Boy it gets tiresome to see the same anarcho-socialist talking points spewed out under the guise of libertarianism.

First off, the overthrows of the governments of Iran and Chile certainly don't represent terrorism under even the simplistic definition you provided. The objective was never to terrorize or intimidate the population or society of those nations, it was to provide them with responsible government and put them on the path to capitalism and modernization rather than oppression.

While we may not agree with one country imposing modernization and freedom on aother, there's no question that in the cases of Iran and Chile the end result of US intervention was enormously beneficial. Chile would not be the great success it is today had we not put Pinochet in power. And in Iran even the mullahs have not been able to reverse all of the advancements which came in the 17 years the Shah was in power. If the US intervened harmfully it was when Carter pulled support from the Shah and allowed him to be pushed out of power, leading to the current mess in that country.

And if you ARE a libertarian, shouldn't you believe in liberty for all, not just the select and elite few who happen to be born in the right country? The fundamental rights to life, liberty and property which all men are entitled aren't limited by borders, and if you do believe in liberty, shouldn't you also believe that it is every man's obligation as part of the social contract to do what he can to help others obtain and maintain their freedom. And if a government is 'conceived in liberty', then shouldn't part of its function be to promote liberty around the world where it can and when its people approve?

As for the USA PATRIOT Act, yes it's an abomination and ought to be repealed on general principles. But read it over sometime - it's only 500 some pages. There are very few areas where it actually interferes with the freedoms of typical American citizens and most of those are in ambiguous areas relating to surveillance. In almost all of those cases there's a reasonable constitutional argument that fundamental rights are not really infringed. What's more, key portions have already been amended or repealed or successfully challenged in court and others have been dliberately treated as unenforcable.

USA PATRIOT is hardly where I'd start repealing abusive laws. Drug laws which permit property seizure and the FISA Act are far more immediate threats.

As for globalism, you should read up on it a little more. What most of the globalists like Rockefeller had in mind was not subjecting the US to the rule of globalist powers, but subjecting the rest of the world to the de facto rule of the US.

Dave

"Pablo" is our old friend, Paul.

Check out the blog.

One of the first posts on it is about some diamond merchant in 19th century Africa...

At least he assumed a 'nom de blog' which embodies his anarcho-socialist leanings particularly well.

Dave

Dave,

Your remarks as usual are a combination of funny, and absurd. Almost as funny as you claiming to be a libertarian!! I am not a socialist, that being said, back to my favorite groups the Milner group and cfr. Perhaps you ought to do a bit more research before casting such dribble. You might find that in fact the Milner Group, and the Rhodes factions were very much aligned with Fabian Socialism, and still are. Such luminaries as Tony Blair, and the current Prime Minister of the UK are indeed Fabian Socialists too!

I like also how you turn black and white into dull grays, i.e. that according to the dictionary definition provided, the above acts of terrorism referenced were in point of fact terrorism. Yet as usual you dismiss the obvious and characterize me as something that I am not. I always look forward to your comments and picture the tin-foil had that you obviously must be wearing.
cheers

Pablo

Dave,

Perhaps you could provide me a reference where David Rockefeller made any such statements at all alluding to the USA being in charge of said Global government, I am completely unfamiliar with your claim, and quite frankly doubt it.

Pablito seems to be living in the past. The fabians are long gone and the CFR is nothing like what may have been planned back at the time of WW2. As for Blair, ike the rest of his crowd he's a pragmatic politician who plays eurosocialist a bit but has a good streak of british nationalist plutocrat too.

And Pablito is a libertarian the same way that the democrats are liberals. Just a label that no longer has any relationship to what they actually believe.

Of course he's living in the past; the bogeyman he's most afraid of is a long-dead diamond peddler in nineteenth century southern Africa.

Dave,

Perhaps you could provide me a reference where David Rockefeller made any such statements at all alluding to the USA being in charge of said Global government, I am completely unfamiliar with your claim, and quite frankly doubt it.

Oh and Lumpy, I suggest you google Tony Blair, and/or Gordon Brown and Fabian Socialism before you claim that this movement is in the past sir. You will find that you are dead WRONG. As Fabian Socialism is still very much alive. This is one of the reasons that I get such a kick out of Dave's assertion that I'm the socialist. Nothing could be further from truth.

Another thing Dave, it is interesting to note that apparently you are for terrorism as long as it has benign ends. Kinda reminds me of shoving Jeffersonian Democracy down Iraq's throat. Chuckle. As to promoting freedom everywhere as you claim, I do support people in other countries throwing off the shackle of either communist/socialist control, as well as Banana Republic control organically. Again as I have asserted in my article to use covert or overt military force to help others achieve those ends without a declaration of war as required by the us constitution is illegal. You as the supposed libertarian that you are, ought to be fighting for this constitution insteasd of denegrating it. I find it rather amusing that you cherry pick just about everything. That is if you support an idea, then it is ok to subvert the rule of law, that being that the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.

Your tin-hat gets more and more shiny the more that you talk sir. Furthermore you have made on more than one occasions statement suggesting you will ignore me, and that I should be ignored. Funny how you keep popping up!! Perhaps you might want to go elsewhere to engage in more fruitful endeavors. Not that I mind, I like you showing your true anti-libertarian colors, it brightens up my day sir.
Pablo

I don't know if Lumpy is going to take Paul (Pablo) up on his suggestion, but I did Google Tony Blair and Fabian socialism.

The Fabian Society is alive and well, Lumpy, but Fabian socialism is another matter. The fact of Blair and Brown being members is no great surprise. Membership is pretty much de rigeur if you want to make anything of yourself within the party.

However, although the ideals of the Fabians - which are enshrined in the Labour Party's constitution - involve gradual and incremental (note: NOT revolutionary) progress towards socialism, they are merely given lip service by today's Fabians. Socialism in Britain has been a dead duck since the Thatcher era and any party which ran on such a platform would quite simply be unelectable. What is practiced by the current Labour government is social democracy, which incorporates some socialist ideas but is a far cry from full-on socialism.

You could probably say, Aha, but that's socialism through the back door. Perhaps, but Blair and Brown know the British people better than that. Socialism's been tried there, and it failed miserably. The recipe for a secure and prosperous nation involves a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, and all the main parties in modern British politics know this. They differ largely on the how rather than the what.

Dave,

As to me being a socialist, aside from the references to your favorite "think tank" being allied with Fabian Socialism. I would like to offer the following comments.

It is my belief that the "left" has been co-opted by your globalist friends, far more than the "right". Several things lead me to believe this. Aside from the great endowments of the Carnegie Foundation, and Rockefeller foundation openly funding the so called left media, which they have. I find the following even of more interest.

The first thing that struck me is the 9-11 truth movement, and how the left wing publications, notably the Nation Magazine, the DailyKos website,
The Progressive magazine, and the Utne Reader have done everything that they could to dismiss and ridicule this movement. Most of the left leaning people that I talk to on a daily basis, as well as most libertarian leaning people that I know ALL believe that 9-11 was an inside job. So I did some research and found some rather interesting things about said publication.

First the Nation Magazine. The publisher and editor-in-chief Katherine vanden Heuvel and her husband William are both life-time members of your favorite think-tank the cfr. as well as her father being a CIA operative. Now I do not find it suprising that your Mom was affiliated with this group. (a side note here, I am categorically not engaging in any personal attack on your mom), but that the left, who has been crying out for years about CIA covert illegal activities; I do find it suprising.

The Utne Reader's editor is none other than Nina Rothschild Utne. She is the grandaughter of Felix Warburg. You may recall the Warburg brothers. Felix, Max, and Paul. Paul was none other than the founder of the great Federal Reserve and a cfr member. His brother Max was a known Nazi, and on the board of Directors of IG Farben the great Nazi conglomerate that made Zyklon B gas used in the death camps.

The Daily Kos's founder is a known ex cia operative. The Progressive magazines editor is Matthew Rothschild a fervent anti-truth movement advocate. In fact I recently listened to him on an online radio show debating a very educated "truther" and came out on the losing end in spades.

