Kaupunki

Drones: Either You Like Them Or Hate Them

2012-01-30T05:38:00.000-08:00

U.S. Drones Patrolling Its Skies Provoke Outrage in Iraq

By ERIC SCHMITT and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT

Published: January 29, 2012

BAGHDAD — A month after the last American troops left Iraq, the State Department is operating a small fleet of surveillance drones here to help protect the United States Embassy and consulates, as well as American personnel. Some senior Iraqi officials expressed outrage at the program, saying the unarmed aircraft are an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

The program was described by the department’s diplomatic security branch in a little-noticed section of its most recent annual report and outlined in broad terms in a two-page online prospectus for companies that might bid on a contract to manage the program. It foreshadows a possible expansion of unmanned drone operations into the diplomatic arm of the American government; until now they have been mainly the province of the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency.

American contractors say they have been told that the State Department is considering to field unarmed surveillance drones in the future in a handful of other potentially “high-threat” countries, including Indonesia and Pakistan, and in Afghanistan after the bulk of American troops leave in the next two years. State Department officials say that no decisions have been made beyond the drone operations in Iraq.

The drones are the latest example of the State Department’s efforts to take over functions in Iraq that the military used to perform. Some 5,000 private security contractors now protect the embassy’s 11,000-person staff, for example, and typically drive around in heavily armored military vehicles.

When embassy personnel move throughout the country, small helicopters buzz over the convoys to provide support in case of an attack. Often, two contractors armed with machine guns are tethered to the outside of the helicopters. The State Department began operating some drones in Iraq last year on a trial basis, and stepped up their use after the last American troops left Iraq in December, taking the military drones with them.

The United States, which will soon begin taking bids to manage drone operations in Iraq over the next five years, needs formal approval from the Iraqi government to use such aircraft here, Iraqi officials said. Such approval may be untenable given the political tensions between the two countries. Now that the troops are gone, Iraqi politicians often denounce the United States in an effort to rally support from their followers.

A senior American official said that negotiations were under way to obtain authorization for the current drone operations, but Ali al-Mosawi, a top adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; Iraq’s national security adviser, Falih al-Fayadh; and the acting minister of interior, Adnan al-Asadi, all said in interviews that they had not been consulted by the Americans.

Mr. Asadi said that he opposed the drone program: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

The Pentagon and C.I.A. have been stepping up their use of armed Predator and Reaper drones to conduct strikes against militants in places like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. More recently, the United States has expanded drone bases in Ethiopia, the Seychelles and a secret location in the Arabian Peninsula.

The State Department drones, by contrast, carry no weapons and are meant to provide data and images of possible hazards, like public protests or roadblocks, to security personnel on the ground, American officials said. They are much smaller than armed drones, with wingspans as short as 18 inches, compared with 55 feet for the Predators.

The State Department has about two dozen drones in Iraq, but many are used only for spare parts, the officials said.

The United States Embassy in Baghdad referred all questions about the drones to the State Department in Washington.

The State Department confirmed the existence of the program, calling the devices unmanned aerial vehicles, but it declined to provide details. “The department does have a U.A.V. program,” it said in a statement without referring specifically to Iraq. “The U.A.V.’s being utilized by the State Department are not armed, nor are they capable of being armed.”

When the American military was still in Iraq, white blimps equipped with sensors hovered over many cities, providing the Americans with surveillance abilities beyond the dozens of armed and unarmed drones used by the military. But the blimps came down at the end of last year as the military completed its withdrawal. Anticipating this, the State Department began developing its own drone operations.

Eric Schmitt reported from Washington, and Michael S. Schmidt from Baghdad.

Some Americans Don't Know Their Own History

2012-01-22T16:37:00.000-08:00

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America

http://bit.ly/tjGsUc Your link to Ron Paul and Don White's ebook " Patriot Call of Ron Paul" where real American history is taught.

Check out Don White's ebook on Ron Paul http://bit.ly/tjGsUc

_____________________________________________________

US Textbooks: Muslims Discovered America

January 22, 2012

112

Saudi-funded textbooks being used in America’s K-12 classrooms.

Teaching, among other things, that Jesus was a “Palestinian,” the state of Israel never existed, and that the Muslims discovered America before Columbus. At this rate, perhaps even Saudi grade-school textbooks, complete with jihadi and dhimmi declarations, will come to instruct American school-children.

“Public Schools Teach the ABCs of Islam,” by Erick Stakelbeck for CBN News, October 9, 2008:

CBNNews.com – Several recent studies have shown that American students are alarmingly ignorant about U.S. history and world events.

Experts have contributed the problem to everything from failing schools to substandard teachers.

But what about content?

For instance, did you know that Muslims discovered America? Or that Jerusalem is an Arab city? That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years–with the help of taxpayer money.

A new report by the non-profit Institute for Jewish and Community Research finds that American high school and elementary textbooks contain countless inaccuracies about Christianity, Judaism, Israel and the Middle East.

The Institute examined 28 of the most widely-used history, geography and social studies textbooks in America. It found at least 500 errors.

Will Finland Become As Corrupt As The State of Illinois?

2011-12-22T11:41:00.000-08:00

embed this tweet

by Don White

I noticed recently that the Scandinavian countries of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, and the beautiful country next to Russia called Finland, are some of the most liberal and expensive places to live because of high taxes.

When I lived in Finland, I admired the hard-working people of this great nation. But somehow they have allowed their liberal government to tax and tax and tax. Until today, I believe their standard of living must be coming down because a country with high taxes can't sustain itself with a good standard of living long when it is so out of balance with big government.

