 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of The Muslim Agorist
Show Posts Topics
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
16
General / Solidarity: Can the Tea Party and Occupy Wall St find common cause?
« on: October 04, 2011, 02:15:21 AM »
Many libertarians will point out that the definition of “liberal” has changed. What used to be a philosophy of small government and economic freedom is now the hallmark busy-body regulations and central economic planning. To elucidate this distinction many call themselves, “classical liberals.” What’s less often discussed is the history of “Solidarity.” Today “Solidarity” is often used to mean unity among international socialists and communist organizations. Although at rallies they espouse massages of peace, diversity and freedom, which I stand behind, their literature usually preaches a kind of class war, and big government solution.
The history of “Solidarity” is quite different however. The term comes from the Polish “Solidarność” which was a non-governmental trade union, or more accurately a black market resistance movement operating within the Soviet-bloc in the 1980s. Solidarity was a non-violent, anti-communist movement that was instrumental to the fall of the Soviet Union, and it could easily be described as a “classical liberal” movement. In 1986 free market economist Murray Rothbard visited Poland with warm reception from Solidarity, and the movement was flush with translations of Mises and Hayek, which were contraband.
One lesson to be learned from this is the folly of Utopianism. Prior to the Solidarity movement many anti-Soviet groups held the belief that an activist must hold a Utopian ideal to keep them motivated. The result was infighting between groups who shared the same goal. In short, Utopianism made them easy to divide and conquer. Solidarity proposed a different strategy whereby the emphasis was not on what activists favored, but instead a broad agreement on what they opposed. This was equally motivating, but without the divisiveness.
Read More
The history of “Solidarity” is quite different however. The term comes from the Polish “Solidarność” which was a non-governmental trade union, or more accurately a black market resistance movement operating within the Soviet-bloc in the 1980s. Solidarity was a non-violent, anti-communist movement that was instrumental to the fall of the Soviet Union, and it could easily be described as a “classical liberal” movement. In 1986 free market economist Murray Rothbard visited Poland with warm reception from Solidarity, and the movement was flush with translations of Mises and Hayek, which were contraband.
One lesson to be learned from this is the folly of Utopianism. Prior to the Solidarity movement many anti-Soviet groups held the belief that an activist must hold a Utopian ideal to keep them motivated. The result was infighting between groups who shared the same goal. In short, Utopianism made them easy to divide and conquer. Solidarity proposed a different strategy whereby the emphasis was not on what activists favored, but instead a broad agreement on what they opposed. This was equally motivating, but without the divisiveness.
Read More
17
General / Dear Federal Reserve Bureaucrat,
« on: September 30, 2011, 01:40:15 AM »
Dear Federal Reserve Bureaucrat,
If you’re reading this you were probably recently hired as part of the Federal Reserve’s new social media monitoring program. Chances are you’re a recent high school drop out, or part of some make-work federal job placement program. You probably don’t completely understand who it is that you’re working for, and what it is that you’re doing. So, I can’t really hold it against you. I’d like to welcome you to our little corner of the Internet, and offer you some sincere advice.
You’re a bureaucrat now, so it’s important that you learn ways to avoid doing work. Otherwise you’re going to raise the bar for all your new bureaucrat friends, and they won’t like you anymore. I mean let’s face it, you’ve got a pretty sweet gig. Wouldn’t want to mess that up. So, let’s take a look at this recent “request for proposal” your bosses sent out for the creation of a “social listening platform” and see if we can’t find some corners you can cut.
You’re looking for a social media monitoring company to design a program for you that can, “gather data from various social media outlets and news sources” to “guide the organization’s public relations group.” I was wondering if you’d ever heard of a website called, “Google.” It’s pretty useful for that, and it’s got a lot of interesting tools that might make your job a lot easier, if not completely obsolete. Stop me if I’m going too fast. I know how you bureaucrats are easily confused, and some of this may seem a little newfangled.
You’ve asked that the program “be able to gather data from the primary social media platforms – Facebook, Twitter, Blogs, Forums and YouTube.” and that it should also be able to, “aggregate data from various media outlets such as: CNN, WSJ, Factiva etc.” Boy are you going to be excited! If you go over to Google there’s this thing called a “Search Engine.” It does all of that! There’s even a navigation bar at the top that lets you limit your searches to news, or video, or blogs. You can even search in the shopping section and see who’s selling anti-Fed merchandise. Just don’t bother with the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button. It’s totally useless.
