image of super doctor. It is little wonder that Proctor & Gamble were main advertising sponsors. If they want to have health care, then let them get off their fat ass and reclaim our personal liberties, instead of holding a gun to the heads of the working populace and demand that they underwrite some of the profits of the mega insurance companies and the medical establishment. Anything else, places them in the Nazi category, in my book. Statism is statism is statism.
I hold to the brotherhood of man[kind]. I view the hardworking garbage collector, no matter how noble, to be a symptom of a society that is addicted to someone else doing their dirty work for them. I grew up in a rural area and every one took care of his or her personal and/or family garbage. Our family recycled everything before it was fashionable.
Somewhere, along the line, a society needs extraordinary folk to do something that no one else is capable of. To fail to allow them to be remunerated accordingly is a cog of tyranny.
As to "my" board, I see the fruits of my attempts to educate an individual on the actual motives of 9/11: so thanks for the kudos.
So what would you like to further discuss on economics other than the Keynesianism tools of tyranny?
woofer: you continue to dodge the economic issue and you have yet to post any sustainable facts, only innuendo and now you say the discussion is over. Hmmmm, much the same tactic that many 9/11 mythologists adhere to. Is that what you are about? I suggest you rethink this, as you have yet to join the discussion.
Let it also be noted that The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC) and The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) boards are put in place by Wall Street and the owners of The Federal Reserve. The very ones that breached their duty of overseeing the nation's coining of money then created The SEC after The Federal Reserve had done their dirty work with the crashes of the twenties.
Hello? These are realizations of planks of Marx.
bleutigredancing: you open up a lot of avenues that may well make for some interesting discussions.
However, NAFTA never was and never will be about free trade no matter what Drug Rush Limp Wrist may say.
BTW, under my personal philosophy, I advance capitalism as a system of freedom. I do not like the uneven playing field created under American corporations; large or small.
“Corporation: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.” (Ambrose Bierce, Inventor)
It is a paradox that American corporations are anti-business. Yet, most businesses are virtually forced to incorporate due to the severe risk of judiciary branch corruption and frivolous and malicious tort cases.
woofer: ah yes, that simply wonderful source of facts: wikipedia. The statist propaganda machine runs the Hegelian dialectic on all cylinders.
Abuses of a system does not equate a system. I'm for personal liberties, NOT state control over what I do with my resources, including capital.
Actually, within the history of The U.S.A., some of the most excellent events occurred due to the capitalist system. Cars were a product of purely capitalistic thought. The assembly line production of automobiles, as advanced by Henry Ford, caused his workers to have what was considered obscene wages. Across the board prosperity abounded across the nation. Private roads and bridges were built.
Then the Marxist plank of The Federal Reserve brought the nation to bankruptcy in twenty years. The roads and bridges were seized under the guise of public good. The interstate road system caused urban sprawl and enforced social engineering and welfare zones in the inner cities.
The money behind the rape of the capitalist system were all supporters of Marx and used socialism as the favorite tool of monopoly. Whatever abuses you impute to the capitalist system is automatically exponentially expanded by the statist system, in place, since Woodrow Wilson with his alter ego Colonel House came to power. The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. That's a fact Jack.
Blondie: sorry, but here's your definition lesson for today:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] –noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
cap·i·tal·ism (kāp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm)
n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This capitalism
noun
an economic system based on private ownership of capital [ant: socialism]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite This Source - Share This
capitalism
An economic and political system characterized by a free market for goods and services and private control of production and consumption. (Compare socialism and communism.)
[Chapter:] World Politics
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Investopedia - Cite This Source - Share This
Capitalism
An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.
Investopedia Commentary
In such a system, individuals and firms have the right to own and use wealth to earn income and to sell and purchase labor for wages with little or no government control. The function of regulating the economy is then achieved mainly through the operation of market forces where prices and profit dictate where and how resources are used and allocated. The U.S. is a capitalistic system.
