The (insurgent) Campaign for Liberty (2008)

The term ‘insurgent’ has been used (and misused) a whole lot since about ten minutes after the officially announced ‘end’ of the Iraq War. Lucky for us, the US Army Special Forces Counterinsurgency Field Manual

(the book that ‘Surgin’ General’ Petraeus is said to have ‘written’ on the subject)

contains, along with tips on how to win friends, subvert democracy and destroy due process in an occupied country, a handy field guide to three main types of insurgency.

One of these, in light of the end of Ron Paul’s Republican presidential bid, and the beginning of his new vehicle for change, The Campaign For Liberty, is pretty interesting;

“Foco Insurgency.

A foco (Spanish word meaning focus or focal point) is a single, armed cell that emerges from hidden strongholds in an atmosphere of disintegrating legitimacy. In theory, this cell is the nucleus around which mass popular support rallies. The insurgents build new institutions and establish control on the basis of that support.”

Except for the “armed” part (The Revolution has always been explicitly peaceful and anti-war) and the “establish control” bit, this essentially describes the new strategy – to establish a core group of liberty-loving people and to have them (democratically) infiltrate the current system so that they will be ready to liberate the masses when the corrupt, incompetent Empire falls flat on its face.

“The insurgents build new institutions and establish control on the basis of that support. For a foco insurgency to succeed, government legitimacy must be near total collapse. Timing is critical. The foco must mature at the same time the government loses legitimacy and before any alternative appears. The most famous foco insurgencies were those led by Castro and Che Guevara.”

Bad role models from a philosophical perspective, for sure, but in terms of strategy pretty relevant.

“The distinguishing characteristics of a foco insurgency are The deliberate avoidance of preparatory organizational work. The rationale is based on the premise that most peasants are intimidated by the authorities and will betray any group that cannot defend itself. ”

This part doesn’t apply, because this revolution is peaceful, democratic, and overt, the ‘counter-insurgency’ strategies to this will be completely ineffective. Unfortunately, many other CI strategies are already in place and are well-advanced;

“Restrictions. Rights on the legality of detention or imprisonment of personnel (for example, habeas corpus) may be temporarily suspended. This measure must be taken as a last resort, since it may provide the insurgents with an effective propaganda theme. PRC [Population & Resources Control] measures can also include curfews or blackouts, travel restrictions, and restricted residential areas such as protected villages or resettlement areas. Registration and pass systems and control of … critical supplies such as weapons, food, and fuel are other PRC measures. Checkpoints, searches, roadblocks; surveillance, censorship, and press control…”

You get the picture.

Apparently ‘Counter-Insurgency’ has become ‘Pre-emptive Counter-Insurgency’.

We have our work cut out for us.

Ron Paul's Speech After New Hampshire Primary

Ron Paul New Hampshire Speech\nMAGNIFICENT. Last time, New Hampshire was such a bitter defeat, this time, an incredible vindication;

\n

Watch Ron Pauls Speech After New Hampshire Primary - YouTube.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d2e4b0ea4e44459757">

Ron Paul New Hampshire Speech MAGNIFICENT. Last time, New Hampshire was such a bitter defeat, this time, an incredible vindication;

Watch Ron Pauls Speech After New Hampshire Primary - YouTube.

What Went Wrong in 2008 On Wall Street

\"...capitalism has been hijacked, and I'm infuriated. For capitalism to work, people who assume risk should reap the rewards of success, but they also must suffer when losses occur.\" ~Leland H. Faust\n In the 2008 implosion, the banks that were bailed out should have been left to go under - their assets stripped and sold, their officers indicted for fraud or driven out into the street, their profits disgorged, they and their children made outcasts, leaving them in the outer darkness,wailing and gnashing their teeth.

\n

This, after all, is the basic moral logic of capitalism - success is rewarded, failure mercilessly punished. And this is EXACTLY what the politicians prevented from happening - all of them, except Ron Paul, who warned about it, and tried to stop it.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d1e4b0ea4e44459752">

"...capitalism has been hijacked, and I'm infuriated. For capitalism to work, people who assume risk should reap the rewards of success, but they also must suffer when losses occur." ~Leland H. Faust In the 2008 implosion, the banks that were bailed out should have been left to go under - their assets stripped and sold, their officers indicted for fraud or driven out into the street, their profits disgorged, they and their children made outcasts, leaving them in the outer darkness,wailing and gnashing their teeth.

This, after all, is the basic moral logic of capitalism - success is rewarded, failure mercilessly punished. And this is EXACTLY what the politicians prevented from happening - all of them, except Ron Paul, who warned about it, and tried to stop it.

Winner of the NH Debate - RON PAUL!

He was strong. He was himself. \u00A0As Leaonard Read used to say, he didn't \"leak\". And ABC re-ran his best lines coming out of the breaks! MAGNIFICENT;
\n
\n","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d1e4b0ea4e4445974a">
He was strong. He was himself.  As Leaonard Read used to say, he didn't "leak". And ABC re-ran his best lines coming out of the breaks! MAGNIFICENT;

Congress Officially "Deplores" Iraqi Torture by US Troops

(5/10/2004)\n

Ugh! Where do I start on this one? The US Congress officially \"deplored\" Iraqi atrocities by a vote of 365 to 50. Am I to believe that they didn't feel a need to actually declare war on Iraq but now feel justified in officially feeling bad over the consequences?