Yes, Finland is free--free from the bureaucracy of Russia which they fought and defeated during the Winter War of 1939. Few countries can say that. But apparently, their voters have become lazy. They have voted in people who love big government. This ties into the following story about a highly taxed state in America called Illinois. With big government usually comes corruption. I'm sorry, Finland. but I would suggest you clean house in the Parliament and vote in some honest, conservative lawmakers for a change. You may, I don't know for sure, have a similar problem to that faced by Illinois.
_______________________________________________________________

Former State Senator Says ‘Goodbye, Illinois’

Filed under

BUSINESS, CULTURE, ECONOMICS, POLITICS, SOCIALISM, TAXES

COMMENTS (29)

The once great city by the lake, Lake
Michigan, where people used to come
to live because of the high standard of
living. Today, it is the epitomy of crime
and corruption, high taxes, and a dwindling
population. Goodbye Illinois

114

Former State Senator and Republican Cook County Board President candidate Roger Keats and his wife Tina left Illinois to live in Texas. They bid farewell to their Illinois friends in a Wilmette Beacon article, and with this letter, saying they’re “voting with their feet and their wallets.”

GOOD BYE AND GOOD LUCK

As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my friends and wish all of you well. I am a lifelong son of the heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois with a heavy heart. BUT enough is enough! The leaders of Illinois refuse to see we can’t continue going in the direction we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost 1/4th of our population. Don’t blame the weather, because I love 4 seasons.

Illinois just sold still more bonds and our credit rating is so bad we pay higher interest rates than junk bonds! Junk Bonds!

Illinois is ranked

50th for fiscal policy
47th in job creation
1st in unfunded pension liabilities
2nd largest budget deficit
1st in failing schools.
1st in bonded indebtedness
Highest sales tax in the nation
Most judges indicted (Operations Greylord and Gambat)
5 of our last 9 elected governors have been indicted. That is more than the other 49 states added together!

Then add 32 Chicago Aldermen and (according to the Chicago Tribune) over 1000 state and municipal employees indicted. The corruption tax is a real cost of doing business. We are the butt of jokes for stand up comics.

We live in the most corrupt big city, in the most corrupt big county in the most corrupt state in America. I am sick and tired of subsidizing crooks. A day rarely passes without an article about the corruption and incompetence. Chicago even got caught rigging the tests to hire police and fire!

Our Crook County CORPORATE property tax system is intentionally corrupt. The Democrat State Chairman who is also the Speaker of the Illinois House (Spkr. Mike Madigan) and the most senior alderman in Chicago each make well over a million dollars a year putting the fix in for their clients’ tax assessments.

We are moving to Texas where there is no income tax, while Illinois’ just went up 67%. Texas sales tax is ½ of ours, which is the highest in the nation. Southern states are supportive of job producers, tax payers and folks who offer opportunities to their residents. Illinois shakes them down for every penny that can be extorted from them.

In The Hill Country of Texas (near Austin and San Antonio ) we bought a gracious[1] home on almost 2 acres with a swimming pool. It is new, will cost us around 40% of what our home in Wilmette just sold for and the property taxes are 1/3rd of what they are here. Cook County’s property tax system is a disaster: Wilmette homes near ours sell for 50% more and their property taxes are ½ of ours. Our assessed home value was 50% higher than the sales price. The system is unfair and incompetent.

Our home value is down 40%, our property taxes are up 20% and our local schools have still another referendum on the ballot to increase taxes over 20% in one year.

I could go on, but enough is enough. I feel as if we are standing on the deck of the Titanic and I can see the icebergs right in front of us. I will miss our friends a great deal. I have called Illinois home for essentially my entire life. But it is time to go where there is honest, competent and cost effective government. We have chosen to vote with our feet and our wallets. My best to all of you and Good luck!

Notes:

He might have meant “spacious.” [↩]

Is Ron Paul The Only Adult At The GOP Debates?

2011-11-27T18:56:00.000-08:00

embed this tweet

Dear Don,

If you missed Tuesday night’s debate on CNN, there’s something
you need to know.

All seven of my opponents stood up on stage and applauded
Big Government - asked for more of it, in fact.

So your choice is clear.

With just over five weeks left until voters begin going to the polls,
if you want a President who will FIGHT for less government and
lower spending, then I must ask for your support right away.

You see, Newt Gingrich – who previously warned of the dangers
of the Patriot Act - now wants it expanded.

He wants amnesty, too – to keep American citizens footing the
bill for government services for illegal immigrants.

The others were falling all over themselves to launch more
undeclared TRILLION-dollar wars on Iran, or perhaps Pakistan,
or maybe even Syria.

Of course, they all want more military spending, even though
we’re already spending almost one TRILLION dollars per year –
an amount nearly equal to what the entire rest of the world spends!

But that certainly hasn’t stopped the chicken-little stories from
my opponents about supposed “defense cuts”!

Even Mitt Romney tried to pull the wool over our eyes.

I set him straight. NOTHING is being cut in Washington.
PERIOD.

Believe me, I’ve tried!

All Congress is arguing about is how much to increase
spending.

But when hundreds of billions of dollars just aren’t “enough”
for my opponents’ favorite agencies, their answer is to howl in pain.

Don, isn’t this the game the liberals play?

I guess we’ve learned to expect as much over the years from them.

But isn’t it downright disgusting when Republican candidates for
President stoop to that level?

After all, we’re over $15 TRILLION in debt.

When are my opponents going to get serious?

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what’s lacking in these
debates so far – seriousness.

And that’s why the establishment of BOTH parties is so
scared of me.

You see, they know I am serious about balancing the budget
in three years.

They know I will cut ONE TRILLION in spending my
first year.

And they know NONE of their sacred cows are safe.

If we don’t need it or can’t afford it, it doesn’t matter
what department of government we’re talking about.

Sure, the establishment will scream and holler that we
need MORE money to keep our country safe.

But the simple fact is, if we had a constitutional foreign
policy – and if we stopped nation-building and policing
the world - our nation would be much safer and spend
much LESS money at the same time.

Our troops understand that fact.

That’s why I’ve received more money from members of
the military than all of my Republican opponents COMBINED.

But sadly, my establishment opponents just don’t seem to
get it.

They want more spending, more government, and more
debt.

You and I both know we can’t afford politics as usual
any longer.

You and I both know maintaining the big spending, Big
Government status quo will only lead to our nation’s ruin.