Read More
18
General / Does anyone remember Liberty Frames?
« on: May 09, 2011, 09:06:51 PM »
It was ages ago. They advertised on the show. Libertarian/Agorist custom framing. Does anyone remember?
I just saw this photo of Jason Talley with the Shire Society Declaration in front of a stack of frames, so I figured that person must still be around.
I'm doing an art show opening June 3rd and could use the frames.
Here's my recent art project if anyone's interested.
I just saw this photo of Jason Talley with the Shire Society Declaration in front of a stack of frames, so I figured that person must still be around.
I'm doing an art show opening June 3rd and could use the frames.
Here's my recent art project if anyone's interested.
21
General / National Opt Out Day and the End of Hajj. A Perfect Storm.
« on: November 16, 2010, 12:18:46 AM »
So, Opt Out Day is November 24th. But coincidentally 12,000 American Muslims will be returning from Hajj between the 21st and 26th. Sounds like a perfect storm to me. The best part is the the Hajjis left before the enhanced pat downs started, and they've been cut off from media the whole time... so it'll be a little surprise.
Does anyone know whether or not international flights are screened by the TSA after they arrive in the US and transfer to their domestic flight?
Does anyone know whether or not international flights are screened by the TSA after they arrive in the US and transfer to their domestic flight?
22
General / Where's that study Dale read?
« on: November 05, 2010, 01:14:25 PM »
About a week ago they read some show prep, I think Dale read it. It sounded like one of the top 10 type Cracked articles, but I searched Cracked and couldn't find it. It was basically a handful of Milgrim type experiments studying the psychological impact of being put in a position of authority. They they lie more, feel remorse and empathy less... etc.
Does anyone remember this and know where I can find the original article?
Does anyone remember this and know where I can find the original article?
23
General / How should I deal with threatening hate mail?
« on: September 28, 2010, 05:18:48 PM »
I'm going to have to leave out a lot of the details on this, because my friend went to the FBI and they've instructed him not to go public until they've looked into it. Technically I shouldn't know any of this, but I'm waiting in the wings for the green light to write a report on this. All that aside. My question is... how do you think I should have handled this if it were me and I don't what to use the services of the FBI?
He received a letter, snail mail, threatening property damage on some local mosques, and alluding to a larger plan of a series of attacks throughout the coming months around the state. In all likelihood it's just a lot of hot air intended to intimidate, but there is no ambiguity that it was worded as a threat to person and property.
The idiots who sent it to him printed the letter on the back of a program from their church group. The officiant of the groups meetings is the same as whoever signed the letter. And with a little googling I was able to find the facebook and myspace pages of all the officers in the program, a few of their personal blogs, and able to connect the officiant's name back to the PO Box the letter was sent from.
Given that the gears are already in motion, and it's not my case. If it were me, do you think I should turn them all over the FBI? I hesitate, and would be inclined toward contacting them directly now that I know who they are. Something like how Ian approached the guy who stole his bike. But what if they are serious, and dangerous.
He received a letter, snail mail, threatening property damage on some local mosques, and alluding to a larger plan of a series of attacks throughout the coming months around the state. In all likelihood it's just a lot of hot air intended to intimidate, but there is no ambiguity that it was worded as a threat to person and property.
The idiots who sent it to him printed the letter on the back of a program from their church group. The officiant of the groups meetings is the same as whoever signed the letter. And with a little googling I was able to find the facebook and myspace pages of all the officers in the program, a few of their personal blogs, and able to connect the officiant's name back to the PO Box the letter was sent from.
Given that the gears are already in motion, and it's not my case. If it were me, do you think I should turn them all over the FBI? I hesitate, and would be inclined toward contacting them directly now that I know who they are. Something like how Ian approached the guy who stole his bike. But what if they are serious, and dangerous.
24
General / Taqwacore: Islamic Punk
« on: September 22, 2010, 03:45:18 PM »Quote
The title, The Taqwacores, a novel by Michael Muhammad Knight, is a combination of the Arabic word Taqwa, describing the balance of love and fear the pious have of God, and the core of hardcore punk. Knight says he chose this name over Islamcore because he felt Taqwa was something bigger than Islam.