\n

Ron Paul (R-TX), by the way, voted against the resolution on the grounds that it is not one of Congress' enumerated duties so I guess he'll be ridiculed by his democratic challenger this fall for \"condoning\" Iraqi atrocities!

\n

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/votes/?votenum=150&chamber=H&congress=1082&tally=1

\n

I, myself, would like to officially register \"disgust\" at the whole matter.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d0e4b0ea4e4445973f">

(5/10/2004)

Ugh! Where do I start on this one? The US Congress officially "deplored" Iraqi atrocities by a vote of 365 to 50. Am I to believe that they didn't feel a need to actually declare war on Iraq but now feel justified in officially feeling bad over the consequences?

Ron Paul (R-TX), by the way, voted against the resolution on the grounds that it is not one of Congress' enumerated duties so I guess he'll be ridiculed by his democratic challenger this fall for "condoning" Iraqi atrocities!

http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/votes/?votenum=150&chamber=H&congress=1082&tally=1

I, myself, would like to officially register "disgust" at the whole matter.

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement!

\"\"\nA guy named Lloyd J. Hart proposes a list of DEMANDS the Occupy Wall St. protestors might make, assuming they succeed at, well, I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to accomplish, though I sympathize with the impulse. The demands are listed here. Iam going to take the bait and critique each demand;

\n

\nDemand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending \"Freetrade\" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

\n

This is actually two or three demands, as far as I can tell. The first demand, a high, protectionist tarriff, has an easy answer - Mr. Smoot, meet Mr. Hawley ( from the US State Department website); \"U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.\" Also a $20 minimum wage, which will have the immediate effect of rendering everyone whose marginal revenue product is less than $20 unemployed and unemployable forever, or at least as long as it takes for the stupidity of said law to become grotesquely apparent.

\n

\nDemand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

\n

Actually, the only effect medical insurance would have in a completely free market for medical care is that people who have uncertainty about the likelihood of future major medical medical expenses purchase inexpensive catastrophic coverage, and the provider of said coverage makes a profit. Otherwise, everyone else enjoys cheap, freely-available healthcare, unburdened by the awful AMA and FDA.

\n

\nDemand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.\n

\n

Extends demand 1A to people who cannot or will not produce a marginal revenue product at all. As if subsidizing unemployment has ever done anything but create more of it.

\n

\nDemand four: Free college education.

\n

Already done. You can get the very best college education imaginable completely free ,well, almost. You have to have a computer and an internet connection to access MIT's entire curriculum for free, on line. Beats the hell out of spending $250,000, and six years at a shitty state school, drinking beer and hooking up, doesn't it?

\n

\nDemand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

\n

Already well underway. The rise in price of fossil fuels (when you tease out Fed inflation) is moving slowly and steadily upward. Or, at least it would be without massive government subsidies to fossil fuel industries such as pollution permits, tax policy, and direct military intervention. Nuclear power has an even worse government subsidy regime. And as for current alternative energy policies, they only serve to subsidize old tech, are economically dubious at best, or, as in the case of Solyndra, ethanol, and other boondoggles cross the line into criminality and fraud.

\n

\nDemand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.\n

\n

Again, mostly done. the Obama Stimulus spent, what, $750 billion on exactly that. And as you can see, all of our pressing infrastructure needs are completely resolved.

\n

\nDemand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.\n

\n

7a) Give all federal lands back to nature and allow anyone to homestead them. 7b) End the TVA and BPA, here and all other monstrous Federal Dam authorities. 7c) End Price-Anderson, The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and all state Public Utility Commissions, and make the contractors who built them and the companies that run them fully liable for any damage to persons or property.

\n

\nDemand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.\n

\n

8a) Done, see the 13th amendment. 8b) Tried that, almost passed until women realized what a raw deal it was for them.

\n

\nDemand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.\n

\n

Easy enough. End the Drug War and the Welfare state, or at least put a time threshold on collecting benefits, say 5 years. Then an open border would be welfare-neutral. Small side-effect though - immigrants will work you out of a job, kinda neutralizes Demand 1A.

\n

\nDemand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.\n

\n

Not sure how this helps, when there is no real choice in US elections, but OK, I'll give you that one.

\n

\nDemand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the \"Books.\" World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the \"Books.\" And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

\n

11a) Forgiveness of sovereign debt - Well, finally a demand we wholeheartedly agree with! I didn't consent to any politician running up a debt, I damn sure don't want me, my children, or my great-great-great-great grandchildren held responsible to pay for Bush's and Obama's wars; 11b)Commercial loans already have a forgivenness provision, it's called BANKRUPTCY; 11c) Ditto for individuals; 11d) I told you you can get a college education for free, why the hell did you take out crushing loans?; 11e) See 11a); 11f) Are you sh!tting me? Letting the BANKS out of their obligations? They have already been bailed out tho the tune of $TRILLIONS. You sound like a corporatist! I assume this was an oversight.

