tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46859656316027326832024-03-13T15:25:12.696-06:00Save America from Washington Waste!We must raise red flags on red ink because more of the same irresponsible spending of ANY President from Either side of the Aile will not create jobs or achieve long-term economic recovery. Mortgaging our children and their future despite our Constitution will only drive us deeper into the ditch of Socialism.Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-84261307953588312612012-01-08T17:11:00.002-07:002012-01-08T17:11:32.906-07:00PART 12 Economics In One Lesson By HENRY HAZLITT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h4 style="background-color: #f1c232; color: blue; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><a href="" name="0.1_L13">Chapter Twelve</a></b></span></h4>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h4 style="background-color: #f1c232; color: red; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE DRIVE FOR EXPORTS</b></span></h4>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Exceeded only by the pathological dread of imports that affects all
nations is a pathological yearning for exports. Logically, it is true,
nothing could be more inconsistent. In the long run imports and exports
must equal each other (considering both in the broadest sense, which
includes such "invisible" items as tourist expenditures and ocean
freight charges). </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is exports that pay for imports, and vice versa.
The greater exports we have, the greater imports we must have, if we
ever expect to get paid. The smaller imports we have, the smaller
exports we can have. Without imports we can have no exports, for
foreigners will have no funds with which to buy our goods.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> When we
decide to cut down our imports, we are in effect deciding also to cut
down our exports. When we decide to increase our exports, we are in
effect deciding also to increase our imports.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The reason for this is elementary. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>An American exporter sells his
goods to a British importer and is paid in British pounds sterling. But
he cannot use British pounds to pay the wages of his workers, to buy his
wife's clothes or to buy theater tickets. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>For all these purposes he
needs American dollars. Therefore his British pounds are of no use to
him unless he either uses them himself to buy British goods or sells
them to some American importer who wishes to use them to buy British
goods. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Whichever he does, the transaction cannot be completed until the
American exports have been paid for by an equal amount of imports.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The same situation would exist if the transaction had been conducted
in terms of American dollars instead of British pounds. The British
importer could not pay the American exporter in dollars unless some
previous British exporter had built up a credit in dollars here as a
result of some previous sale to us. Foreign exchange, in short, is a
clearing transaction in which, in America , the dollar debts of
foreigners are cancelled against their dollar credits. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>In England, the
pound sterling debts of foreigners are cancelled against their sterling
credits. There is no reason to go into the technical details of all
this, which can be found in any good textbook on foreign exchange. But
it should be pointed out that there is nothing inherently mysterious
about it (in spite of the mystery in which it is so often wrapped), and
that it does not differ essentially from what happens in domestic trade.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
Each of us must also sell something, even if for most of us it is our
own services rather than goods, in order to get the purchasing power to
buy. Domestic trade is also conducted in the main by crossing off checks
and other claims against each other through clearing houses.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is true that under an international gold standard discrepancies in
balances of imports and exports are sometimes settled by shipments of
gold. But they could just as well be settled by shipments of cotton,
steel, whisky, perfume, or any other commodity. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The chief difference is
that the demand for gold is almost indefinitely expansible (partly
because it is thought of and accepted as a residual international
"money" rather than as just another commodity), and that nations do not
put artificial obstacles in the way of receiving gold as they do in the
way of receiving almost everything else.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> (On the other hand, of late
years they have taken to putting more obstacles in the way of exporting
gold than in the way of exporting anything else: but that is another
story.)</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Now the same people who can be clearheaded and sensible when the
subject is one of domestic trade can be incredibly emotional and
muddleheaded when it becomes one of foreign trade. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>In the latter field
they can seriously advocate or acquiesce in principles which they would
think it insane to apply in domestic business. A typical example is the
belief that the government should make huge loans to foreign countries
for the sake of increasing our exports, regardless of whether or not
these loans are likely to be repaid.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>American citizens, of course, should be allowed to lend their own
funds abroad at their own risk. The government should put no arbitrary
barriers in the way of private lending to countries with which we are at
peace. We should give generously, for humane reasons alone, to peoples
who are in great distress or in danger of starving.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> But we ought always
to know clearly what we are doing. It is not wise to bestow charity on
foreign peoples under the impression that one is making a hardheaded
business transaction purely for one's own selfish purposes. That could
only lead to misunderstandings and bad relations later.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Yet among the arguments put forward in favor of huge foreign lending
one fallacy is always sure to occupy a prominent place. It runs like
this. Even if half (or all) the loans we make to foreign countries turn
sour and are not repaid, this nation will still be better off for having
made them, because they will give an enormous impetus to our exports.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It should be immediately obvious that if the loans we make to foreign
countries to enable them to buy our goods are not repaid, then we are
giving the goods away. A nation cannot grow rich by giving goods away.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
It can only make itself poorer.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>No one doubts this proposition when it is applied privately. If an
automobile company lends a man $1,000 to buy a car priced at that
amount, and the loan is not repaid, the automobile company is not better
off because it has "sold" the car.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> It has simply lost the amount that
it cost to make the car. If the car cost $900 to make, and only half the
loan is repaid, then the company has lost $900 minus $500, or a net
amount of $400. It has not made up in trade what it lost in bad loans.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>If this proposition is so simple when applied to a private company,
why do apparently intelligent people get confused about it when applied
to a nation? The reason is that the transaction must then he traced
mentally through a few more stages. One group may indeed make gainswhile
the rest of us take the losses.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is true, for example, that persons engaged exclusively or chiefly
in export business might gain on net balance as a result of bad loans
made abroad. The national loss on the transaction would be certain, but
it might he distributed in ways difficult to follow.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> The private lenders
would take their losses directly. The losses from government lending
would ultimately be paid out of increased taxes imposed on everybody.
But there would also be many indirect losses brought about by the effect
on the economy of these direct losses.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>In the long run business and employment in America would be hurt, not
helped, by foreign loans that were not repaid. For every extra dollar
that foreign buyers had with which to buy American goods, domestic
buyers would ultimately have one dollar less.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> Businesses that depend on
domestic trade would therefore be hurt in the long run as much as export
businesses would he helped. Even many concerns that did an export
business would be hurt on net balance. American automobile companies,
for example, sold about 10 per cent of their output in the foreign
market before the war.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> It would not profit them to double their sales
abroad as a result of bad foreign loans if they thereby lost, say, 20
per cent of their American sales as the result of added taxes taken from
American buyers to make up for the unpaid foreign loans.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>None of this means, I repeat, that it is unwise to make foreign loans, but simply that we cannot get rich by making bad ones.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>For the same reasons that it is stupid to give a false stimulation to
export trade by making bad loans or outright gifts to foreign
countries, it is stupid to give a false stimulation to export trade
through export subsidies. Rather than repeat most of the previous
argument, I leave it to the reader to trace the effects of export
subsidies as I have traced the effects of bad loans.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> An export subsidy
is a clear case of giving the foreigner something for nothing, by
selling him goods for less than it costs us to make them. It is another
case of trying to get rich by giving things away.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Bad loans and export subsidies are additional examples of the error
of looking only at the immediate effect of a policy on special groups,
and of not having the patience or intelligence to trace the long-run
effects of the policy on everyone.</b></span></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-38415362652616188902011-12-05T17:04:00.000-07:002012-01-08T17:05:53.627-07:00PART 11 - Economics In One Lesson By HENRY HAZLITT<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red; font-size: large;">PART 11</span></b><span style="background-color: #f1c232;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #20124d;"><u>WHO'S "PROTECTED" BY TARIFFS?</u></span><br /><br />A mere recital of the economic policies of governments all over the world is calculated to cause any serious student of economics to throw up his hands in despair. What possible point can there be, he is likely to ask, in discussing refinements and advances in economic theory, when popular thought and the actual policies of governments, certainly in everything connected with international relations, have not yet caught up with Adam Smith? For present-day tariff and trade policies are not only as bad as those in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but incomparably worse. The real reasons for those tariffs and other trade barriers are the same, and the pretended reasons are also the same.<br /><br />In the century and three-quarters since The Wealth of Nations appeared, the case for free trade has been stated thousands of times, but perhaps never with more direct simplicity and force than it was stated in that volume. In general Smith rested his case on one fundamental proposition: "In every country it always is and must be the interest of the great body of the people to buy whatever they want of those who sell it cheapest." "The proposition is so very manifest," Smith continued, "that it seems ridiculous to take any pains to prove it; nor could it ever have been called in question, had not the interested sophistry of merchants and manufacturers confounded the common sense of mankind."<br /><br />From another point of view, free trade was considered as one aspect of the specialization of labor:<br /><br />It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoe maker. The shoemaker does not attempt to make his own clothes, but employs a tailor. The farmer attempts to make neither the one nor the other, but employs those different artificers. All of them find it for their interest to employ their whole industry in a way in which they have some advantage over their neighbors, and to purchase with a part of its produce, or what is the same thing, with the price of a part of it, whatever else they have occasion for. What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.<br /><br /><br /><br />But whatever led people to suppose that what was prudence in the conduct of every private family could be folly in that of a great kingdom? It was a whole network of fallacies, out of which mankind has still been unable to cut its way. And the chief of them was the central fallacy with which this book is concerned. It was that of considering merely the immediate effects of a tariff on special groups, and neglecting to consider its long-run effects on the whole community.<br /><br /><br />An American manufacturer of woolen sweaters goes to Congress or to the State Department and tells the committee or officials concerned that it would be a national disaster for them to remove or reduce the tariff on British sweaters. He now sells his sweaters for $15 each, but English manufacturers could sell their sweaters of the same quality for $10. A duty of $5, therefore, is needed to keep him in business. He is not thinking of himself, of course, but of the thousand men and women he employs, and of the people to whom their spending in turn gives employment. Throw them out of work, and you create unemployment and a fall in purchasing power, which would spread in ever-widening circles. And if he can prove that he really would be forced out of business if the tariff were removed or reduced, his argument against that action is regarded by Congress as conclusive.<br /><br />But the fallacy comes from looking merely at this manufacturer and his employees, or merely at the American sweater industry. It comes from noticing only the results that are immediately seen, and neglecting the results that are not seen because they are prevented from coming into existence.<br /><br />The lobbyists for tariff protection are continually putting forward arguments that are not factually correct. But let us assume that the facts in this case are precisely as the sweater manufacturer has stated them. Let us assume that a tariff of $5 a sweater is necessary for him to stay in business and provide employment at sweater-making for his workers.<br /><br />We have deliberately chosen the most unfavorable example of any for the removal of a tariff. We have not taken an argument for the imposition of a new tariff in order to bring a new industry into existence, but an argument for the retention of a tariff that has already brought an industry into existence, and cannot be repealed without hurting somebody.<br /><br />The tariff is repealed; the manufacturer goes out of business; a thousand workers are laid off; the particular tradesmen whom they patronized are hurt. This is the immediate result that is seen. But there are also results which, while much more difficult to trace, are no less immediate and no less real. For now sweaters that formerly cost $15 apiece can be bought for $10. Consumers can now buy the same quality of sweater for less money, or a much better one for the same money. If they buy the same quality of sweater, they not only get the sweater, but they have $5 left over, which they would not have had under the previous conditions, to buy something else. With the $10 that they pay for the imported sweater they help employment-as the American manufacturer no doubt predicted-in the sweater industry in England . With the $5 left over they help employment in any number of other industries in the United States .<br /><br />But the results do not end there. By buying English sweaters they furnish the English with dollars to buy American goods here. This, in fact (if I may here disregard such complications as multilateral exchange, loans, credits, gold movements, etc. which do not alter the end result) is the only way in which the British can eventually make use of these dollars. Because we have permitted the British to sell more to us, they are now able to buy more from us. </span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">They are, in fact, eventually forced to buy more from us if their dollar balances are not to remain perpetually unused. So, as a result of letting in more British goods, we must export more American goods. And though fewer people are now employed in the American sweater industry, more people are employed and much more efficiently employed-in, say, the American automobile or washing-machine business. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">American employment on net balance has not gone down, but American and British production on net balance has gone up. Labor in each country is more fully employed in doing just those things that it does best, instead of being forced to do things that it does inefficiently or badly. Consumers in both countries are better off. They are able to buy what they want where they can get it cheapest. American consumers are better provided with sweaters, and British consumers are better provided with motor cars and washing machines.<br /><br /><br /><br />Now let us look at the matter the other way round, and see the effect of imposing a tariff in the first place. Suppose that there had been no tariff on foreign knit goods, that Americans were accustomed to buying foreign sweaters without duty, and that the argument were then put forward that we could bring a sweater industry into existence by imposing a duty of $5 on sweaters.<br /><br />There would be nothing logically wrong with this argument so far as it went. The cost of British sweaters to the American consumer might thereby be forced so high that American manufacturers would find it profitable to enter the sweater business. But American consumers would be forced to subsidize this industry. On every American sweater they bought they would be forced in effect to pay a tax of $5 which would be collected from them in a higher price by the new sweater industry.<br /><br />Americans would be employed in a sweater industry who had not previously been employed in a sweater industry. That much is true. But there would be no net addition to the country's industry or the country's employment. Because the American consumer had to pay $5 more for the same quality of sweater he would have just that much less left over to buy anything else. He would have to reduce his expenditures by $5 somewhere else. In order that one industry might grow or come into existence, a hundred other industries would have to shrink. In order that 20,000 persons might be employed in a sweater industry, 20,000 fewer persons would be employed elsewhere.<br /><br />But the new industry would be visible. The number of its employees, the capital invested in it, the market value of its product in terms of dollars, could be easily counted. The neighbors could see the sweater workers going to and from the factory every day. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">The results would be palpable and direct. But the shrinkage of a hundred other industries, the loss of 20,000 other jobs somewhere else, would not be so easily noticed. It would be impossible for even the cleverest statistician to know precisely what the incidence of the loss of other jobs had been precisely how many men and women had been laid off from each particular industry, precisely how much business each particular industry had lost–because consumers had to pay more for their sweaters. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">For a loss spread among all the other productive activities of the country would be comparatively minute for each. It would be impossible for anyone to know precisely how each consumer would have spent his extra $5 if he had been allowed to retain it. The overwhelming majority of the people, therefore, would probably suffer from the optical illusion that the new industry had cost us nothing.<br /><br /><br /><br />It is important to notice that the new tariff on sweaters would not raise American wages. To be sure, it would enable Americans to work in the sweater industry at approximately the average level of American wages (for workers of their skill), instead of having to compete in that industry at the British level of wages. But there would be no increase of American wages in general as a result of the duty; for, as we have seen, there would be no net increase in the number of jobs provided, no net increase in the demand for goods, and no increase in labor productivity. Labor productivity would, in fact, be reduced as a result of the tariff.<br /><br />And this brings us to the real effect of a tariff wall. It is not merely that all its visible gains are offset by less obvious but no less real losses. It results, in fact, in a net loss to the country. For contrary to centuries of interested propaganda and disinterested confusion, the tariff reduces the American level of wages. Let us observe more clearly how it does this. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">We have seen that the added amount which consumers pay for a tariff-protected article leaves them just that much less with which to buy all other articles. There is here no net gain to industry as a whole. But as a result of the artificial barrier erected against foreign goods, American labor, capital and land are deflected from what they can do more efficiently to what they do less efficiently. Therefore, as a result of the tariff wall, the average productivity of American labor and capital is reduced.