You can do your own referencing should you choose to, but I stand my ground, and assert that all of what I have said is in the public record Dave.

So no I am not a lefty, a Socialist, a Marxist or a Republican. I am an independent with libertarian leanings as my profile states.

Did you find it amusing last night when Cameron whats his face from 'fair and balanced" attempted to put Dr. Paul on the spot with his 9-11 truth question? I sure did. I wonder why they didnt ask Giuliani about his pal Kerick. Fair and balanced my behind.

Pablo

Dread,

Perhaps you would care to comment on what you mean by Socialism sir. I would say, that socialized medicine is a form of Socialism, that a guaranteed minimum wage for the un-employed could also be construed as Socialism. As the the Fabians that has been there goal from the beginning, i.e. slow progress, steady as she goes towards this goal. They are in fact aligned with Chatham House formerly known as the RIIA. Your reference to it being only of a symbological nature is just another way of hiding imho. That being said, I do believe that this is the FIRST time, I may be wrong when you have replied to me without character assassination. Good on you.

Dave:

According to wikipedia: Libertarians have tended to unite with constitutionalists in calling for strict construction of the U.S. Constitution.

I agree with this do YOU? A strict construction of the U.S Constitution, mandates that any and all military incursions, which is called WAR, be declared by the US Congress. This is fundamentally different than a Resolution, which has no real teeth, and is called a Resolution because is it fundamentally different than a Declaration of War.

Care to comment or amend your first post here sir?

Oh and before you cite some dribble about the Prez being commander-in-chief, let me quote a bit from there before you put the proverbial foot in der mouth sir.

Section 2:
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

"Called into the actual service of the United States" Called by whom Dave? Himself?? No the Congress.

If you do not see how unconstitutional our federal government has become, there really is little point in debating you on any political issues sir.

Perhaps you would care to comment on what you mean by Socialism sir.

Ay, there's the rub. It's a pretty broad church. In the most basic terms, I would say that socialism means property and wealth is in public ownership. In practical terms this usually either means direct control by the workforce - as was the intent of communism - or control by the state, which is the way it's usually been approached.

Beyond that, you can make a case for what you mean by socialism and it will be as valid as mine. By your definition, pretty much any public service for which one pays taxes - including the mail, national defense and even the Congress - would be socialistic. Your perspective is shared by a lot of Americans including many contributors to this site.

However, as an American judge once said when asked to define pornography, "I know it when I see it." I personally do not see socialism in the current British government. Labour long ago abandoned even the pretense of being a socialist party. The means of production are privately controlled: Blair's - now Brown's - government has not attempted to reverse Thatcher's privatization program, and in fact has in some cases expanded it. As I said, some Labour policies, such as those on healthcare and social security, are inspired by socialist ideas. That does not make them socialist, any more than my speaking French makes me French.

I'm glad you appreciated my civility, although I was addressing Lumpy as much as you. (I may as well alert you right now that Lumpy in his darker moments does not inspire a civil response.) I do try to remain polite, although my patience with stupidity is limited. I'm afraid that many of the opinions you've expressed are frankly, to my mind, stupid.

DAve

Above you say: "And if you ARE a libertarian, shouldn't you believe in liberty for all, not just the select and elite few who happen to be born in the right country? The fundamental rights to life, liberty and property which all men are entitled aren't limited by borders, and if you do believe in liberty, shouldn't you also believe that it is every man's obligation as part of the social contract to do what he can to help others obtain and maintain their freedom. And if a government is 'conceived in liberty', then shouldn't part of its function be to promote liberty around the world where it can and when its people approve?"

That seems to me a bit naive to assert that U.S. involvement in the overthrow of various governments was primarily for the purpose of spreading freedom and democracy, first in that neither Pinochet nor the Shah formed anything remotely resembling free democracies. We touched on this on Roundtable yesterday. There you conceded that the aim was more to spread capitalism than democracy.

Whether such involvement is "terrorism" may be debatable, but to suggest that our efforts were in any way altruistic is disingenuous. We sponsored those and other government overthrows far more for our benefit than any interest or concern for the freedom and liberties of the respective countries' people. They were first and foremost self-serving efforts likely on behalf of the oil or other corporate interests.

In the case of Chile and Iran, they may have ultimately become stronger for it, but, again, that was not our central motive. I doubt that those who promulgated those and other interference with sovereign governments were so prescient as to predict such an eventuality.

And do you believe as you suggested yesterday that The Shah and Pinochet were not such bad guys in that they didn't kill as many people as their predecessors? By that reasoning, you say that Ebola is less serious than The Plague because it hasn't killed as many people.

B-tone

Baritone,

Excellent comment imho :)

I can't wait for the day when the United States and the British Commonwealth are reunited as one giant anglosphere, and it rules the world.

Hang on ...

While I think it's a long way off - many years, maybe even a century or two - but ultimately the best and only way civilization will flourish is a global economy under the auspices of a global government. A lot of heavy water must go over the dam before that can happen, though.

B-tone

I think you're right to the extent that that will be ultimate evolution of the human race here on earth, B-to, if we don't nuke ourselves into extinction first.

But I also think there will be dissenters who, in the manner of the Loyalists after the American revolution, will hie themselves off to the galactic equivalent of the Bahamas and Caribbean to form their own governmental experiments on other rocks in space.

The commercial segment of earthly society, as is often the case, is ahead of the curve, and is already well en route to globalisation.

I believe that globalisation of industry will ultimately do away with war almost completely, because the United Acme Widget Industries of tomorrow will be loath to see the USA, say, of tomorrow blow the shit out of, say, the China of tomorrow, where Acme Widget has more than half of their worldwide assets, and 75% 0f their market.

And I agree, B-t, that this process will take a long, long time, and a LOT of eggs will get broken before that omelet (breakfast taco?) is ready to be served.

I just hope humanity doesn't vaporize itself before it gets to the table...

STM:

I suppose when that day comes YOU will be one of the rulers of said empire, or merely a subject of it. Or perhaps you think you will be a citizen and have local some sort of local control about where you live, and REAL liberty and freedom. Perhaps gw bush or one of his daughters will be in charge of it. Oh what a day! Maybe you think that a true Statesman who actually is concerned about the general welfare of its citizens will be in charge. Don't hold your breath. In fact if you delve a bit deeper, oops I'm sorry a WHOLE lot deeper you might find that the global institution that was created for that ultimate purpose which is the UN, really openly states that they want a feudalistic Global Empire. If you do not know what feudalism is check your local reference source.

Oh and one other thing STM those that are planning said global empire have also openly stated that there are too many of us peons on the planet. The want to cull the population to umm about 500 million. That leaves about 90% of us, NOT YOU OF COURSE, destined for extermination. But like I said it wont be YOU, as you are one of its rulers.
Smirk
Have fun!

Dave,

Boy it gets tiresome to see the same old neo-fascist talking points spewed out under the guise of libertarianism. It really really does.

Pablito. PABLITO!!!

STM, he make joke.

Capisce?

Dread,

Sorry I am a bit slow, and used to you guys ganging up on me. Not that I really mind, but I do recall recently how STM said in a seemingly serious tone, that he likes and enjoys and supports those that I have reference earlier. Thus my response.

Baritone:

On the subject of Democracy. I do not know where you are from. That beings said my country is not a democracy as you may have heard on one of the myriad so-called news media channels that are constantly talking about it. Where I come from which is the USA we are in point of FACT a constitutional republic. This is fundamentally different than a democracy. We do use, (when the voting system reasonably works) a democratic process to elect our representatives. However this is a far cry from a "democracy". The main difference is that under the US system of government, the rights of the minority, right down to the individual are protected from the tyranny of the majority. This is one of the reasons for the Bill of Rights. A true democracy imho is two wolves and a sheep deciding who is for dinner, and was rejected by the founding fathers.

I do not have any problem whatsoever with my country spreading such ideas to other countries of the world, because I endorse this form of government about dictatorship, democracy, oligarchy, or numerous other forms of government. However I do not support spreading such ideas with the barrel of a gun. If people are in shackles in other parts of the world, as they obviously are, they need to rebel, and demand, and fight for their freedom, as even today in the "land o the free" we are having to do, to bring back some semblance of freedom. Just my tin-foil hat opinion

Clav,

I agree. It is a race. Will we win? Or will we make a "pink mist" of ourselves? Stay tuned.