But I’m the ONE candidate who is serious about fixing
our problems.

I’m the ONE candidate who will change our foreign policy
to strengthen our national defense while ending these wars.

I’m the ONE candidate who will fight to end welfare to
illegal immigrants AND secure our border.

And I’m the ONE candidate who will take power
BACK from government, not scream to give more to it.

But I must be able to count on your generous financial
support if I’m going to win the Republican nomination.

My campaign is in crunch time right now.

As I mentioned, it’s just over five weeks until voters
start going to the caucuses and polls to begin selecting
the next Republican nominee for President.

In these final weeks, my campaign is launching an all-
out voter contact blitz with TV ads, direct mail, and boots
on the ground in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

With polls showing me statistically tied for first in Iowa
and clearly in second in New Hampshire, you and I must make our big push right now.

So please make your most generous contribution
TODAY to my campaign.

Whatever you can give, I’ll put to IMMEDIATE use
getting my message of liberty to the voters.

We’re so close. I believe the time is right, and you and
I have the message to win.

So please make your most generous contribution
TODAY!

Together, we can Restore America Now!

For Liberty,

Ron PaulP.S. Every one of my opponents during Tuesday
night’s debate was demanding more government.

Some are even falsely claiming military spending is
being cut!

But the only thing being debated in Washington, D.C.
right now is how fast spending will increase!

I’m the only candidate in this race who is serious
about cutting spending. And if we don’t need it
or can’t afford it, it doesn’t matter what department
it’s in.

But with just over five weeks left until voters begin
going to the polls, I must be able to count on your
financial support if I’m going to win the Republican
nomination for President.

So please contribute whatever you are able TODAY!

By Don White
Ron Paul Knows Congress Isn't Cutting Spending, only the Rate of Increase, But Mitt, Newt And The Other Five Robots Can't Comprehend

I was totally miffed by Mitt, Herman, Newt, Michelle, and Rick--those are the GOP candidates for the Republican nomination for president, so-called "leaders" who want to destroy what the Tea Party people created. The Tea Party wants to really cut spending, even if it hurts one particular department such as defense.

But so far, Congress doesn't get it. In the debate, Mitt Romney's eyes told the whole lurid story. It was as if he was a high school kid trying to win a small-town debate with his disbelieving eyes, something no respectful candidate would ever dream of doing. But Mitt is so far out of touch with economic reality, he has to resort to communicating with his eyes while his opponent (Ron Paul) is making his point that nothing is being done in Washington to even come close to cutting spending.

It smacks of Governor Romney's commitment, or lack thereof, to make cuts when Ron Paul in the last debate explained to a nave' Romney that NOTHING IS BEING CUT IN CONGRESS. IF WE CUT SOMETHING, IT IS SO SMALL IT WON'T EVEN CUT THE COST OF LIVING INCREASES.

So I'm rather happy the "illegal" but well publicized failed Super-committee came up with nothing--nada, no cuts. It means there will be an automatic 20 percent cut in spending next year I couldn't be happier.

Except, that is, if Ron Paul won the elections and produced his promised balanced budget in three years and a record-saving one trillion dollars the first year of his presidency..

Demonstrators Reveal Themselves: They'll All Marxists Commies

2011-11-18T07:37:00.000-08:00

embed this tweet

By Don White
November 18, 2011
Now we know the truth: The OWS pigs are really demonstrating to reduce America to a Communist nation. I say, arrest all of them and ship them to Venezuela, Russia or China.

If they want communism so badly, they should have to taste the hardships that this kind of existence entails. I said it before and I'll say it again. These "Kids" really don't know what they want. In the meantime they are playing into the hands of the Obama One-World ethic. Obama, you realize, does support the occupy Wall Street movement and as he does then he must also accept responsibility for the lawlessness of these people just as he claimed credit for the lawlessness accompanying the unfortunate chaos, death and destruction in Libya and Egypt.

What we need most is a real leader in the White House instead of one who kisses up to a communist dictator, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Any one of the Republicans running could fill the bill nicely, but I suggest Ron Paul, the only true "Get Back To The Constitution" candidate running. He is running second and surging in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him win those states and set the field back on their heels. Some of the candidates will retire when that happens, Huntsman, Bachmann, and that former Senator from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum.

Ron Paul blog landing page: http://prespaul.blogspot.com/p/welcome-to-landing-page-for-patriot.html Short form: http://bit.ly/tNZYKn

Now that they’ve endeared themselves to the world with their dozens of violent crimes, public defecation, and rampant filth, OWS protesters have unleashed a list of demands—surprising since the movement never seemed to get around to issuing its originally-promised “one demand.”

While “unofficial”—as if anything coming out of the chaos of an anarchist protest could ever be called “official”—the list reads like the manifesto of a communistic dictatorship from days gone by.

Among other things, the list calls for forced unionization of all workers, elimination of all private property, 6 hour work days with 6 weeks paid vacation, universal health care, a ban on gun ownership, and fierce separation of church and state. Folks, ol’ Joe couldn’t have drawn it up better (Stalin or Biden).

One of the most disturbing items on the list: “Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.” Apparently, OWSers are threatened by truly educated, independent thinkers, as are all communistic societies.

Post Continues on americanvisionnews.com

Ron Paul's "Liberty Defined" Short Version By Don White

2011-09-26T15:27:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

I am Don White and I have written a short version--cliff notes format, if you will--of an important book written by U.S. Presidential Candidate Ron Paul of Texas. Here's the Amazon.com promo of this important book:

In Liberty Defined, congressman and #1 New York Times bestselling author Ron Paul returns with his most provocative, comprehensive, and compelling arguments for personal freedom to date.

The term "Liberty" is so commonly used in our country that it has become a mere cliché. But do we know what it means? What it promises? How it factors into our daily lives? And most importantly, can we recognize tyranny when it is sold to us disguised as a form of liberty?

Dr. Paul writes that to believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. It is the seed of America.