<br /><br />If we look at it now from the consumer's point of view, we find that he can buy less with his money. Because he has to pay more for sweaters and other protected goods, he can buy less of everything else. The general purchasing power of his income has therefore been reduced. Whether the net effect of the tariff is to lower money wages or to raise money prices will depend upon the monetary policies that are followed. But what is clear is that the tariff-though it may increase wages above what they would have been in the protected industries-must on net balance, when all occupations are considered, reduce real wages.<br /><br />Only minds corrupted by generations of misleading propaganda can regard this conclusion as paradoxical. What other result could we expect from a policy of deliberately using our resources of capital and manpower in less efficient ways than we know how to use them? What other result could we expect from deliberately erecting artificial obstacles to trade and transportation?<br /><br />For the erection of tariff walls has the same effect as the erection of real walls. It is significant that the protectionists habitually use the language of warfare. They talk of "repelling an invasion" of foreign products. And the means they suggest in the fiscal field are like those of the battlefield. The tariff barriers that are put up to repel this invasion are like the tank traps, trenches and barbed-wire entanglements created to repel or slow down attempted invasion by a foreign army.<br /><br />And just as the foreign army is compelled to employ more expensive means to surmount those obstacles bigger tanks, mine detectors, engineer corps to cut wires, ford streams and build bridges-so more expensive and efficient transportation means must be developed to surmount tariff obstacles. </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">On the one hand, we try to reduce the cost of transportation between England and America, or Canada and the United States, by developing faster and more efficient ships, better roads and bridges, better locomotives and motor trucks. On the other hand, we offset this investment in efficient transportation by a tariff that makes it commercially even more difficult to transport goods than it was before. We make it a dollar cheaper to ship the sweaters, and then increase the tariff by two dollars to prevent the sweaters from being shipped. By reducing the freight that can be profitably carried, we reduce the value of the investment in transport efficiency.</span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br /><span style="background-color: #f1c232;">The tariff has been described as a means of benefiting the producer at the expense of the consumer. In a sense this is correct. Those who favor it think only of the interests of the producers immediately benefited by the particular duties involved. They forget the interests of the consumers who are immediately injured by being forced to pay these duties. </span></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;">But it is wrong to think of the tariff issue as if it represented a conflict between the interests of producers as a unit against those of consumers as a unit. It is true that the tariff hurts all consumers as such. It is not true that it benefits all producers as such. On the contrary, as we have just seen, it helps the protected producers at the expense of all other American producers, and particularly of those who have a comparatively large potential export market.<br /><br />We can perhaps make this last point clearer by an exaggerated example. Suppose we make our tariff wall so high that it becomes absolutely prohibitive, and no imports come in from the outside world at all. Suppose, as a result of this, that the price of sweaters in America goes up only $5. Then American consumers, because they have to pay $5 more for a sweater, will spend on the average five cents less in each of a hundred other American industries.</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;"> (The figures are chosen merely to illustrate a principle: there will, of course, he no such symmetrical distribution of the loss; moreover, the sweater industry itself will doubtless he hurt because of protection of still other industries. But these complications may be put aside for the moment.)<br /><br />Now because foreign industries will find their market in America totally cut off, they will get no dollar exchange, and therefore they will he unable to buy any American goods at all. As a result of this, American industries will suffer in direct proportion to the percentage of their sales previously made abroad. Those that will be most injured, in the first instance, will be such industries as raw cotton producers, copper producers, makers of sewing machines, agricultural machinery, typewriters and so on.<br /><br />A higher tariff wall, which, however, is not prohibitive, will produce the same kind of results as this, hut merely to a smaller degree.<br /><br />The effect of a tariff, therefore, is to change the structure of American production. It changes the number of occupations, the kind of occupations, and the relative size of one industry as compared with another. It makes the industries in which we are comparatively inefficient larger, and the industries in which we are comparatively efficient smaller. Its net effect, therefore, is to reduce American efficiency, as well as to reduce efficiency in the countries with which we would otherwise have traded more largely.<br /><br />In the long run, notwithstanding the mountains of argument pro and con, a tariff is irrelevant to the question of employment. (True, sudden changes in the tariff, either upward or downward, can create temporary unemployment, as they force corresponding changes in the structure of production. Such sudden changes can even cause a depression.) But a tariff is not irrelevant to the question of wages. In the long run it always reduces real wages, because it reduces efficiency, production and wealth.<br /><br />Thus all the chief tariff fallacies stem from the central fallacy with which this book is concerned. They are the result of looking only at the immediate effects of a single tariff rate on one group of producers, and forgetting the long-run effects both on consumers as a whole and on all other producers.<br /><br />(I hear some reader asking: "Why not solve this by giving tariff protection to all producers?" But the fallacy here is that this cannot help producers uniformly, and cannot help at all domestic producers who already "outsell" foreign producers: these efficient producers must necessarily suffer from the diversion of purchasing power brought about by the tariff.)<br /><br />On the subject of the tariff we must keep in mind one final precaution. It is the same precaution that we found necessary in examining the effects of machinery. It is useless to deny that a tariff does benefit–or at least can benefit-special interests. True, it benefits them at the expense of everyone else. But it does benefit them.</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;"> If one industry alone could get protection, while its owners and workers enjoyed the benefits of free trade in everything else they bought, that industry would benefit, even on net balance. As an attempt is made to extend the tariff blessings, however, even people in the protected industries, both as producers and consumers, begin to suffer from other people's protection, and may finally he worse off even on net balance than if neither they nor anybody else had protection.<br /><br />But we should not deny, as enthusiastic free traders have so often done, the possibility of these tariff benefits to special groups. We should not pretend, for example, that a reduction of the tariff would help everybody and hurt nobody. It is true that its reduction would help the country on net balance. But somebody would be hurt. Groups previously enjoying high protection would be hurt.</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="background-color: #f1c232; font-size: large;"> That in fact is one reason why it is not good to bring such protected interests into existence in the first place. But clarity and candor of thinking compel us to see and acknowledge that some industries are right when they say that a removal of the tariff on their product would throw them out of business and throw their workers (at least temporarily) out of jobs. And if their workers have developed specialized skills, they may even suffer permanently, or until they have at long last learnt equal skills. In tracing the effects of tariffs, as in tracing the effects of machinery, we should endeavor to see all the chief effects, in both the short run and the long run, on all groups.<br /><br />As a postscript to this chapter I should add that its argument is not directed against all tariffs, including duties collected mainly for revenue, or to keep alive industries needed for war; nor is it directed against all arguments for tariffs. It is merely directed against the fallacy that a tariff on net balance "provides employment," "raises wages," or "protects the American standard of living." It does none of these things; and so far as wages and the standard of living are concerned, it does the precise opposite. But an examination of duties imposed for other purposes would carry us beyond our present subject.<br /><br />Nor need we here examine the effect of import quotas, exchange controls, bilateralism and other devices in reducing, diverting or preventing international trade. Such devices have, in general, the same effects as high or prohibitive tariffs, and often worse effects. They present more complicated issues, but their net results can be traced through the same kind of reasoning that we have just applied to tariff barriers.</span></b></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-68056648967041507572011-11-27T18:38:00.001-07:002011-12-04T17:04:29.926-07:00PART 10 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 style="color: #0b5394; text-align: center;">
<u>The Lesson Applied</u></h1>
<div>
</div>
<h2 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<u><span class="intro">The Fetish of Full Employment</span></u></h2>
<h2 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<u><span class="intro"><br /></span></u></h2>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>THE ECONOMIC GOAL of any nation, as of any individual, is to get the
greatest results with the least effort. The whole economic progress of
mankind has consisted in getting more production with the same labor. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is
for this reason that men began putting burdens on the backs of mules instead
of on their own; that they went on to invent the wheel and the wagon, the
railroad and the motor truck. It is for this reason that men used their
ingenuity to develop a hundred thousand labor-saving inventions.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>All this is so elementary that one would blush to state it if it were not<u style="color: red;">
being constantly forgotten by those who coin and circulate the new slogans.</u>
Translated into national terms, this first principle means that our real
objective is to maximize production. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>In doing this, full employment—that
is, the absence of involuntary idleness—becomes a necessary byproduct. But
production is the end, employment merely the means. We cannot continuously
have the fullest production without full employment. But we can very easily
have full employment without full production.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Primitive tribes are naked, and wretchedly fed and housed, but they do
not suffer from unemployment.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> China and India are incomparably poorer than
ourselves, but the main trouble from which they suffer is primitive
production methods (which are both a cause and a consequence of a shortage
of capital) and not unemployment. Nothing is easier to achieve than full
employment, once it is divorced from the goal of full production and taken
as an end in itself. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Hitler provided full employment with a huge armament
program. World War II provided full employment for every nation involved. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The slave labor in Germany had full employment. Prisons and chain gangs have
full employment. Coercion can always provide full employment.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Yet our legislators do not present Full Production bills in Congress but
Full Employment bills. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Even committees of businessmen recommend “a
President’s Commission on Full Employment,” not on Full Production, or
even on Full Employment <i>and </i>Full Production. Everywhere the means is
erected into the end, and the end itself is forgotten.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Wages and employment are discussed as if they had no relation to
productivity and output. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>On the assumption that there is only a fixed amount
of work to be done, the conclusion is drawn that a thirty-hour week will
provide more jobs and will therefore be preferable to a forty-hour week. A
hundred make-work practices of labor unions are confusedly tolerated. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>When a
Petrillo threatens to put a radio station out of business unless it employs
twice as many musicians as it needs, he is supported by part of the public
because he is after all merely trying to create jobs. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>When we had our
</b><b>WPA, it was considered a mark of genius for the administrators to
think of projects that employed the largest number of men in relation to the
value of the work performed—in other words, in which labor was least
efficient.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It would be far better, if that were the choice—which it isn’t—to
have maximum production with part of the population supported in idleness by
undisguised relief than to provide “full employment” by so many forms of
disguised make-work that production is disorganized. The progress of
civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>It is
because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been
able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for
many of the aged and to make it unnecessary for millions of women to take
jobs. </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>A much smaller proportion of the American population needs to work
than that, say, of China or of Russia. The real question is not how many
millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much
shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living? </b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The problem of distribution on which all the stress is being put today, is
after all more easily solved the more there is to distribute.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f1c232; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>We can clarify our thinking if we put our chief emphasis where it
belongs—on policies that will maximize production.</b></span></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-36000829644775881772011-11-18T15:52:00.001-07:002011-11-18T16:00:18.234-07:00PART 9 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
The Lesson Applied</h1>
<div>
</div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro">Disbanding Troops and Bureaucrats</span></h2>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro"> </span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/VD28vNVovow?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro"> </span></h2>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro"> </span></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span class="intro"><u><span style="color: #660000;">Section 1 </span></u></span></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>WHEN, AFTER EVERY great war, it is proposed to demobilize the armed
forces, there is always a great fear that there will not be enough jobs for
these forces and that in consequence they will be unemployed.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> It is true
that, when millions of men are suddenly released, it may require time for
private industry to reabsorb them—though what has been chiefly remarkable
in the past has been the speed, rather than the slowness, with which this
was accomplished. The fears of unemployment arise because people look at
only one side of the process.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>They see soldiers being turned loose on the labor market. Where is the
“purchasing power” going to come from to employ them?</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> If we assume that
the public budget is being balanced, the answer is simple. The government
will cease to support the soldiers. But the taxpayers will be allowed to
retain the funds that were previously taken from them in order to support
the soldiers.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> And the taxpayers will then have additional funds to buy
additional goods. Civilian demand, in other words, will be increased, and
will give employment to the added labor force represented by the former
soldiers.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>If the soldiers have been supported by an unbalanced budget— that is,
<u><span style="color: red;">by government borrowing and other forms of deficit financing</span></u>—the case is
somewhat different. But that raises a different question: we shall consider
the effects of deficit financing in a later chapter.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> It is enough to
recognize that deficit financing is irrelevant to the point that has just
been made; for if we assume that there is any advantage in a budget deficit,
then precisely the same budget deficit could be maintained as before by
simply reducing taxes by the amount previously spent in supporting the
wartime army.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>But the demobilization will not leave us economically just where we were
before it started. The soldiers previously supported by civilians will not
become merely civilians supported by other civilians. They will become
self-supporting civilians.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> If we assume that the men who would otherwise
have been retained in the armed forces are no longer needed for defense,
then their retention would have been sheer waste. They would have been
unproductive.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> The taxpayers, in return for supporting them, would have got
nothing. But now the taxpayers turn over this part of their funds to them as
fellow civilians in return for equivalent goods or services. Total national
production, the wealth of everybody, is higher.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h3 style="color: #660000; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Section 2</b></span></u></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The same reasoning applies to civilian government officials whenever they
are retained in excessive numbers and do not perform services for the
community reasonably equivalent to the remuneration they receive. </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Yet
whenever any effort is made to cut down the number of unnecessary
officeholders the cry is certain to be raised that this action is
“deflationary.” Would you remove the “purchasing power” from these
officials? Would you injure the landlords and tradesmen who depend on that
purchasing power? You are simply cutting down “the national income” and
helping to bring about or intensify a depression.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Once again the fallacy comes from looking at the effects of this action
only on the dismissed officeholders themselves and on the particular
tradesmen who depend upon them. Once again it is forgotten that, if these
bureaucrats are not retained in office, the taxpayers will be permitted to
keep the money that was formerly taken from them for the support of the
bureaucrats.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> Once again it is forgotten that the taxpayers’ income and
purchasing power go up by at least as much as the income and purchasing
power of the former officeholders go down. If the particular shopkeepers who
formerly got the business of these bureaucrats lose trade, other shopkeepers
elsewhere gain at least as much. Washington is less prosperous, and can,
perhaps, support fewer stores; but other towns can support more.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Once again, however, the matter does not end there. The country is not
merely as well off without the superfluous officeholders as it would have
been had it retained them. It is much better off. For the officeholders must
now seek private jobs or set up private business. And the added purchasing
power of the taxpayers, as we noted in the case of the soldiers, will
encourage this. But the officeholders can take private jobs only by
supplying equivalent services to those who provide the jobs—or, rather, to
the customers of the employers who provide the jobs. Instead of being
parasites, they become productive men and women.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>I must insist again that in all this I am not talking of public
officeholders whose services are really needed. Necessary policemen,
firemen, street cleaners, health officers, judges, legislators and
executives perform productive services as important as those of anyone in
private industry. They make it possible for private industry to function in
an atmosphere of law, order, freedom and peace. But their justification
consists in the utility of their services. It does not consist in the
“purchasing power” they possess by virtue of being on the public
payroll.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>This “purchasing power” argument is, when one considers it seriously,
fantastic.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> It could just as well apply to a racketeer or a thief who robs
you. After he takes your money he has more purchasing power. He supports
with it bars, restaurants, night clubs, tailors, perhaps automobile workers.