Of course the "ultimate evolution of the human race" will take a great deal longer than a couple hundred years. Actually, there are scientists who believe that man has essentially stopped evolving since we have, in effect, taken ourselves out of nature. If I were to guess, given my vast experience with evolutionary biology (Not!) that we haven't really stopped evolving, but may be doing so at a slower rate and/or in a different way depending upon our particular circumstances.

I'd think the people who still live much as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago with only minimal contact with or influence by modern civilization may still be evolving as they always have, while us more civilized blokes may be evolutionarily (Is that a word?) stunted.

But eventually, whether we continue to evolve biologically, we will no doubt evolve socially, economically, politically and so on to a point where we (the "big humanity" We) will be at least more or less a part of one "global" community. You may be right, some will, if afforded the opportunity make their getaway to wherever they believe they can remain separate from greater society. And, I don't doubt that there will be a great deal of sturm und drang, blood and tears before we get there.

B-

I DO want to be one of the rulers of this new global empire not only inspired but actually RUN by those pesky British (who of course don't know sh.t about democracy, liberty and personal freedoms, and who just refuse to go away).

Besides, they are already RUNNING the US political process. Everyone with half a brain knows that.

I have hoped for this since first moving into Milner Ave (spooky, eh?) years ago and realising that that probably made me part of the Milner Group. We had a few barbecues, but politics weren't discussed at the time although I suspect that was just a COVER.

The fact that we played backyard cricket and used a garbage can as a set of stumps just proves that the ties of EMPIRE are never undone. This is how Britain keeps us in the fold - sneaky, eh? They let us thrash them at all the sports they invented, so we can't ever leave.

I don't suppose the convict DNA will be a problem in this case. In fact, I can't wait 'til the Queen comes a-knocking, and telling me what to do.

Australians just love being ordered around by the British as we are a subservient, push-over race, and of course we always do exactly as they ask because as everyone knows, we're not really a free country at all!

As evidence of this, I cite the fact that the Queen's melon is still on our coin. COIN OF THE REALM!

The REALM, I tell 'ye.

I hope Americans are ready for this marvellous moment too.

And just in case she does come knocking, I'd advise them to stock up on tea and digestive biscuits, as the Queen loves nothing more than a nice sitdown cuppa and a good chinwag.

She is also more than willing to reciprocate, and recently had the Star Spangled Banner played during the changing of the guard at Buck House ... a thing that should be viewed as OMINOUS and just another indicator of how the British actually do run the American political process and are engaged in a conspiracy to have the US returned to the Empire's fold!

Dastards!

STM:

That last post I really really liked. I so much more enjoy your wit and sarcasm, than what I have seen coming from you previously. I hope that you keep it up!

And, ah, Pablo ... the term "democracy" is now used in the modern sense, not the ancient Greek.


The modern use of "democracy" has come to mean any fairly and legally elected representative government that adheres to rule of law in the political process. The US is one of 'em.

Stop splitting hairs. There is very little difference between the political process in this country and that of the US. They are near identical in form, and very similar in function. Both seem to be democracies.

Many US presidents have used the word extensively, the most famous of them being FDR.

So the US is a democracy, in the modern sense.

I can't help feeling, Paul, despite the fact that you are undoubtedly a good-hearted fella, that sometimes you present arguments on here that make you seem like a prize nong.

STM:

I do think however regarding the Brits, that they are leading the way in this brave new world of ours. Last time I checked they had installed about 3-5 million cameras to keep tabs on the citizenry, made a law so that you need a permit to protest the government within several hundred meters or so of the House of Lords or Commons or whatever you call it. And installed gps systems in all of the autos, so they know where you are, and what you are doing at all times. How cozy. Ahhh freedom, how sweet it is.

More evidence:

They forced us to use the tune to their anthem in our song, America, which, during the 19th century was, de facto, Our anthem!!

Bastards!!

O, the perfidy, the horror!!

STM:

You certainly are entitled to your opinion. Thanks for the new word to my limited vocabulary :)

Why don't you, if you have the time, or inclination look up what a constitutional republic is. Although many of my country's legal foundation's came from the Brits, such as the Magna Carta, and Habeus Corpus, (oops we dont have that here anymore)there are fundamental differences between our system and theirs.

I miss Mr Know-it-all, sigh........I think he has finally had enough. Shucks, I hope he comes back.

Perhaps you could provide me a reference where David Rockefeller made any such statements at all alluding to the USA being in charge of said Global government, I am completely unfamiliar with your claim, and quite frankly doubt it.

I never claimed that David Rockefeller said anything of the sort. I refered to 'most of the globalists like David Rockefeller' - do you see how that isn't an attribution of any specific position to Rockefeller himself, much less quoting him? The fact is that the globalists of the post WWI era had as their objective the expansion of US/British capitalism on a worldwide basis, whether you choose to accept it or not.

This is one of the reasons that I get such a kick out of Dave's assertion that I'm the socialist. Nothing could be further from truth.

Again, your reading disorder seems to be coming into play. I did not say you were a 'socialist', I said you were an anarcho-socialist, a specific subset of anarchism which falls under the umbrella of contemporary libertarianism, but is quite different from Classical Liberalism which is also usually referred to as libertarian.

Another thing Dave, it is interesting to note that apparently you are for terrorism as long as it has benign ends.

No, I'm for not redefining terrorism.

Kinda reminds me of shoving Jeffersonian Democracy down Iraq's throat.

Democracy is mob rule. It's a terrible idea for an emerging society.

Chuckle. As to promoting freedom everywhere as you claim, I do support people in other countries throwing off the shackle of either communist/socialist control, as well as Banana Republic control organically.

But you're not for assisting them in any way, even when it serves the best interests and generfal welfare of the US and its citizens.

Again as I have asserted in my article to use covert or overt military force to help others achieve those ends without a declaration of war as required by the us constitution, that you as the supposed libertarian; that you are ought to be fighting for. I find it rather amusing that you cherry pick just about everything. That is if you support an idea, then it is ok to subvert the rule of law, that being that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Where in the constitution does it outlaw measures short of war on behalf of the liberties of people around the world, and in the defense of the welfare of the people of the US. Show me a specific place where non-war foreign involvement is outlawed, because I can show you places in the constitution where it is specifically allowed on the authority of congress without a declaration of war.

Furthermore you have made on more than one occasions statement suggesting you will ignore me, and that I should be ignored. Funny how you keep popping up!!

I'll respond when I think there's something worth responding to, but you're bringing up issues which I've gone over at length with others, so rehashing them is tedious.

Dave

Dave:

YOUR BACK!!! Cooooooooooooooooooooooooool dude!!

Dave:

I do hope that you respond to Baritone's comments directed at you on this forum. I found his remarks to be spot on. I will await, should you decide to comment for your response, before I do. Then I will have a field day!

cheers
no creepy smirk

It is my belief that the "left" has been co-opted by your globalist friends, far more than the "right".

Putting aside your conspiratorial rantings, your basic problem here is that you don't seem to be able to understand that there are really two kinds of internationalism in play here - maybe more.

The left has indeed been co-opted by internationalists, but they are not the same people and groups you're concerned about. The left is allied with a transnational socialist movement which does want to destroy US sovereignty and break the power of the US and empower certain NGOs and power groups at the expense of the US, the west and capitalism in general. They want to use third world nations, NGOs, the UN, the environmentalist movement and a bunch of other surrogates to build a power base which will become a kind of extra-national superpower. They're the real enemy.

You are mistakenly going after a different group of globalists whose objectives are quite different. You're targeting groups whose purpose is to expand the power of the US and western capitalism. They don't want to break down US sovereignty or make us subject to international courts or take away your rights. What they want to do is create a greater level of economic cooperation and integration which will make it easier for international capitalists and businesses based in the US and other western nations to profit from the resources and markets of as much of the world as possible.