\n

\nDemand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.\n

\n

Tough to do, we do have a thing called the First Amendment.

\n

\nDemand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.\n

\n

DONE. Any worker can sign any paper at any time now. Oh, you mean then that an employer has to recognize said paper as a legal binding obligation on him under penalty of law! Um, that's going to be difficult to do. There are a lot of unemployed people already who will not likely favor this idea once it becomes apparent that this will make unemployment worse.

\n

\nThese demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.\n

\n

A complete non-sequitur, but OK, let's see how it pans out.

\n

But come on, people, where is the radicalism? Where are the demands to End the Wars, End the Drug War, and End the Federal Reserve? Too busy grabbing socialist loot I guess.

\n

That's OK - Ron Paul has got you covered.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5d0e4b0ea4e4445972d">

A guy named Lloyd J. Hart proposes a list of DEMANDS the Occupy Wall St. protestors might make, assuming they succeed at, well, I'm not exactly sure what they are trying to accomplish, though I sympathize with the impulse. The demands are listed here. Iam going to take the bait and critique each demand;

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

This is actually two or three demands, as far as I can tell. The first demand, a high, protectionist tarriff, has an easy answer - Mr. Smoot, meet Mr. Hawley ( from the US State Department website); "U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934." Also a $20 minimum wage, which will have the immediate effect of rendering everyone whose marginal revenue product is less than $20 unemployed and unemployable forever, or at least as long as it takes for the stupidity of said law to become grotesquely apparent.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Actually, the only effect medical insurance would have in a completely free market for medical care is that people who have uncertainty about the likelihood of future major medical medical expenses purchase inexpensive catastrophic coverage, and the provider of said coverage makes a profit. Otherwise, everyone else enjoys cheap, freely-available healthcare, unburdened by the awful AMA and FDA.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Extends demand 1A to people who cannot or will not produce a marginal revenue product at all. As if subsidizing unemployment has ever done anything but create more of it.

Demand four: Free college education.

Already done. You can get the very best college education imaginable completely free ,well, almost. You have to have a computer and an internet connection to access MIT's entire curriculum for free, on line. Beats the hell out of spending $250,000, and six years at a shitty state school, drinking beer and hooking up, doesn't it?

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Already well underway. The rise in price of fossil fuels (when you tease out Fed inflation) is moving slowly and steadily upward. Or, at least it would be without massive government subsidies to fossil fuel industries such as pollution permits, tax policy, and direct military intervention. Nuclear power has an even worse government subsidy regime. And as for current alternative energy policies, they only serve to subsidize old tech, are economically dubious at best, or, as in the case of Solyndra, ethanol, and other boondoggles cross the line into criminality and fraud.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Again, mostly done. the Obama Stimulus spent, what, $750 billion on exactly that. And as you can see, all of our pressing infrastructure needs are completely resolved.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

7a) Give all federal lands back to nature and allow anyone to homestead them. 7b) End the TVA and BPA, here and all other monstrous Federal Dam authorities. 7c) End Price-Anderson, The Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and all state Public Utility Commissions, and make the contractors who built them and the companies that run them fully liable for any damage to persons or property.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

8a) Done, see the 13th amendment. 8b) Tried that, almost passed until women realized what a raw deal it was for them.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Easy enough. End the Drug War and the Welfare state, or at least put a time threshold on collecting benefits, say 5 years. Then an open border would be welfare-neutral. Small side-effect though - immigrants will work you out of a job, kinda neutralizes Demand 1A.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Not sure how this helps, when there is no real choice in US elections, but OK, I'll give you that one.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

11a) Forgiveness of sovereign debt - Well, finally a demand we wholeheartedly agree with! I didn't consent to any politician running up a debt, I damn sure don't want me, my children, or my great-great-great-great grandchildren held responsible to pay for Bush's and Obama's wars; 11b)Commercial loans already have a forgivenness provision, it's called BANKRUPTCY; 11c) Ditto for individuals; 11d) I told you you can get a college education for free, why the hell did you take out crushing loans?; 11e) See 11a); 11f) Are you sh!tting me? Letting the BANKS out of their obligations? They have already been bailed out tho the tune of $TRILLIONS. You sound like a corporatist! I assume this was an oversight.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Tough to do, we do have a thing called the First Amendment.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

DONE. Any worker can sign any paper at any time now. Oh, you mean then that an employer has to recognize said paper as a legal binding obligation on him under penalty of law! Um, that's going to be difficult to do. There are a lot of unemployed people already who will not likely favor this idea once it becomes apparent that this will make unemployment worse.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

A complete non-sequitur, but OK, let's see how it pans out.

But come on, people, where is the radicalism? Where are the demands to End the Wars, End the Drug War, and End the Federal Reserve? Too busy grabbing socialist loot I guess.

That's OK - Ron Paul has got you covered.