But as Knight photocopied his novel about a fictional Muslim punk scene in Buffalo, New York, and distributed it from the trunk of his car, he couldn't have known that he was birthing a manifesto.
Read More
25
General / Why "They" hate "Us"
« on: September 22, 2010, 11:31:50 AM »
After 9/11 many Americans were utterly baffled by the question, Why do they hate us?
President Bush offered a simple, yet insufficient explanation. "They hate our freedoms." But analysts who offered more in depth answers were decried as blaming America, or sympathizing with the enemy.
To answer this question we need another approach. So, what happens if we reverse the roles? In this thought experiment East becomes West, Muslim becomes Christian, and oil will become unobtainium, the fictional mineral from the movie Avatar.
Read More
President Bush offered a simple, yet insufficient explanation. "They hate our freedoms." But analysts who offered more in depth answers were decried as blaming America, or sympathizing with the enemy.
To answer this question we need another approach. So, what happens if we reverse the roles? In this thought experiment East becomes West, Muslim becomes Christian, and oil will become unobtainium, the fictional mineral from the movie Avatar.
Read More
26
General / Your vote is worthless
« on: September 21, 2010, 01:52:34 PM »
Check out these numbers from the Federal Election Commission
Candidate Amount spent Votes $/vote
Barack Obama (D) $513,557,218 69,498,215 $7.39
John McCain (R) $346,666,422 59,948,240 $5.78
Ralph Nader (I) $4,187,628 738,720 $5.67
Bob Barr (L) $1,345,202 523,713 $2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C) $234,309 199,437 $1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G) $238,968 161,680 $1.48
Total $866,229,747 131,070,005 $6.60
If you still care enough to vote, and you still think you're accomplishing something, you're better off donating $20.
To the next person who tells me I'm part of the problem because I didn't vote, I donated $200 in that election, so I did exponentially more than you did by voting.
I'll never vote again.
Candidate Amount spent Votes $/vote
Barack Obama (D) $513,557,218 69,498,215 $7.39
John McCain (R) $346,666,422 59,948,240 $5.78
Ralph Nader (I) $4,187,628 738,720 $5.67
Bob Barr (L) $1,345,202 523,713 $2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C) $234,309 199,437 $1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G) $238,968 161,680 $1.48
Total $866,229,747 131,070,005 $6.60
If you still care enough to vote, and you still think you're accomplishing something, you're better off donating $20.
To the next person who tells me I'm part of the problem because I didn't vote, I donated $200 in that election, so I did exponentially more than you did by voting.
I'll never vote again.
27
General / To labor theory of value questions
« on: September 07, 2010, 02:05:22 PM »
I'm not sure I understand this concept very thoroughly. I admittedly haven't read much about it because it doesn't make alot of sense. But these questions came to mind
1) If capitalists, Austrian economists, libertarians etc reject the labor theory of value, would they also say that the hourly wage is a poor model for compensating labor? Given the hourly wage is not a NAP violation. I'm just asking if it's not economically ideal.
2) When people talk about intellectual property they claim that they suffer a loss of income if someone else profits from content they created. In other words, the labor of creating content entitles someone to the income of products they have not yet sold. Does that sound like the labor theory of value?
1) If capitalists, Austrian economists, libertarians etc reject the labor theory of value, would they also say that the hourly wage is a poor model for compensating labor? Given the hourly wage is not a NAP violation. I'm just asking if it's not economically ideal.
2) When people talk about intellectual property they claim that they suffer a loss of income if someone else profits from content they created. In other words, the labor of creating content entitles someone to the income of products they have not yet sold. Does that sound like the labor theory of value?
28
General / Ground Zero Mosque in a Stateless Society
« on: August 23, 2010, 06:09:19 PM »
I read a story recently where someone went to a rally against the Park51/Cordoba House/Ground Zero Mosque project carrying a sign that read, "Religious tolerance is what makes America great" and was threatened and told that if it weren't for the police presence they'd be in danger. Isolated incident. I'm just illustrating a point.