This is a comprehensive guide to Dr. Paul's position on fifty of the most important issues of our times, from Abortion to Zionism. Accessible, easy to digest, and fearless in its discussion of controversial topics, Liberty Defined sheds new light on a word that is losing its shape.

About the Author

Dr. Ron Paul is a physician and twelve-term congressman from Texas who ran for president in 2008. He is the chairman of the domestic monetary policy subcommittee, and the author of eight books, including the New York Times bestsellers The Revolution: A Manifesto and End The Fed. An advocate of sound money, personal liberty, free markets, and international peace, he is chairman of the FREE Foundation, founder of the Campaign for Liberty, and distinguished counselor to the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He and Carol, his wife of fifty-three years, have five children, eighteen grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren.

About The Author of the shortened version, Liberty Defined Short Version which Mr. White calls A Patriotic Call By Ron Paul, with Don White. He received his Juris Doctor degree in 1991 while he was president/CEO in Minneapolis of a 24-state mutual insurance company, Western National Mutual Insurance Group. He also holds a journalism degree and served as assistant University of Utah Athletic Department Publicist in 1957-58. Later he was assistant editor of three magazines and an Associated Press newsman in Salt Lake Utah. He is married to the former Carolyn Christensen and they have four children. Mr. White has published one novel, a political thriller, "The Exterminator," and co-authored with his wife and son, Marcus White, a real estate book, "Selling Fast." He is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and served a church mission for 30 months in Finland. He wholeheartedly supports Mr. Paul and his conservative viewpoints, a man he believes is the most qualified to become president of the United States and, with his excellent libertarian and Tea Party credentials, most capable to restore the liberties already lost in America.

The following is a powerful chapter of what Don affectionately calls "The White Notes" of Mr. Paul's book.

Chapter 18

Executive Power

“Rarely does an elected leader truly resist the temptation to exert power over the people,” said Ron Paul. “Lust for power is a human trait.”

The Founders’ answer to greedy lawmakers and leaders were checks and balances. The federal government was restricted to power as found in the Constitution Article 1, Section 3 that defines the limited power the federal government has over the people.

The fifty-six Founders would not have approved the Constitution “without a clear limitation of the powers of the federal government.”

Study the language and the debates. Study the Federalist Papers. Get Mr. White's shortened version called Patriot Call By Ron Paul soon to be available at Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble as an ebook.

Understanding Ron Paul’s Mind:

Paul claims there is not a hint of evidence that the Interstate Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause justified our current coercive federal welfare state. Yet, over the years, especially since FDR worked his magic on the Great Depression during the awful 1930s, a modern interpretation was forced on us by our courts and taught in our schools. Ron Paul adroitly observes that this means the Constitution could be changed at will by the three branches of government and without proper amendments.

That is because all they had to do was call it “Interstate Commerce” and it could be regulated without limit. Congressman Paul adds that even martial law could be justified “according to the demands of general welfare.”

“George Bush used his power in near dictatorial ways, passing the Homeland Security Presidential Directive in 2007 that gave him dictatorial powers in event of national emergency,” said Paul.

He said “the Constitution is a dead letter under these circumstances. What permits government to regulate every aspect of American labor contracts? It is a radical policy in the court case of National Relations Board v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation.”

It is what radically undermined the Interstate Commerce Clause, with the court justifying their ruling by saying the Tenth Amendment “is but a truism” and did not limit federal powers. It was United States v. Darby Lumber in 1941.

Ron Paul believes the separation of powers between the national government and states has “virtually disappeared.” All of it was done in the past ten years. But “because everything that government touches completely fails, people are debating the Tenth Amendment again.”

Shift of Power To Executive Branch:

The Congressman believes this is as big a problem as the sovereignty taken from the states. It is clear the Constitution made Congress the most important branch of government, but today it is the weakest, said Paul. Congress was supposed to have decided issues of war, money, international and domestic trade laws, spending, taxes, and foreign relations. Today, these issues are the responsibility of the president—especially without congressional input.

We know how the progressive Barak Obama feels about this—exactly the same as the progressive George W. Bush felt about it. But how many of the nine candidates running for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States feel the same way as Ron Paul about smaller government?. Maybe one, only fellow libertarian and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico, but only to some degree. The current front runners, Romney and Perry, are not going to campaign for less power in the executive branch and maybe Johnson won’t either. He built 500 miles of new roads in New Mexico without legislative approval. He rammed it through as an executive order because the representatives of the people opposed it. That kind of Obama-like activity takes a chunk out of freedom.

Ron Paul says Congress gave up its prerogatives without a fight. Does that mean Paul’s limited-government iconoclasm is dangerous? No, just the contrary. More voters should side with limited government. Why? Because the Constitution and the Founders wanted limited government. Why do you think the Puritans and others thereafter came to America if it wasn’t to throw off heavy burdens imposed by kings?. It was to escape big, powerful government in the form of wicked monarchs and tyrants that exist even today, imposing heavy fines and regulations on private enterprise and the little guy and aggrandizing themselves with the perks of power, including expensive trips for their family and supporters to exotic places, taking up half or all of lavishly-appointed hotels, always working against principles supported by representatives of the people, the House of Representatives.

Too many members of Congress had been taught that for America to survive, we had to have a super-strong president. It can only be achieved at the expense of the peoples’ liberty…”excessive dictatorial executive powers are the envy of the enemy of the liberties that our Constitution was supposed to protect.

Paul Gives Examples:

1) Our system of education

It has brainwashed the public to believe that to be truly a great president, a president had to be a wartime president. Many of them welcomed wars, or manufactured a war. Each time liberties of the people were lost.

2) Presidents now decide on war and Congress acquiesces. The War Powers Resolution of 1972 was and is a failure. Instead of restraining a president, it gives a president authority to pursue war for ninety days without Congressional approval. Since World War II, all of our wars have been fought without Congressional authority.