Please use a scalpel, instead of a broad brush. The same broad brush is easily applied to socialist regimes, even a not so obvious one as Australia (Yes, Mrs. Survivor will have to get over it.).
wall_rus: Snick! Snick! That's a bit severe. Let's reserve the shrink line for those that justify it all, in the face of massive evidence.
roguedolphin: online polls have demonstrated more accuracy and security than a Diebold polling machine in Ohio.
The fruits of planned opposition:
Connecting more of the dots or why was Drug Rush Limp Wrist so adamant of his support for NAFTA?
Is It “Free Trade” or Something Else?
By: John F. McManus (not verified)
October 15, 2007
When appended to trade, the word “free” brings to mind unencumbered transactions. The term has been applied to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement), and other so-called free-trade pacts that the United States has signed. Almost completely ignored in commentary about these “free trade” agreements is the revealing fact that, while the measures carry the label “free,” they are book-length and chock full of mandates governing the exchange of goods. The NAFTA agreement alone fills over 1,700 pages. If buyers and sellers have to submit to such a massive array of regulations as those found in NAFTA, using the word “free” in the name of this or any similar trade agreement is deliberately misleading.
In fact, NAFTA and other trade agreements like it are polar opposites of genuine free trade. Moreover, free trade is impossible to achieve unless certain conditions are met.
Lewis E. Lloyd’s 1955 book, Tariffs: The Case For Protection, contained a chapter entitled “Free Trade and the Real World.” He listed eight assumptions that would have to be realized if free trade could exist. The first is that taxes must be similar. If only one country’s producers are burdened with heavy taxation, then the element of fairness doesn’t exist.
Similarly, because unnatural advantages can be achieved through currency manipulation, there would be a need for a single monetary system. Then, business laws and business ethics would have to be harmonized. Wage rates among the trading partners would also have to be similar. If freedom were to exist in the international marketplace, Lloyd claimed, migration of workers would have to be allowed. And add to all of this the need to be assured that there would be no military action taken by one nation against any others — a virtual impossibility. Though he never used the term, Lloyd was suggesting what has more recently come to be known as a “level playing field.”
To create these conditions on a worldwide basis, there would have to be global governance — all nations answering to one ruling body, a body with the military power to back up its will. In simple terms, there would be a need for world government.
It becomes obvious that this kind of “free trade” is not in the best interests of Americans who value our unique American liberties under the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, most business leaders prefer that their transactions involve “fair” trade. Yet in November 1993, though NAFTA did not represent fair trade, the House and Senate approved U.S. entry into this pact, and President Clinton signed the measure into law on December 8, 1993.
NAFTA Never Meant to Keep Promises
NAFTA was sold to Congress and the American people with fervent promises that it would stimulate commerce with our neighbor nations, and also that it would create American jobs, curtail illegal immigration, and have no harmful impact on U.S. independence. But the promises were not kept, as millions lost jobs, factories closed, illegal immigration continued, and NAFTA’s judicial panels trumped U.S. court decisions. Yet our political elitists continue to push for new trade agreements similar to NAFTA, and they are doing it for a reason other than helping Americans.
Some internationalist heavyweights did indicate the purpose of the pacts. In the October 1, 1993 edition of the Wall Street Journal, for instance, David Rockefeller (who hardly ever authors a newspaper column) wrote an article wherein he called for “winning the support of the American people, the administration and Congress for NAFTA” because it was needed “to build a true ‘new world’ in the Western Hemisphere.”
Simply put, globalist-minded elitists like Rockefeller have been hard at work to make fundamental changes in how our country is governed. They want all the countries in the Western Hemisphere to knuckle under to a regional government run by unelected bureaucrats of their choosing, similar to the EU’s domination of Europe’s formerly independent nations. These deliberately misnamed “free trade” agreements lure unsuspecting victims into giving up their country’s independence with lying assurances that the only goals are improved commerce, more jobs, etc.
Occasionally the leading minds behind such efforts bare their real intentions. American University Professor Robert Pastor, a champion of what he calls the “North American Community,” wrote a 2004 article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, acknowledging that “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America,” He also wrote that “the European experience with integration has much to teach North American policymakers.”