For me the issue is property rights. Period. They own it. Let them build any damn thing they want. I'm generally philosophically against big Islamic construction projects, because opulent houses of worship seems contrary to the teaching to me. But again, not my property, not my call.
I feel safe in assuming that the majority of readers on this board either agree with, or at least understand that perspective. Here's my concern.
This thing is not polling well at all. In fact tolerance of Muslims is polling worse and worse in multiple places. The anti Mosque crowd showed up at my Mosque in Santa Clara CA to protest a construction project that was approved by the city over a year ago. It's the same rhetoric that's going on Manhattan right now. A minaret in California is a reminder of the pain of 911, and a mosque is a training ground for homegrown terrorism. I have an ear to the discussions behind the scenes since my wife is part of a network of Muslim lawyers, and across the country they are saying that the hostility is higher now than it was right after 911. Mosque vandalism, so called "hate crimes", and threatening e-mails and phone calls are all higher now then they were then. But the victims are less willing to be interviewed than ever.
I fully understand that the police and the state fail at everything, especially protection. But I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding back the mob from seeking vigilante "justice" from my friends and loved ones. I don't know how a voluntary society would deal with mob rage, and I've never heard it discussed. I'm sure intellectually we can speculate that a private security service would do a better job in a libertopia. But right here, in the real world, if someone pushed the button that disappeared the state tomorrow... I'm not so certain I wouldn't instantly become a target.
It's a weird feeling. Not one I'm used to. I wouldn't call it fear, although I know many people that are afraid. It's more like dread. I'm not sure Muslims would be safe here if it were a Stateless society.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
For me the issue is property rights. Period. They own it. Let them build any damn thing they want. I'm generally philosophically against big Islamic construction projects, because opulent houses of worship seems contrary to the teaching to me. But again, not my property, not my call.
I feel safe in assuming that the majority of readers on this board either agree with, or at least understand that perspective. Here's my concern.
This thing is not polling well at all. In fact tolerance of Muslims is polling worse and worse in multiple places. The anti Mosque crowd showed up at my Mosque in Santa Clara CA to protest a construction project that was approved by the city over a year ago. It's the same rhetoric that's going on Manhattan right now. A minaret in California is a reminder of the pain of 911, and a mosque is a training ground for homegrown terrorism. I have an ear to the discussions behind the scenes since my wife is part of a network of Muslim lawyers, and across the country they are saying that the hostility is higher now than it was right after 911. Mosque vandalism, so called "hate crimes", and threatening e-mails and phone calls are all higher now then they were then. But the victims are less willing to be interviewed than ever.
I fully understand that the police and the state fail at everything, especially protection. But I can't help but wonder if they aren't holding back the mob from seeking vigilante "justice" from my friends and loved ones. I don't know how a voluntary society would deal with mob rage, and I've never heard it discussed. I'm sure intellectually we can speculate that a private security service would do a better job in a libertopia. But right here, in the real world, if someone pushed the button that disappeared the state tomorrow... I'm not so certain I wouldn't instantly become a target.
It's a weird feeling. Not one I'm used to. I wouldn't call it fear, although I know many people that are afraid. It's more like dread. I'm not sure Muslims would be safe here if it were a Stateless society.
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
29
General / Welcome to America: You’ve been lied to
« on: August 10, 2010, 08:10:13 PM »
This is a rough draft. I'm still working on it, but I just wanted to open it up to some peer review, because I'm not strong in a lot of these subjects. These are just quick overviews. If you have any useful factoids, or corrections or suggestions or anything I'd appreciate it.
Welcome to America: You’ve been lied to
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-638_red.pdf
On the website of the United State Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) is a document titled, "Learn About the United States: Quick Civics Lessons for the Naturalization Test." It is intended to prepare immigrants to answer 100 civics questions, 10 of which will be on the actual test, 6 of which must be answered correctly to pass. Native born Americans undergo 14 years of indoctrination, so to bring immigrants up to speed the government subjects them to a simplified, highly propagandized version of American history. As a result, many immigrants enter American society with a false sense of utopianism only to be disappointed by the rude awakening of actual life in America.
As a public service, this will serve a guide to the top ten lies that appear in this document.
1) The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants.