Elizabeth Warren, and that "Social Contract"

Sheldon Richman points out in The Freeman today that Elizabeth Warren, late of presidential advising, and snubbed for a prime sinecure is running for Senate from Massachussetts. Her ads mar all my Facebook pages, and as Sheldon points out, her entire schtick is that rich corporations benefitted from taxpayer largesse, so they should pay more, a lot more. Left out of this equation are the other 100 - 200 million taxpayers, and what THEY would rather have done with the money. But that's life in the Left Lane, isn't it? Full of sleight-of-hand and rhetorical tricks.\nI commute in southern New Jersey on either I-295 (taxpayer-paid) or the New Jersey Turnpike (user-fee paid with some taxpayer subsidy) \u2013 they run roughly parallel along this stretch, so they \u201Ccompete\u201D for users. Because the NJTPK is tolled, while I-295 is not, you would think that a business using this route, say Bolt Bus or one of the Chinatown buses would use I-295 exclusively. In fact, while there is some of both, most of them appear to prefer the Turnpike. Why is that so? After all, they are already paying corporate tax, payroll tax, fuel tax, and apportioned highway taxes, but on TOP of that, to use the Turnpike, they ALSO have to pay a (presumably significant) TOLL. Why, exactly, IS that?

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5cfe4b0ea4e44459717">

Sheldon Richman points out in The Freeman today that Elizabeth Warren, late of presidential advising, and snubbed for a prime sinecure is running for Senate from Massachussetts. Her ads mar all my Facebook pages, and as Sheldon points out, her entire schtick is that rich corporations benefitted from taxpayer largesse, so they should pay more, a lot more. Left out of this equation are the other 100 - 200 million taxpayers, and what THEY would rather have done with the money. But that's life in the Left Lane, isn't it? Full of sleight-of-hand and rhetorical tricks. I commute in southern New Jersey on either I-295 (taxpayer-paid) or the New Jersey Turnpike (user-fee paid with some taxpayer subsidy) – they run roughly parallel along this stretch, so they “compete” for users. Because the NJTPK is tolled, while I-295 is not, you would think that a business using this route, say Bolt Bus or one of the Chinatown buses would use I-295 exclusively. In fact, while there is some of both, most of them appear to prefer the Turnpike. Why is that so? After all, they are already paying corporate tax, payroll tax, fuel tax, and apportioned highway taxes, but on TOP of that, to use the Turnpike, they ALSO have to pay a (presumably significant) TOLL. Why, exactly, IS that?

Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust - YouTube

President Ron Paul? Ron Paul and the John Birch Society

This guy couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. And his subhead quote, intended of course to frighten principled anti-war people away from Dr. Paul, is dead-on;\n\"Welcome to Dr. Ron Paul's (R.-Tx) prescription for America. If he ever becomes President, you won't recognize the place.\"

\n

via Andrew Reinbach: President Ron Paul? Ron Paul and the John Birch Society.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5cae4b0ea4e444596c6">

This guy couldn't reason his way out of a wet paper bag. And his subhead quote, intended of course to frighten principled anti-war people away from Dr. Paul, is dead-on; "Welcome to Dr. Ron Paul's (R.-Tx) prescription for America. If he ever becomes President, you won't recognize the place."

via Andrew Reinbach: President Ron Paul? Ron Paul and the John Birch Society.

Ron Paul, The Compassionate Libertarian

\"...libertarians have the reputation of being hardhearted. It's not true, and Ron Paul--in so many ways--shows that. He is the Compassionate Libertarian.\" - Lew Rockwell\nvia Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre | The Comedy and Tragedy of the Political World.

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c9e4b0ea4e444596bd">

"...libertarians have the reputation of being hardhearted. It's not true, and Ron Paul--in so many ways--shows that. He is the Compassionate Libertarian." - Lew Rockwell via Lew Rockwell's Political Theatre | The Comedy and Tragedy of the Political World.

If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)

"...the one potential Presidential candidate (Ron Paul) who wishes to stop killing innocent people in foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican." via Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year).

Britain’s Conservatives Worry About Ties to Murdoch

GEE, do you think THIS has anything to do with why Citizen Rupert had "News of the World" euthanized? Sloppy, Rupert, sloppy;

LONDON — When David Cameron became prime minister in May 2010, one of his first visitors at 10 Downing Street — within 24 hours, and entering by a back door, according to accounts in British newspapers — was Rupert Murdoch.

Fourteen months later, with Mr. Murdoch’s media empire in Britain reeling, Mr. Cameron may feel that his close relationship with Mr. Murdoch, which included a range of social contacts with members of the Murdoch family and the tycoon’s senior executives, has been a costly overreach.

Those concerns will be intensified by the expected arrest on Friday of Andy Coulson, the former editor of The News of the World and, until he resigned in January this year, Mr. Cameron’s media chief at Downing Street.

Mr. Cameron hired Mr. Coulson in 2007 after scandals had rocked the newspaper. And he repeatedly defended him even as signs accumulated that Mr. Coulson had greater awareness of the newspaper’s phone-hacking practices than he had acknowledged.

Some of Mr. Cameron’s political opponents have cast the embrace of Mr. Murdoch as a mistake that could combine with other recent miscues by the Cameron government to seriously weaken the prime minister’s party, the Conservatives.

via Britain’s Conservatives Worry About Ties to Murdoch - NYTimes.com.

