Posted by Aaron Burns on January 27th, 2009



Here is an article written by one of my new heroes, Dr. Anne
Wortham. Dr. Wortham’s an Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois
State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University
’s Hoover Institution. She’s black, voted for Ron Paul, reads Ayn Rand,
and holds liberty and objectivism as ideals of the highest order. My
friends Todd and Liz simultaneously sent me emails containing this
article, which perfectly illustrates my feelings as a human who happens
to be of black heritage. This woman is a champion of liberty.

No He Can’t
By Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,
 Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South. I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in Ron Paul’s name as my choice for president. Most importantly, I am not race conscious. I do not require a black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living. I do not require a black president to love the ideal of America .

I cannot join you in your celebration. I feel no elation. There is no smile on my face. I am not jumping with joy. There are no tears of triumph in my eyes. For such emotions and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human flourishing and survival, – all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician. I would have to deny the nature of the “change” that Obama asserts has come to America . Most importantly, I would have to abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have been on for over a century. I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value for the success of a human life. I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success and mine depend. I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and that they were joined by self-declared “progressive” whites who voted for him because he doesn’t look like them. I would have to wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration, – political intellectuals like my former colleagues at the Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government.
 
I would have to believe that “fairness” is the equivalent of justice. I would have to believe that man who asks me to “go forward in a new spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice” is speaking in my interest. I would have to accept the premise of a man that economic prosperity comes from the “bottom up,” and who arrogantly believes that he can will it into existence by the use of government force. I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.
 
Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying, cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting “Yes We Can!” Finally, I would have to wipe all memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals declare that capitalism is dead – and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that they want to replace with their own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.
 
So you have made history, Americans. You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the president of the United States, the wounded giant of the world. The battle between John Wayne and Jane Fonda is over – and that Fonda won. Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men. Jimmie Carter, too. And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like. The self-righteous welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person. So, toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians. Toast yourselves, Black America . Shout your glee Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley. You have elected not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin Roosevelt, promises to – Do Something! You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine, – what little there is left, – for the chance to feel good. There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

Let's assume for a minute that someone has actually read the proper clean-up guidelines, has educated each member of the family on proper clean-up guidelines and proper disposal of the CFL, and each member of the family actually follows those guidelines, and always disposes of the CFL properly.  Let's assume that this health-conscious, law-abiding family is a renter.

Tell me this, congressmen.  How can this family be sure that the previous renter of that property never broke a CFL bulb, or if they did, followed the proper clean-up guidelines for these neurotoxin emitting bulbs?  How can they be certain that this deadly neurotoxin is not being recirculated in the room and through the air vents to every room each time they vacuum?  How can they be certain that there are no tiny balls of mercury in the carpet that their toddler will find and swallow?

According to the National Multi Housing Council tabulations of the 2007 Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, and US Census Bureau, there are 36,756,000 renters in the U.S.  How many millions of renters will be exposed to this deadly neurotoxin unknowingly in their own residence?

When someone buys a home, how can they be sure that proper cleanup procedures were followed if one of these bulbs was broken by the previous owner?  How can you assure us, congressmen, that this deadly neurotoxin is not lurking in hotel rooms where we choose to stay?

While Big Pharma, the FDA, and the CDC have put politics ahead of protecting the public, children have been contaminated for years with mercury-based preservatives (thimerosal) in vaccines, even though the results of a staggering number of studies linked thimerosal to speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism.  And you allowed it, congressmen.  So it's no surprise to me that you are not concerned that a toddler might ingest mercury left behind by a former tenant.

Big Government Responsible for High Gas Prices

by Ron Paul

In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government's power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline.  For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared.

Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers' pay at the pump. The Federal Government's boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar's last link to gold.

Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits.  It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976.

Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation's monetary policy and the price of oil.

The free market can meet the American people's demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog....

Video of Ron Paul addressing General Petraeus at the Iraq Surge Hearing in Congress on April 9, 2008.

A while back, after a particularly bad day...week...month(s), in order to amuse myself I sat down one night and made a list of all the hats I wear. Aside all the "family" type hats I wear, I came up with 82+. My conclusion? I am grossly underpaid! If any of you spend your days doing what I currently do, I think you will immediately identify with this list! Can you guess what I do?