Anti-immigrant sentiment goes all the way back in US history. Benjamin Franklin wrote that German immigrants were too stupid to learn English, and that their "swarthy complexion" would dilute "the pure white people" who settled colonial Pennsylvania. Anti-Catholic rhetoric also goes back to the colonial period, but it reached its peak in the 1840s when huge numbers of Irish immigrants were accused of dual loyalty to the Pope, and conspiratorial ambitions to spread medieval theocracy. Chinese, Italian and Polish immigrants were all opposed by American labor unions who feared losing jobs and lower wages from the flood of low skilled workers in the labor market. Every immigrant population that has come to America has been met with fear and hate from a segment of the population.
2) The United States signed treaties with American Indian tribes to move them to reservations.
While technically true in some cases, this ignores a long and violent history of persecution and genocide against the Native Americans. Policies of "Indian Removal" began almost the moment Columbus set foot in the New World including mass hangings, intentional infection with small pox, and the deliberate destruction of flora and fauna used for food. The systematic extermination of buffalo resulted in wide scale starvation. The Removal Act of 1830 forced the relocation of tens of thousands of Native Americans Westward, often resulting in long death marches. Reservations were created by the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851. Tribes were scattered from their ancestral lands and concentrated into small parcels of land. Children were taken from their families, stripped of their way of life and forced into manual labor. Clergy were stationed on reservations to teach Christianity. Even by conservative estimates, the Native American population has been reduced 95% from what it was prior to European contact.
3) The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Federal powers are restricted to those described in the Constitution.
Recently, when asked about the Constitutionality of Obama's healthcare bill Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn told Judge Andrew Napolitano, "most of what we do in Washington is not authorized by the Constitution." A brief moment of honesty. The fact is most of the laws on the books do not stand up to Constitutional rigor and there is no golden age of Constitutionally limited government in our past. The federal government is, and has always been, exactly as large as it can get away with being. George Bush started a war without a formal declaration. Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the Japanese internment camps. Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. John Adams made it a crime to criticize government officials. As Lysander Spooner put it, the Constitution has either authorized tyranny, or has been powerless to prevent it.
4) The Civil War was fought to abolish slavery.
Most Northerners did not oppose slavery, and many Southerners favored staying in the Union because slavery was Constitutionally protected, while the volatility of a new Confederacy made it unclear whether slavery would continue. Lincoln was a political novice whose campaign was bankrolled by Northern industrialists. They aimed to hike taxes on the South to subsidize industry in the North. Southern states felt bullied by the Northern majority but did not engage in open rebellion. They withdrew democratically. The rallying call in the North was to not to "free the slaves" but to "preserve the Union" and Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Confederate states. It did not free the slaves in the North. Lincoln described it as a "war measure." It allowed free slaves to join the Union Army, giving the North the manpower to win the war. The 13th Amendment, which abolished chattel slavery, was supported by a majority of the Southern states. Every other country in the New World ended slavery without a civil war, with the exception of the Haitian Revolution, which was a slave revolt, not a civil war.
5) The federal government has the power to print money
The US Treasury does not print money. In 1913 the monopoly power to print money was granted to the Federal Reserve which was devised by a group of international bankers, not by Congress. The name itself is a fraud. The Federal Reserve is not federal. It's a cartel of private banks no more federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is also not a reserve. There is no gold. There is no silver. They print a baseless paper note. Its only value is derived from public confidence in the stability of its purchasing power... which is declining. In reality a dollar is not a measure of value, but a measure of the National debt owed to the Federal Reserve. It is a central bank, which was bitterly opposed by the drafters of the Constitution. The founders recognized the importance of honest currency. Article I, Section 10 states, "No State shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
6) President Roosevelt's "New Deal" rescued America from the Great Depression.
The New Deal is cheered by policy makers to this day, but economists now argue that it actually prolonged the Great Depression, and disproportionately hurt the poor. The upper class insiders actually profited immensely by loading up on debt during the boom of the 1920s, anticipating the crash, and then paying off their loans after inflation had devalued the currency. Meanwhile federal taxes tripled, primarily excise taxes levied on everyday things like chewing gum, soft drinks, phone service, and electricity. The financial burden of the New Deal programs fell disproportionately on the lower class that they purported to help. While a few jobs were created by direct spending, a greater number of jobs were destroyed by excessive taxing. Further, the majority of the spending did not go to the poorest of the poor, who were already overwhelmingly Democratic voters, but instead went to swing states, trying to buy political support for Roosevelt's reelection.