A Real Young Republican Revolt in Colorado

Whatever your stand on the health-care legislation at the center of this article, this open revolt by libertarian members against local and state Republican parties should be applauded and encouraged;\n[caption id=\"attachment_1203\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"142\" caption=\"Not your average Republican power broker\"]\"\"[/caption]

\n

Sarah Anderson is peculiar. For one thing, she's a Republican. At 22, that makes her a statistical anomaly, even in El Paso County.

\n

She spent her formative years reading a series of books that explain the free-market theory to teens. She will gleefully argue the superiority of the market-based Austrian School economic model of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises over the Keynesian mixed-economy version. On her Facebook page, she describes her political views as \"a beautiful blend of Anarcho-Capitalism and Minarchism.\"

\n

Another thing: Anderson is a born campaigner. Home-schooled, with college on hold, she says she's worked on more than 60 campaigns over the past seven years. She started at age 9, after pleading with her mother, by volunteering at county headquarters while Bill Owens was running for governor. Six years later, she went door-to-door for Douglas Bruce, then a party hero who wanted a seat on the county commission. From 2004 to 2007, she worked at the state Capitol for legislators including Sen. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs.

\n

This past February, at the meeting of the county GOP's central committee, she was elected party secretary in a decisive victory over party stalwart Holly Williams, wife of County Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams. Anderson says her speech \u2014 referencing work done for Lambert, former state Sen. Dave Schultheis, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and plenty more \u2014 clinched it.

\n

\"Let's not just say we want youth in the party,\" she told the crowd. \"Let's put experienced youth in leadership.\"

\n

Feisty, ambitious, intelligent and pretty, Anderson's exactly the kind of person that the aging GOP is eager to draw into the fold. Except that, as she happily offers, \"My beliefs aren't popular with the majority of the powerholders of the Republican Party.\"

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c6e4b0ea4e4445966f">

Whatever your stand on the health-care legislation at the center of this article, this open revolt by libertarian members against local and state Republican parties should be applauded and encouraged; [caption id="attachment_1203" align="aligncenter" width="142" caption="Not your average Republican power broker"][/caption]

Sarah Anderson is peculiar. For one thing, she's a Republican. At 22, that makes her a statistical anomaly, even in El Paso County.

She spent her formative years reading a series of books that explain the free-market theory to teens. She will gleefully argue the superiority of the market-based Austrian School economic model of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises over the Keynesian mixed-economy version. On her Facebook page, she describes her political views as "a beautiful blend of Anarcho-Capitalism and Minarchism."

Another thing: Anderson is a born campaigner. Home-schooled, with college on hold, she says she's worked on more than 60 campaigns over the past seven years. She started at age 9, after pleading with her mother, by volunteering at county headquarters while Bill Owens was running for governor. Six years later, she went door-to-door for Douglas Bruce, then a party hero who wanted a seat on the county commission. From 2004 to 2007, she worked at the state Capitol for legislators including Sen. Kent Lambert of Colorado Springs.

This past February, at the meeting of the county GOP's central committee, she was elected party secretary in a decisive victory over party stalwart Holly Williams, wife of County Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams. Anderson says her speech — referencing work done for Lambert, former state Sen. Dave Schultheis, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and plenty more — clinched it.

"Let's not just say we want youth in the party," she told the crowd. "Let's put experienced youth in leadership."

Feisty, ambitious, intelligent and pretty, Anderson's exactly the kind of person that the aging GOP is eager to draw into the fold. Except that, as she happily offers, "My beliefs aren't popular with the majority of the powerholders of the Republican Party."

Ron Paul versus Michael Gerson on Drugs

Gerson, neocon that he is, uses Ron's principled stand for liberty and against putting people in prison against him, as though rabid criminalization were somehow evidence of \"compassion\". I politely argued otherwise;\n\"Congressman Paul was speaking of principles, not of policy. He has stated, clearly and repeatedly that the states can and should be the locus for any (slight) conditions under which adults can consume certain (or any) substances. And he makes the point within a framework where the choice to abuse drugs, being no longer supported within a welfare state, carries high personal and economic costs, high enough to be a deterrent to most people, even if his exposition was a tad too facile. The problem with Gerson's allegedly more \"complex\" conservative response to drug use, prostitution, etc is it fails to consider any of these issues other than in a sterile vacuum. For most of our history drugs were legal, widely recognized for their dangers, and their use self-limiting. The medicalization of everything in our culture and the concurrent criminalization of certain substances has effectively subsidized irresponsible, widespread, and growing use of illicit drugs, while at the same time greatly increasing overall societal costs from their use. The current course is financially unsustainable, and deadly to personal and political freedom. Kudos to Dr. Paul for having the courage to finally declare it.\"

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c4e4b0ea4e44459617">

Gerson, neocon that he is, uses Ron's principled stand for liberty and against putting people in prison against him, as though rabid criminalization were somehow evidence of "compassion". I politely argued otherwise; "Congressman Paul was speaking of principles, not of policy. He has stated, clearly and repeatedly that the states can and should be the locus for any (slight) conditions under which adults can consume certain (or any) substances. And he makes the point within a framework where the choice to abuse drugs, being no longer supported within a welfare state, carries high personal and economic costs, high enough to be a deterrent to most people, even if his exposition was a tad too facile. The problem with Gerson's allegedly more "complex" conservative response to drug use, prostitution, etc is it fails to consider any of these issues other than in a sterile vacuum. For most of our history drugs were legal, widely recognized for their dangers, and their use self-limiting. The medicalization of everything in our culture and the concurrent criminalization of certain substances has effectively subsidized irresponsible, widespread, and growing use of illicit drugs, while at the same time greatly increasing overall societal costs from their use. The current course is financially unsustainable, and deadly to personal and political freedom. Kudos to Dr. Paul for having the courage to finally declare it."