But for every job his spending provides, your own spending must provide one
less, because you have that much less to spend. Just so the taxpayers
provide one less job for every job supplied by the spending of
officeholders.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> When your money is taken by a thief, you get nothing in
return. When your money is taken through taxes to support needless
bureaucrats, precisely the same situation exists. We are lucky, indeed, if
the needless bureaucrats are mere easygoing loafers. They are more likely
today to be energetic reformers busily discouraging and disrupting
production.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>
</b></span><div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>When we can find no better argument for the retention of any group of
officeholders than that of retaining their purchasing power it is a sign
that the time has come to get rid of them.</b></span></div>
<br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro"> </span></span></h2>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-61830717553891601522011-11-17T15:06:00.001-07:002011-11-17T15:32:04.710-07:00PART 8 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<u>The Lesson Applied</u></h1>
<div>
</div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro">Spread-the-Work Schemes</span></span></u></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/uJGT0pxw90A?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
</h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>I HAVE REFERRED to various union make-work and
feather-bed practices. These practices, and the public toleration of them,
spring from the same fundamental fallacy as the fear of machines. <u><span style="color: #660000;">This is the
belief that a more efficient way of doing a thing destroys jobs, and its
necessary corollary that a less efficient way of doing it creates them.</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Allied to this fallacy is the belief that there is
just a fixed amount of work to be done in the world, and that, if we cannot add
to this work by thinking up more cumbersome ways of doing it, at least we can
think of devices for spreading it around among as large a number of people as
possible.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This error lies behind the minute subdivision of
labor upon which unions insist. In the building trades in large cities the subdivision
is notorious. Bricklayers are not allowed to use stones for a chimney: that is
the special work of stonemasons. An electrician cannot rip out a board to fix
a connection and put it back again: that is the special job, no matter how
simple it may be, of the carpenters. A plumber will not remove or put back a
tile incident to fixing a leak in the shower: that is the job of a tile-setter.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Furious “jurisdictional” strikes are fought among unions for the
exclusive right to do certain types of borderline jobs. In a statement
prepared by the American railroads for the Attorney-General’s Committee on
Administrative Procedure, the roads gave innumerable examples in which the
National Railroad Adjustment Board had decided that each separate operation on the railroad, no
matter how minute, such as talking over a telephone or
spiking or unspiking a switch, is so far an exclusive
property of a particular class of employee that if an
employee of another class, in the course of his regular
duties, performs such operations he must not only be paid
an extra day’s wages for doing so, but at the same time
the furloughed or unemployed members of the class held to
be entitled to perform the operation must be paid a
day’s wages for not having been called upon to perform
it.</b></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is true that a few persons can profit at the expense of
the rest of us from this minute arbitrary subdivision of
labor— provided it happens in their case alone. But those
who support it as a general practice fail to see that it
always raises production costs; that it results on net
balance in less work done and in fewer goods produced. The
householder who is forced to employ two men to do the work of
one has, it is true, given employment to one extra man. But
he has just that much less money left over to spend on
something that would employ somebody else. Because his
bathroom leak has been repaired at double what it should have
cost, he decides not to buy the new sweater he wanted.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>
“Labor” is no better off, because a day’s employment of
an unneeded tile-setter has meant a day’s disemployment of a
sweater knitter or machine handler. The householder, however,
is worse off. Instead of having a repaired shower and a
sweater, he has the shower and no sweater. And if we count the
sweater as part of the national wealth, the country is short
one sweater. This symbolizes the net result of the effort to
make extra work by arbitrary subdivision of labor.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But there are other schemes for “spreading the work,” often put
forward by union spokesmen and legislators. The most frequent of these is
the proposal to shorten the working week, usually by law. The belief that it
would “spread the work” and “give more jobs” was one of the main
reasons behind the inclusion of the penaltyovertime provision in the
existing Federal Wage-Hour Law. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The previous legislation in the states,
forbidding the employment of women or minors for more, say, than forty-eight
hours a week, was based on the conviction that longer hours were injurious
to health and morale. Some of it was based on the belief that longer hours
were harmful to efficiency. But the provision in the federal law, that an
employer must pay a worker a 50 percent premium above his regular hourly
rate of wages for all hours worked in any week above forty, was not based
primarily on the belief that forty-five hours a week, say, was injurious
either to health or efficiency.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> It was inserted partly in the hope of
boosting the worker’s weekly income, and partly in the hope that, by
discouraging the employer from taking on anyone regularly for more than
forty hours a week, it would force him to employ additional workers instead.
At the time of writing this, there are many schemes for “averting
unemployment” by enacting a thirty-hour week or a four-day week.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What is the actual effect of such plans, whether enforced by individual
unions or by legislation? It will clarify the problem if we consider two
cases. The first is a reduction in the standard working week from forty
hours to thirty without any change in the hourly rate of pay. The second is
a reduction in the working week from forty hours to thirty, but with a
sufficient increase in hourly wage rates to maintain the same weekly pay for
the individual workers already employed.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Let us take the first case. We assume that the working week is cut from
forty hours to thirty, with no change in hourly pay. If there is substantial
unemployment when this plan is put into effect, the plan will no doubt
provide additional jobs. We cannot assume that it will provide sufficient
additional jobs, however, to maintain the same payrolls and the same number
of man-hours as before, unless we make the unlikely assumptions that in each
industry there has been exactly the same percentage of unemployment and that
the new men and women employed are no less efficient at their special tasks
on the average than those who had already been employed. But suppose we do
make these assumptions. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Suppose we do assume that the right number of
additional workers of each skill is available, and that the new workers do
not raise production costs. What will be the result of reducing the working
week from forty hours to thirty (without any increase in hourly pay)?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Though more workers will be employed, each will be working fewer hours,
and there will, therefore, be no net increase in man-hours. It is unlikely
that there will be any significant increase in production. Total payrolls
and “purchasing power” will be no larger. All that will have happened,
even under the most favorable assumptions (which would seldom be realized)
is that the workers previously employed will subsidize, in effect, the
workers previously unemployed. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>For in order that the new workers will
individually receive three-fourths as many dollars a week as the old workers
used to receive, the old workers will themselves now individually receive
only three-fourths as many dollars a week as previously. It is true that the
old workers will now work fewer hours; but this purchase of more leisure at
a high price is presumably not a decision they have made for its own sake:
it is a sacrifice made to provide <i>others </i>with jobs.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The labor union leaders who demand shorter weeks to “spread the work”
usually recognize this, and therefore they put the proposal forward in a
form in which everyone is supposed to eat his cake and have it too. Reduce
the working week from forty hours to thirty, they tell us, to provide more
jobs; but compensate for the shorter week by <i>increasing </i>the hourly
rate of pay by 33.33 percent. The workers employed, say, were previously
getting an average of $226 a week for forty hours work; in order that they
may still get $226 for only thirty hours work, the hourly rate of pay must
be advanced to an average of more than $7.53.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What would be the consequences of such a plan? The first and most obvious
consequence would be to raise costs of production. If we assume that the
workers, when previously employed for forty hours, were getting less than
the level of production costs, prices and profits made possible, then they
could have got the hourly increase <i>without </i>reducing the length of the
working week.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> They could, in other words, have worked the same number of
hours and got their total weekly incomes <i>increased by one-third,
</i>instead of merely getting, as they are under the new thirty-hour week,
the same weekly income as before. But if under the forty-hour week, the
workers were already getting as high a wage as the level of production costs
and prices made possible (and the very unemployment they are trying to cure
may be a sign that they were already getting even more than this), then the
increase in production costs as a result of the 33.33 percent increase in
hourly wage rates will be much greater than the existing state of prices,
production and costs can stand.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The result of the higher wage rate, therefore, will
be a much greater unemployment than before. The least efficient firms will be
thrown out of business, and the least efficient workers will be thrown out of
jobs. Production will be reduced all around the circle. Higher production costs
and scarcer supplies will tend to raise prices, so that workers can buy less
with the same dollar wages; on the other hand, the increased unemployment will
shrink demand and hence tend to lower prices.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What ultimately happens to the
prices of goods will depend upon what monetary policies are then allowed. But
if a policy of monetary inflation is pursued, to enable prices to rise so that
the increased hourly wages can be paid, this will merely be a disguised way of
reducing <i>real </i>wage rates, so that
these will return, in terms of the amount of goods they can purchase, to the
same real rate as before. The result would then be the same as if the working
week had been reduced <i>without </i>an
increase in hourly wage rates. And the results of that have already been
discussed.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The spread-the-work schemes, in brief, rest on the same sort of illusion
that we have been considering. The people who support such schemes think
only of the employment they might provide for particular persons or groups;
they do not stop to consider what their whole effect would be on
everybody.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The spread-the-work schemes rest also, as we began by pointing out, on
the false assumption that there is just a fixed amount of work to be done.
There could be no greater fallacy. There is no limit to the amount of work
to be done as long as any human need or wish that work could fill remains
unsatisfied. In a modern exchange economy, the most work will be done when
prices, costs and wages are in the best relations with each other. What
these relations are we shall later consider.</b></div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
</h2>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-16285412423262888292011-11-12T16:03:00.001-07:002011-11-12T16:19:17.683-07:00PART 7 -Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro">The Curse of Machinery</span></h2>
<div>
</div>
<h3 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u>Section 3</u></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Not all inventions and discoveries, of course, are
“labor-saving” machines. Some of them, like precision instruments, like nylon,
lucite, plywood and plastics of all kinds, simply improve the quality of
products. Others, like the telephone or the airplane, perform operations that
direct human labor could not perform at all. Still others bring into existence
objects and services, such as X-ray machines, radios, TV sets, air-conditioners
and computers, that would otherwise not even exist. But in the foregoing
illustration we have taken precisely the kind of machine that has been the
special object of modern technophobia.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/xR8F6oIG8Bg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is possible, of course, to push too far the
argument that machines do not on net balance throw men out of work. It is
sometimes argued, for example, that machines create more jobs than would
otherwise have existed. Under certain conditions this may be true. They can
certainly create enormously more jobs <i>in
particular trades. </i>The eighteenth century figures for the textile
industries are a case in point. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Their modern counterparts are certainly no less
striking. In 1910, 140,000 persons were employed in the United States in the
newly created automobile industry. In 1920, as the product was improved and its
cost reduced, the industry employed 250,000 In 1930, as this product
improvement and cost reduction continued, employment in the industry was
380,000. In 1973 it had risen to 941,000. By 1973, 514,000 people were employed
in making aircraft and aircraft parts, and 393,000 were engaged in making
electronic components. So it has been in one
newly created trade after another, as the invention was improved and the cost
reduced.<a href="http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap28p1.html#02PM"><sup>2</sup></a></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>There is also an absolute sense in which machines
may be said to have enormously increased the number of jobs. The population of
the world today is four times as great as in the middle of the eighteenth
century, before the Industrial Revolution had got well under way. Machines may
be said to have given birth to this increased population; for without the
machines, the world would not have been able to support it. Three out of every
four of us, therefore, may be said to owe not only our jobs but our very lives
to machines.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Yet it is a misconception to think of the function
or result of machines as primarily one of creating <i>jobs. </i>The real result of the machine is to increase <i>production, </i>to raise the standard of
living, to increase economic welfare. It is no trick to employ everybody, even
(or especially) in the most primitive economy. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Full employment—very full
employment; long, weary, backbreaking employment—is characteristic of
precisely the nations that are most retarded industrially. Where full
employment already exists, new machines, inventions and discoveries
cannot—until there has been time for an increase in population — bring <i>more </i>employment. They are likely to bring more unemployment (but
this time I am speaking of <i>voluntaiy </i>and
not involuntary unemployment) because people can now afford to work fewer
hours, while children and the overaged no longer need to work.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What machines do, to repeat, is to bring an increase
in production and an increase in the standard of living. They may do this in
either of two ways. They do it by making goods cheaper for consumers (as in our
illustration of the overcoats), or they do it by increasing wages because they
increase the productivity of the workers.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> In other words, they either increase
money wages or, by reducing prices, they increase the goods and services that
the same money wages will buy. Sometimes they do both. What actually happens
will depend in large part upon the monetary policy pursued in a country. But in
any case, machines, inventions and discoveries increase
<i>real</i> wages.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<span class="intro">The Curse of Machinery</span></h2>
<div>
</div>
<h3 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u>Section 4</u></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<br /></h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A warning is necessary before we leave this subject.
It was precisely the great merit of the classical economists that they looked
for secondary consequences, that they were concerned with the effects of a
given economic policy or development in the long run and on the whole
community. But it was also their defect that, in taking the long view and the
broad view, they sometimes neglected to take also the short view and the narrow
view.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> They were too often inclined to minimize or to forget altogether the
immediate effects of developments on special groups. We have seen, for example,
that many of the English stocking knitters suffered real tragedies as a result
of the introduction of the new stocking frames, one of the earliest inventions
of the Industrial Revolution.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But such facts and their modern counterparts have led some writers to the
opposite extreme of looking <i>only at </i>the immediate effects on certain
groups. Joe Smith is thrown out of a job by the introduction of some new
machine. “Keep your eye on Joe Smith,” these writers insist. “Never
lose track of Joe Smith.” </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But what they then proceed to do is to keep
their eyes <i>only </i>on Joe Smith, and to forget Tom Jones, who has just
got a new job in making the new machine, and Ted Brown, who has just got a
job operating one, and Daisy Miller, who can now buy a coat for half what it
used to cost her. And because they think only of Joe Smith, they end by
advocating reactionary and nonsensical policies.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Yes, we should keep at least one eye on Joe Smith. He has been thrown out
of a job by the new machine. Perhaps he can soon get another job, even a
better one. But perhaps, also, he has devoted many years of his life to
acquiring and improving a special skill for which the market no longer has
any use. He has lost this investment in himself, in his old skill, just as
his former employer, perhaps, has lost <i>his </i>investment in old machines
or processes suddenly rendered obsolete. He was a skilled workman, and paid
as a skilled workman.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Now he has become overnight an unskilled workman
again, and can hope, for the present, only for the wages of an unskilled
workman, because the one skill he had is no longer needed. We cannot and
must not forget Joe Smith. His is one of the personal tragedies that, as we
shall see, are incident to nearly all industrial and economic progress.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>To ask precisely what course we should follow with Joe Smith —whether
we should let him make his own adjustment, give him separation pay or
unemployment compensation, put him on relief, or train him at government
expense for a new job—would carry us beyond the point that we are here
trying to illustrate. The central lesson is that we should try to see <i>all
</i>the main consequences of any economic policy or development—the
immediate effects on special groups, and the long-run effects on all
groups.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>If we have devoted considerable space to this issue, it is because our
conclusions regarding the effects of new machinery, inventions and
discoveries on employment, production and welfare are crucial. If we are
wrong about these, there are few things in economics about which we are
likely to be right.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-60759255744835498252011-11-11T17:29:00.001-07:002011-11-11T17:41:15.411-07:00PART 6 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span class="intro">The Curse of Machinery</span></h2>
<div>
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
Section 2</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/zEUiJTRLG0w?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/VD28vNVovow?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
</h3>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But the opposition to labor-saving machinery, even today, is not confined
to economic illiterates. As late as 1970, a book appeared by a writer so
highly regarded that he has since received the Nobel Prize in economics. His
book opposed the introduction of laborsaving machines in the underdeveloped
countries on the ground that they <a href="http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/chap07p2.html#*" target="_blank">“decrease the demand forlabor”!*</a> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The logical conclusion from this would be that the way to
maximize jobs is to make all labor as inefficient and unproductive as
possible. It implies that the English Luddite rioters, who in the early
nineteenth century destroyed stocking frames, steam-power looms, and
shearing machines, were after all doing the right thing.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>One might pile up mountains of figures to show how wrong were the
technophobes of the past. But it would do no good unless we understood
clearly <i>why </i>they were wrong. For statistics and history are useless
in economics unless accompanied by a basic <i>deductive </i>understanding of
the facts—which means in this case an understanding of why the past
consequences of the introduction of machinery and other labor-saving devices
<i>had </i>to occur. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Otherwise the technophobes will assert (as they do in
fact assert when you point out to them that the prophecies of their
predecessorsturned out to be absurd): “That may have been all very well in
the past but today conditions are fundamentally different; and now we simply
cannot afford to develop any more labor-saving machines.” </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Mrs. Eleanor
Roosevelt, indeed, in a syndicated newspaper column of September19, 1945,
wrote: “We have reached a point today where labor-saving devices are good
only when they do not throw the worker out of his job.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>If it were indeed true that the introduction of labor-saving machinery
is a cause of constantly mounting unemployment and misery, the logical
conclusions to be drawn would be revolutionary, not only in the technical
field but for our whole concept of civilization. Not only should we have to
regard all further technical progress as a calamity; we should have to
regard all past technical progress with equal horror. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Every day each of us
in his own activity is engaged in trying to reduce the effort it requires to
accomplish a given result. Each of us is trying to save his own labor, to
economize the means required to achieve his ends. Every employer, small as
well as large, seeks constantly to gain his results more economically and
efficiently— that is, by saving labor. Every intelligent workman tries to
cut down the effort necessary to accomplish his assigned job.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The most
ambitious of us try tirelessly to increase the results we can achieve in a
given number of hours. The technophobes, if they were logical and
consistent, would have to dismiss all this progress and ingenuity as not
only useless but vicious. Why should freight be carried from Chicago to New
York by railroad when we could employ enormously more men, for example, to
carry it all on their backs?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Theories as false as this are never held with
logical consistency, but they do great harm because they are held at all. Let us,
therefore, try to see exactly what happens when technical improvements and
labor-saving machinery are introduced. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The details will vary in each instance,
depending upon the particular conditions that prevail in a given industry or
period. But we shall assume an example that involves the main possibilities.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Suppose a clothing manufacturer learns of a machine
that will make men’s and women s overcoats for half as much labor as
previously. He installs the machines and drops half his labor force.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This looks at first glance like a clear loss of
employment. But the machine itself required labor to make it; so here, as one
offset, are jobs that would not otherwise have existed. The manufacturer,
however, would have adopted the machine only if it had either made better suits
for half as much labor, or had made the same kind of suits at a smaller cost.