7) The "rule of law" means that our leaders must obey the law. No person is above the law.
When George Bush's daughter was charged with underage drinking the comment from the White House was that they wanted to keep it a family matter. Yet, a less connected child would likely serve jail time. The Obama administration is full of tax cheats. Dick Cheney shoots a hunting buddy in the face and nothing happens. Al Gore is accused or sexually assaulting a masseuse and nothing happens. Soldiers torture. Police speed and park illegally. Well connected bankers rip off the tax payer for billions. Justice is for sale. The "rule of law" is a nice idea for fairy tales but in reality laws are written by men, interpreted by men, implemented by men, and broken by men. There is no way to escape the rule of men... corrupt, flawed, power hungry men.
The economic system of the United States is Capitalism.
The economy may have been something resembling capitalism at one time, but it's not anymore. Capitalism is essentially a system of private property rights where goods are voluntarily exchanged in a free market. In the American system licenses, permits, patents and regulations are all coercive elements that hinder the free exchange of goods. Some call it a "mixed economy" meaning it contains elements of both a free market and a centrally planned economy. A more accurate term would be "corporatism." Big corporations cartelize to pool influence and collude with the government to monopolize industries and legislate competition out of the market. A corporation is a legal fiction. A file drawer someplace, regarded by the state as a legal entity distinct from its members. They enjoy a special relationship with the state in which members enjoy "limited liability" which means they are not fully accountable for the damages caused by their decisions. That is the very definition of fascism, the material success of capitalism colluded with the legal immunity of statism.
9) The President commands the armed forces, but only Congress has the power to declare war.
Congress has not declared war since 1941 when America entered WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, the Iraq War and now the ongoing War on Terror have all been undeclared unconstitutional wars. The framers of the Constitution denied the President the power to declare war to prevent the formation of a standing army which they understood would be detrimental to American liberty. In fact, Article I, Section 8 limits war funding to no longer than two years. Today we have exactly what the framers feared, and the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against. Basically it works like this. Huge corporations get lucrative government contracts to produce military equipment. If there is no war, there is no need for those contracts, so they have huge lobbying budgets to make sure we are in perpetual conflict. Congress is then put in the impossible position of "representing" people who are against the war, while taking huge sums of money from the corporations that support it. So they are more than happy to abdicate their responsibility to the President.
10) The government works for the people. In the United States the authority to govern comes from the consent of the people, who are the highest power.
The Declaration of Independence states that, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." A recent Rasmussen poll of voters nationwide found that 61% said they don't believe the government has the necessary consent described in the Declaration of Independence. 70% believed that government and corporations collude in ways that hurt the people. Obama told the Military Times editorial board that, "what essentially sets a nation-state apart (from the private sector), is a monopoly on violence." The power of the government doesn't come from the consent of the governed, it comes from the barrel of the gun. It comes from the militarization of police, and the largest military in human history. Think you're the highest power? Just try not paying your taxes.
Welcome to America: You’ve been lied to
http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-638_red.pdf
On the website of the United State Customs and Immigration Service (USCIS) is a document titled, "Learn About the United States: Quick Civics Lessons for the Naturalization Test." It is intended to prepare immigrants to answer 100 civics questions, 10 of which will be on the actual test, 6 of which must be answered correctly to pass. Native born Americans undergo 14 years of indoctrination, so to bring immigrants up to speed the government subjects them to a simplified, highly propagandized version of American history. As a result, many immigrants enter American society with a false sense of utopianism only to be disappointed by the rude awakening of actual life in America.
As a public service, this will serve a guide to the top ten lies that appear in this document.
1) The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants.
Anti-immigrant sentiment goes all the way back in US history. Benjamin Franklin wrote that German immigrants were too stupid to learn English, and that their "swarthy complexion" would dilute "the pure white people" who settled colonial Pennsylvania. Anti-Catholic rhetoric also goes back to the colonial period, but it reached its peak in the 1840s when huge numbers of Irish immigrants were accused of dual loyalty to the Pope, and conspiratorial ambitions to spread medieval theocracy. Chinese, Italian and Polish immigrants were all opposed by American labor unions who feared losing jobs and lower wages from the flood of low skilled workers in the labor market. Every immigrant population that has come to America has been met with fear and hate from a segment of the population.