Trade Treaties

Trade treaties are no longer entered into with Congressional approval. The Founders were suspicious of entangling agreements with foreign nations. The Constitution requires a two-third vote of the Senate to enter into a trade treaty. Today, however, our presidents do about anything they like in this area. That is why we have international trade agreements like World Trade Organization (WTO), Coalition For Fair Trade Rules (CFTR), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They sacrifice national sovereignty to international government organizations.

Unfortunately, these agreements can supersede state laws as well. All of this is counter to our constitution. If the people wanted the president and international trade organizations to control our trade, they should have sought approval by creating a constitutional amendment, but they didn’t. There was an easier way. Supersede the Constitution and write an executive order signed by the president. Who needs the Constitution?

How are executive-created bureaucracies governed? The president’s executives write the rules without Congressional oversight. As Paul says: “The agencies become both the policeman and judge in a monstrous system of administrative justice. Under this system the defendant is considered guilty until proven innocent. Congressman Paul believes the average citizen lacks funds to defend himself in court when charged with something.

This contrasts with rich lawmaker bureaucrats who “swell their ranks with constant pay raises and job security.”

War Powers—Most Dangerous

Paul says the war powers assumed by the presidents during periods of conflict may be the executive branch’s most dangerous assumption of power. Economic controls came during wars. Three presidents—Roosevelt, Truman, and Nixon—ordered wage and price controls.

Both Obama and Bush used what is called “state secret privileges.” Now Obama can claim that privilege and refuse to release information even without a showing that these so-called secrets or evidences would threaten national security.

He also cites this to hold suspects indefinitely and without charges being made. Bush massively expanded executive powers this way. The Freedom of Information Act has not limited this powerful court approach. In addition, America has what is termed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It, too, has increased the dangers of runaway executive power in the post 9/11 era.

Today, the executive branch can ignore a civil trial verdict of innocence if the administration still deems the person a threat; and that person can be thrown in prison indefinitely.

The current executive branch has encroached on judicial powers as well. Anyone, including an American, can be targeted for assassination, no charges filed, no trial held, no rights guaranteed. People can be arrested and held indefinitely, no charges made.

Some of us were worried that Barak Obama would override the right of habeas corpus and jail untold numbers of people. He already has that right, as habeas corpus no longer exists, according to Congressman Ron Paul. The reason given: national security would be threatened if we held those trials.

On battle fields, military courts can be justified; but this president, without legislative authority, can claim emergency and hold secret trials, moving American to a totalitarian state.

Presidents now exert huge power with appropriated funds. President Bush took millions of dollars earmarked for Afghanistan and started the war with Iraq.

Presidents can borrow money from the Federal Reserve. The Fed can also loan or give money to other banks or to foreign governments without congressional authority, thus negating the wishes of the people. That’s exactly what Obama did when he loaned or gave $2 billion to Brazil for offshore drilling at the same time he refused to grant new drilling permits to Americans in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Atlantic Ocean.

One might say it would be easy for a president to become a dictator, observes Ron Paul. An even greater reality is that our current Fed chairman is already a dictator. Who needs another one?

Funding of the CIA from private sources is well known. Their off-balance-sheet money comes from private businesses, banks, and illegal drug trade. Paul believes the president’s Working Groups On Financial Markets can manipulate markets and profit from it—all off budget.

The Exchange Stabilization Fund, the CFTC, the SEC and the Treasury, along with the Federal Reserve, can fund almost anything they desire. Ron Paul said it wasn’t difficult to fund the secret wars in Afghanistan and Nicaragua in the 1980s.

Chapter Footnotes

Denson, John 2001. Reassessing The Presidency: The Rise of The Executive State And The Decline of Freedom. Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.

Fisher, Louis. 2004. Presidential War Power. Lawrence University Press of Kansas.

Morely, Felix. Freedom and Federalism. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Savage, Charlie. 2008. Takeover: The Return of The Imperial Presidency and The Subversion of American Democracy. New York: Back Bay Books.

Hugo Chavez: A Dictator in Venzuela Hosting Glenn Beck?

2011-08-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

By Don White

I sincerely hope that Glenn Beck knows what he is doing in visiting one of the world's worst dictators, Hugo Chavez on his home turf.

Actually, Glenn is not visiting the dictator--no official business with him. He is speaking before 5,000 people prearranged for him by somebody, and I don't have the details of his connections to that socialistic-Marxist country.

If we don't hear from Beck for a while, we will assume he had trouble. Say your prayers for Beck, he needs them. He must be very circumspect about what he says and to whom he says it. Chavez has spies all over that dictatorship country. Once false move and he could be declared either persona non grata or a public nuisance. If they think he's a threat, they could throw him in jail.

He is certainly far more brave--or is he just being foolish--than most of us would be.

August 26, 2011

On Today's Program

Glenn vs. Hugo Chavez

Glenn once again broadcasted from South Africa today, but immediately after the show he departed for none other than Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. Despite efforts made by the Chavez regime to thwart Glenn's plane from landing there, Glenn is still making his way to the dictator's country to speak to 5,000 people there. Chavez is a dictator who has been president since 1999 and has nationalized several industries including the media, food and oil industries. Glenn explains why he's going into the lion’s den on radio today.

Elena Kagan, New Supreme Court Justice, Is Obama's Citizenship Attorney

2011-08-26T12:22:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

by Don White
from information supplied by John Raper.

Windermere, FL--If you think it was okay and not odd that a solicitor general who is not really a trial attorney would be Barak Obama's choice to work at the Supreme Court. If you buy all of the crap SNOPES has for you, you don't know Obama well enough. Every move he mades is a payback for favors someone gave him. Absolutely true.

Never have we had a president who made so many important decisions for the country based solely on whether this could benefit the president personally or not. That man's name is Barak Obama, the worst president the country has ever had because he's really not a president, he is running things based on self interest, not the true interests of America.