In Europe, some public officials have acknowledged how they had been deceived. An official of Britain’s United Kingdom Independence Party laments, “The EU was sold to the people as a trading agreement and has turned into a political union which is changing our basic laws and traditions.” Czech President Vaclav Klaus said the EU means “no more sovereign states in Europe.” And early in 2007, Roman Herzog, the former president of Germany, noted with dismay that “84 percent of the legal acts in Germany” now originate at EU headquarters in Brussels. He questioned whether Germany could still “unreservedly be called a parliamentary democracy.” Here in the United States, NAFTA set the stage for these very same consequences.
In addition to the destructive effects listed above, NAFTA mandates that poorly inspected Mexican trucks have free access to all U.S. highways, and it constitutes the real reason that our southern border remains wide open. All of this is designed to bring our nation down and lift Mexico up so that, along with Canada, an eventual merger of the three nations will be far more easily accomplished.
Also, because of NAFTA, the internationalists behind this monstrous scheme deem that they have the “authorization” to proceed toward “integrating” the United States with Mexico and Canada with no further input from Congress. They even launched the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Security and Prosperity Partnership in 2005 as a prelude to a more binding “regional trading group” commonly labeled the North American Union.
Regionalism
The business and political elitists who are guiding this transformation have even admitted that they won’t be content with achieving regional governance, but that their end goal is global governance. In 1995, another of America’s veteran promoters of country-by-country merger spoke at a forum arranged by the Gorbachev Foundation. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the primary architect of David Rockefeller’s globalist Trilateral Commission, told the gathering, “We cannot leap into world government in one quick step. In brief, the precondition for eventual globalization — genuine globalization — is progressive regionalization because thereby we move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.”
Led by President Bush and his top internationalist teammates, the globalists promoting these attacks on our nation’s independence are proceeding without even notifying Congress. No one in either the House or the Senate should stand for such arrogance and destructiveness. Whether Democrat or Republican, all who serve in Congress must be alerted about these plans. Nothing less than the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the freedom of the American people are at stake.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5835
Let us remember than within days of David Rockefeller's public pronouncement, Henry Kissinger was running around; pushing the deal.
Here's more:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5829
Lot's of stuff in the latest The New American dealing with The NAU.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/5807
ishmael: you display an obvious problem with dealing with facts and truth and answering questions. Please refrain from posting to me, as I have no time for those that are intellectually dishonest.
Furthermore, this board is for those that are far more governmentally astute that the typical political pabulum. Seek those out, as that's where you belong.
Susie924: cute one; I'd better update my scorecard.
Susie924: okay you got me stumped with the Extelecom quip.
My post was partially based on my musing of Ann Coulter.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_If_we_took_away_womens_1003.html
Does this mean that she voted for some Dems?
ishmael: I formulate my opinions on a relentless search for truth, not on group think and NOT on propaganda and psychological operations mind bytes.
Simple question:
Do you deny that Truman surrendered US sovereignty to the UN?
Yes_________________ No______________________
If not previously claimed, I hereby assert my trademark on the word: Coulterisms.
This is not to be confused with E. D. Hillisms.
zaq123: resistance and support is based on the market NOT the MMs. The MMs are as legal bookies that try to follow the flow. They get their cut on volume. OTCBBs are always OTCBBs for a reason.
ishmael: the feral gumit has long operated with minus one plank of Marx. You support this m.o. of the status quo. Then you infer someone else is liberal. I find that fascinating.
I don't if all of you are aware of this:
http://www.rescue-us.org/new/node/34
arizona1: Snick! Snick! I think Bobby's in jail in Cuba.
arizona1: Scalia is far removed from Ron Paul. His main thrust would be those that protect the rule of law.
arizona1: well, if you do go to Costa Rica, will you have to change your alias and will you say hello to Robert Vesco?
arizona1: do you remember me arguing against the notion of the dreaded "liberal" media? I refer to them as The ABTT (Anything But The Truth) Networks. They are all statist, in nature. Throughout the years, the "liberals" were the easy ones to ally with against The Con-Con, etc.