1.  teacher
2.  counselor
3.  good guy
4.  bad guy
5.  friend
6.  surrogate mother
7.  sister (unrelated)
8.  cop
9.  private detective and investigator
10.  firefighter
11.  babysitter
12.  actor
13.  director
14.  educator
15.  psychologist
16.  analyst
17.  supervisor
18.  manager
19.  consultant
20.  correction officer
21.  credit clerk
22.  human services specialist
23.  human resources specialist
24.  vendor liason
25.  information clerk
26.  inspector
27.  cleaning supervisor
28.  landscape maintenance supervisor
29.  librarian
30.  finance advisor
31.  public relations representative
32.  marketer
33.  psychiatric aide
34.  labor relations specialist
35.  purchaser and buyer
36.  receptionist
37.  reporter and correspondent
38.  writer and editor
39.  public servant
40.  photographer
41.  cashier
42.  dispatcher
43.  documentalist
44.  drill instructor
45.  coach
46.  crier
47.  dictator
48.  diplomat
49.  domestic servant
50.  courier
51.  garbage collector
52.  gatekeeper
53.  engineer
54.  entertainer
55.  escort
56.  herder
57.  animal control officer
58.  explorer
59.  illustrator
60.  impersonator
61.  journalist
62.  judge (and jury hehehe)
63.  lecturer, interpreter
64.  interrogator
65.  magician
66.  nanny
67.  negotiator
68.  oracle
69.  mediator
70.  messenger
71.  moonlighter
72.  referee
73.  refuse collector
74.  shaman
75.  security guard,
76.  webmaster
77.  web designer
78.  zookeeper
79.  common sense facilitator.
80.  arbitrator
81.  bookkeeper
82.  And let’s not forget...mind reader.

Some even refer to me as the BITCH! LOL

How many hats do you wear?

The first assumption, that Iraq was for sale in the first place, is a dangerous one, because it assumes that entire nations can be "bought." The fact that many Republicans believe this to be the case is particularly saddening, because in the very first Republican Party platform in 1856, one of the five planks of the GOP was its intense opposition to the Ostend Manifesto, which was essentially a plan by the US to "buy" Cuba, with or without its consent. The drafters of the first Republican platform wrote that such a notion "was in every respect unworthy of American diplomacy, and would bring shame and dishonor upon any Government or people that gave it their sanction."[13]

In fact, our presence there will, in the long run, do anything but keep the country secure and unified.

Our presence in Iraq is a visible and loathsome affront to the Islamic religion (Iraq is Islam’s second holiest land), and, like the Soviets’ presence in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, our presence in Iraq will continue to serve as a magnet for a never-ending flow of transnational Islamic insurgents from countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria. While we can make violence levels in Iraq buoy up and down occasionally with "troop surges" and varying military tactics, Muslims in the region will ultimately never rest so long as they see a foreign power occupying some of their religion’s holiest lands. Though the US is killing an average of 2000 insurgents a year, overall numbers of insurgents continue to steadily rise.[14]

Not only is our military occupation destabilizing Iraq by serving as a rallying cry for transnational jihad, it also makes Iraq’s government look like a puppet of ours, and thus undermines the legitimacy of the government amongst the very people it demands respect from.

By Common Dreams

(Why Ron Paul is Right - An answer for those conservative voters who "like Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but think he’s just flat out wrong on foreign policy.")

(Of the War on Terrorism continued from Part 9)

It was Sun Tzu, the famous ancient Chinese military strategist, who said "Know thy enemy." Indeed, if we do not recognize who our enemy is, we will never be victorious. We must ask ourselves, for the sake of our lives and our children’s lives, whether we are correctly waging this "War on Terrorism."

However, a question often overlooked is: Is it even possible to wage a war on "terrorism?" Terrorism is merely an idea—a tactic. It is not the enemy itself. In actuality, it is no more possible to wage a war on terrorism than it is to wage a war on "anger," or a war on "punching." Terrorism is merely a means used to achieve certain goals. It’s a tactic that’s utilized because it’s very effective, both in killing more people and in having more of a political impact. And terrorism is not confined to Islam—suicide terrorism isn’t even confined to Islam.

In fact, the country that experiences the most suicide terrorism isn’t Israel or Pakistan, but Sri Lanka, and the religion that utilizes suicide terrorism the most isn’t Islam, but Hinduism![10] Hindus and Muslims aren’t the only ones who use suicide terrorism as a tactic to achieve political objectives either—Communists, Sikhs, and even Christians have been suicide bombers. When Hezbollah conducted its suicide terror campaign to drive foreign forces out of Lebanon in 1982-1986, only 21% of the suicide bombers they recruited were fundamentalist Muslims. 71% were Communists/socialists, and 8% were Christians.[11]

What this shows is that religion, or a particular religion, is not the taproot of suicide terrorism, but rather nationalism. Suicide terrorists do what they do out of a deep sense of nationalistic pride and commitment to a tight-knit community—their profiles better fit the kind of politically conscious individuals who would join a grassroots organization than raving, bloodthirsty lunatics. It’s a tough pill to swallow, but it’s something that has to be understood if we truly want our posterity to live in an America where they don’t have to take their shoes off to get on an airplane.