These two types of globalism are fundamentally opposed, and the irony of your position is that you're claiming to be a libertarian while attacking the globalist movement which is essentially libertarian and as a result promiting the agenda of the globalist movement which is basically statist/socialist.

Dave

Geez, installing GPS tracking systems in ALL their cars, eh?

You sure you don't have to buy them as part of the package, as an added security measure designed to combat the high rate of car theft.

The cameras. Oh yes, they are in the city centres, and yes, they wanted you to be a certain distance away from parliament to protest (notice that you can still protest as much as you like though, and you can make signs that are 50yards by 50 yards if you like, so they'll at least be seen across that 500 yards or whatever distance it is). These are tense times, what with people letting off bombs left right and centre so it's probably not a bad idea.

I also like the idea of the cameras as a crime-control measure. Mostly, they were a traffic control measure as London really is a HUGE city and traffic just gets into gridlock.

However, they have been shown to be fantastic at reducing street crime, which means ordinary people can now walk around safely in those areas at night. That's also how they always seem to catch their bombers over in the UK. It's the old story - if you're a law-abiding citizen, there's nothing to worry about.

I think they are still to get around installing them out in the rural areas, although it wouldn't surprise me if sooner or later there is one on every tree. I believe that robbers are now hiding behind every second oak in places like Sherwood Forest (does anything change over there??) so expect surveillance cameras out in the middle of those wooded areas too.

See, like Clav says, my rights end where my neighbours' begin. People may think this is the Queen harking back to the Robin Hood era in her attempt to control and subvert her citizens, and that may well be the truth. I sincerely hope, however, tights for men and codpieces never come into fashion.

I've also read recently that British police are soon to be armed with a new, high-velocity bow and arrow.

(BTW, we have cameras installed in our work carpark. Should I be worried about that??)

Paul: "Why don't you, if you have the time, or inclination look up what a constitutional republic is."

Why don't you, if have the time or inclination, look up what a constitutional monarchy is.

Then come back and tell me I have less freedom than you do.

Actually, I don't.

Well, it IS harder to get a gun, but I'm not that way inclined.

But then again, I can't be sacked from my job on a whim without a court hearing about it, so there's one extra right I have and I reckon my right to take the bus to work without some lunatic taking potshots at me is a right too.

Dave:
Any comments on the Tavistock Institute of Public Relations? I always welcome your views.

Dave: "They want to use third world nations, NGOs, the UN, the environmentalist movement and a bunch of other surrogates to build a power base which will become a kind of extra-national superpower. They're the real enemy."

- By Dave Nalle, enemy of conspiracy theorists everywhere :)

Should you decide to google The Tavistock Institute of Public Relations, I am a big fan of the first link that shows up. However I will keep my mind as open as I can to digest what you have said Dave. Some of it I do find interesting, and my own intuition tells me there is more than one competing group here for what you were referring to.

STM

ROTFL MY BUTTOCKS OFF

referencing post 42, I was not referring to the website, but Coleman, btw there are a few excellent videos of him on google

That seems to me a bit naive to assert that U.S. involvement in the overthrow of various governments was primarily for the purpose of spreading freedom and democracy,

BT, go back and read my comments. Where did I ever say one word about promoting 'democracy'. The purpose of overthrowing those governments was to promote capitalism and create potential economic and political allies sharing common interests with the US. On the whole that promotion of capitalism and involvement with the US did lead to greater freedom for the people of those nations, and in the best examples ultimately to representative government.

first in that neither Pinochet nor the Shah formed anything remotely resembling free democracies. We touched on this on Roundtable yesterday. There you conceded that the aim was more to spread capitalism than democracy.

Exactly. Democracy is not a political system or the basis for a government. Democracy is a mechanism for making decisions in a government.

Whether such involvement is "terrorism" may be debatable, but to suggest that our efforts were in any way altruistic is disingenuous.

Certainly the intentions of some of those who promote this kind of intervention are altruistic. Missionary liberalism has a long history in the US.

But I agree that the primary motivation for the US was self-interest. Fighting the spread of international socialism was seen as being necessary to protect the general welfare of the people of the US, and creating capitalist, non-socialist regimes in key countries served that purpose.

They were first and foremost self-serving efforts likely on behalf of the oil or other corporate interests.

What is the purpose of the US government if not to serve the interests of the people of the united states politically and economically?

In the case of Chile and Iran, they may have ultimately become stronger for it, but, again, that was not our central motive. I doubt that those who promulgated those and other interference with sovereign governments were so prescient as to predict such an eventuality.

It didn't require great prescience to know that becoming capitalist client states of the US was better for these nations than remaining economically backwards or becoming client states of the Soviet Union.

And do you believe as you suggested yesterday that The Shah and Pinochet were not such bad guys in that they didn't kill as many people as their predecessors? By that reasoning, you say that Ebola is less serious than The Plague because it hasn't killed as many people.

That's not exactly how I would put it. The Shah and Pinochet provided greater freedom and opportunity and wealth to the vast majorities of the populations they governed at the cost of dealing with their political opponents in a draconian manner. If you want a medical comparison I would say that it was more like cutting off an infected finger to save the whole arm.

Dave

Stan, I have never said that conspiracies don't exist. But most of them are limited and plausible, unlike the farfetched, compelx and implausible conspiracies Paul seems to favor.

But in the case of Transnational Socialism and Globalist Capitalism, we're not talking about conspiracies, we're talking about diverse and fairly amorphous movements with a variety of groups and organizations involved and puruing common goals, almost all of it above board and non-conspiratorial.

Dave

Pablo: "the Tavistock Institute of Public Relations?"

You sure you don't mean HUMAN relations.

Those dastardly Poms ... always up to their old tricks.

Nothing's changed in the past 100 years, has it?

The fact is Paul, and you know this to be true (it's on a website and somone wrote it in a book, so it must be), the reason Americans no longer have a hand in the political process of the US is that the US is actually still controlled by the British, who are in charge of the imperial global capitalist conspiracy.

I mean, everyone knows this. What is the big deal?

You've never been truly free of the yoke of British imperialism. It's like The Matrix - what appears to be, isn't.

Washington still gets its orders from London, and of course it obeys them. It was the British who ordered G.W. Bush to attack Iraq. Trust them to be sneaking around in Washington like that. They've got no respect for the place. Last time they visited, they burned the place down.

It's just like Rome and Byzantium - those old imperial leopards never change their spots.

They are out to get you - and if the educational, social and moral decline of US society as hoped for by the Tavistock group is any pointer, they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.

Now it all makes sense.

American Capitalism in third world countries.

I pay you 2 dollars a day, you dig mine, all day, some of the night. I pay you 2 dollars.

Capitalism good for you! I pay you again tomorrow same time!

You work 7 days you make 14 dollars, we convert dollars to pesos, now you have 5 pesos. You good capitalist. I hire you again tomorrow.

To worker in third world country. You like your freedom? Goooooooooooood! I may give you raise next year, and you make two dollars and fifty cents!

To worker in third world country. Today you are free, free to work for ME. I pay you good, I take care of your wife too. Here is some baby formula for your baby. BABY like freedom too!

Dave, just a gee-up :)

STM

I stand corrected on said name thanks. Some website, why dont you check out THEIR website, while your at it why dont you do a bit more research before you are so quick on the draw. Some humans have spent decades studying this group, my hunch is you have spend maybe a minute. I suppose MKULTRA is a myth too eh? While you are if you are studying that, perhaps you could tell me where MKULTRA got most of its research from? I could provide you testimony before the US house on MKULTRA but you will have to do your own homework if intersted, if not, wave to the cameras. :)

Regarding the Tavistock Institute. They sound creepy. Reminds me of the Rand Group, but not as diverse and targeted more specifically on the kind of human dynamics work Rand was doing in the 60s and 70s.

But again, they're not a conspiracy, they're just on the dangerous fringe of nasty sociological research. I'd be very concerned about anyone who employed them. Sure wouldn't work for a company which used them.