The Thing In Wisconsin

Salaries and benefits in the public sector are unsustainable. This much is obvious. The states are broke, deep in debt, and standing on the edge of bonding oblivion.\nThe ruckus in Wisconsin is being spun by both sides - \"Walker is saving the taxpayers from rapacious unions!\" Walker is destroying working families!\" The pundits on TV and radio are even worse.

\n

Let's be clear here. Scott Walker, Chris Christie, et al did not descend from heaven to defend the taxpayers against the evil unions. Their opponents (Tom Barrett and Jon Corzine) similarly did not descend from heaven to defend the rights of schoolchildren. All of these men ran on and in the event won on campaign contributions from substantial special interests.

\n

To focus on two examples, Scott Walker received substantial backing by the Koch brothers, who run a gigantic, closely-held oil business,\u00A0while his opponent, Tom Barrett also received large contributions from his own peculiar collection of special interests.

\n

Last year, Christie and Corzine undoubtedly received cash from similar interests, Corzine being a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Christie being a state prosecutor. None of that money was contributed toward closing down New Jersey's public schools. It would have been in no contributors interest to do so.

\n

So let's be clear here. What Scott Walker, Chris Christie and others are doing, however desirable from the standpoint of people who are forced to pay for it, is aimed primarily at the preservation of government for the purposes of government - the contracts and pelf that are stripped from the taxpayer. In other words, they are not doing it to benefit you, they are doing it primarily to keep the scheme alive.

\n

I almost want to favor the unions sometimes, just so the implosion occurs quicker :o(

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5c2e4b0ea4e444595f1">

Salaries and benefits in the public sector are unsustainable. This much is obvious. The states are broke, deep in debt, and standing on the edge of bonding oblivion. The ruckus in Wisconsin is being spun by both sides - "Walker is saving the taxpayers from rapacious unions!" Walker is destroying working families!" The pundits on TV and radio are even worse.

Let's be clear here. Scott Walker, Chris Christie, et al did not descend from heaven to defend the taxpayers against the evil unions. Their opponents (Tom Barrett and Jon Corzine) similarly did not descend from heaven to defend the rights of schoolchildren. All of these men ran on and in the event won on campaign contributions from substantial special interests.

To focus on two examples, Scott Walker received substantial backing by the Koch brothers, who run a gigantic, closely-held oil business, while his opponent, Tom Barrett also received large contributions from his own peculiar collection of special interests.

Last year, Christie and Corzine undoubtedly received cash from similar interests, Corzine being a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and Christie being a state prosecutor. None of that money was contributed toward closing down New Jersey's public schools. It would have been in no contributors interest to do so.

So let's be clear here. What Scott Walker, Chris Christie and others are doing, however desirable from the standpoint of people who are forced to pay for it, is aimed primarily at the preservation of government for the purposes of government - the contracts and pelf that are stripped from the taxpayer. In other words, they are not doing it to benefit you, they are doing it primarily to keep the scheme alive.

I almost want to favor the unions sometimes, just so the implosion occurs quicker :o(

Our 30-Year Mistake by Ron Paul

"We see now the folly of our interventionist foreign policy: not only has that stability fallen to pieces with the current unrest, but the years of propping up the corrupt regime in Egypt has led the people to increase their resentment of both America and Israel We are both worse off for decades of intervention into Egypt’s internal affairs. I wish I could say that we have learned our lesson and will no longer attempt to purchase – or rent – friends in the Middle East, but I am afraid that is being too optimistic. Already we see evidence that while the US historically propped up the Egyptian regime, we also provided assistance to groups opposed to the regime. So we have lost the credibility to claim today that we support the self-determination of the Egyptian people. Our double-dealing has not endeared us to Egyptians who now seek to reclaim their independence and national dignity.

“Diplomacy” via foreign aid transfer payments only makes us less safe at home and less trusted overseas. But the overriding reality is that we simply cannot afford to continue a policy of buying friends. We face an ongoing and potentially deepening recession at home – so how can we justify to the unemployed and underemployed in the United States the incredible cost of maintaining a global empire? Moral arguments aside, we must stop sending hundreds of billions of dollars to foreign governments when our own economy is in shambles."

via Our 30-Year Mistake by Ron Paul.

Volt Fraud At Government Motors

HAHAHAHAHA, this is TOO funny; "The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but its already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears were all being taken for a ride."

via Volt Fraud At Government Motors - Investors.com.