If we assume the latter, we cannot assume that the amount of labor to make the
machines was as great in terms of payrolls as the amount of labor that the
clothing manufacturer hopes to save in the long run by adopting the machine;
otherwise there would have been no economy, and he would not have adopted it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>So there is still a net loss of employment to be
accounted for. But we should at least keep in mind the real possibility that
even the <i>first </i>effect of the
introduction of labor-saving machinery may be to increase employment on net
balance; because it is usually only <i>in
the long run </i>that the clothing manufacturer expects to save money by
adopting the machine: it may take several years for the machine to “pay for
itself.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>After the machine has produced economies sufficient
to offset its cost, the clothing manufacturer has more profits than before. (We
shall assume that he merely sells his coats for the same price as his
competitors and makes no effort to undersell them.) At this point, it may seem,
labor has suffered a net loss of employment, while it is only the manufacturer,
the capitalist, who has gained. But it is precisely out of these extra profits
that the subsequent social gains must come.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The manufacturer must use these
extra profits in at least one of three ways, and possibly he will use part of
them in all three:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> (1) he will use the extra profits to expand his operations
by buying more machines to make more coats; or</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> (2) he will invest the extra
profits in some other industry; or </b><b>(3) he will spend the extra
profits on increasing his own consumption. Whichever of these three courses he
takes, he will increase employment.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In other words, the manufacturer, as a result of his
economies, has profits that he did not have before. Every dollar of the amount
he has saved in direct wages to former coat makers, he now has to pay out in
indirect wages to the makers of the new machine, or to the workers in another
capital-using industry, or to the makers of a new house or car for himself or
for jewelry and furs for his wife. In any case (unless he is a pointless
hoarder) he gives indirectly as many jobs as he ceased to give directly.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But the matter does not and cannot rest at this
stage. If this enterprising manufacturer effects great economies as compared
with his competitors, either he will begin to expand his operations at their
expense, or they will start buying the machines too. Again more work will be
given to the makers of the machines.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> But competition and production will then
also begin to force down the price of overcoats. There will no longer be as
great profits for those who adopt the new machines. The rate of profit of the
manufacturers using the new machine will begin to drop, while the manufacturers
who have still not adopted the machine may now make no profit at all. The
savings, in other words, will begin to be passed along to the buyers of
overcoats—to the <i>consumers.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But as overcoats are now cheaper, more people will
buy them. This means that, though it takes fewer people to make the same number
of overcoats as before, more overcoats are now being made than before. If the
demand for overcoats is what economists call “elastic”—that is, if a fall in
the price of overcoats causes a larger total amount of money to be spent on
overcoats than previously— then more people may be employed even in making
overcoats than before the new labor-saving machine was introduced. We have already
seen how this actually happened historically with stockings and other textiles.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But the new employment does not depend on the
elasticity of demand for the particular product involved. Suppose that, though
the price of overcoats was almost cut in half—from a former price, say, of $150
to a new price of $100—not a single additional coat was sold. The result would
be that while consumers were as well provided with new overcoats as before,
each buyer would now have $50 left over that he would not have had left over before.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> He will therefore spend
this $50 for something else, and so provide increased employment in <i>other </i>lines.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="color: red; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b>In brief, on net balance machines, technological
improvements, automation, economies and efficiency do not throw men out of
work.</b></span></u></div>
<br /></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-67007954227392886932011-11-08T12:30:00.000-07:002011-11-11T17:29:04.258-07:00PART 5 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span class="intro">The Curse of Machinery</span></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/QOwKJRVmoBw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro"> </span></b></h2>
<div style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<b>AMONG THE MOST viable of all economic delusions is
the belief that machines on net balance create unemployment.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Destroyed a
thousand times, it has risen a thousand times out of its own ashes as hardy and
vigorous as ever. Whenever there is long-continued mass unemployment, machines
get the blame anew. This fallacy is still the basis of many labor union
practices. The public tolerates these practices because it either believes at
bottom that the unions are right, or is too confused to see just why they are wrong.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The belief that machines cause unemployment, when
held with any logical consistency, leads to preposterous conclusions. Not only
must we be causing unemployment with every technological improvement we make
today, but primitive man must have started causing it with the first efforts he
made to save himself from needless toil and sweat.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>To go no further back, let us turn to Adam Smith’s <i>Wealth of Nations, </i>published in 1776.
The first chapter of this remarkable book is called “Of the Division of Labor,”
and on the second page of this first chapter the author tells us that a workman
unacquainted with the use of machinery employed in pin-making “could scarce
make one pin a day, and certainly could not make twenty,” but with the use of
this machinery he can make 4,800 pins a day. So already, alas, in Adam Smith’s
time, machinery had thrown from 240 to 4,800 pin-makers out of work for every
one it kept. In the pin-making industry there was already, if machines merely
throw men out of jobs, 99.98 percent unemployment. Could things be blacker?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Things could be blacker, for the Industrial
Revolution was just in its infancy. Let us look at some of the incidents and
aspects of that revolution.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Let us see, for example, what happened in the
stocking industry. New stocking frames as they were introduced were destroyed
by the handicraft workmen (over 1000 in a single riot), houses were burned,
the inventors were threatened and obliged to flee for their lives, and order
was not finally restored until the military had been called out and the leading
rioters had been either transported or hanged.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now it is important to bear in mind that insofar as the rioters were
thinking of their own immediate or even longer futures their opposition to
the machine was rational. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>For William Felkin, in his <i>History of the
Machine-Wrought Hosiery Manufactures </i>(1867), tells us (though the
statement seems implausible) that the larger part of the 50,000 English
stocking knitters and their families did not fully emerge from the hunger
and misery entailed by the introduction of the machine for the next forty
years. But insofar as the rioters believed, as most of them undoubtedly did,
that the machine was permanently displacing men, they were mistaken, for
before the end of the nineteenth century the stocking industry was employing
at least a hundred men for every man it employed at the beginning of the
century.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Arkwright invented his cotton-spinning machinery in
1760. At that time it was estimated that there were in England 5,200 spinners
using spinning wheels, and 2,700 weavers—in all, 7,900 persons engaged in the
production of cotton textiles. The introduction of Arkwright’s invention was
opposed on the ground that it threatened the livelihood of the workers, and the
opposition had to be put down by force.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Yet in 1787—twenty-seven years after
the invention appeared—a parliamentary inquiry showed that the number of
persons actually engaged in the spinning and weaving of cotton had risen from
7,900 to 320,000, an increase of 4,400 percent.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>If the reader will consult such a book as <i>Recent Economic Changes,
</i>by David A. Wells, published in 1889, he will find passages that, except
for the dates and absolute amounts involved, might have been written by our
technophobes of today. Let me quote a few:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<b>During the ten years from 1870 to 1880, inclusive,
the British mercantile marine increased its movement, in the matter of foreign
entries and clearances alone, to the extent of 22,000,000 tons... yet the
number of men who were employed in effecting this great movement had decreased
in 1880, as compared with 1870, to the extent of about three thousand (2,990
exactly). What did it? The introduction of steam-hoisting machines and grain
elevators upon the wharves and docks, the employment of steam power, etc....</b></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>In 1873 Bessemer steel in
England, where its price had not been enhanced by protective duties, commanded
$80 per ton; in 1886 it was profitably manufactured and sold in the same
country for less than $20 per ton. Within the same time the annual production
capacity of a Bessemer converter has been increased fourfold, with no increase
but rather a diminution of the involved labor.</b></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>The power capacity already
being exerted by the steam engines of the world in existence and working in the
year 1887 has been estimated by the Bureau of Statistics at Berlin as
equivalent to that of 200,000,000 horses, representing approximately 1,000,000,000
men; or at least three times the working population of the earth....</b></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>One would think that this last figure would have
caused Mr. Wells to pause, and wonder why there was any employment left in the
world of 1889 at all; but he merely concluded, with restrained pessimism, that
“under such circumstances industrial overproduction . . . may become
chronic.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In the depression of 1932, the game of blaming
unemployment on the machines started all over again. Within a few months the
doctrines of a group calling themselves the Technocrats had spread through the
country like a forest fire.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> I shall not weary the reader with a recital of the
fantastic figures put forward by this group or with corrections to show what
the real facts were. It is enough to say that the Technocrats returned to the
error in all its native purity that machines permanently displace men—except
that, in their ignorance, they presented this error as a new and revolutionary
discovery of their own. It was simply one more illustration
of Santayana’s aphorism that those who cannot remember the past are condemned
to repeat it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Technocrats were finally laughed out of
existence; but their doctrine, which preceded them, lingers on. It is reflected
in hundreds of make-work rules and featherbed practices by labor unions; and
these rules and practices are tolerated and even approved because of the
confusion on this point in the public mind.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Testifying on behalf of the United States Department of Justice before
the Temporary National Economic Committee (better known as the TNEC) in
March 1941, Corwin Edwards cited innumerable examples of such practices. The
electrical union in New York City was charged with refusal to install
electrical equipment made outside of New York State unless the equipment was
disassembled and reassembled at the job site. In Houston, Texas, master
plumbers and the plumbing union agreed that piping prefabricated for
installation would be installed by the union only if the thread were cut off
one end of the pipe and new thread were cut at the job site.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Various locals
of the painters’ union imposed restrictions on the use of sprayguns,
restrictions in many cases designed merely to make work by requiring the
slower process of applying paint with a brush. A local of the teamsters’
union required that every truck entering the New York metropolitan area have
a local driver in addition to the driver already employed. In various cities
the electrical union required that if any temporary light or power was to be
used on a construction job there must be a full-time maintenance
electrician, who should not be permitted to do any electrical construction
work. This rule, according to Mr. Edwards, “often involves the hiring of a
man who spends his day reading or playing solitaire and does nothing except
throw a switch at the beginning and end of the day.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>One could go on to cite such make-work practices in many other fields. In
the railroad industry, the unions insist that firemen be employed on types
of locomotives that do not need them. In the theaters unions insist on the
use of scene shifters even in plays in which no scenery is used. The
musicians’ union required so-called stand-in musicians or even whole
orchestras to be employed in many cases where only phonograph records were
needed.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>By 1961 there was no sign that the fallacy had died. Not only union
leaders but government officials talked solemnly of “automation” as a
major cause of unemployment. Automation was discussed as if it were
something entirely new in the world. It was in fact merely a new name for
continued technological advance and further progress in labor-saving
equipment.</b></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span class="intro"> </span></h2>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-91203451239474084522011-11-06T15:52:00.001-07:002011-11-06T15:52:50.110-07:00PART 4 Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro">Taxes Discourage Production</span></span></u></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ewwcNUGv1TI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro"><br /></span></span></u></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">There is a</span> still further factor
which makes it improbable that the wealth created by
government spending will fully compensate for the wealth
destroyed by the taxes imposed to pay for that spending. It is
not a simple question, as so often supposed, of taking
something out of the nation’s right-hand pocket to put into
its left-hand pocket. The government spenders tell us, for
example, that if the national income is $1,500 billion then
federal taxes of $360 billion a year would mean that only 24
percent of the national income is being transferred from
private purposes to public purposes</b>.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This is to talk
as if the country were the same sort of unit of pooled
resources as a huge corporation, and as if all that were
involved were a mere bookkeeping transaction. The government
spenders forget that they are taking the money</b><b> from A in order
to pay it to B. Or rather, they know this very well but while
they dilate upon all the benefits of the process to B, and all
the wonderful things he will have which he would not have had
if the money had not been transferred to him, they forget the
effects of the transaction on A. B is seen; A is
forgotten.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6o_TU4sz-jM/TrcMZGusIrI/AAAAAAAABDY/ST4m_tXrp14/s1600/Complete+Idiot%2527s+Guide+to+Fighting+Capitalism+by+K.+Marx.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6o_TU4sz-jM/TrcMZGusIrI/AAAAAAAABDY/ST4m_tXrp14/s320/Complete+Idiot%2527s+Guide+to+Fighting+Capitalism+by+K.+Marx.gif" width="257" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In our modern world there is never the same percentage of income
tax levied on everybody. The great burden of income taxes is imposed
on a minor percentage of the nation’s income; and these income taxes
have to be supplemented by taxes of other kinds. These taxes inevitably
affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken.
When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, and
is permitted to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and
when it cannot adequately offset its years of losses against its years
of gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations,
or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> People who
recognize this situation are deterred from starting new enterprises.
Thus old employers do not give more employment, or not as much more as
they might have; and others decide not to become employers at all.