Dave

STM

If I thought anyone was out to get ME, I hardly would be openly sharing my views about this stuff with YOU. I fear no man, nor do I recall except in a rhetorical sense saying that I fear anything. The new world order, or whatever you wish to label it can kiss my buttocks.

Dave:

Remind you of the Rand group eh? They run the Rand Group, as well as the Stanford Research Institute. Do your own research

The U.S. is attempting to catch up to the Brits as regards surveillance cameras and the like. I often get the feeling someone is watching and keeping track of how much toilet paper I use in the cinema restroom; taking notes about how or if I fold the paper (as opposed to random wadding,) which hand I use, etc. Occasionally I smile and wave in various directions just to appear amicable and unconcerned.

The cameras and other technological devices do certainly aid in crime prevention and solution. I watch CSI, CSI Miami, CSI New York, CSI Mayberry. I know my shit about this shit!

But, I do believe that we should keep it at least in the back of our minds that this technology could easily be used against us by one form or another of a nefarious "Big Brother" government not to mention corporate behemoths. It's not too much of a stretch. Our giving carte blanche to various arms of the government at all levels to pretty much monitor our every move, our every utterance, maybe someday, our every thought is a matter for some prudent concern.

Those who would misuse such capability find an unprecedented opportunity to do so in the post 9/11 environment. I don't have twisted nightmares about this, but to completely discount the possibility could be regrettable.

b

Baritone:

Nice post imho, not that you care what my opinion is :)

Post 46

Wait, wait, wait, did I hear what I thought that I did coming from Dave??? Ohhhhhhh my god..........he is a conspiracy theorist!! I was feeling so very much alone. Or maybe Dave is not a conspiracy theorist, he is a conspiracy realist, that being that the only conspiracies that exist are the ones that he says exist. Cant help a small non creepy smirk here. Next thing he MIGHT admit to is that he is a conspiracy realist on 9-11!!!

British capitalism at work in third-world countries.

You dig in the mine all day, we pay you two pounds a week, even though you only need one to live like a king in comparison to how you used to live. The extra one you can use to save up for luxuries.

We'll also provide free education and schools for everyone, railways, public transport, courts, police forces, free health care, local government, a use-by date on the colony, a stable system of government based on rule of law, all the rights at law of an Englishman, and military protection.

Next year, you'll almost certainly get a pay increase as it's all indexed and the courts have decided that pays must be reviewed every year.

Then, when you all become independent, you'll have a higher standard of living than most of your neighbours and you'll have a system of government that isn't subject to a coup by every second idiot who thinks he (or she) might want to run the place.

All bad??

Don't think so.

As for your claim about America's process.

I'll just point to modern, wealthy South Korea as an example of how places can change into emerging industrial giants from rural backwaters in the space of a few decades through American input.

Ask older South Koreans what life was like before America arrived on the doorstep ...

STM

YAWN

Paul, what makes you think I'm joking?

I'm converted: the British obviously are running the US.

There's no doubt in my mind. Soon, you will all be drinking tea again. Then, almost overnight, it will replace coffee as America's national hot drink.

Its mild soporific effect is no accident. Why do you think the British made tea so readily available to their populace, and why Britons like nothing more than a nice cuppa when things are going awry?

It's all part of the plot.

Has anyone noticed, BTW, that Americans actually ARE drinking more tea than ever before (google it).

This should be regarded as an indicator.

I am convinced Sir Thomas Lipton was a shadowy figure (look at how many times he visited the US trying to recover The America's Cup, which was obviously just his cover story) and his mission in the British global capitalist plot aimed at bringing the US back to the empire was to supply the world with tea - a surefire means by which all people could thus be controlled by the British.

Pablo,

You seem a bit paranoid. To the contrary. I do care.

By the way, there is one other thing I would assume a prudent toilet stall monitor would be noting: The width of my stance. Can't be too careful.

'

Oh and before I forget, I absolutely ADORE Alex Jones, not only that I heard Dr. Paul attribute his rise in the political arena, (not that it will amount to a hill of beans) to Mr Jones. I have been listening to him almost daily for the past 8 years. I particularly LIKE when he rants, raves, and carries on. I wonder if you Dave, could point out one other character that has been attacking with words, the Bush Junta, for the past 8 years more than he has. I dont care if his dad was a bircher. I dont care if you think he is a threat. Furthermore I find him referencing accurately almost all that he talks about. He also has such diverse guests on such as, Pat Buchanan, Jeff Rense, Ann (sweet Ann) Coulter, today Dennis Kucinich, Bev Harris of blackboxvoting.org, Webster Tarpley who I also adore, Ron Paul about 100 times, even that liberal hack who he made a fool of Noem Chomsky, and various other luminaries.

Pablo: "YAWN".

Nice, well-thought out reply Paul.

Couldn't come up with your usual, rapier-like, witty riposte, eh?

STM,

Since I can never tell when you are being sarcastic or serious it is rather difficult to engage you in a coherent conversation STM. Not to mention the barbs that you love to throw out. I may take you more seriously as time goes on. That being said I think you are a far superior writer than I, that is rather obvious.

Baritone: Paranoia

1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Hmmm, I dont feel persecuted in a personal sense, no grandeur here. I have no problem trusting people that earn my trust.

NOPE not paranoid. Next

Oh and Dave,

Before you go into a tirade about Alex, perhaps you might share with me someone of note, in the public arena that you like, or endorse, or have respect for. I am all ears.

Oh and as for the JBS john birch society, they imho again were co-opted years ago by the very organization they were talking about the cfr.

I particularly like what I have read about the Belmont Brotherhood. Again a fascinating read, not that I agree with much of what they say, I do some.
sweetliberty.org/jbscnp.htm


oops my tinhat is gettin shiny there fellas

Why thanks, Pablo - we all just love to have fun. Also, Doc Dread, I believe the place in London where all the tea trading was done was in Mincing Lane.

So is this where the terms "mincing" and "mincer" might come from??

BTW for those of you that have any interest whatsoever, my interest of all of these things is of a personal nature. Many years ago, I had a run in with the local constabulatory, I assure you it was a victimless scenerio. I began wondering, pondering, thinking about my rights, versus the states interest, not to mention all of the obvious evil in the world, and thus began my search. Some people, as they are takin it up the proverbial rear end, dont want to see who is doing it. I like looking :)

I am still looking, turning around to see who it is. I have been finding out. Does that make me paranoid? Not at all, I just want to see who it is, it is as simple as that.

STM

I also like fun. I am not nearly as serious as you might think. I spend most of my time in Thailand, and I can assure you that it is alot more fun than you can possibly imagine.

I have just come back from there myself. Great place, good people.

It's only a nine-hour flight from here. Lots of Aussies go there for their holidays as it's cheaper than holidaying at home, even with the airfares thrown in.

STM

Maybe we could hook up there sometime, I am there very often. I like Phuket, Chiangmai, and Ko Chang the best. I have numerous friends there mostly farangs. A very good website imho is stickmanbangkok.com it has many writers submissions on mostly men's experiences there. Some great reading.

sawasdee krap

Remind you of the Rand group eh? They run the Rand Group, as well as the Stanford Research Institute. Do your own research

Bullshit, Pablo. Show me some documentary evidence that establishes a direct controlling relationship of Tavistock over SRI. Not some researchers in common or a few directors on the boards of both. Show me documents indicating that Tavistock controls SRI.

Dave

Dave,

I may take you up on that challenge sir. First I suggest you do some more research into MKULTRA and its affiliation with tavistock. Choose your own references.

According to wikipedia: Libertarians have tended to unite with constitutionalists in calling for strict construction of the U.S. Constitution.

I agree with this do YOU?

Sure, but it's pretty vague. The constitution is not a strictly libertarian document, after all. It really falls short of a true libertarian standard in a number of ways.

A strict construction of the U.S Constitution, mandates that any and all military incursions, which is called WAR, be declared by the US Congress. This is fundamentally different than a Resolution, which has no real teeth, and is called a Resolution because is it fundamentally different than a Declaration of War.

The constitution does NOT say that all use of US power outside of the borders of the nation is explicitly war. It leaves open actions short of war designed to promote the public welfare and interests of the nation and its people.