About That "Minimum Wage"

@ Morning's Minion;\n\"...one of my friends who is a social worker was part of a project to figure out what a real \"living wage\" in the DC Metro area would be.\"

\n

Probably an interesting experiment, but there is simply no way to know what decisions low-income people make to survive and succeed, what resources are available, where resources (housing, transportation) can be shared, or provided by employers, etc. All of these experiments have very poor correlation with reality, especially in light of the evidence that some people survive on less than that $14 estimate.

\n

\"Of course minimum wage is half that, which should tell us something about the conditions the working poor endure.\"

\n

That old canard. A tiny handful of people have to survive on the federal or state minimum wage. Minimum wage is always set lower than the median economic wage precisely for the reason that anyone who has or can develop a marketable skill will see their wage approach the marginal revenue product of their labor, meaning the last-hired worker is paid nearly all of the additional output he adds less employment expense.

\n

The people who ARE negatively impacted by the minimum wage are people whose output is less than the mandated wage, new workers and others with, erm, uneven work histories. Before the minimum wage, people without skills were a handshake away from possibly learning a skill and rapidly increasing their output, their employability,m and their earning potential. By artificially raising the price to hire these unskilled workers above their marginal revenue product, the minimum wage prevents those people from being employed at all, probably forever.

\n

\"

\n

Few things infuriate me as much as that phrase. The working poor. If you work, you should not be poor. What an abominable idea. \"

\n

I agree. The government we labor under destroys wealth and steals income, not just direct income but investments that would increase worker output and enrich society at large. The poor are especially hard hit because they are regressively taxed - FICA is a 16% tax on every dollar they make, the inflation tax steals their income and makes saving futile, and the income tax is waiting to steal the funds necessary to climb out of poverty.

\n

If we are going to reform Social Security (instead of end it, as I have already shown we should), then let's recognize it for what it is, a tax-and-spend welfare / transfer scheme. Let's drop the charade that it is some kind of annuity or insurance, since the supreme court has already disabused us of that notion, see Flemming v Nestor, conveniently available on the SSA website, or my site here;

\n

...and let's simply remove the tax cap, and make all income FICA-taxable, including any capital gains reported on individual returns. It will never happen, the owners of this country will make sure of that. But it will make the nature of the program clear.And maybe a few more people will wake up.

\n

via\u00A0Glenn Greenwald at Salon

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5b9e4b0ea4e4445953b">

@ Morning's Minion; "...one of my friends who is a social worker was part of a project to figure out what a real "living wage" in the DC Metro area would be."

Probably an interesting experiment, but there is simply no way to know what decisions low-income people make to survive and succeed, what resources are available, where resources (housing, transportation) can be shared, or provided by employers, etc. All of these experiments have very poor correlation with reality, especially in light of the evidence that some people survive on less than that $14 estimate.

"Of course minimum wage is half that, which should tell us something about the conditions the working poor endure."

That old canard. A tiny handful of people have to survive on the federal or state minimum wage. Minimum wage is always set lower than the median economic wage precisely for the reason that anyone who has or can develop a marketable skill will see their wage approach the marginal revenue product of their labor, meaning the last-hired worker is paid nearly all of the additional output he adds less employment expense.

The people who ARE negatively impacted by the minimum wage are people whose output is less than the mandated wage, new workers and others with, erm, uneven work histories. Before the minimum wage, people without skills were a handshake away from possibly learning a skill and rapidly increasing their output, their employability,m and their earning potential. By artificially raising the price to hire these unskilled workers above their marginal revenue product, the minimum wage prevents those people from being employed at all, probably forever.

"

Few things infuriate me as much as that phrase. The working poor. If you work, you should not be poor. What an abominable idea. "

I agree. The government we labor under destroys wealth and steals income, not just direct income but investments that would increase worker output and enrich society at large. The poor are especially hard hit because they are regressively taxed - FICA is a 16% tax on every dollar they make, the inflation tax steals their income and makes saving futile, and the income tax is waiting to steal the funds necessary to climb out of poverty.

If we are going to reform Social Security (instead of end it, as I have already shown we should), then let's recognize it for what it is, a tax-and-spend welfare / transfer scheme. Let's drop the charade that it is some kind of annuity or insurance, since the supreme court has already disabused us of that notion, see Flemming v Nestor, conveniently available on the SSA website, or my site here;

...and let's simply remove the tax cap, and make all income FICA-taxable, including any capital gains reported on individual returns. It will never happen, the owners of this country will make sure of that. But it will make the nature of the program clear.And maybe a few more people will wake up.

via Glenn Greenwald at Salon

Social Security Contributions Are A Theft. Period. That Doesn't Mean The Feds Are Right To Steal Them Again.

Social Security Contributions Are A Theft. Period. That Doesn't Mean The Feds Are Right To Steal Them Again.\n@gc wall;

\n

\"I haven't heard one democrat say that he wants to cut benefits and kick Granny off the dole. Links please. But then I am not telepathic like some people.\"

\n

Ummm, aren't we discussing the secret work of the deficit-reduction commission? Exactly what do you think they are proposing to get out of the financial disaster they hath wrought?

\n

\"Social Security does not need an \"orderly wind-down\"\"

\n

I say it does. It is immoral to take property by force to give to others, no matter how needy.