Improved machinery and better-equipped factories come into existence
much more slowly than they otherwise would. The result in the long run
is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper
products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages
are held down, compared with what they might have been.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>There is a similar effect when personal incomes are
taxed 50, 60 or 70 percent. People begin to ask themselves why they should work
six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six,
four or three months for themselves and their families. If they lose the whole
dollar when they lose, but can keep only a fraction of it when they win, they
decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> In addition, the
capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed
away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new private
jobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come
into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The
government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess
to solve.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t9fN5K5s_Ls/TrcOV4WJOAI/AAAAAAAABDg/PsH29MnMAXg/s1600/thumbnail.aspx.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t9fN5K5s_Ls/TrcOV4WJOAI/AAAAAAAABDg/PsH29MnMAXg/s1600/thumbnail.aspx.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u><b>A certain amount of taxes is of course indispensable
to carry on essential government functions. Reasonable taxes for this purpose
need not hurt production much. </b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The kind of government services then supplied in
return, which among other things safeguard production itself, more than
compensate for this. But the larger the percentage of the national income taken
by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When
the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising
taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro">Credit Diverts Production</span></span></u></b></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/dUsyUPQRBBo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro"><br /></span></span></u></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">Government “encouragement”
to</span> business is sometimes as much to be feared as
government hostility. This supposed encouragement often takes
the form of a direct grant of government credit or a guarantee
of private loans.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The question of government credit can often be complicated,
because it involves the possibility of inflation. We shall
defer analysis of the effects of inflation of various kinds
until a later chapter. Here, for the sake of simplicity, we
shall assume that the credit we are discussing is
noninflationary. Inflation, as we shall later see, while it
complicates the analysis, does not at bottom change the
consequences of the policies discussed.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A frequent proposal of this sort in Congress is for
more credit to farmers. In the eyes of most congressmen the farmers simply
cannot get enough credit. The credit supplied by private mortgage companies,
insurance companies or country banks is never “adequate.” Congress is always
finding new gaps that are not filled by the existing lending institutions, no
matter how many of these it has itself already brought into existence.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The
farmers may have enough long-term credit or enough short-term credit but, it
turns out, they have not enough “intermediate” credit; or the interest rate is
too high; or the complaint is that private loans are made only to rich and
well-established farmers. So new lending institutions and new types of farm
loans are piled on top of each other by the legislature.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The faith in all these policies, it will be found,
springs from two acts of shortsightedness. One is to look at the matter only
from the standpoint of the farmers that borrow. The other is to think only of the first half of the
transaction.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now all loans, in the eyes of honest borrowers, must
eventually be repaid. All credit is debt. Proposals for an increased volume of
credit, therefore, are merely another name for proposals for an increased
burden of debt. They would seem considerably less inviting if they were
habitually referred to by the second name instead of by the first.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>We need not discuss here the normal loans that are
made to farmers through private sources. They consist of mortgages, of
installment credits for the purchase of automobiles, refrigerators, TV sets, tractors
and other farm machinery, and of bank loans made to carry the farmer along
until he is able to harvest and market his crop and get paid for it. Here we
need concern ourselves only with loans to farmers either made directly by some
government bureau or guaranteed by it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>These loans are of two main types. One is a loan to
enable the farmer to hold his crop off the market. This is an especially
harmful type, but it will be more convenient to consider it later when we come
to the question of government commodity controls. The other is a loan to
provide capital—often to set the farmer up in business by enabling him to buy
the farm itself or a mule or tractor, or all three.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>At first glance the case for this type of loan may
seem a strong one. Here is a poor family, it will be said, with no means of
livelihood. It is cruel and wasteful to put them on relief. Buy a farm for
them; set them up in business; make productive and self-respecting citizens of
them; let them add to the total national product and pay the loan off out of
what they produce. Or here is a farmer struggling along with primitive methods
of production because he has not the capital to buy himself a tractor.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Lend him
the money for one; let him increase productivity; he can repay the loan out of
the proceeds of his increased crops. In that way you not only enrich him and
put him on his feet; you enrich the whole community by that much added output.
And the loan, concludes the argument,
costs the government and the taxpayers less than nothing, because it is
“self-liquidating.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now as a matter of fact that is what happens every
day under the institution of private credit. If a man wishes to buy a farm, and
has, let us say, only half or a third as much money as the farm costs, a
neighbor or a savings bank will lend him the rest in the form of a mortgage on
the farm. If he wishes to buy a tractor, the tractor company itself or a
finance company, will allow him to buy it for one-third of the purchase price
with the rest to be paid off in installments out of earnings that the tractor
itself will help to provide.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But there is a decisive difference between the loans
supplied by private lenders and the loans supplied by a government agency. Each
private lender risks his own funds. (A banker, it is true, risks the funds of
others that have been entrusted to him; but if money is lost he must either
make good out of his own funds or be forced out of business.) When people risk
their own funds they are usually careful in their investigations to determine
the adequacy of the assets pledged and the business acumen and honesty of the
borrower.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>If the government operated by the same strict
standards, there would be no good argument for its entering the field at all.
Why do precisely what private agencies already do? But the government almost
invariably operates by different standards.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The whole argument for its
entering the lending business, in fact, is that it will make loans to people
who could not get them from private lenders. This is only another way of saying
that the government lenders will take risks with other people’s money (the
taxpayers’) that private lenders will not take with their own money. Sometimes,
in fact, apologists will freely acknowledge that the percentage of losses will
be higher on these government loans than on private loans. But they contend
that this will be more than offset by the added production brought into
existence by the borrowers who pay back, and even by most of the borrowers who
do not pay back.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This argument will seem plausible only as long as we
concentrate our attention on the particular borrowers whom the government
supplies with funds, and overlook the people whom its plan deprives of funds.
For what is really being lent is not money, which is merely the medium of
exchange, but capital.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> (I have already put the reader on notice that we shall
postpone to a later point the complications introduced by an inflationary
expansion of credit.) What is really being lent, say, is the farm or the tractor
itself. Now the number of farms in existence is limited, and so is the production
of tractors (assuming, especially, that an economic surplus of tractors is not
produced simply at the expense of other things). The farm or tractor that is
lent to A cannot be lent to B. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The real question is, therefore, whether A or B
shall get the farm.</b></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This brings us to the respective merits ofA and B,
and what each contributes, or is capable of contributing, to production. A, let
us say, is the man who would get the farm if the government did not intervene.
The local banker or his neighbors know him and know his record. They want to
find employment for their funds. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>They know that he is a good farmer and an
honest man who keeps his word. They consider him a good risk. He has already,
perhaps, through industry, frugality and foresight, accumulated enough cash to
pay a fourth of the price of the farm. They lend him the other three-fourths;
and he gets the farm.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>There is a strange idea abroad, held by all monetary
cranks, that credit is something a banker gives to a man. Credit on the
contrary, is something a man already has. He has it, perhaps, because he
already has marketable assets of a greater cash value than the loan for which
he is asking. Or he has it because his character and past record have earned
it. He brings it into the bank with him. That is why the banker makes him the
loan.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The banker is not giving something for nothing. He feels assured of
repayment. He is merely exchanging a more liquid form of asset or credit for a
less liquid form. Sometimes he makes a mistake, and then it is not only the
banker who suffers, but the whole community; for values which were supposed to
be produced by the lender are not produced and resources are wasted.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now it is to A, let us say, who has credit that the
banker would make his loan. But the government goes into the lending business in
a charitable frame of mind because, as we say, it is worried about B. B cannot
get a mortgage or other loans from private lenders because he does not have
credit with them. He has no savings; he has no impressive record as a good
farmer; he is perhaps at the moment on relief. Why not, say the advocates of
government credit, make him a useful and productive member of society by
lending him enough for a farm and a mule or tractor and setting him up in
business?</b></div>
<b></b><div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Perhaps in an individual case it may work out all
right. But it is obvious that in general the people selected by these
government standards will be poorer risks than the people selected by private
standards. More money will be lost by loans to them. There will be a much
higher percentage of failures among them. They will be less efficient. More
resources will be wasted by them. Yet the recipients of government credit will
get their farms and tractors at the expense of those who otherwise would have
been the recipients of private credit. Because B has a farm, A will be deprived
of a farm.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> A may be squeezed out either because interest rates have gone up as
a result of the government operations, or because farm prices have been forced
up as a result of them, or because there is no other farm to be had in his
neighborhood. In any case, the net result of government credit has not been to
increase the amount of wealth produced by the community but to reduce it,
because the available real capital (consisting of actual farms, tractors, etc.)
has been placed in the hands of the less efficient borrowers rather than in the
hands of the more efficient and trustworthy.</b></div>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><span class="intro"><br /></span></span></u></h2>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
</h2>
<h2 style="color: #660000; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
</h2>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-3739706905970358212011-11-05T18:05:00.000-06:002011-11-05T18:05:00.733-06:00PART 3 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<h1 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u>The Lesson Applied</u></h1>
<div style="color: blue;">
</div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u><span class="intro">Public Works Mean Taxes</span></u></h2>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s4771pNfB8A/TrR6Og6v-dI/AAAAAAAABCE/dGGZ-dsvbLA/s1600/A-Government-Spending2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="208" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-s4771pNfB8A/TrR6Og6v-dI/AAAAAAAABCE/dGGZ-dsvbLA/s320/A-Government-Spending2.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<b><u><span class="intro"><br /></span></u></b></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">There is no</span> more persistent and
influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending.
Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic
ills. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Is private industry partially stagnant?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> We can fix it all by government
spending. Is there unemployment?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> That is obviously due to “insufficient private
purchasing power.” The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for
the government to spend enough to make up the “deficiency”.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>An enormous literature is
based on this fallacy, and, as so often happens with doctrines of this sort, it
has become part of an intricate network of fallacies that mutually support each
other. We cannot explore that whole network at this point; we shall return to
other branches of it later. But we can examine here the mother fallacy that has
given birth to this progeny, the main stem of the network.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Everything we get, outside
of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for. The world is full of
so-called economists who in turn are full of schemes for getting something for
nothing. They tell us that the government can spend and spend without taxing at
all; that is can continue to pile up debt without ever paying it off because
“we owe it to ourselves.” We shall return to such extraordinary doctrines at a
later point.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Here I am afraid that we shall have to be dogmatic, and point out
that such pleasant dreams in the past have always been shattered by national
insolvency or a runaway inflation. Here we shall have to say simply that all
government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation; that
inflation itself is merely a form, and a particularly vicious form, of
taxation.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Having put aside for later
consideration the network of fallacies which rest on chronic government
borrowing and inflation, we shall take it for granted throughout the present
chapter that either immediately or ultimately every dollar of government spending
must be raised through a dollar of taxation. Once we look at the matter in this
way, the supposed miracles of government spending will appear in another light.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A certain amount of public
spending is necessary to perform essential government functions. A certain
amount of public works — of streets and roads and bridges and tunnels, of armories and navy
yards, of buildings to house legislatures, police and fire departments—is
necessary to supply essential public services. With such public works,
necessary for their own sake, and defended on that ground alone, I am not here
concerned. I am here concerned with public works considered as a means of
“providing employment” or of adding wealth to the community that it would not
otherwise have had.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0cseEJ-uqpk/TrR76N9bJwI/AAAAAAAABCM/73HOoAHKg3M/s1600/A-Government+spending.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0cseEJ-uqpk/TrR76N9bJwI/AAAAAAAABCM/73HOoAHKg3M/s320/A-Government+spending.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A bridge is built. Ifit is
built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise
insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary to the taxpayers
collectively than the things for which they would have individually spent their
money had it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But
a bridge built primarily “to provide employment” is a different kind of bridge. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration.
“Projects” have to be <i>invented. </i>Instead
of thinking only of where bridges <i>must </i>be
built the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">can </i>be built. Can they think of
plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It
soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed
as obstructionists and reactionaries.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is
mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly
heard after it has been completed. The first argument is that it
will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a
year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not
otherwise have come into existence.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained
ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and
beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project
to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture
presents itself.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> It is true that a particular group of
bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the
bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is
spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers.
If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10
million. They will have that much taken away from them which they
would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H8LMiy7y0_4/TrR8OiPxNhI/AAAAAAAABCU/GJ84M_rL-VU/s1600/A-Government_spending3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-H8LMiy7y0_4/TrR8OiPxNhI/AAAAAAAABCU/GJ84M_rL-VU/s1600/A-Government_spending3.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a
private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men
employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment
argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably
for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do
not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come
into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million
taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that
there has been a <i>diversion</i> of jobs because of the project. More
bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television
technicians, clothing workers, farmers.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It
is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come
into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it
have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their
way? There would have been no bridge.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L3sv1LFO7q0/TrR8oc1Tz4I/AAAAAAAABCc/5wRZBIP6mLU/s1600/33633_480948761254_598716254_6765389_7963334_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L3sv1LFO7q0/TrR8oc1Tz4I/AAAAAAAABCc/5wRZBIP6mLU/s400/33633_480948761254_598716254_6765389_7963334_n.jpg" width="303" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The country would have been
just that much poorer. Here again the government spenders have the
better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the
immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But
if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as
direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination
the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into
existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and
washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown
and unsold foodstuffs. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>To see these uncreated things requires a kind
of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these
nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before
our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What
has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of
others.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zeOS9CpwySA/TrR9wRD0r5I/AAAAAAAABCk/agfoXcpe-nM/s1600/card12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zeOS9CpwySA/TrR9wRD0r5I/AAAAAAAABCk/agfoXcpe-nM/s320/card12.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-8856960871241419312011-11-04T16:54:00.000-06:002011-11-04T16:54:00.143-06:00PART 2 - Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br /><div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Lesson Applied:</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> <br /><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-large;">The Broken Window</span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q7NWxGEB7lI/TrMafW50fNI/AAAAAAAABB8/PB5VFfXOdik/s1600/A-+Broken+Window.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q7NWxGEB7lI/TrMafW50fNI/AAAAAAAABB8/PB5VFfXOdik/s320/A-+Broken+Window.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></u></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">Let us begin</span> with the simplest
illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of
glass.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs
out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the
gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd
feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind
each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> It will make business
for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate
glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows
were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless.
The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more
to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing
money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the
crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a
public benefactor.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act
of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The glazier will be no
more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will
be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he
will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and
$250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead
of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him
as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into
being, and is just that much poorer.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The glazier’s gain of
business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new
“employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two
parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the
potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because
he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day
or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be
made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u><span class="intro">The Blessings of Destruction</span></u></h2>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro"> </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">So we have</span> finished with the broken
window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid
it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred
disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is more
rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day
by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders,
by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio and television commentators,
by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of
economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon
the advantages of destruction.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Though some of them would
disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they
see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how
much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>They see
“miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a
world made prosperous by an enormous “accumulated” or “backed-up” demand. In
Europe, after World War II, they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities
that had been leveled to the ground and that “had to be replaced.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> In America
they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon
stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the
obsolescent radios and refrigerators. They brought together formidable totals.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It was merely our old
friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond
recognition. This time it was supported by a whole bundle
of related fallacies. It confused <i>need </i>with
<i>demand. </i>The more war destroys, the
more it impoverishes, the greater is the postwar need. Indubitably. But need is
not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but
corresponding purchasing power. The needs of India today are incomparably
greater than the needs of America. But its purchasing power, and therefore the
“new business” that it can stimulate, are incomparably smaller.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But if we get past this
point, there is a chance for another fallacy, and the broken-windowites usually
grab it. They think of “purchasing power” merely in terms of money. Now money
can be run off by the printing press. As this is being written, in fact,
printing money is the world’s biggest industry—if the product is measured in
monetary terms. But the more money is turned out in this way, the more the
value of any given unit of money falls. This falling value can be measured in
rising prices of commodities.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> But as most people are so firmly in the habit of
thinking of their wealth and income in terms of money, they consider themselves
better off as these monetary totals rise, in spite of the fact that in terms of
things they may have less and buy less. Most of the “good” economic results
which people at the time attributed to World War II were really owing to
wartime inflation.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> They could have been, and were, produced just as well by an
equivalent peacetime inflation. We shall come back to this money illusion
later.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Now there is a half-truth in
the “backed-up” demand fallacy, just as there was in the broken-window fallacy.
The broken window did make more business for the glazier. The destruction of
war did make more business for the producers of certain things. The destruction
of houses and cities did make more business for the building and construction
industries. The inability to produce automobiles, radios, and refrigerators
during the war did bring about a cumulative postwar demand <i>for those particular products.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>To most people this seemed
like an increase in total demand, as it partly was <i>in terms of dollars of lower purchasing power. </i>But what mainly took
place was a <i>diversion </i>of demand to
these particular products from others. The people of Europe built more new houses than otherwise
because they had to. But when they built more houses they had just that much
less manpower and productive capacity left over for everything else. When they
bought houses they had just that much less purchasing power for something else.