In both Chile and Iran, for example, the US military was not deployed in any action which could vaguely be classified as a war.

The constitution also specifies that international actions other than war CAN be carried out under the authority of Congress without a declaration of war. You might want to read Article 1, Section 8.

Like Ron Paul, you're one of those 'libertarians' who wants a strict interpretation of the constitution, so long as you can edit out some of the inconvenient sections.

Dave

On Tavistock, I will give you a hint

Project Monarch

Dave,

I also tend to use google scholar researching some of this stuff, unfortunately a lot of the good info can only be had with paid subscriptions. Not all of it though :)

MKULTRA is a great example of how conspiracy nuts get into the ratholes where they end up. Sure, MKULTRA was real. But does that mean it still exists? Does that mean that it was pervasive or used for nefarious purposes? It's a classic example, because the evidence for its existence lends it legitimacy and the conspiracists can just overlook the lack of evidence that it ever went beyond the very limited scope of the historically documented program.

I absolutely ADORE Alex Jones,

And there all rational discussion ends as I realize I'm just wasting my time.

Dave

Dave on post 74

My understanding on the us constitution was that it was a limitation on the use of federal power, that being that the states were sovereign entities, and also white male landowners at the time. A little known and talked about amendment was the 9th. It has been ignored and only used to my knowledge in two cases in jurisprudence. One being griswald vs connecticut, the other roe vs wade. I am a firm believer in the 9th amendment, as it also correctly inerpreted places limitation on federal power. It says and I quote. "The enumeration of certain rights in the constitution, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. My main argument here, and reason for citing it, is that the government, was supposed to be restrained, and the people (white male landowners free. Later came the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, which allowed for the first time to make a federal constitutional claim in state court.

An excellent site on this subject law, imho is to be found at supremelaw.org

The only known area in the constitution that I am aware of having to do with the excercise of military power is to be found in article 2. I may be wrong. That being said, I find no provision that allows the President to go around the world unfettered without a congressional declaration of war. If you do, I would be interested in your interpretation and citation.
cheers
Pablo

Shucks im a nut again, I put on my tin hat for ya Dave

I pay you 2 dollars a day, you dig mine, all day, some of the night. I pay you 2 dollars.

2 dollars, of course, being double the local prevailing wage, providing enough money to support a family in the local economy and put some money aside to start a small business after a few years, growing the local economy and producing a growing market for US manufactured goods.

Capitalism good for you! I pay you again tomorrow same time!

You work 7 days you make 14 dollars, we convert dollars to pesos, now you have 5 pesos. You good capitalist. I hire you again tomorrow.

This kind of anti-capitalist shit is why I call you an anarcho-socialist.

To worker in third world country. You like your freedom? Goooooooooooood! I may give you raise next year, and you make two dollars and fifty cents!

Wrong. The employer will pay a market wage, and the longer he does that the more it will grow the local economy and wages will rise in proportion.

You're walking evidence that those who do not understand economics drift into socialism without even realizing it.

Dave

Dave,

You can go back to sleep now. All is well in the world. Enjoy :)

Dave,

Before you go to sleep, since you love disparaging me so freely, perhaps you could at least tell me who besides YOURSELF you look up to politically, or admire. I hardly think that it is fair do cast such contempt on me without revealing who you like? Don't you agree?

Of course you can always ignore me.........since I have nothing of any real consequence to say, as you assert. However I think that it is only fair.

One more comment Dave

You said:
"Does that mean that it was pervasive or used for nefarious purposes?"

Why dont you get the congressional testimony yourself and read it as I have? It is a public document and a fascinating read. If you think that they (they being the powers that be) do not use the same sort of research that that Nazi's used, including overt, and covert mind control using various drugs, to create unwitting guinae pigs to do their bidding I will give up too!! Do you only read things that you want to hear? That make you sleep better at night? Or are you a truth seeker.

Most people, and that may include myself to a degree want to only hear things that back up what they believe. Did you ever ask yourself WHY you believe something? Check out Krishnamurti if you really are interested in that venue.

We are all, well some, of us growing, learning exploring entities. Like beauty, the moment you try to capture it, it eludes you. Do you really think that you are the end all and know all of this world? Surely you dont sir.

The only known area in the constitution that I am aware of having to do with the excercise of military power is to be found in article 2. I may be wrong.

In this as in so many things, you certainly are.

That being said, I find no provision that allows the President to go around the world unfettered without a congressional declaration of war.

You might want to read Article 1, section 8 then.

It says in part that Congress has these powers:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Pablo, why are you so obsessed with having a leader? Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself instead of relying on Ron Paul or Alex Jones or some other demagoguery you found on the web?

Dave

Dave,

I was referring and I should have made clearer, executive power. You are only making my case stronger, that being that it is Congress who has the say in these matters, not the executive. The president's role is to execute law, not make it, as in executive orders, which are imho unconstitutional on their face, but execute the will of the people through their representatives.

Dave,

As you can see, I am quite capable of thinking for myself. I only asked you, to be fair, since you like making fun of who I like, even to the point of dismissing me for having anything of value to offer, that you share with me who you like. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, however he is standing up in the face of adversity, clinging to the constitution, voted against the unauthorized use of military force, and has been openly talking in the House about how we are becoming a Police State for years. He has my respect, most of those shills got no balls and are paid hacks imho.

Dave,

I am more than willing to become friends with you, even though we may disagree on fundamental issues of the day. I welcome argument, discussion, vehement opposition. However if you continue to disparage me instead of debating me on the issues, this will never happen. You can if you like, make fun of me, call me names, and the various other things that you have. It amounts to a hill o beans, and does nothing to further growth and understanding of the world in which we both live.

In either case you will not stop me from expressing my opinions ever. I certainly do not want to stop you from expressing yours.

In either case I have enjoyed this site very much, and I do not know everything, or even most things. I am learning, growing, exploring my universe. I threw off the shackles of trained belief a long long time ago. Good luck to you in your life

Uh, yeah, right. I'm convinced that this is the hangout for the brainfully decapitated.

Ron Paul is the only one who has a clue about the American warfare state. The only one who talks about ending it. The only one who goes anywhere near it.

This time I didn't see anything wrong with the article. The article is fine. It's you nut jobs like Dave, that are spouting insanity.

Paul,

Just because you are (or are not) paranoid, doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.

B

I was referring and I should have made clearer, executive power. You are only making my case stronger, that being that it is Congress who has the say in these matters, not the executive.

Yes, but the issues I've been discussing have all related to operations like Iran and Chile which were done with approval of congress, either direct through passage of special legislation dictating certain actions towards those nations or indirectly through authorizing certain programs of the CIA. No executive involvement required, really.

The president's role is to execute law, not make it, as in executive orders, which are imho unconstitutional on their face, but execute the will of the people through their representatives.

That is certainly the primary role of the President, but again, like Ron Paul, you're ignoring the parts of the Constitution which don't fit with your agenda. Article 2, Section 1 gives the president "executive power", which has been interpreted by every president since Washington as including the authority to issue executive orders. Article 2, Section 3 clearly says "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," so as long as the orders the president issues are pursuant to authority given to him by an existing law then they are legitimate and that includes the legislation which creates the various offices of the executive branch of which he is head, so orders falling under a past law - like the war powers act - or pertaining to the activities of federal departments are unquestionably legitimate, and this position has been upheld by the courts again and again.

Dave

As you can see, I am quite capable of thinking for myself.

Your output appears to be only as good as your input, and if you keep listening to and believiong people like Alex Jones, there's no hope for you.

I only asked you, to be fair, since you like making fun of who I like, even to the point of dismissing me for having anything of value to offer, that you share with me who you like.

Sure. I like Milton Friedman, Ben Franklin and John Milton. I've got a lingering fondness for the music of the Pogues as well.

I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues,

How about a couple of examples.

however he is standing up in the face of adversity, clinging to the constitution, voted against the unauthorized use of military force.

Actually, he voted against authorizing the use of military force. Not the same thing.

Dave

Ok Dave,

I am ready to engage you again.