We have to become aware of what we are truly facing. Are we facing a mere "terrorist organization," or are we facing an international Islamic insurgency that’s lashing back against US foreign policy in the Muslim world? The answer should be clear. Says Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA’s "Bin Laden Unit":

The use of this [terrorism-oriented] paradigm ensures a time-consuming, law enforcement approach, one that focuses on dismantling the group one terrorist at a time, as if we were nicking away at the Mafia. [This vastly underestimates] al Qaeda’s resourcefulness, popularity, manpower, durability, and lethality. We must accept the fact that bin Laden and al Qaeda are leading a popular, worldwide, and increasingly powerful Islamic insurgency. An insurgency is fought in a different manner and scale than terrorism.[12]

If this is so, then a massive change in thinking is required. We must make a decision as to whether the costs outweigh the benefits of continuing our current policy, which includes stationing hundreds of thousands of US troops in countries across the world, giving massive foreign aid hand outs to any country that claims to be our friend, bombing or invading any country that doesn’t want to be our friend, trying to be the peacekeeper and welfare officer of the world, and sacrificing our national sovereignty to corrupt, international institutions and demanding that other countries completely submit to these institutions while we ourselves selectively choose when we’re going to submit to or shun these institutions.

This is a policy that we may need to consider abandoning, especially if it’s provoking terrorist attacks against us and bankrupting our country.

What’s more, whether or not our current big-government foreign policy is practical must also be joined with whether or not it’s truly moral, or constitutional for that matter.

(Of the War on Terrorism to be continued in Part 11)

By Common Dreams

(Why Ron Paul is Right - An answer for those conservative voters who "like Ron Paul on a lot of issues, but think he’s just flat out wrong on foreign policy.")

(Of the War on Terrorism continued from Part 7)

Let’s take Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, as a case study. A quick survey of his background will reveal some disturbing facts—disturbing in that they show a very normal, well-adjusted, and successful young man.

He had a healthy relationship with his family. His father was a lawyer, and his two sisters were both university professors. They lived in a beautiful Cairo apartment, with a vacation home on the Mediterranean coast. He had no record of any trauma, depression, or mental instability. He was well-educated, having earned his bachelor’s degree in Cairo, and having done graduate work at Hamburg Technical University in Germany. All of his professors remembered him as a "good student."

Atta was raised by his parents as a moderate, Westernized Muslim, as is common in Egypt. Once, when he was young, he even refused to join a basketball league because it was organized by the Muslim Brotherhood, whose teachings he thought to be "too extreme."

However, Atta is not an anomaly. His story matches those of the vast majority of Muslim suicide terrorists. What is truly remarkable is that the terrorists who attack us largely come from very average, moderate, respectable backgrounds.

Studies on the backgrounds of suicide terrorists have, amazingly, shown that there has never been a suicide bomber who had a major criminal background, or had committed a murder before. Not only that, but no person who has become a suicide terrorist has ever shown any evidence of clinical depression, psychosis, or past suicide attempts before committing their act.[3]

Furthermore, these are not irrational or uneducated people: in-depth studies show that more than 50% of suicide terrorists have post-secondary education, 33% have secondary education, and just fewer than 10% have less than a secondary education.

Suicide terrorists even tend to be significantly more educated than their peers.[4] Many try to explain suicide bombers as impoverished, directionless youths with no opportunity in life who resort to suicide terrorism as a way to gain entrance into Paradise and procure favor for their struggling families. Nevertheless, this too is contradicted by the facts, which show that those who commit suicide terrorism come overwhelmingly from middle-class backgrounds—fewer than 20% come from low-income backgrounds, and 5% actually come from high-income backgrounds.[5]

So, what did go wrong in this promising young man’s life? Most investigators trace the turning point back to a trip Atta made to Saudi Arabia in 1995. In Islam, it is a customary for every Muslim to make a pilgrimage (a "Hajj") to Mecca, at least once in their life. However, when Atta returned from his Hajj in 1996, his friends and coworkers noticed a change in him. He harbored a newfound animosity toward America and began growing a chin beard, a sign of Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt.

What was it in Saudi Arabia that so offended even this normal, moderate Muslim and made him willing to give up his life to attack the United States of America?

It is likely the same thing that caused the Afghanistan "freedom fighters" (now known as "al Qaeda") to turn against America in 1990. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz explained in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine in 2003 that the major recruiting device for al Qaeda had been the presence of American air bases surrounding Muslim holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

The presence of American heavy combat troops on Muslim holy land had "been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda," said Wolfowitz. "In fact, if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina."[6]

Indeed, Wolfowitz was spot on, for in Osama bin Laden’s 1998 "Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places," the first reason bin Laden lists for the declaration of jihad is the fact that the American military had "been occupying the lands of Islam in its holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula."[7] Bin Laden may have had his own personal vendettas against his former ally, the United States—who knows?—but the fact remains that al Qaeda’s recruiting skyrocketed immediately after America installed military bases on Saudi soil during the Persian Gulf War.

On top of being religiously offensive to even moderate Muslims, studies regularly show how notorious foreign military bases are for being breeding grounds for prostitution, gambling, petty crime, and all kinds of activities that may be a bit unsavory in America but are utterly odious to other cultures. Thus, the military bases in Saudi Arabia were a highly visible and highly effective recruiting tool for terrorist attacks.

But while Osama bin Laden and the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, those who attack us or seek to attack us come from a wide range of countries across the Muslim world—in fact, even al Qaeda itself claims recruits from all over the region, not just Saudi Arabia. Where are all these recruits coming from, and why?

(Of the War on Terrorism to be continued in Part 9)