2) The United States signed treaties with American Indian tribes to move them to reservations.
While technically true in some cases, this ignores a long and violent history of persecution and genocide against the Native Americans. Policies of "Indian Removal" began almost the moment Columbus set foot in the New World including mass hangings, intentional infection with small pox, and the deliberate destruction of flora and fauna used for food. The systematic extermination of buffalo resulted in wide scale starvation. The Removal Act of 1830 forced the relocation of tens of thousands of Native Americans Westward, often resulting in long death marches. Reservations were created by the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851. Tribes were scattered from their ancestral lands and concentrated into small parcels of land. Children were taken from their families, stripped of their way of life and forced into manual labor. Clergy were stationed on reservations to teach Christianity. Even by conservative estimates, the Native American population has been reduced 95% from what it was prior to European contact.
3) The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land." Federal powers are restricted to those described in the Constitution.
Recently, when asked about the Constitutionality of Obama's healthcare bill Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn told Judge Andrew Napolitano, "most of what we do in Washington is not authorized by the Constitution." A brief moment of honesty. The fact is most of the laws on the books do not stand up to Constitutional rigor and there is no golden age of Constitutionally limited government in our past. The federal government is, and has always been, exactly as large as it can get away with being. George Bush started a war without a formal declaration. Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the Japanese internment camps. Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. John Adams made it a crime to criticize government officials. As Lysander Spooner put it, the Constitution has either authorized tyranny, or has been powerless to prevent it.
4) The Civil War was fought to abolish slavery.
Most Northerners did not oppose slavery, and many Southerners favored staying in the Union because slavery was Constitutionally protected, while the volatility of a new Confederacy made it unclear whether slavery would continue. Lincoln was a political novice whose campaign was bankrolled by Northern industrialists. They aimed to hike taxes on the South to subsidize industry in the North. Southern states felt bullied by the Northern majority but did not engage in open rebellion. They withdrew democratically. The rallying call in the North was to not to "free the slaves" but to "preserve the Union" and Lincoln reassured slaveholders that he would continue to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Confederate states. It did not free the slaves in the North. Lincoln described it as a "war measure." It allowed free slaves to join the Union Army, giving the North the manpower to win the war. The 13th Amendment, which abolished chattel slavery, was supported by a majority of the Southern states. Every other country in the New World ended slavery without a civil war, with the exception of the Haitian Revolution, which was a slave revolt, not a civil war.
5) The federal government has the power to print money
The US Treasury does not print money. In 1913 the monopoly power to print money was granted to the Federal Reserve which was devised by a group of international bankers, not by Congress. The name itself is a fraud. The Federal Reserve is not federal. It's a cartel of private banks no more federal than Federal Express. The Federal Reserve is also not a reserve. There is no gold. There is no silver. They print a baseless paper note. Its only value is derived from public confidence in the stability of its purchasing power... which is declining. In reality a dollar is not a measure of value, but a measure of the National debt owed to the Federal Reserve. It is a central bank, which was bitterly opposed by the drafters of the Constitution. The founders recognized the importance of honest currency. Article I, Section 10 states, "No State shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts."
6) President Roosevelt's "New Deal" rescued America from the Great Depression.
The New Deal is cheered by policy makers to this day, but economists now argue that it actually prolonged the Great Depression, and disproportionately hurt the poor. The upper class insiders actually profited immensely by loading up on debt during the boom of the 1920s, anticipating the crash, and then paying off their loans after inflation had devalued the currency. Meanwhile federal taxes tripled, primarily excise taxes levied on everyday things like chewing gum, soft drinks, phone service, and electricity. The financial burden of the New Deal programs fell disproportionately on the lower class that they purported to help. While a few jobs were created by direct spending, a greater number of jobs were destroyed by excessive taxing. Further, the majority of the spending did not go to the poorest of the poor, who were already overwhelmingly Democratic voters, but instead went to swing states, trying to buy political support for Roosevelt's reelection.