It says in part that Congress has these powers:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and
Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be
for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


First off the way I read your comment on the above, "in part", we have been talking about exclusively military power. That being said, I can find no instance in any of the above powers ANYTHING that gives the congress the ability to saunter over to other nations to engage in military activities, either in a covert or overt fashion, other than the power to declare war. Letters of Marque and Reprisal had to do with Piracy, and you know that. You seem to be begging to find some power in the constitution that allows the government through the military to engage other nations, particularly when we have not been engaged first. I would call this being a warmonger quite frankly.

Now as to executive orders. I will cite wikepedia as it is the easiest and most handy reference, that being said I do know how much wikepedia has been abused lately, and how in some cases it is a very poor reference.

"US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789, usually to help direct the operation of executive officers. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress, when those acts give the President discretionary power"

"US Presidents have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no Constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders."

Now that is a far cry from what it has become today. If there is ONE thing above all else imho that threatens to allow the president to become a dictator it is this.

I might mention something about the notion here of sovereignty Dave. Without having to cite a dictionary source, you and I both know what that is. Anytime, a country, or an army, or a spy agency conducts operations on foreign soil, it violates the sovereignty of the other nation. This is why military adventures are called WAR. You ought to know that.

Due to the US Supreme Court asserting itself in Marbury vs Madison, this gave the supreme court the power, to decide which acts of congress, and any other of the myriad powers of the executive, were in compliance with the constitution. Imho, this let most if not all of the ensuing legislators and president's off the proverbial hook. That is that they no longer had to interpret themselves, as they SWORE to, to uphold the constitution, and could thereafter pass the buck to the court. Did you ever notice how legislators; one case that particularly comes to my mind; will often do this. That esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania Arlen Spector, recently and openly declared that he would support legislation, that he believed to be un-constitutional, and defer it to the courts. He should have been hung out to dry on the spot, and removed from office. Instead not one peep out of his esteemed colleagues.

It is no wonder to me that we are in so much trouble today. As to the president "faithfully" executing the laws, we now have signing statements, where he can do just the opposite!!

What a joke. I find most of your positions, particularly on constitutional law to be primitive and un rational at the very least Dave.

I suppose the fact that well over 600,000 human beings have been slaughtered in YOUR name, doesnt affect your sleep. Most of them I might add were civilians. Oh and that reminds me of how the Goebbel's department of dis-information loves to characterize those that are fighting to protect their HOMELAND as "terrorists". I am sure that you would concur with THAT definiton of terrorism now wouldn't you? Its almot as funny as you believing that "the database" is the name that said group, that now apparently is in all of the nations gave itself the name. Smirk

Keep em comin Dave







'

Dave,

Did Franklin ever play the Fillmore? Or was that Jethro Tull?

B-tone

Hey, Paul/Pablo!

I got a novel idea for you. Why don't you post an article calling on the United States and its corrupt thugs to gets its long nose out of our affairs. Chain Condi to the outhouse and muzzle the bitch until she can figure out that it's the Arabs who play with bombs and kill innocent people, not us.

We do not need Americans interfering in our lives and trying to ruin them, as they did the Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Kurds, the Shi'a in Mesopotamia, the Chileans, the Iranians, etc., etc. Tell your leaders to get the fuck out of Israel and stay out.

Otherwise, the day will come when we Jews will have to kill Americans to defend our homes.

This just gets sillier and sillier.

The CFR... The Rhodes Scholarship Fund... the Milner Group... the Fabian Society... the Carnegie Foundation... the Rockefeller Foundation... The Nation magazine... the Daily Kos... The Progressive magazine... the Utne Reader... Chatham House... the RIAA... the Tavistock Institute... the Rand Group... the Stanford Research Institute... John Birch Society... the Belmont Brotherhood... MKULTRA...

...All somehow component parts of some vast scheme for world domination which just from the above list, compiled from this thread only, seems to be so tangled and unwieldy as to not even be viable.

Perhaps Pablo would care to tie in the activities of the Marks & Spencer Group and the Reigate & East Surrey Townswomen's Guild and enlighten us as to their role in this gigaconspiracy?

Dave Post 90:

Dave says:
"Your output appears to be only as good as your input, and if you keep listening to and believiong people like Alex Jones, there's no hope for you."

That applies to computers Dave, ie garbage in garbage out, one of the fundamental tenets of information technology. I am a human being, and quite capable of drawing my own conclusions from a variety of sources.

Dave says:
"Sure. I like Milton Friedman, Ben Franklin and John Milton. I've got a lingering fondness for the music of the Pogues as well."

I should have made myself clearer sir. I was referring to a person or people that are still alive. Thanks for the attempt though.

You asked me to give you some examples of me not agreeing with some of Dr. Paul's positions. Ok.
Abortion, even though he makes a seemingly good point about it being a state rights issue. I do not agree, as current law, allows the due process clause of the 14th amendment under the "incoporation theory" to make a federal constitutional claim anywhere in the land. I do agree that the right to abort, is primarily a privacy issue as stated in griswald vs connecticut. That being said I do find abortion to be repugnant, particularly if it is my seed that is being aborted.

I also do not concur with Dr. Paul's position on the Federal government having no role to play in maintaining/owning Federal Parks etc for the people. I do however find it highly objectionable that the UN now has control over some of these facilities.

Dave said on Dr. Paul:
"Actually, he voted against authorizing the use of military force. Not the same thing."

He in my opinion did this more than ANYTHING else because he objected to the authorizing of military force without a formal declaration of war as unconstitutional. However if there were a formal declaration of war up for a vote at that time, my hunch is that he would have opposed it, as I do not recall him every saying he believed in the pre-emptive use of force in War.

Baritone,

No that was the Grateful Dead, my favorite band!!

Dread,

If you do not find my posts to be interesting, why waste your time on a tin foil hat nut like me? Are you that bored? Or is it just that you enjoy making fun of others without engaging in debate, to make yourself feel like you really know what is going on in the world? My guess is that you don't know whats going on. Your fold is calling you.......as in back to the fold.......baaaaaaaaa

Ruvy,

I have a better idea. I would rather write an article on why the USA should cease any and all future funding of Israel, also write about why having an Israeli firm running some of our most sophisticated intelligence apparati might not be such a good idea. While I am at it I may also write an article on how it might not be such a good idea to have dual-citizens on the cabinet? What do you think Ruvy?

On the UN. I highly recommend Joan Veon and the amazing work that she has done, exposing this globalist group for what it really is. I guess that still makes me an anarcho-socialist eh Dave? Speaking of which last time I checked anarchy, that being those that do not believe in government at all, and socialism being a form of government; your word has no meaning whatsoever, even though people such as yourself have invented it.

Tell, you what, Paul.

You put in your piece about ending American funding for Israel - it's the best thing that can happen to this country - add to it getting your long interfering hands out of our country, getting your thugs out of our politics and keeping your stupid shits of leaders out of this country, and you'll have my backing 100%.

Let's see. Getting rid of people like Stan Fisher as the president of the Bank of Israel, getting all your soldiers and armaments out of here. We can use out nukes - or our reliance on G-d - or both - to deal with all the shits in the world, particularly the pack of evil bastards who run your country.

If you want us out of your economy, the faster we get out, the better for us. Your economy is about to hit the toilet, and Americans know it despite the Prozac dispensers who comment on this magazine.

Ruvy,

I will think about your idea sir. However I do not want the Anti-Defication League up in arms at me, I am not anti-semetic in the least, however I have noticed on more than one occasion that when someone has the audacity to question current foreign policy regarding Israel, that is contrary to the above League's interest, they will devote lots of time and money into stopping you.

While I am on that subject the ADL, according to various websites;

About Adam Gadahn, the current boogeyman american turned rogue al-qaeda, that has the news media up in arms:

"Adam Pearlmen is his REAL name! Adam is the grandson of the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League." Fancy that!!

I have not done enough documentation to state this as a fact Ruvy. Perhaps you might want to do the research. I do know that he at the very least is the son, according the the "New Yorker" magazine of said Carl K Pearlman.