The cash-register media doesn't do news, only propaganda. The feral gumit has long been a hybrid of fascism and nazism with hard-core marxism thrown in for measure. It's all statism. We witness Hegelian dialects every day with The ABTT Networks. Virtually all the elected feral officials and hierarchy of the two major parties have long sold out. They are traitors.
BTW, if Lewdy Rudy wanted to really fight terrorism, he would have committed suicide, several years ago.
VegasRage: the hatred by the Republican Party statists almost burst a cork tonight.
Ron Paul breaks it down real simple.
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=m5&from=00&vid=e36c27d0-7240-4171-bd...
Oops! One can't speak truth in The Logic Free Zone and not incur wrath.
woofer: how does that differ from what I posted? The left and right flow of the test has to do with economics.
BTW, the creators of the test support fiat currency, so watch what you step on.
Lunch time, back at you later.
arizona1: there's far more to the abortion debate than you may think and the history of it should be quite an eye openner. But, please let's not get into it on this board. That is not my intent of my appeal.
Having fought in the trenches on The Con-Con battle, I must scream of the dangers to our liberties. If there is not a voter revolution with the likes of a Ron Paul getting in, then women will eventually have NO RIGHTS, of ANY KIND.
The people that yank the puppet strings of this administration and of most of Congress and of the higher courts most definitely have algore as one of their sock puppets.
algore is a faithful think tank boy. That alone should disqualify him and his ilk from any consideration by any of us.
woofer: I don't know how to break this to you, but you closer to a traditional conservative than you may think. You, for the most part, hold to the rule of law and The Constitution.
The liberal/conservative labels are for public consumption and a part of a Hegelian dialectic. Your test showed that you're a near anarchist, like me. We just have to work on your economics, a bit (smirk).
BTW, this is very on topic for this board, given the broader sense of the why of 9/11.
woofer: the "conservatives" are NOT really conservatives; they're a different type of statist. A conservative would be a near anarchist, as myself (remember the test ... Snick! Snick!).
In 1964, The Massive Public Consumption Deception took place. The Democrats, who long displayed a persistent proclivity for bigotry and especially racism, applied Windex and bandages to their image with the Civil Rights Act. Thus throughout The Deep South, the term, yellow dog Democrat, applied beyond the public consumption of the resentment toward The Republican Party as to its history involving The South during and after "Reconstruction." The Republicans were the "champions" of the black community, although not seen as such.
With the population flows of the black community into socially engineered, inner city, welfare zones, their bizarre voter loyalty for The Democrat Party was/is sealed.
Barry Goldwater then "defined" "conservativism." How ironic and telling that this political sway pulled "the Bubba vote" away from LBJ and The Democrat Party since. Within a few years, the Ripon Society infiltrated The Republican Party and pushed socialistic platforms. We all know that the early so-called neo-cons, were avowed socialists. A point to bridge this understanding is that since its governmental infancy, neo-Israel has been a hybrid of Marxism and Nazism with Democratic Socialism as a cover.
It is The ABTT (Anything But The Truth) Networks that sell the populace of candidates' ideologies. Ronnie Ray Gun was a pronounced socialist and very active in socialist causes. Yet, he was magically put forth as a staunch conservative, when he changed his voter registration to Republican and was elected Governor of California. Similar transformations occurred before our eyes with the likes of Opium Poppy Bush and Henry Kissinger. Hen are we Kiss ass jerk was possibly Nelson Rockefeller's lover. I am sorry for going on innuendo here, but he was that close to Nellie for sure. He wept when Nixon won the Republican nomination in '68. Some claimed he also, apart from that fact, hated Tricky Dicky. So imagine the control and puppetry involved during the Nixon administration.
Fast forward to today: Lewdy Rudy is sold as a Republican and Hitlery is sold as a Progressive. Were their respective parties switched, then they would resemble public consumptionism of only a decade ago.
bartermania: the more one is exposed to other cultures the more homogenous one becomes. Having studied public speaking, many years ago, I became aware of my horrid Connecticut "accent." It's one of the great paradoxes: folks from the most educated state speak the worst!!!
Thus on tests like this, I'm quite aware of how I really speak and I will never pronounce the word, aunt, like ant.