7) The "rule of law" means that our leaders must obey the law. No person is above the law.
When George Bush's daughter was charged with underage drinking the comment from the White House was that they wanted to keep it a family matter. Yet, a less connected child would likely serve jail time. The Obama administration is full of tax cheats. Dick Cheney shoots a hunting buddy in the face and nothing happens. Al Gore is accused or sexually assaulting a masseuse and nothing happens. Soldiers torture. Police speed and park illegally. Well connected bankers rip off the tax payer for billions. Justice is for sale. The "rule of law" is a nice idea for fairy tales but in reality laws are written by men, interpreted by men, implemented by men, and broken by men. There is no way to escape the rule of men... corrupt, flawed, power hungry men.
The economic system of the United States is Capitalism.The economy may have been something resembling capitalism at one time, but it's not anymore. Capitalism is essentially a system of private property rights where goods are voluntarily exchanged in a free market. In the American system licenses, permits, patents and regulations are all coercive elements that hinder the free exchange of goods. Some call it a "mixed economy" meaning it contains elements of both a free market and a centrally planned economy. A more accurate term would be "corporatism." Big corporations cartelize to pool influence and collude with the government to monopolize industries and legislate competition out of the market. A corporation is a legal fiction. A file drawer someplace, regarded by the state as a legal entity distinct from its members. They enjoy a special relationship with the state in which members enjoy "limited liability" which means they are not fully accountable for the damages caused by their decisions. That is the very definition of fascism, the material success of capitalism colluded with the legal immunity of statism.
9) The President commands the armed forces, but only Congress has the power to declare war.
Congress has not declared war since 1941 when America entered WWII. The Korean War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, the Iraq War and now the ongoing War on Terror have all been undeclared unconstitutional wars. The framers of the Constitution denied the President the power to declare war to prevent the formation of a standing army which they understood would be detrimental to American liberty. In fact, Article I, Section 8 limits war funding to no longer than two years. Today we have exactly what the framers feared, and the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us against. Basically it works like this. Huge corporations get lucrative government contracts to produce military equipment. If there is no war, there is no need for those contracts, so they have huge lobbying budgets to make sure we are in perpetual conflict. Congress is then put in the impossible position of "representing" people who are against the war, while taking huge sums of money from the corporations that support it. So they are more than happy to abdicate their responsibility to the President.
10) The government works for the people. In the United States the authority to govern comes from the consent of the people, who are the highest power.
The Declaration of Independence states that, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." A recent Rasmussen poll of voters nationwide found that 61% said they don't believe the government has the necessary consent described in the Declaration of Independence. 70% believed that government and corporations collude in ways that hurt the people. Obama told the Military Times editorial board that, "what essentially sets a nation-state apart (from the private sector), is a monopoly on violence." The power of the government doesn't come from the consent of the governed, it comes from the barrel of the gun. It comes from the militarization of police, and the largest military in human history. Think you're the highest power? Just try not paying your taxes.
30
General / Agent provocateur in CA mosque: Know Your Rights
« on: July 30, 2010, 03:00:07 PM »
Suddenly I've been promoted from Examiner.com blogger to a paid writer for Illume Magazine, an Islamic Publication.
Here's my first published piece
Read More
Here's my first published piece
Quote from: Know your Rights
In 2006 Ahmadullah Niazi, a 34-year-old regular at the Islamic Center of Irvine (ICOI), befriended Craig Morteilh, who presented himself as a recent immigrant who was interested in converting to Islam. Their conversations began around spirituality, but quickly Morteilh began discussing “operations” against the U.S., bragging about his access to illegal weapons, and trying to recruit community members to join him in a terrorist plot. The mosque obtained a restraining order against Morteilh, and Niazi reported him to the FBI. Officials offered Niazi a job as a paid informant for the FBI, and when he declined the offer they threatened to make his life, “a living hell.” Within months Niazi was arrested on trumped up charges of ties to terrorism.
There’s an old saying amongst political activists. If you want to know who the undercover agent is, it’s the guy advocating violence. This is a lesson American Muslims must learn. Craig Morteilh, as it turns out, was not as he presented himself, but was in fact an agent provocateur sent by the FBI to incite a terrorist scheme, not thwart one.
Read More