Read This:

The first part proves that Kagan has been representing Obama's citizenship lawsuits, something SNOPES has denied. By the way, don't rely on SNOPES no more to verify the truth of anything. It is a left wing cover financed by George Soros. It is not impartial. It does not operate in the light. It is a dark op happening each day of the year to cover for Barak Obama and his many lies to the American people:

Subject: FW: Snopes - Not What You Think READ XXXX READ

I've been trying to expose Snopes's liberal bias for some time with little support. Now I'm finally vindicated. I've previously written Snopes to call them on their half-truths and propagandizing lies. I've gotten no responses. Here's one of the dockets showing that Kagan was completely immersed in this as solicitor general:

No. 09-724

Title:

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner

Federal Election Commission, et al.

Docketed:

December 22, 2009

Lower Ct:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-1977)
Decision Date:	August 5, 2009
Rehearing Denied:	October 6, 2009

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 16 2009	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2010)
Jan 11 2010	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2010.
Feb 17 2010	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 24, 2010.
Mar 24 2010	Brief of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2010	Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed.
Apr 7 2010	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
Apr 26 2010	Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) and the Solicitor General's suggestion of mootness.
May 28 2010	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
James Bopp Jr.	Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom	(812) 232-2434 (812) 232-2434
	1 South 6th Street
	Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510
	jboppjr@aol.com
Party name: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Elena Kagan	Solicitor General	(202) 514-2217 (202) 514-2217
	United States Department of Justice
	950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC 20530-0001
	SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

No. 09-724

Title:

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner

Federal Election Commission, et al.

Docketed:

December 22, 2009

Lower Ct:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-1977)
Decision Date:	August 5, 2009
Rehearing Denied:	October 6, 2009

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 16 2009	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2010)
Jan 11 2010	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2010.
Feb 17 2010	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 24, 2010.
Mar 24 2010	Brief of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2010	Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed.
Apr 7 2010	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
Apr 26 2010	Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) and the Solicitor General's suggestion of mootness.
May 28 2010	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~	~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
James Bopp Jr.	Bopp, Coleson & Bostrom	(812) 232-2434 (812) 232-2434
	1 South 6th Street
	Terre Haute, IN 47807-3510
	jboppjr@aol.com
Party name: The Real Truth About Obama, Inc.
Attorneys for Respondents:
Elena Kagan	Solicitor General	(202) 514-2217 (202) 514-2217
	United States Department of Justice
	950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
	Washington, DC 20530-0001
	SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: Federal Election Commission, et al.

No. 09-724

Title:

The Real Truth About Obama, Inc., Petitioner

Federal Election Commission, et al.

Docketed:

December 22, 2009

Lower Ct:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Case Nos.:	(08-1977)
Decision Date:	August 5, 2009
Rehearing Denied:	October 6, 2009

~~~Date~~~	~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dec 16 2009	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 21, 2010)
Jan 11 2010	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 22, 2010.
Feb 17 2010	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 24, 2010.
Mar 24 2010	Brief of respondents Federal Election Commission, et al. filed.
Apr 2 2010	Reply of petitioner The Real Truth About Obama, Inc. filed.
Apr 7 2010	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 23, 2010.
Apr 26 2010	Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. ___ (2010) and the Solicitor General's suggestion of mootness.
May 28 2010	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Subject: Fwd: Snopes - Not What You Think READ XXXX READ From: MWM

Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:20:36 -0600 To:

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Date: August 24, 2011 8:03:44 AM MDTTo: undisclosed-recipients:;Subject: Snopes - Not What You Think READ XXXX READ

Snopes!

I heard years ago that Snopes was a left-wing operation and found it odd that there was absolutely nothing negative to be found about Obama when he was running for President. I should have known that George Sorros was behind them too. Most of us have gone to Snopes for verify information that we were not sure about. Now, come to find out, Snopes is not the paragon of truth we thought it was. I just eliminated them as a source of honesty and integrity. Please read and pass on to your email friends.Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a huge financial supporter of Obama!
In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions. I went to Snopes to check this out and they said it was false and there were no such dockets so I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep you got it. Snopes lied. Everyone of those dockets are there. So Here is what I wrote Snopes:
Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barak Obama dockets: The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to.. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this revelation is really shocking. You exist behind a veil of half truths and distorted facts. Hoping you will be honest and forthcoming in the future is probably expecting too much.
************* That being said, if you really didn't know THIS then your investigative reporting is a sham; Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly. Chicago Politics; and the beat goes on and on and on...

Once again the US Senate sold us out! Well, someone figured out why Obama nominated Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court.... Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. Kagan was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard! It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn't it? The American people mean nothing any longer. It all comes down to payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone that really has no true right to even be there.
Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: When you look up some of these hearings and guess what?? Elana Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!!!
Check out these examples:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm>
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm>
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6790.htm
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm>
<http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm>http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-724.htm

If you are not interested in justice or in truth delete this. However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution By all means, please PASS it ON!

MoJo Says Rick Perry's No-Fly Zone Idea To Jump-Start His Presidential Aspirations

2011-07-05T06:50:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

Does Rick Perry Want to

Make Texas a No-Fly Zone?

Posted: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:00:00 +0000

Texas lawmakers are expected to vote on a bill Wednesday that would
effectively outlaw many routine airport searches by the Transportation
Security Administration. If it passes, a TSA screener who touches the
"anus, sexual organs, or breasts" of a passenger without probable
cause could face jail time—a prospect that has the Obama administration
threatening to sue the Lone Star state and even cancel flights. A rattled
state Senate seemed to have dropped the bill before Gov. Rick Perry put
it back on the agenda again last week, perhaps seeing a high-stakes fight
with the feds as fuel for a presidential bid. But why stop at that? Some of
the bill's most enthusiastic backers view it as a key first step towards an
even bigger goal: The establishment of an independent Republic of Texas.

"If the federal government follows up on its threat and suspends air travel,
I honestly think we are going to gain a lot of members in a big hurry," says
Dave Mundy, media director for the Texas Nationalist Movement(TNM),
a pro-secession group that claims an active membership of 10,000. "An air
embargo, which is what they are talking about, would actually be an act of
war.

Read the entire story on Mother Jones feed or MoJo
http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/tRaA

Kaupunki: "Atlas Shrugged" Is Pure Entertainment, Not a Philosophical Statement

2011-06-24T19:29:00.000-07:00

Kaupunki: "Atlas Shrugged" Is Pure Entertainment, Not a Philosophical Statement

embed this tweet

"Atlas Shrugged" Is Pure Entertainment, Not a Philosophical Statement

2011-06-24T19:24:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

I am reprinting Gary DeMar's excellent, but highly philosophical and ivory towered, editorial on Atlas Shrugged.

Note my comments at the end. Don White

Do you like this story?

Do Conservatives Need Ayn Rand?

By GARY DEMAR | Published: JUNE 20, 2011

Shortly after Congressman Paul Ryan’s appearance at the 2011 Faith and Freedom Conference in D.C., a Bible-waving protester confronted the Chairman of the House Budget Committee and questioned him for modeling his proposed budget after “the extreme ideology of Ayn Rand rather than the basic economic justice values of the Bible.”

The protestor offered Ryan a Bible and advised him to “bone up on what it says about how we should treat the poor and vulnerable” with a specific “focus on the Gospel of Luke.” The protestor offered no particulars but I suspect that he was part of the “red-letter Christian” brigade of social activists who believe the Bible promotes a socialist form of economics. A rejection of Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy does not mean that Socialism is the alternative. Ryan politely turned down the Bible. He told the protestor that he already had one.

Are conservatives making a mistake by appealing to the works of Ayn Rand, a dedicated and proselytizing atheist whose personal life is not something that anyone but the most consistent libertine would want to emulate? Are any of Rand’s economic views unique to her? Do conservatives really need her writings when they have the works of Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and many others? Maybe it’s time that Sowell and Williams write a novel with an underlying economic theme. This seems the only way for people to ingest ideas. Free-market advocate Henry Hazlitt (1894–1993), author of Economics in One Lesson and The Failure of the New Economics (1959), a detailed, chapter-by-chapter critique of John Maynard Keynes’s still highly influential General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, did it with his 1951 novel The Great Idea (republished in 1966 asTime Will Run Back). It’s a great introduction to economic theory and practice. Rand understood that ideas alone are not enough. They need an engine to get the ideological goods to market. Fiction is a great way to do it.

Rand is the author of a number of novels that illustrate an Objectivist Ideology that represent the morality of free-market capitalism and rational self-interest. Does one need to be an Objectivist to be able to account for the legitimacy of the free-marketand economic self-interest? No.

Like today’s New Atheists, Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected all forms of faith and religion. She promoted rational egoism(an action is rational if and only if it maximizes a person’s self-interest) and rejectedethical altruism (individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others). In her 1964 Playboy interview, Rand stated, “Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.” But how does an atheist account for reason given materialist assumptions about the nature of reality? Reason is non-material. In addition, how does Rand know that reason is reasonable? She assumes the validity of reason. If she used anything else to prove reason’s validity, then that proof-point would be more foundational than reason. Her reason-only approach is circular.

Rand’s works have been popular for a long time. Although the 2011 production of Atlas Shrugged as a film (part 1 of 3 parts) has gotten a lot of attention, this isn’t the first time that one of her novels has seen the big screen. Her 1943 novel The Fountainhead was made into a film in 1949 and starred Gary Cooper, Raymond Massey, and Patricia Neal.

Let’s get down to some basics. A consistent atheist can’t be a capitalist since there is nothing within an atheistic worldview that mandates morality and the protection of capital. Materialism knows nothing of private property. In fact, the major tenet of atheism, which is wed to evolution and Herbert Spencer’s “the survival of the fittest” (later adopted by Charles Darwin), is might makes right and no one has the inherent right to object. It’s the necessary goal of the strongest biological entity to dominate the weaker entity, by hook or by crook. There is no one standing over evolved biological units demanding, “Thou shalt not kill. . . . Thou shalt not steal.”

