Tramp Stamps - How to get rid of them!

Tattoo Remover - video powered by Metacafe

The Neoconservative Empire

On February 14, 2007 Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R) of Texas gave a terrific speech against the neo-cons on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Please take six minutes to watch this speech on video. ---Russ

The Neoconservative Empire

by Ron Paul

Statement on the Iraq War Resolution
Before the U.S. House of Representatives February 14, 2007

	Watch Ron Paul's speech on video.

This grand debate is welcomed but it could be that this is nothing more than a distraction from the dangerous military confrontation approaching with Iran and supported by many in leadership on both sides of the aisle.

This resolution, unfortunately, does not address the disaster in Iraq. Instead, it seeks to appear opposed to the war while at the same time offering no change of the status quo in Iraq. As such, it is not actually a vote against a troop surge. A real vote against a troop surge is a vote against the coming supplemental appropriation that finances it. I hope all of my colleagues who vote against the surge today will vote against the budgetary surge when it really counts: when we vote on the supplemental.

The biggest red herring in this debate is the constant innuendo that those who don’t support expanding the war are somehow opposing the troops. It’s nothing more than a canard to claim that those of us who struggled to prevent the bloodshed and now want it stopped are somehow less patriotic and less concerned about the welfare of our military personnel.

Osama bin Laden has expressed sadistic pleasure with our invasion of Iraq and was surprised that we served his interests above and beyond his dreams on how we responded after the 9/11 attacks. His pleasure comes from our policy of folly getting ourselves bogged down in the middle of a religious civil war, 7,000 miles from home that is financially bleeding us to death. Total costs now are reasonably estimated to exceed $2 trillion. His recruitment of Islamic extremists has been greatly enhanced by our occupation of Iraq.

Unfortunately, we continue to concentrate on the obvious mismanagement of a war promoted by false information and ignore debating the real issue which is: Why are we determined to follow a foreign policy of empire building and pre-emption which is unbecoming of a constitutional republic?

Those on the right should recall that the traditional conservative position of non-intervention was their position for most of the 20th Century-and they benefited politically from the wars carelessly entered into by the political left. Seven years ago the Right benefited politically by condemning the illegal intervention in Kosovo and Somalia. At the time conservatives were outraged over the failed policy of nation building.

It’s important to recall that the left, in 2003, offered little opposition to the pre-emptive war in Iraq, and many are now not willing to stop it by de-funding it or work to prevent an attack on Iran.

The catch-all phrase, “War on Terrorism,” in all honesty, has no more meaning than if one wants to wage a war against criminal gangsterism. It’s deliberately vague and non definable to justify and permit perpetual war anywhere, and under any circumstances. Don’t forget: the Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with any terrorist attack against us including that on 9/11.

Special interests and the demented philosophy of conquest have driven most wars throughout history. Rarely has the cause of liberty, as it was in our own revolution, been the driving force. In recent decades our policies have been driven by neo-conservative empire radicalism, profiteering in the military industrial complex, misplaced do-good internationalism, mercantilistic notions regarding the need to control natural resources, and blind loyalty to various governments in the Middle East.

For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing UN resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now Iraq will be left in a mess-implying the implausible that if we stay it won’t be a mess.

Since it could go badly when we leave, that blame must be placed on those who took us there, not on those of us who now insist that Americans no longer need be killed or maimed and that Americans no longer need to kill any more Iraqis. We’ve had enough of both!

Resorting to a medical analogy, a wrong diagnosis was made at the beginning of the war and the wrong treatment was prescribed. Refusing to reassess our mistakes and insist on just more and more of a failed remedy is destined to kill the patient-in this case the casualties will be our liberties and prosperity here at home and peace abroad.

There’s no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early presidents was sound then and it’s sound today.

We shouldn’t wait until our financial system is completely ruined and we are forced to change our ways. We should do it as quickly as possible and stop the carnage and financial bleeding that will bring us to our knees and force us to stop that which we should have never started.

We all know, in time, the war will be de-funded one way or another and the troops will come home. So why not now?

February 15, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

President's Budget: *Everything* Is A Priority

President Bush's new 2008 budget boldly declares that "each program was closely reviewed to determine if it is among the Nation's top priorities.... [F]ailure to meet these criteria resulted in proposed termination or reduction of 141 programs for a savings of $12 billion."

Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? The president is proposing to eliminate or reduce all programs that aren't "top priorities." Wow!

But hold on. Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute has done the math.