Wherever business was increased in one direction, it was (except insofar as
productive energies were stimulated by a sense of want and urgency)
correspondingly reduced in another.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The war, in short, changed
the postwar <i>direction </i>of effort; it
changed the balance of industries; it changed the structure of industry.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Since World War II ended in
Europe, there has been rapid and even spectacular “economic growth” both in
countries that were ravaged by war and those that were not. Some of the
countries in which there was greatest destruction, such as Germany, have
advanced more rapidly than others, such as France, in which there was much
less. In part this was because West Germany followed sounder economic policies.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>
In part it was because the desperate need to get back to normal housing and
other living conditions stimulated increased efforts. But this does not mean
that property destruction is an advantage to the person whose property has been
destroyed. No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to
rebuild it will stimulate his energies.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>After a war there is
normally a stimulation of energies for a time. At the beginning of the famous
third chapter of his <i>History of England, </i>Macaulay
pointed out that:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<b>No ordinary
misfortune, no ordinary misgovernment, will do so much to make a nation wretched
as the constant progress of physical knowledge and the constant effort of every
man to better himself will do to make a nation prosperous. </b></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<b>It has often been
found that profuse expenditure, heavy taxation, absurd commercial restriction,
corrupt tribunals, disastrous wars, seditions, persecutions, conflagrations,
inundations, have not been able to destroy capital so fast as the exertions of
private citizens have been able to create it.</b><br />
</blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>No man would want to have
his own property destroyed either in war or in peace. What is harmful or
disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or
disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Many of the most frequent
fallacies in economic reasoning come from the propensity, especially marked
today, to think in terms of an abstraction—the collectivity, the “nation”—and
to forget or ignore the individuals who make it up and give it meaning. No one
could think that the destruction of war was an economic advantage who began by
thinking first of all of the people whose property was destroyed.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Those who think that the
destruction of war increases total “demand” forget that demand and supply are
merely two sides of the same coin. They are the same thing looked at from
different directions. Supply creates demand because at bottom it <i>is </i>demand. The supply of the thing they
make is all that people have, in fact, to offer in exchange for the things they
want. In this sense the farmers’ supply of wheat constitutes their demand for
automobiles and other goods. All this is inherent in the modern division of
labor and in an exchange economy.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This fundamental fact, it is
true, is obscured for most people (including some reputedly brilliant
economists) through such complications as wage payments and the indirect form
in which virtually all modern exchanges are made through the medium of money.
John Stuart Mill and other classical writers, though they sometimes failed to
take sufficient account of the complex consequences resulting from the use of
money, at least saw through “the monetary veil” to the underlying realities. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>To
that extent they were in advance of many of their present-day critics, who are
befuddled by money rather than instructed by it. Mere inflation—that is, the
mere issuance of more money, with the consequence of higher wages and
prices may look like the creation of more demand. But in terms of the actual
production and exchange of real things it is not.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It should be obvious that
real buying power is wiped out to the same extent as productive power is wiped
out. We should not let ourselves be deceived or confused on this point by the
effects of monetary inflation in
raising prices or “national income” in monetary terms.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is sometimes said that
the Germans or the Japanese had a postwar advantage over the Americans because
their old plants, having been destroyed completely by bombs during the war,
they could replace them with the most modern plants and equipment and thus
produce more efficiently and at lower costs than the Americans with their older
and half-obsolete plants and equipment. But if this were really a clear net
advantage, Americans could easily offset it by immediately wrecking their old
plants, junking all the old equipment. In fact, all manufacturers in all
countries could scrap all their old plants and equipment every year and erect
new plants and install new equipment.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The simple truth is that
there is an optimum rate of replacement, a best time for replacement. It would
be an advantage for a manufacturer to have his factory and equipment destroyed
by bombs only if the time had arrived when, through deterioration and
obsolescence, his plant and equipment had already acquired a null or a negative
value and the bombs fell just when he should have called in a wrecking crew or
ordered new equipment anyway.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is true that previous
depreciation and obsolescence, if not adequately reflected in his books, may
make the destruction of his property less of a disaster, on net balance, than
it seems. It is also true that the existence of new plants and equipment speeds
up the obsolescence of older plants and equipment. If the owners of the older
plant and equipment try to keep using it longer than the period for which it
would maximize their profit, then the manufacturers whose plants and equipment
were destroyed (if we assume that they had both the will and capital to
replace them with new plants and equipment) will reap a comparative advantage
or, to speak more accurately, will reduce their comparative loss.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>We are brought, in brief, to
the conclusion that it is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by
shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a
negative value by depreciation and obsolescence.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In all this discussion,
moreover, we have so far omitted a central consideration. Plants and equipment
cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it
has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the
replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>There may be, it is true,
offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advances during a war may,
for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or
that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity.
Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise pattern of prewar demand. But
such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that
the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a
misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a
particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-77157462334955850792011-11-03T18:52:00.000-06:002011-11-03T18:52:00.051-06:00PART 1 :Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;">PART 1</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><b><span style="font-size: large;">Economics in One Lesson <br />by Henry Hazlitt</span></b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<u><b><span style="font-size: large;">THIS IS A GREAT BOOK TO LEARN HOW ECONOMICS REALLY WORKS.....READ AND ENJOY!</span></b></u></div>
<h1 style="color: red; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif; text-align: center;">
<u><span class="intro">The Lesson</span></u></h1>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro"> </span></b></h1>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span class="intro">Economics is haunted</span> by more fallacies than any other study known to
man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any
case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics,
mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>While every group has certain
economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see,
interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the
long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all
other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in
them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buy-able minds to
devote their whole time to presenting its case.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> And it will finally either convince the general
public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next
to impossible. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that
spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the
immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to
inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all
groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only
what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees
only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and
indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or
will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy
will be on all groups. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given
policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn't everybody know, in his personal life, that there
are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn't every
little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn't the fellow who gets drunk
know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn't the
dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn't the Don Juan know
that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring
it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in
the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are
men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a
national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences
of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a
warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating
epigrams and the ripest wisdom.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of
the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist
yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become
evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not
become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the
policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that
lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. <i> </i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>The art of economics consists in looking not
merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the
consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the
world today are the result of ignoring this lesson. Those fallacies all stem from
one of two central fallacies, or both: that of looking only at the immediate
consequences of an act or proposal, and that of looking at the consequences only
for a particular group to the neglect of other groups.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is true, of course, that the opposite error is possible. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In considering a
policy we ought not to concentrate only on its long-run results to the community as
a whole. This is the error often made by the classical economists. It resulted in a
certain callousness toward the fate of groups that were immediately hurt by
policies or developments which proved to be beneficial on net balance and in the
long run.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> But comparatively few people today make this error; and those few consist mainly
of professional economists. The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy
that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic
affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the new
economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups
and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The
“new” economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a
revolutionary advance over the methods of the “classical” or “orthodox,”
economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the
latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long-run effects,
they are making the far more serious error. They overlook the woods in their
precise and minute examination of particular trees.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> Their methods and conclusions
are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised to find themselves
in accord with seventeenth-century mercantilism. They fall, in fact, into all the
ancient errors (or would, if they were not so inconsistent) that the classical
economists, we had hoped, had once and for all got rid of.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the
public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained
that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the
platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic
reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and
bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate
effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go
they may often be right. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In these cases the answer consists in showing that the
proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could
benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in
supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider
all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long,
complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of
reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> The bad
economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the
audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its
merits because it is only “classicism” or “laissez faire” or “capitalist
apologetics” or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as
effective.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>We have stated the nature of the lesson, and of the fallacies that stand in its
way, in abstract terms. But the lesson will not be driven home, and the fallacies
will continue to go unrecognized, unless both are illustrated by examples. Through
these examples we can move from the most elementary problems in economics to the
most complex and difficult. Through them we can learn to detect and avoid first the
crudest and most palpable fallacies and finally some of the most sophisticated and
elusive. To that task we shall now proceed.</b><br />
<br />
</div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-62593573875288103742011-11-02T16:51:00.001-06:002011-11-02T17:50:42.241-06:00Sex, Lies and Liberalism: The Labeling of the Left<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 4px; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><u><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></u></span><span style="color: #b00000; font-family: Clarendon Extended; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Dedication of Radicals to Satan? Yes!</u></span></span></b></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
</span></b><br />
<div style="float: right; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;">
<span style="font-weight: 400;">
</span></span></span></b><br />
<div align="left" style="margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 0;">
</div>
<b><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="color: black; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">
</span></span></span></b><b>“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to<span style="color: red;"> the very first radical</span>: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.” </b><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URJb0PTJ5x0/TrHGALIUDnI/AAAAAAAABBs/gSk_Nuc7Kn4/s1600/Vote-them-home-25786258820.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-URJb0PTJ5x0/TrHGALIUDnI/AAAAAAAABBs/gSk_Nuc7Kn4/s320/Vote-them-home-25786258820.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>UPDATED TO 2012 </b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Liberalism BELIEVES with all its heart that ANY MEANS will justify the end result, <u><i style="color: red;"><span style="font-family: Georgia;">Forget moral
or ethical considerations as they mean nothing.</span></i></u></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;">As real Americans know these ideas are a failure before they start, people like this always fail in the end. History proves this to be true as socialist plans have always fallen under there own weight. </span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pKZYP2ntbkA/TrHHn8wX9GI/AAAAAAAABB0/_GTtfJAGkdM/s1600/Democrat-Corruption-213x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pKZYP2ntbkA/TrHHn8wX9GI/AAAAAAAABB0/_GTtfJAGkdM/s1600/Democrat-Corruption-213x300.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #003366; font-size: small;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Arial;">
</span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">"True revolutionaries
do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair,
put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky
viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. <span style="color: red;">The trick was to penetrate
existing institutions
such as churches, unions and political parties</span>.... </span></b>
</span><span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: #003399; font-family: Verdana;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Many leftists view Hillary
as a sell-out because she claims to hold moderate views on some
issues. However, Hillary is simply following Alinsky’s counsel to
do and say whatever it takes to gain power. </span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b> "<span style="color: #003399; font-family: Verdana;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Obama
is also an Alinskyite.... Obama spent years teaching workshops on
the Alinsky method. In 1985 he began a four-year stint as a community
organizer in Chicago, working for an Alinskyite group called the
Developing Communities Project.... Camouflage is key to Alinsky-style
organizing. While trying to build coalitions of black churches in
Chicago, Obama caught flak for not attending church himself. He
became an instant churchgoer."</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">
(By Richard Poe, 11-27-07) </span></span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>The current attacks against Herman Cain should NOT be any surprise at all, I would only ask what took so long. <u style="color: blue;">Are these attacks TRUE?</u> <span style="color: red;">Absolutely NOT</span>, but what difference does that make in the grand plan? You can mark the time from the point a candidate accurately places real answers to Liberal issues.</i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>From the point Herman Cain started to present common sense solutions to the Liberal mess that Obama has made of America I knew at that moment that "Rules for Radicals" would start being used against him and Lo and Behold here we are.</i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z9NBbvZpxm4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>THE REAL CAIN THE MEDIA IGNORES! </i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Here is some of the transcript from Rush's Radio show this Morning about this issue: </i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>"The National Restaurant Association gave $35,000, a year's salary,
in severance pay to a female staffer in the late nineties after an
encounter with Herman Cain, its chief executive at the time, made her
uncomfortable working there, three people with direct knowledge of the
payment said on Tuesday. Now, note the New York Times calls this
"severance pay." Severance pay is not a settlement for sexual
harassment claims, and since the Times says it, that's now the official
truth -- that it was severance pay -- and that's what Herman Cain has
said all along. The New York Times calls it "severance pay." I have it
right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers, not a settlement for
sexual harassment claims -- and that bears out Herman Cain's
statements.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>He said he was only aware of one claim which the Times article calls the second claim. The first settlement for 35 grand was a severance settlement with a sex charge thrown in to sweeten the pot which is what Herman Cain said this was. Yet the article tries to make it sound like they've got Herman Cain in a lie. But the size of her severance does not refute Cain's initial description of the matter at all. He said the woman had been given some kind of severance pay; he didn't know how much. The New York Times cites this woman's anonymous "friends and colleagues," quote, unquote, who say that she told 'em at the time "she was deeply uncomfortable about the situation."</b>............</span><br />
<br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>"The times goes on to admit that the situation with the second woman
"appeared to be more in keeping with a standard settlement related to
harassment allegations." So once again the Times is admitting that the
first settlement, the one that we know of for $35,000 was not a typical
sex harassment case. Now, that again supports Herman Cain's claim that
he was not aware of an additional harassment claim in that instance; and
you got four reporters on this story, including Jim Rutenberg, Jeff
Zeleny, and Mike McIntyre. </b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>That's more reporters than they ever had on Clinton and Lewinsky.
Then we go to the AP. Now, this story is by Nancy Benac at the AP and
what's striking about this -- and it's striking because the AP is seldom
a news outfit anymore. They're total agenda-driven. But this one is
over the top. I mean, this is not a news story in any way, shape,
manner, or form. What they have done here... I guess Chris Lehane has
made some comments about that, and they simply have dressed up Chris
Lehane's comments (you know, he's a Democrat activist for Clinton and
Gore) and they presented them as if they were a legitimate news item.
"Cain's Line in the Sand: Denials Invite Scrutiny" is the headline.