\n

\"... a couple of easy tweaks and it will be solvent for seventy-five years.\"

\n

\"Easy tweaks\", you say? Like raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and raising (more) taxes on SS income? You a Reagan fan gc? Poor people and minorities already put more out in FICA taxes than they ever get out. Raising the retirement age makes that crime worse, and will force millions to literally work themselves to death. So if you assert that a few benign fixes will solve the problem, make the case. Let's see the math. Demographics argue against it.

\n

\"It is amazing how many people advocate for saving employers' all of six and one-half percent for insurance the keeps the less fortunate from eating cat food.\"

\n

1) It isn't \"the employer's 6.5%\". The 6.5% (plus compliance fees and penalties) is money that would otherwise be paid to the employee. ALL SS \"contributions\" are stolen from employees at the point of a gun, and are immoral.

\n

\"When, exactly, did Americans agree that selfishness and indifference is wiser than responsibility and compassion?\"

\n

A smoke screen, and wrong to boot. SS contributions reduce the amount available for charity (and run it through the oh-so-efficient Federal government). Before the advent of the welfare state, Americans created thousands of charitable civic and fraternal organizations. Social Security is not insurance, is not an annuity, is not charity, and is not a retirement plan, it is a simple welfare / transfer program, a theft from producers that is transferred to consumers.

\n

The bottom line is this - the labor I exchange with my employer is mine until we exchange. The money my employer exchanges with me is his, until we exchange. No one but two parties to the deal I mentioned has a legitimate moral claim to either one. To claim otherwise makes me a slave, and a victim of theft.

\n

But back to my argument. Even if I agreed with your conception of Social Security as some kind of retarded, misguided, but well-intentioned charitable \"responsibility\", the worst noises coming out of this evil \"commission\" hint not at reforming Social Security, or \"easy tweaks\".

\n

What we of a skeptical bent suspect is being mooted is a HUGE increase in FICA rates, along with removal of the cap, and for what? To skim enough money OFF OF A PROGRAM THAT IS ALREADY IN THE RED to avoid having to end America's Global resource wars, the main reason we are in such deep financial trouble to start with.

\n

This is what we suspect, because after the Bush Administration's bailouts of 2008, it is increasingly obvious that theft is the only policy tool they have left.

\n

via\u00A0http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/04/simpson/index.html

","wysiwyg":{"engine":"code","isSource":false,"mode":"htmlmixed","source":""}}" data-block-type="2" id="block-507cb5b9e4b0ea4e44459536">

Social Security Contributions Are A Theft. Period. That Doesn't Mean The Feds Are Right To Steal Them Again. @gc wall;

"I haven't heard one democrat say that he wants to cut benefits and kick Granny off the dole. Links please. But then I am not telepathic like some people."

Ummm, aren't we discussing the secret work of the deficit-reduction commission? Exactly what do you think they are proposing to get out of the financial disaster they hath wrought?

"Social Security does not need an "orderly wind-down""

I say it does. It is immoral to take property by force to give to others, no matter how needy.

"... a couple of easy tweaks and it will be solvent for seventy-five years."

"Easy tweaks", you say? Like raising the retirement age, cutting benefits, and raising (more) taxes on SS income? You a Reagan fan gc? Poor people and minorities already put more out in FICA taxes than they ever get out. Raising the retirement age makes that crime worse, and will force millions to literally work themselves to death. So if you assert that a few benign fixes will solve the problem, make the case. Let's see the math. Demographics argue against it.

"It is amazing how many people advocate for saving employers' all of six and one-half percent for insurance the keeps the less fortunate from eating cat food."

1) It isn't "the employer's 6.5%". The 6.5% (plus compliance fees and penalties) is money that would otherwise be paid to the employee. ALL SS "contributions" are stolen from employees at the point of a gun, and are immoral.

"When, exactly, did Americans agree that selfishness and indifference is wiser than responsibility and compassion?"

A smoke screen, and wrong to boot. SS contributions reduce the amount available for charity (and run it through the oh-so-efficient Federal government). Before the advent of the welfare state, Americans created thousands of charitable civic and fraternal organizations. Social Security is not insurance, is not an annuity, is not charity, and is not a retirement plan, it is a simple welfare / transfer program, a theft from producers that is transferred to consumers.

The bottom line is this - the labor I exchange with my employer is mine until we exchange. The money my employer exchanges with me is his, until we exchange. No one but two parties to the deal I mentioned has a legitimate moral claim to either one. To claim otherwise makes me a slave, and a victim of theft.

But back to my argument. Even if I agreed with your conception of Social Security as some kind of retarded, misguided, but well-intentioned charitable "responsibility", the worst noises coming out of this evil "commission" hint not at reforming Social Security, or "easy tweaks".

What we of a skeptical bent suspect is being mooted is a HUGE increase in FICA rates, along with removal of the cap, and for what? To skim enough money OFF OF A PROGRAM THAT IS ALREADY IN THE RED to avoid having to end America's Global resource wars, the main reason we are in such deep financial trouble to start with.

This is what we suspect, because after the Bush Administration's bailouts of 2008, it is increasingly obvious that theft is the only policy tool they have left.

via http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/04/simpson/index.html