Says Edwards: "Total federal outlays in 2007 will be $2.784 trillion. Thus, programs that are "top priorities" of the Bush administration account for 99.6 percent of all spending."

So Bush proposes to ruthlessly chop away at all that non-top-priority federal spending -- the whole "whopping" 0.4 percent of it. Meanwhile, the 99.6 percent that is "top priority" will continue and grow. After all, it is a top priority.

Source: Cato Blog: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/
More on budget shenanigans:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/118632.html

READ MY LIPS:

The Bush administration may be squarely against new taxes, but its proposed fiscal 2008 budget seeks to raise almost $81 billion in new revenue over the next five years by hiking user fees and other charges on taxpayers and businesses. Technically, changes to these fees aren't taxes. But for anyone who must pay them -- everyone from recreational hikers to war veterans -- it's a question of semantics.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16636417.htm

Surprise: The Laws of Economics Work!

Throw a rock in the air, and it falls back down. The law of gravity.

Increase the price of labor by imposing a minimum wage, and jobs -- especially low-paying entry level jobs -- are destroyed. The law of supply and demand.

Last month Arizona raised the minimum wage to $6.75 per hour from $5.15 per hour -- a 31 percent increase.

The results? This headline from the Arizona Republic newspaper tells the story:

New Wage Boost Puts Squeeze on Teenage Workers Across Arizona: Employers Are Cutting Back hours, Laying Off Young Staffers.

An excerpt from the story:

Some Arizona employers, especially those in the food industry, say payroll budgets have risen so much.... that they're cutting hours, instituting hiring freezes and laying off employees.

Mark Messner, owner of Pepi's Pizza in Phoenix, says he plans to lay off three teenage workers and decrease hours worked by others.

"I've had to go to some of my kids and say, Look, my payroll just increased 13 percent. Sorry, I don't have any hours for you."

Tom Kelly, owner of Mary Coyle Ol' Fashion Ice Cream Parlor in Phoenix, voted for the minimum-wage increase. But he said, "The new law has impacted us quite a bit."

It added about $2,000 per month in expenses. The store, which employs mostly teen workers, has cut back on hours and has not replaced a couple of workers who quit.

Kelly raised the wages of workers who already made above minimum wage to ensure pay scales stayed even. As a result, "we have to be a lot more efficient" and must increase menu prices, he said.

These anecdotes only affirm what minimum wage critics have been saying for 60 years. A new study by the non-profit Employment Policies Institute (EPI) finds that for every 10% increase in the minimum wage:

• Minority unemployment increased by 3.9%
• Hispanic unemployment increased by 4.9%
• Minority teen unemployment increased 6.6%
• African American teen unemployment increased by 8.4%
• Low-skilled unemployment (i.e., those lacking a high school diploma) increased by 8%
  

If a new federal minimum wage goes into effect, look for the same painful results as Arizona is experiencing -- across the nation.

Source: Arizona Republic
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0210biz-teenwork0210.html
http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=95

More Money For Failed Drug War Ads

Between 1998 and 2004 the federal government spent over $1.4 billion dollars producing and airing anti-drug ads aimed at teens.

A nearly five-year-long, $47 million investigation -- carefully reviewed by the federal Government Accountability Office (GAO) -- found that the program failed to reduce teen drug use.

Worse, "greater exposure to the campaign was associated with weaker anti-drug norms and increases in the perceptions that others use marijuana." After seeing the ads, non-marijuana-using teens were actually more likely to try the drug!


That's a spectacular failure by any standards. And how does the government reward failure?

With more money, of course. President Bush has proposed a huge increase -- a "surge," one is tempted to say -- in funding for the ad program: a 31 percent increase that would raise the budget to $130 million.

Sources: The Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2673.html
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/vol-11-num-11.html
GAO Report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06818.pdf

It's said that a picture is worth a thousand words. This one certainly is!

Exit strategy?

Support our troops:
bring them home NOW.

Accountability and Culpability - Theirs and Ours

Benjamin Franklin once said:

``The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.''

Christianity teaches us that we must not regard our reason, that we must ``have faith'', as it were, no matter the circumstances, as if God had given us reason as a plaything, or a rattle, for the sole purpose of making fun of us.

Here's an eye-opening article that I found on ``Bible Prophecy'', I offer it to you in hopes that it will help to open your eye of reason:

Accountability and Culpability - Theirs and Ours

by Pauline Rocco

How many times have you heard variations of the theme: "Repent! The End is Near" thumped out by the bible cranks? Many times I'd guess, because bible prognosticators have been at it "forever and ever" (well, for almost two thousand years, but who's counting?) The Rapture!, Armageddon!, the Antichrist!, Gog and Magog (who? what?) 666!, the 2nd Coming!, the Tribulation!, and other glad tidings of great joy!