Rather interesting don't you think. A jew in al-qaeda, and an American one at that.

One final comment. Regarding the MSM, or the main stream Media. For the most part, due to their terrible record of real in depth investigation (9-11 being a prime example), I usually assume that they are lying until I am shown otherwise. A funny thing I saw the other night, was I believe Bill O'lielly, talking about the "liberal" NBC. I never thought of General Electric as Liberal, did you Ruvy? Amazing the things that are in the News!!

DAVE,

I am still waiting to hear what YOUR definition of terrorism is. I did the best that I could do, that is provide you with a definition from the dictionary. Last time I checked that was the usual reference source for the meaning of a WORD.

Perhaps you could shed some light on this old tin foil hat guy. smirk

Paul,

Once upon a time, about 65 years ago, the ADL did some good. Now they are just fools filled with gefilte fish and corned beef for brains. Today they are worthless blowhards with big checkbooks. Any of the bastards bother you, just ask how many Christian children or grand-children they have, and tell them that if they have any, they have business at home to take care of and to stop bothering you. Heh! If that don't work, send the fuckers to me. I'll tell them off....

That the grandson of one of their prominent members joined al-Qaeda (self-hating Jews are very common among non-believers, both in America and in Israel) is no surprise. Non-believers tend to do anything they can to run away from the imagined stink of being "a Jew". Adam Pearlman ran a little far - Unitarianism is usually where these guys stop - but, nu, if the putz joined them, so he joined them. Self-hating Jews will find it very hard to deal with Redemption - and Redemption will deal very hard with them.

Paul,

I think that most of the time, the world really is as it appears to be. If, as you say, it is not, and is really controlled by vast hordes of shadowy organizations masquerading as talking shops - well, it certainly seems to be running OK most of the time in spite of them.

If that is sheeplike behavior, then I'll happily continue with my woolly, trouble-free lifestyle of eating grass and making more sheep.

It strikes me, though, that your behavior - jumping at the slightest shadow - is a lot more sheeplike than mine.

Oh, and Fox News - mainstream? Hardly. It's more of an abandoned, stagnant canal full of effluent and garbage.

Dread you said:
"well, it certainly seems to be running OK most of the time in spite of them." To quote a famous Rhodes Scholar. "That would depend on what the definition of is is.

I do not concur with you definition of OK. How many human being go to bed hungry every night in this world? How many are victims of War, AIDS, pestilence and disease? How many starve to death? How many animals are subject to endless toil, degradation and senseless slaughter, (I am not a vegetarian)?

If this is your definition of OK. OK. It is not mine. And if it is your definition of OK, I suggest that you are so far removed from other people's suffering (no this does not make me a socialist), that is is scary.

It seems to me, what you may be suggesting as long as YOU, go to bed full and warm and cozy, and perhaps your main squeeze, and your kids, that is all that matters. I that is the case I find it repugnant.

I was looking at your comments to Dr. Dreadful, and couldn't help noticing that while I seem to disagree with you, I probably agree with you more than you realize.

You talk of social justice - the very subject that angered the ancient prophets of my people whom I read and follow so closely. Read this essay on American interference in the affairs of my country by Dr. Eugene Narrett. He is more eloquent than I am capable of being, but we draw water from the same well - the demand for a world filled with justice, where each man can sit under his own fig tree in peace.

I do not concur with you definition of OK. How many human being go to bed hungry every night in this world? How many are victims of War, AIDS, pestilence and disease? How many starve to death? How many animals are subject to endless toil, degradation and senseless slaughter

But Paul, the world has always been like that - in fact, for most of human history it's been far, far worse. Of course I care about those who suffer. Your contention seems to be that all this strife is the work of some shadowy oligarchy who want to turn us all into zombies for... what? What possible benefit to them would that be? Do they want to farm us and eat us? C'm on...

Dread,

I KNEW this would your your reply. It means nothing to me, except for the fact that throughout history the same cliques have been running the show. A good friend of mine once summed up his opinion on this subject. He told me, that it was a dog eat dog world, in fact it was not even that good, it was the other way around.

Man's inhumanity to man is the primary reason for these travesties. However more than that imho it is the ruling elites that are the cause and have been throughout history. A prime example would be the inquisition, where for 600 plus odd years, the ruling elite, slaughtered, butchered, burned, tortured, and maimed those that they deemed to heretic. Usually due to some small defect or scar on their bodies. This was done in the name of the Church. Just as much has been done in the realm of Politics. I do not accept your view more of the same equals more of the same.

You say:
"our contention seems to be that all this strife is the work of some shadowy oligarchy who want to turn us all into zombies for... what? What possible benefit to them would that be? Do they want to farm us and eat us?"

Frankly imho, it is done by oligarchy, before they have zombies, ie slave workers do their bidding they want to cull the herd as it is too large, and mooing too much.

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

"they want to cull the herd as it is too large, and mooing too much."

Isn't that what all the work in genetics and cloning is about?

Culling, and also customizing a race of strong backs and weak minds to do the bidding of the ruling class?

I also would like to add the following comments about us citizen enemy combatants. Article 3, section 3:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

I guess this isnt clear enough for King George, it is however to me. Since this is the supreme Law of the land, and it is quite specific, the whole notion of an enemy combatant US national being deprived this provision is in and of itself
UNCONSTITUTIONAL and unlawful.

Open court, not FISA, not evidence witheld due to national security, not held in a military brig.

PLAIN AS DAY, and yet still ignored by the Supreme Court. Amazing indeed days we live in.

Clavos,

I dont know, however the whole psuedo science of eugenics that was so popular years ago, was chiefly financed, and supported by the Rockefellers. If interested research it, it too is amazing.

In a seemingly unrelated event. Michelle Malkin and John Yoo, former Justice Department's office of Legal Counsel today announced the birth of their "love child". Aside from announcing their upcoming wedding, they are still in conference about whether to use Corporal Punishment or Water-boarding as disciplinary measures when she/he makes trouble.Mr. Yoo said that he would seek counsel from Alberto Gonzalez as needed. Unfortunately the US Department of Justice stepped in today, saying since the lovechild was born abroad, she/he had no legal status. The baby was turned over to the Dept of Homeland Security for the soonest available rendition to Jordan, as the baby upon its birth kept saying al-qaeda, al-qaeda, al-qaeda. :)

It's happened. He's gone completely round the bend.

I think Pablo may be a secret fabian socialist. He's certainly as delusional as they were.

Hey Pablo. How do u feel about the Bohemian Grove?

Pablo, just for your reference, since you seem not to be familiar with the various types of libertarianism, I refer you to this article from wikipedia on libertarian socialism or anarcho-socialism. As the article points out, one of the main proponents of this form of pseudo-libertarianism is Noam Chomsky who seems to share most of your ideological positions.

Now let's see, maybe I can pick some gems from between your various tirades on insane topics.

That applies to computers Dave, ie garbage in garbage out, one of the fundamental tenets of information technology. I am a human being, and quite capable of drawing my own conclusions from a variety of sources.

If your sources are garbage and you don't look any further then your conclusions will be garbage. If you had the rational capacity to produce valid conclusions then you'd be able to tell that your sources were garbage and would look for better ones.

I should have made myself clearer sir. I was referring to a person or people that are still alive. Thanks for the attempt though.

How does being alive make someone special? You want living people I like? Ok, P. J. O'Rourke, Neal Boortz and F. Paul Wilson.

He in my opinion did this more than ANYTHING else because he objected to the authorizing of military force without a formal declaration of war as unconstitutional. However if there were a formal declaration of war up for a vote at that time, my hunch is that he would have opposed it, as I do not recall him every saying he believed in the pre-emptive use of force in War.

Which is a position which he's certainly entitled to hold, but which is not based on the Constitution as he claims. As I pointed out earlier the constitution clearly authorizes congress to approve the use of measures short of war and to deploy the military for purposes other than war.

Dave

Dave your back!!
I will have new comments for you directly sir.

Oh boy?

Don't expect too much comment action from me. There's work to be done, both real and as a BC editor and sleep to be had as well.

Dave