Rand necessarily borrowed from the biblically defined world that she was raised in. While growing up in a Jewish home and raised by non-observant Jewish parents, she could not escape the world shaped by the underlying assumptions of biblical values. As distorted as many of these principles might have been in her native Russia, there were still enough of them present that she could not think rationally without them. Being created in the image of God, she could not escape them and live rationally or develop the concepts of morality and right and wrong. Of course, she defines these fundamental absolutes in terms of her eclectic and twisted worldview.

Without a biblical worldview there is no way to account for the limited sovereignty of the individual and the inviolate sanctity of intellectual and physical property, themes expressed in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Her atheism did not give her the needed foundation for such claims. She borrowed these foundational principles and separated them from their source. She’s like the “little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off Hs throne.”[1] Her observational principles work in her system as long as the majority of people are not atheists.

Rand is not wrong about everything she teaches. Her problem is that she can’t account for what is good in her system. She’s right that forced altruism is wrong, no matter who is doing it and what supposed good reasons people are giving for having it done. There is no forced governmental forced altruism mandated in the Bible. The Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) uses his own money to care for the robbery victim left for dead. This story cannot be used as a directive for social spending by governments. Jesus never calls on the State to act in an altruistic way, since it has nothing of its own to give. The eighth commandment applies to civil governors in the same way that it applies to self-governors. Neither is permitted to steal to help others.

You can’t be altruistic with other people’s money. Taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people is not altruism, even if a majority of people vote for a program that does it. It’s theft. Theft by “majority rule” is still theft.

Rand makes the mistake of ruling out all altruism, seemingly even if it’s voluntary. Even the Bible has limits on personal altruism. This is why Paul can say, “if a person is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Thess. 3:10). Contributing to a person’s lethargy is not altruism; it’s sin. But an atheist could say, without fear of any legitimate condemnation, “it doesn’t matter whether you work or not; you’re not going to eat.” There is nothing morally objective in Objectivism that says one person or a group of persons can’t intentionally starve one person or many. Of course, an Objectivist can say something is wrong, but there is no inherent basis for the claim. In a sense, Rand’s Objectivist ideology is worse than the Marxism she worked so hard to expose.

Libertarians have made a big deal of Rand’s Atlas Shrugged that describes a world where the productive members of society are being exploited by an ever-increasing and demanding government. Having had enough, the producers, industrialists, artists, and innovators progressively disappear. Why work and risk everything if their efforts are only going to be consumed by others who do not work? The book’s protagonist, the mysterious John Galt, describes the exodus of these producers as “stopping the motor of the world.” Without the engine of intellectual freedom and the reward of personal initiative and risk-taking, the incentive to produce dies and the world at large suffers.

Long before Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas had shrugged in the early years of America, but not by “the captains of industry” but by “people with the peculiar knack of making money.” This is another flaw in Rand’s thinking — her belief that only the intellectually superior person can be an Atlas. This is nonsense. Gary North writes:

Rand did not understand entrepreneurship. She did not understand that society-transforming entrepreneurship is not about doing great, creative things. It is about doing little, unconventional things for 250 consecutive years. It is not about rugged individualism. It is about using the prevailing system to make a buck any way you can, and then stay out of jail.

Consumers are in charge. They don’t make capitalists rich because businessmen are ideologically pure or heroic defenders of property rights. Consumers hand money over to them to get what they want. Capitalists respond to incentives. The main incentive is money, not the applause of the public for a job ideologically well done.

We get what we pay for. We pay for delivery of the goods in the situation at hand. We need not fear that Atlas will shrug. We should instead fear that he will pay off some key politicians to get an edge against the ever-fickle, ever-demanding consumers: us.

We can see this taking place early in America’s founding era. Common storehouse economics prevailed in Massachusetts and Virginia. Initially, all the colonists worked hard but were required to put whatever they produced in a common storehouse. Colonists would draw out what was needed. This arrangement encouraged laziness and made the community poorer. The hardest workers did not get a larger portion of goods. Those who did little work would receive a share of goods equal to that of the most industrious. There was no incentive to be industrious if everyone, no matter how hard or how little he worked, got the same share.

In the final analysis, Rand is a weak reed on which to build an economic platform. She can’t account for the either the economic worldview she worked so hard to build or the morality necessary to make it work.

208 4share6218

Endnotes:

John A. Fielding III, “The Brute Facts: An Introduction of the Theology and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til,” The Christian Statesman 146:2 (March-April 2003), 30. [↩]

Donald White

Posted June 24, 2011 at 10:14 pm | Permalink

Thank you for your editorial about Ayn Rand and “Atlas Shrugged.” I am a conservative and a member of a Christian church. The enjoyment I received by reading both Fountain Head and Atlas had nothing to do with whether the author was atheist or not. In my mind, that is immaterial. Enjoyment is why people read fiction, and “Atlas” is a very good read.

The CDs were even better than having to plod through that long book, “Atlas”, but I believe she had the ability to build tension, conflict, and portray real characters. That’s why I read fiction, to receive a vicarious experience that can be achieved in no other way.

A lot of what you wrote about–and, frankly, just filled up the requisite number of pages so that you could get paid for your effort, was pretty idealistic and not something I give a darned about. I do care about such things as productivity and preserving a system of government that respects human dignity, private enterprise, industry, and personal effort as opposed to building up the welfare state and that’s what our beleaguered Constitution does or should do. I’m all for the rights of the individual as opposed to the power grabs that big government combined with big industry assume at our expense and detriment.

You say Rand didn’t understand entrepreneurship, and I say she did. So what? The books were grand reads, and in the end that’s all that really matters in fiction.

I Love to Discriminate For People I Love

2011-06-14T12:30:00.000-07:00

embed this tweet

I Love To Discriminate For Those I Love

embed this tweet
By Don White, June 14m 2011

People are always saying someone discriminated against them, or that they discriminated against a friend.

Discrimination is okay if its for reasons other than race, religion, gender, nationality, and age. In fact, we all must discriminate for righteousness sake if we expect to live with God in the hereafter.

Then what I'm saying is "Discriminate all you want as long as it is not against people for one of the above reasons." The Lord said, "Choose the right." That assumes there must be a wrong way of life, and there is. It is the way of Satan and not God. You have to discriminate to choose a right way of living.

Not all people are going to be happy with that statement. But there are too many folks out there who have a tough time spelling out what they stand for. Are they for freedom, or are they for socialism? Do they love the Lord, Jesus Christ, and God the Father or do they love evil?

Me? I stand for freedom and personal integrity, well doing, helping other people regardless of who they are--but, generally, well doing for people I know and like.

First and foremost, that includes family. But it also includes folks I've never met but know I would like to help. Little children, for example. The lonely, the mentally ill, war veterans--especially those who put their lives in harms way and came away from war injured, maimed, having lost body parts, or having given their lives for the freedom of others.

Here is a list of countries I like. Not that I like them exclusively. In addition to these people, there are other countries and peoples I love dearly. They include the Scandinavians--particularly the Finnish people because I lived there for 30 months and had an LDS missionary experience of a lifetime that I'll never forget. They are an outstanding people. Many times in their history they were beaten down in battle and had to endure the hardships of war and living under a foreign leader or dictator. Many times they were victorious, too, as in the Winter War of 1939 against Russia.

Here are some countries I also love. It is interesting that this group are Twitter participating people. The U.S., you will notice, has by far the most Twitterers or Twitterbugs, with Brazil coming in second over the UK and Canada, our natural best allies. Does that mean something? I think so. I think if I traveled to Brazil I would love those people. I already love at least one family from Brazil, the Jose and Alba Barreiros family whom I "home teach" as part of my ecclesiastical calling as a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in our Windermere, Florida Ward. For your information, to Mormons a ward is a congregation of believers.

Top Twitter Countries

Country

United States

26%

Brazil

United Kingdom

Canada

Netherlands

India

Turkey

Spain

Japan

Indonesia

France

Germany

Mexico

Egypt

Philippines

Russia

Argentina

Italy

Australia

Saudi Arabia

I invite you to check out this participating web site about discrimination. Don White
http://srdw.blogspot.com/