The Christian seers reliability quotient has been on par with Enron's CEO and accounting department, but at least the Justice Department is investigating Enron. We can't say the same about any major Christian leader or organization. They are never held accountable for their misinformation, their disinformation, their blatant lies.

Once upon a time we may have believed we could dismiss this end of the world blather as laughable nonsense. I assure you this is no laughing matter. An outbreak of war in the Middle East will affect all of us.

Recently French Ambassador Daniel Bernard asked a rather succinct question at a dinner party in London. He described Israel as, "that shitty little country," and asked, "Why should we all be in danger of World War Three because of these people?"

Why, indeed! Could it be because we have allowed Christians to wield their illegitimate power over our foreign policy? When was the last time you heard the United States' unqualified support of Israel questioned in the context of separation of church and state? How many politicians manipulate their power and authority in support of Israel based on their belief that it's the least we can do for God's "chosen people?" America is filled with people living in fear of the bible's threat of woe to those who aren't nice to the Jews. Isn't it time WE said, "Whoa" to the sheep gleefully hoping to bring on Armageddon so Jesus will come back and move into the White House? Can't you just imagine that while listening to George Bush bray about 'rooting out the evil ones', Ariel Sharon must be thinking,

"I, like Samson, am having great success using the jawbone of an ass!!"

Really! Aren't you getting fed up with Christian interlopers laying claim to our heritage and our destiny?

Our kindred spirits of the Enlightenment expect more from us! The Founding Fathers risked everything they had and more to give us what we take for granted: The freedom to govern our country based on the use of reason. They gave us freedom from the tyranny of the church that had used (and still uses) its power to enslave people with guilt and fear. Be inspired by Thomas Jefferson's words,

"There is not a truth existing which I fear, or which I would not want known to the whole world."

One truth we should help make known to the whole world is Jefferson's description of the bible's Book of Revelation as...

"...the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."

But don't just sit there thinking about all this... DO something about it! Be encouraged by Johann Goethe's words,

"What ever you do, or dream you can do, begin it! Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it."

The Next Big Property Rights Battle?

By James W. Harris

"Bart Didden wanted to put a CVS pharmacy on his property in Port Chester, N.Y. He even obtained approvals from the local planning board.

"But because a portion of the CVS site was in a blighted redevelopment zone, Mr. Didden was told that planning board approval wasn't enough. He'd have to reach an understanding with a private company that had been selected by Port Chester officials to control all construction inside the renewal zone.

"The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.

"Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain."

So begins a Christian Science Monitor story on what is shaping up as the next big U.S. property rights battle. The case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether a local government can give a private company like G&S the power to extort payment from a property owner by using the threat of seizing that property.

The fight to defend Didden's property rights is being led by the Institute For Justice (IJ), a libertarian public interest, non-profit law firm that defends individual rights. IJ became nationally famous for fighting the notorious Kelo eminent domain case, which they ultimately lost. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments could seize private property and turn it over to favored private developers. That case set off a firestorm of protest across the country, leading many state legislatures to pass laws prohibiting Kelo-type seizures.

IJ hopes to persuade the Supreme Court to rule against the kind of extortion being used against property owner Didden.

"We want the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution does not permit governments or citizens acting on their behalf to demand money in exchange for allowing property owners to keep what is rightfully theirs," said Dana Berliner of IJ. "The very fact that we have to ask the highest court in the land for such a ruling underscores how precarious and threatening things are getting for ordinary American landowners."

"My case is about extortion through the abuse of eminent domain; it is about payoffs and government run amok," says property owner Didden. "It took me years of hard work to buy that property, pay off my mortgages and really feel like I own it. How dare the Village of Port Chester and this developer threaten me in this way. Unless the Supreme Court takes up my case, I fear for anyone else who owns a piece of property -- not just in Port Chester, but anywhere a politically connected developer is eyeing it."

This case, and the Kelo case, illustrate the ugliness of the sleazy deals local governments are making with developers to deprive property owners of their most basic rights. Let's hope that the Supreme Court rules against this practice.

Otherwise, government-connected developers across America will be given a green light to threaten property owners: "Your money or your land."

Sources:
Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0102/p02s01-usju.html
Institute for Justice http://www.ij.org/private_property/didden/12_18_06pr.html