"Herman Cain drew a line in the sand, and now he has to hope it sets
like concrete. Cain ... has responded to allegations of sexual
harassment with a series of definitive statements that invite closer
scrutiny of his past conduct."</b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b>He was on Special Report on Fox last night, center seat segment; and
Charles Krauthammer said,</b></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b> <span style="color: blue;">"Do you think that race -- being a strong
black conservative -- has anything to do with the fact that you've been
so charged? </span></b></div>
<div style="color: blue; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b style="color: blue;">And if so, do you have any evidence to support that?"</b><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="color: blue;"> </span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b>Cain said.......<span style="color: red;"> " I believe the answer is: Yes. I am an unconventional candidate
running an unconventional campaign and achieving some unexpected,
unconventional results in terms of my -- the poll. </span></b></div>
<div style="color: red; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<b><span style="color: red;"> We believe that,
yes, there are some people who are Democrats, liberals, who do not want
to see me win the nomination -- and there could be some people on the
right who don't want to see me because I'm not the, quote, unquote,
"establishment candidate."</span> <span style="color: red;"> No evidence. </span></b><b style="color: red;">Relative to the left I believe
that race is a bigger driving factor. I don't think it's driving
factor on the right. This is just based upon our speculation.</b><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: red;">"</span></span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>NOW HERE'S KICKER....</i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br />RUSH: Folks... Folks, get this. The Washington Post story that I have been citing liberally here for the last ten to 15 minutes? <u><span style="color: red;">There are two versions of that story.</span></u> <u style="color: blue;">There is a story that appeared online yesterday and a second version where something has been omitted.</u> I have here what has been omitted near the end of the story as it ran yesterday on the Washington Post website. Are you ready? (shuffling paper) Ahem. Ahem. </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="color: #660000; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b>This has been deleted:</b></span></u></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b> <u><span style="font-size: large;">"Because the case is more than a dozen years old, Bennett," the woman's lawyer, "said <span style="color: red;">he no longer has the file nor does he have the confidentiality agreement.</span> He said that he had not even remembered the name of the Association official who his client had accused. He said he doesn't remember going to the Association offices. <span style="color: blue;"> He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and telephone quite expeditiously.</span>" </span></u><br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><u style="color: red;">It was that insignificant!</u> </span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">That has since been deleted from the Washington Post story that is now, at present, running. </span> </b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Let me read it to you one more time. <span style="color: red;"> "Because the case is more than a dozen years old," that would be 12 for those of you in Rio Linda, Bennett, Joel Bennett, "the woman's lawyer said he no longer has the file," doesn't have the case file, he doesn't have "the confidentiality agreement. He said that he doesn't even remember the name of the Association official who his client accused," meaning he didn't even remember it was Herman Cain! "He said he doesn't remember going to the Association offices ever to handle this matter. He thinks the matter might have been handled over fax and phone quite expeditiously," meaning rat-tat-tat, couple faxes, couple phone calls. </span><br /><br />Yep, 35 grand? Fine. We're done here. See ya -- and it's 12 years old and couldn't even remember that it was about Herman Cain. And doesn't have the confidentiality agreement, and <span style="color: red;">the Washington Post has stricken that from their only version of the story. This was on their online version of the story yesterday. Not there now. </span> But Diana Schneider, editrix of the Limbaugh Letter saved the cache file of it (c-a-c-h-e, for those of you in Rio Linda) so that we have it in perpetuity;<span style="color: blue;"> and this lawyer is running around making it sound like this woman's got the goods. </span>"Oh, yeah, she can't wait to talk! She's gonna nail Herman Cain! It's not gonna be pretty. We can't wait! It'll be big bucks! Wait 'til you hear it!" <br /><br />Yesterday, he didn't even know who this was about.</b></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>To get a deeper understanding of this issue please read the following Article.......<br /> </i></b></span></div>
<h1 itemprop="name" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/01/sexual_harassment_and_political_correctness_are_political_tools_of_left">Sexual Harassment and Political Correctness are Political Tools of Left</a></h1>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> The Left and the Right HATE a man or woman that doesn't fit the status-quo of political power structure and Herman Cain is that man in SPADES!</i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>Americans CAN STOP THEM in their tracks by NOT PAYING ANY ATTENTION to the liberal wine about NON-ISSUES to distract from the real issues at hand. Do you remember what they did during the Clinton sex issues which were NOT the focus of the investigation but soon overpowered the fact that CLINTON LIED TO THE GRAND JURY. </i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>The tactic was to distract, to change the subject from the LIE to sexual misconduct. We all know he wasn't on trial for sex but the Media turned it around on the Republicans and made them the issue, taking our attention away from what Clinton really did.</i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> </i></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i>The Media helping in the destruction of our country so it is important that we NOT LISTEN to the 'pun-dents' who only want things to remain the same [<span style="color: #660000;">Republicans of the status-quo</span>] and Democrats [<span style="color: #cc0000;">Taken over by Progressives who want Socialism to rule</span>] </i><u style="color: blue;">BOTH ARE AGAINST AMERICANS [<span style="color: #20124d;">YOU & ME</span>] AND PRO BIG GOVERNMENT!</u></b></span></div>
<div style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i> </i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><span style="color: #20124d;">THE RULE WITH RADICALS IS SIMPLE DON'T BELIEVE A WORD THEY TELL YOU EVEN IF ITS TRUE, ITS STILL HIDING A LIE! </span></span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><u>The Liberal Anti-Moral Stand: </u></span><i><span style="font-family: Georgia;"><br /></span></i></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial;">"The end is what you want, the means is how you
get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means
and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic
and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual
resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of <i>
ends</i> only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of <i>means</i>,
only whether they will work. ... The real arena is corrupt and bloody."
</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">p.24</span></b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">"The
means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the
means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to
their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies
of the Haves…. The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any
means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores
of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy
of the world as it should be...." </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">
pp.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">25-26 </span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><i>"<span style="color: red;">The
third rule </span>of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost
any means...."</i> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">p.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">29</span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>"<span style="color: red;">The seventh rule</span>...
is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics...."
</i></span><span style="font-family: Arial;">p.34</span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="font-family: Arial;"><i>"<span style="color: red;">The tenth rule</span>...
is you do what you can with what you have and<span style="color: blue;"> clothe it with moral garments</span>.</i>...
It involves sifting the multiple factors which combine in creating the circumstances
at any given time... Who, and how many will support the action?... If weapons
are needed, then are appropriate d weapons available? Availability of means
determines whether you will be underground or above ground; whether you
will move quickly or slowly..." </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">p.36</span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 1px;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">"<span style="color: red;">An organizer must stir up
dissatisfaction
and discontent...</span> He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying
guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of
this mechanism, a new community organization arises....</span></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to
participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively
conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. <u style="color: blue;">When those prominent
in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct,
for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of
conflict."</u> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;">p.117</span><br />
<br />
</span></b></span><br />
<div style="color: red;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In other words being a total hypocrite is ON PURPOSE, THEY KNOW ITS WRONG according to our RULES OF ETHICS but it works to their advantage because it creates distraction and confusion. </span></span></b></span></div>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">
</span></b><br />
<div style="color: red;">
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></b></div>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"> If we as Americans cannot see that this is the exact same type of tactics used by England to dis-unify the Colonies before our Revolution of Freedom maybe we need to revisit our history! Rules for Radicals is nothing new in the world, its been around for Centuries.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">"Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts
by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them.
... Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take
power away from the Haves." </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: small;">p.126 </span><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u style="color: #660000;">Always remember the first rule of power tactics</u></span> </span><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">(pps.127-134)</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">: </span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>1. "Power is not only what you have, but what
the enemy<u style="color: #cc0000;"> thinks you have</u></b>."</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>2. "<span style="color: #660000;">Never go outside the expertise of your
people</span></b><span style="color: #660000;">. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people,
the result is confusion, fear and retreat....</span> [and] the collapse of communication.</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>3. "Whenever possible,<span style="color: red;"> <u>go outside the expertise
of the enemy.</u></span> </b>Look for ways to <u style="color: red;">increase insecurity</u>, <u style="color: red;">anxiety</u> and<u style="color: red;"> uncertainty.</u>
(This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided
by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.) </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>4. "Make the enemy <u><span style="color: red;">live up to its own book
of rules</span></u>.</b> You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own
rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity." </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"><u><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">THIS IS THEIR DOWNFALL AND THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT, THEIR VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY IS A FALSE ONE AND THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF REAL ETHICS IS EVEN WORSE! </span></span></u></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.</b>
It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition,
which then reacts to your advantage."</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."</span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">
</span></b><br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes
a drag.</b> Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited
time...."</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>8. "Keep the pressure on, </b>with different
tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">9. "The threat is usually more terrifying
than the thing itself." </span></b><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>10. "The major premise for tactics is the
development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.</b>
It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition
that are essential for the success of the campaign."</span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>11. <u><span style="color: #660000;">"If you push a negative hard and deep
enough, it will break through into its counter-side</span></u></b><u><span style="color: #660000;">... every positive has
its negative."</span></u></span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<br />
<br />
</span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial;">12. "The price of a successful attack is a
constructive alternative."</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"> </span></b><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: small;"><b>13. <u style="color: red;">
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.</u></b><u style="color: red;"> In conflict
tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities.
One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... </u></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span><div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span></span><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: small;">
</span></span></b><div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"> "...any
target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame
as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [<u style="color: blue;">rational but distracting</u>]
arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your
attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible
by their support of the target...'</span></b></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>
</b></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Arial;">
"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one
side and all the devils on the other." (</span><span style="font-family: Arial;">pps.127-134)</span></span></b></span></div>
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;"> <span style="font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">These people are unbelievable but at the same time totally predictable because they follow a laid out plan in a book, simply read the book and know their next move.....pretty stupid if you ask me!</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</span></b></div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-71320505246277623212011-10-16T16:05:00.002-06:002011-10-16T16:05:34.970-06:00The Media Morons are at it again!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sxs5f5w0kxo/TptKXXnY75I/AAAAAAAAA4U/6LL0xJcB4fM/s1600/Obama_Dizzy_Double_200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Sxs5f5w0kxo/TptKXXnY75I/AAAAAAAAA4U/6LL0xJcB4fM/s1600/Obama_Dizzy_Double_200.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<object height="254" width="350"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=350&height=254&content_id=19899451&property=gbtv" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="salign" value="tl" />
<embed src="http://web.gbtv.com//shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?width=350&height=254&content_id=19899451&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" window="transparent" width="350" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /> </object> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The media went ballistic and had a field day during the Tea Party</b><b>
rallies, claiming violence and all the rest. Now, members of the media
are openly cheering on the Occupy protesters who are calling for
revolution. They do know how revolutions end, don’t they? Usually it’s
the toppling of the government. The audio & Glenn’s reaction in the
clip above.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Can you say HYPOCRITES with a Capital H! The Media is complaisant in Americas decline, talking about Collapsing the system of Capitalism in favor of Dictatorship, their MORONS don't they know that the media usually are the first people beheaded. There's no excuse for this except we've been right about them for years while they denied it to our faces and called us CRAZY for saying so.</b> <b>ANYONE who states its not true this is blind or compliant with these moron's.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here's the Evolution of Hypocrisy of the Media! </span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/FCVZlLBchVE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/3KhoxijSmLc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/r7YoDzPnSbw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/qtI96-7ovJo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-66478370340086993122011-10-10T10:00:00.000-06:002011-10-16T16:06:52.559-06:00The Muslim Brotherhood : The real Truth vs Media facts!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the UN-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Media idiots at it again, the reporters with no scruples or FACTS to back them up have once again been left RED FACED by the Tea Party's TRUE FACTS. They don't WANT to get it because its part of a bigger agenda of the progressives to DISTORT AND STRETCH THE TRUTH beyond the breaking point.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/mI9ySPhQNd4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="color: #990000;">Here's a great example about the REAL DIFFERENCE between Tea Party and Progressive Protests, if you can't see it your a "IN THE TANK for progressives Member" and have an Agenda to spread lies in the name of political points!</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZvbkUP4XTuI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><u><span style="color: blue;">Herman Cain says the truth about Liberal agenda to DIVIDE AND LIE!</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/lmwH9LMZP4Y?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I expect the media boobs to trip over one anothers tongues as they VENT against anything Pro-American and lick their chops to portray Americans as the bad guys constantly, I simply ASK them this "Why the hell don't you go live in a "Caliphate" controlled Country for 1 month and see if your opinions stand up to the real world just before your head rolls onto the street? They don't respect what we have here so why be here at all, just leave! I cannot for the life of me understand why people will lie about America</div>
</div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-2144949180816845472011-10-04T19:24:00.000-06:002011-10-04T19:24:00.404-06:00What Radicals, Islamist's, Communist's and Socialist's really are doing!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<center><object height="254" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com/shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?content_id=19832975&topic_id=&width=400&height=254&property=gbtv" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="salign" value="tl" />
<embed src="http://web.gbtv.com/shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?content_id=19832975&topic_id=&width=400&height=254&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /></object><br /><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><u><strong>WHAT AMERICANS WHO LOVE AMERICA'S ORIGINAL DREAM NEED TO DO AND WHAT TO WATCH FOR IN THE COMING DAYS!</strong></u></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #660000;"><strong>Those of us who read, listen and otherwise get informed about what the Radical Left or Right are doing to our country today will see this as the same old info they already know of but IF we are smart we'll pass this information on to Friends and Family as a dire WARNING of a NOT SO bright future to come if we simply believe that America will always be the shinning light on the hill. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR LEADERSHIP TELLS YOU, AMERICA IS HANGING OVER THE EDGE OF A GLOBAL PRECIPICE. </strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1P8M2NddWow/TopfjcjqdUI/AAAAAAAAA18/-_aSq2iIWBo/s1600/backstab.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-1P8M2NddWow/TopfjcjqdUI/AAAAAAAAA18/-_aSq2iIWBo/s1600/backstab.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #660000;"><strong>A precipice that is being ignored or covered over by the President of the United States and its Congress, WHY you might say? Simple, they are CO-CONSPIRATORS in our demise {NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT MORE THAN ENOUGH OF THEM!} Why in the all the goodness that is America would any sane person want to bring down their own country? What would possibly be the point?</strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: #660000;">Well it goes back a long time ago, to a One World Order, but that's to far for my point, you see all we have to do is go back to Woodrow Wilson to see what's happening today because History is repeating itself.</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/BzsacP_8vog/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BzsacP_8vog&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BzsacP_8vog&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/_PPJiUEI65o/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PPJiUEI65o&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_PPJiUEI65o&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8rVg-Sr-ofs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><strong><u>IF YOU ARE A PROGRESSIVE THEN THIS BOOK WILL BE YOUR THOUGHTS ON PAPER, AS IT WAS WOODROW WILSON'S FAVORITE BOOK: "PHILIP DRU ADMINISTRATOR".</u></strong></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/VbLKNgqooYM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: #660000;">Anyone who attaches loyalty to this nonsense is a traitor to our constitution and deserves all the punishments that includes. I have no love nor loyalty to ANY document that changes the context or the ideas of what the Founders envisioned for America. Today progressives are attempting to do these things under the guise of so-called "Living Constitutional principles" that make little to no sense of the original intent. It is living in our hearts but it is not flawed!</span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/LTYUcHyRqsM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/J7SpA2Qe3FM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>Progressives think differently than the average American, they think themselves better than you, they are elitists. They hold NOT to the Constitution or its basic principles of freedom. To the progressive mind our freedom is the problem not a right but they sure will use that same freedom to bring down our right to it. They are hypocrites in every sense of the word, pretending to love America while holding the knife in our back. Do not listen to any excuses by them for their seeming opposite behaviour while saying something else. To the progressive mind we must simply follow without thought, without study, and without knowledge if we are to save America from herself, but does this sound even a little bit reasonable to you?</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><u>Why would anyone even give ear to people who hate the principles by which we stand as a nation? Why do we tolerate this behavior at all? Why? <span style="color: #660000;">Freedom, that was paid for in blood by people who disagree with you</span>; that's why, its your right as an American to say stupid things and teach stupid things if you want to. BUT if those statements or acts are traitorous to America then the line has been crossed.</u></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>I have on my page a section to get to know your Constitution and Bill of Rights, before anything else do that; because if you don't know your own rights as Americans by now, you don't deserve those rights and when they strip them from us; as they will, you won't know what your missing. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LLRj9lYNv1o/Topb_lqLIDI/AAAAAAAAA10/65XQmZPeMW0/s1600/9c19.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LLRj9lYNv1o/Topb_lqLIDI/AAAAAAAAA10/65XQmZPeMW0/s1600/9c19.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong>In Future blogs we will get deeper and deeper into just what the Radicals in this country are both doing and saying. I will explain why it matters to you in your personal life and what to do to counter their effects around you peacefully. </strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="color: #660000;"></span></div>
</div>
</center></div>
Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-74693843475052907562011-09-30T17:54:00.000-06:002011-09-30T18:07:30.497-06:00Do you know what's comming America....Wake Up!!<center><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<center dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><object height="254" width="400"><param name="movie" value="http://web.gbtv.com/shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?content_id=19708873&topic_id=&width=400&height=254&property=gbtv" />
<param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" />
<param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" />
<param name="scale" value="noscale" />
<param name="salign" value="tl" />
<embed src="http://web.gbtv.com/shared/flash/video/share/ObjectEmbedFrame.swf?content_id=19708873&topic_id=&width=400&height=254&property=gbtv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="true" width="400" height="254" scale="noscale" salign ="tl" /></object></center><center><br.<br></br.<br> </center><center><br.<br></br.<br> </center><center><br.<br><strong><span style="color: red; font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: large;">Radical Islam is the SINGLE most dangerous thing IN America today...WHY?
</span></strong></br.<br></center><center><br.<br></br.<br> </center><center><br.<br><strong>Do I really have to tell you? This is brain dead SIMPLE to anyone but a liberal moron with cultural blinders on. No American can be A RADICAL ANYTHING and call themselves constitutional, that's the truth and no amount of political correctness will sanitize their HATE SPEECH as anything but anti-Jew and anti-American.</strong></br.<br></center><center><br.<br></br.<br> </center><center><br.<br><strong>There is no excuse for their level of hate, their level of animal instinct RATHER than human compassion and peace loving disagreement. If we the people do not wake up to this danger in short order, I believe that America will die a slow mournful death under the hand of enemies from within our own country. And no President, no Congress, no Legislator will be able to rethink our positions LATER if we sleep to long.</strong></br.<br></center><center><br.<br></br.<br> </center><center><br.<br><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: blue;"><strong>Please America wake up to this one truth before its to late, The Radicals are circling the wagons</strong> <strong>around our constitution, our republic <u><span style="background-color: yellow;">WILL NOT SURVIVE IF WE FAIL TO SEE THE BATTLE.</span></u> We must use peace and love to battle this enemy because that is the only weapon THEY CAN'T WIN AGAINST!!!</strong></span></span></br.<br></center></div>
Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-18064425258995166612011-09-07T10:16:00.001-06:002011-09-07T10:16:46.964-06:00Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">I'm going to re-post this great article from "The Tenth Amendment Center" because I really enjoyed reading it but more than that it gives hope that America can once again become the republic she was meant to be. </span></b></div>
<div id="slider-handle">
</div>
<h2 style="color: blue; text-align: center;">
<u>Dear Federal Government: Go To Hell</u></h2>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/3I52WnHac9s?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><em>by Michael Boldin</em></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><strong>NOTE:</strong> <em>The following was based on a speech given
at a freedom rally hosted by State sovereignty advocate and Washington
State Representative </em><a href="http://voteshea2010.com/" target="_blank"><em>Matt Shea</em></a><em> on Aug. 30.</em></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Almost everyone I know has written a letter to the Federal
government. Many of them have contacted their Representatives or
Senators at some point. They have emailed, faxed or even called —
asking, demanding or just plain begging these politicians to do
something or not.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>I never have.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Why? Because I believe it is an absurd idea to ask the Federal
government to fix problems it created, and that doing so just doesn’t
work.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>For example, those on the antiwar left got a “peace President” who
has bombed Libya and massively expanded the wars in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Many of those same progressives vehemently opposed the Patriot
Act forced upon us by former President George W. Bush and the
Republicans. With the Democrats in power, they got more of the same.
Again.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>For those on the right, the so-called conservative Bush and the
Republicans in Congress gave us more Federal control over education with
their No Child Left Behind Act. They also laid the groundwork for
today’s national healthcare mandates with the largest expansion of
Federal control over healthcare in decades: Medicare Part D.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><span id="more-9710"></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>And for everyone, we’ve got the Transportation Security
Administration. Because no one, at least no one I know, likes the fact
that this particular agency violates the 4th Amendment almost
constantly.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>So, because of things like these, I’ve always thought it was pointless to write the Feds telling them anything. Until now.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>I recently wrote a draft letter to my so-called Representatives in
Washington. Before sending it to them, I thought I’d share it with you
here to see if you have suggestions or if it meets your approval as is.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Here’s what I came up with:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="color: #660000; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<u><b>“Dear Federal government: Go to hell!”</b></u></div>
<div style="color: #660000; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
</div>
<h4 style="color: #660000; font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; text-align: center;">
<u><b>Out Of The Mainstream? Not At All</b></u></h4>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Start talking 10th Amendment, state sovereignty or — heaven forbid — nullification, and you will immediately find yourself <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/04/14/toys-in-the-attic-strikes-again/" target="_blank">branded</a> as
an extremist, a nut job, a radical and out of the mainstream. There’s
even a supposedly nasty term for those of us who would dare advance such
nutty principles: “Tenther.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Well, apparently, the American majority is just plain nutty.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A Rasmussen <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/54_say_states_should_be_able_to_opt_out_of_federal_programs" target="_blank">poll</a> released
last Friday tells us that “54 percent of Likely U.S. Voters believe
that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they
don’t agree with.” In other words, more than half of Americans now
embrace the Constitutional concept of State sovereignty.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>More telling than this small majority in support of such crazy ideas
is the much smaller minority of people opposed to them. Only 31 percent
of those polled disagreed and said States should not enjoy the ability
to opt out.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Think about that for a moment, because it is significant. Less than
one-third of the country opposes our base principle that each State can
and should have a unique approach to handling various political issues.</b></div>
<h4 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>Federalism Rules!</b></u></span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://3.gvt0.com/vi/I42Ez46vJ_8/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/I42Ez46vJ_8&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/I42Ez46vJ_8&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<h4 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></h4>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>The Founders told us that such a system was not only a good idea, but
also in line with the Constitution. They knew that one-size-fits-all
solutions would lead to pretty much what we have today: a crumbling
economy, liberty eroded and continual violations of the rules given to
government.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Today, people everywhere are beginning to recognize a simple truth:
What’s right for California is likely not right for Washington State,
and what’s right for Idaho is likely not right for Alabama, and so on.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In fact, such a decentralized system (the system the Founders gave us
in the Constitution) is the only kind in which people in a huge country
like ours — with widely varying political, economic and religious
beliefs — can all live peacefully together under a large defense
umbrella.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>John Adams famously told us that the real American Revolution was not the war for independence. He said:</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<blockquote>
<b>The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The
Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their
religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. … This radical
change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the
people, was the real American Revolution.</b></blockquote>
</div>
<h4 style="color: red; text-align: center;">
<u><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Happening Right Now</b></span></u></h4>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Even more exciting than this poll is the fact that States around the country are putting this idea into practice.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In 1996, when my home state of California decided to <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/25/freedom-in-one-word/" target="_blank">opt out</a> of
Federal drug laws by allowing marijuana to be used for medical
purposes, it was going it alone. But, soon other States recognized not
only their own ability, but the possible benefit of opting out of this
particular Federal program. Today, 15 States have done so, and they are
increasingly getting away with it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A few years ago, the American Civil Liberties Union championed
State-level opposition to the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required States
to follow Federal guidelines in issuing driver’s licenses. Since then,
more than half the States have enacted legislation against
participation, and all applied for or received extensions by the 2008
deadline.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Here we are six years later and it’s still not fully implemented, because States just won’t do it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>States opting out of Federal programs (at the Tenth Amendment Center, we refer to it as “<a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/" target="_blank">nullification</a>“)
can be a pretty effective strategy. It’s far more effective than
“voting the bums out” or writing a letter to Federal politicians, in my
opinion.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<h4 style="color: #990000; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>States’ Rights: Not Just For Liberals</b></u></span></h4>
<h4 style="color: #990000; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://2.gvt0.com/vi/W_Lv0Nfvkvo/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W_Lv0Nfvkvo&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W_Lv0Nfvkvo&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<h4 style="color: #990000; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/lphOKzp81tU?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<h4 style="color: #990000; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/mV_Mlmamy70/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_Mlmamy70&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mV_Mlmamy70&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<h4 style="color: #990000; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></h4>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Better yet, this growing States’ rights movement is not just
exclusive to progressives and the left. Conservatives have gotten on
board with the idea in recent years; and they are becoming more
effective with it, too.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>A recent <em>Washington Times</em> <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/25/rebellion-by-states-could-be-hazardous-to-health-c/?page=1" target="_blank">article</a> said:
“All told, 17 states have enacted laws rejecting parts of the
Affordable Care Act, according to a report by the National Council of
State Legislatures.” And, as tracked by the Tenth Amendment Center, more
than 10 states have begun to consider the next step, rejecting (read:
nullifying) the entire Affordable Care Act — every word of it.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<h4 style="text-align: center;">
<b>Going Mainstream</b></h4>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Rasmussen reported: “Support for states’ rights jumps higher when the
question involves federally mandated programs with no checks attached.
Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters think states should have the right
to opt out of such programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay
for them. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree and 16% are undecided.”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>What does that mean? Only one in five people believe the States
should have to blindly comply with Federal mandates, no matter what.
This is certainly good news, and something to build upon. We Tenthers
are winning the ideological battle amongst the people.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://store.tenthamendmentcenter.com/product-p/bknul1.htm"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-6014" height="300" src="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/nullification-cover2-195x300.jpg" title="nullification-cover" width="195" /></a> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>In the end, it seems to me that Thomas Jefferson’s ideas from the <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/03/08/thomas-jeffersons-other-declaration/" target="_blank">Principles of ’98</a> have
gone mainstream, as they should. He was far more eloquent than I when
he wrote, “…the several states composing the United States of America
are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general
government<em>…</em>”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/bP-qflDbRBs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/C0Vcjm3XiOk?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/XxP1irQFdto?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/1bJ8OuiHeqs?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object width="320" height="266" class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://0.gvt0.com/vi/wvbPawMX_pA/0.jpg"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wvbPawMX_pA&fs=1&source=uds" />
<param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" />
<embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wvbPawMX_pA&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9B41o9rutY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/mMxulWqfwIE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/9NDgl7Iooyg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<b>
</b><div style="text-align: center;">
<b>But, the message remains the same.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>“Dear Federal government: Go to hell!”</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><em><strong>NOTE</strong>: Michael Maharrey, communications director for the Tenth Amendment Center, contributed to this article.</em></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><em>Michael Boldin [<a href="mailto:info@tenthamendmentcenter.com">send him email</a>] is the founder of the <a href="http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/">Tenth Amendment Center</a>. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA. Follow him on twitter - <a href="http://www.twitter.com/michaelboldin">@michaelboldin</a> - and visit his personal blog - <a href="http://www.michaelboldin.com/">www.michaelboldin.com</a></em></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><strong>If you enjoyed this post:</strong></b><br /><strong><a href="http://eepurl.com/bd1YY">Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter</a></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
</div>
Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-8582793460303011962011-06-19T19:14:00.001-06:002011-06-19T19:14:00.764-06:00THE CITIZEN'S BILL FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red; font-size: large;"><strong><u>THE CITIZEN'S BILL FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM</u></strong></span><span style="font-size: large;"><strong> </strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Do you believe illegal immigration is out of control? </strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Statistics show that illegal immigrants are costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Polls show that over 70% of the American people want sweeping changes in our immigration laws and strict enforcement. </strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>With runaway government spending leading us toward bankruptcy, immigration reform is essential to shoring up deficits, curbing entitlement growth and creating American jobs. To ensure this reform reflects the will of American citizens, we must take action now!</strong></div><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong>The Immigration911 citizens' bill subjects your lawmakers to the will of American citizens. This website allows you to vote on the issues and generate multiple, individually addressed copies of a standard or custom letter to your elected officials. It automatically determines who your elected officials are and what their addresses are. </strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>It also tallies votes specific to each elected official's jurisdiction and attaches a statistical addendum to each letter. This means that with every letter they receive, they will be up-to-date on the latest numbers reflecting their constituent’s feelings on immigration reform. It also means their choice will be clear: Either vote to reflect the will of the people or be voted out of office!</strong></div><strong><br />
</strong><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong><br />
</strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Please join the Immigration911 movement and help save our country. You may feel helpless now, but by spending 10 minutes to complete the following 5 steps, you will be doing something that counts to stop illegal immigration!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-76740818369280082252011-05-16T10:16:00.000-06:002011-05-16T10:16:07.694-06:00Myth-Busting the Debt Limit<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>The following article is from The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell, and I thought IT WELL TO UNCOVER THE GOVERNMENT'S COVER-UP OF THE DANGEROUS SITUATION THEY HAVE PLACED US ALL IN!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>Make no mistake it is the governments total fault that America is here now, we had many <span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004XN04FG&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span>opportunities past to avert this course but deliberately failed to take actions required to steer clear! Why? Greed, Pride, Power mongering nonsense? Maybe ALL OF THE ABOVE!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><u><strong>Myth-Busting the Debt Limit</strong></u></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong></strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>The United States today hit an all-time high debt, passing $14 trillion, according to Associated Press reports. And with <span style="color: red;">$45,300</span> of debt for every man, woman and child in the United States, it's clear as day that <u><span style="color: blue;">spending is the problem</span></u>. </strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/T79i4Nb46io?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/LP9EH6n3nDk?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/RF2Zt2TLoik?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/NmK2lHX7T0U?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>Yet Washington has yet to come to an agreement on a way forward, either in the short term or the long </strong><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004OR1BE4&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>term, though the budget plan passed by the House of Representatives would fundamentally alter this debt-ridden path the nation is on.</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>It's time to get serious about cutting spending and getting the U.S. government to live within its means. But that's not the message coming out of the White House.</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>On the issue of the whether to raise the debt ceiling—allowing the government to borrow and </strong><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003ZYEVPS&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>spend even more money—President Barack Obama has resorted to dire predictions about what could happen if Congress does not take action. The Hill reports:</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>If investors around the world thought that the full faith and credit of the United States was not being backed up, if they thought that we might renege on our IOUs, it could unravel the entire financial system," Obama said at a town hall meeting hosted by CBS last week but released Sunday.</strong></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004774LRU&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>"We could have a worse recession than we already had, a worse financial crisis than we already had."</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>And, likewise, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned that if Congress does not raise the debt limit, the U.S. economy would likely enter a "double-dip recession" and added, "A default would inflict catastrophic, far-reaching damage on our nation's economy, significantly reducing growth, and increasing unemployment."</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1597820334&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>But Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy David S. Addington notes that those dire predictions just aren't true. In discussing J.D. Foster's paper "Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit," Addington writes:</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>As Dr. Foster’s paper demonstrated, there will not be a default on the Federal debt when the Treasury reaches the statutory limit on its borrowing of $14.294 trillion. The Treasury just will not be able to borrow any more money. The Treasury would still pay debts that come due, putting off temporarily </strong><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004YDRJ1M&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>payment of less important obligations as necessary to pay the maturing debt.</strong></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>President Obama's prophecies about the debt limit obscure an underlying truth: The U.S. government must find a way to get control of spending. Simply raising the debt limit and allowing the United States to borrow more money, unchecked, will not make that happen. To that end, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, investor Stanley Druckenmiller warns that defaulting on the debt is not the real problem Wall Street should be worried about:</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004YYKQR0&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>In the future, he says, "People aren't going to wonder whether 20 years ago we delayed an interest payment for six days. They're going to wonder whether we got our house in order."</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><strong>If the president needs a roadmap to making those cuts and getting the government in order, he ought to take a look at Heritage's Saving the American Dream—our plan to fix the debt, cut spending, restore prosperity, balance the nation's budget within a decade, and keep it balanced. On the issue of the debt ceiling, Addington has some advice, as well:</strong></span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: large;"><span><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0979917654&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></span><strong>If the Obama Administration is serious about getting spending under control and about maintaining orderly financial markets, Secretary Geithner</strong></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank"><strong>The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve</strong></a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Temple-Federal-Reserve-Country/dp/0671675567?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank"><strong>Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country</strong></a></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/History-Federal-Reserve-1913-1951/dp/0226520005?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">A History of the Federal Reserve, Volume 1: 1913-1951</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1px" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0226520005" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1px" /></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Study-Federal-Reserve-Its-Secrets/dp/1617200735?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">A Study of the Federal Reserve and Its Secrets</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1px" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1617200735" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1px" /></span><img alt="" border="0" height="1px" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0671675567" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1px" /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Fed-Murray-Rothbard/dp/094546617X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Case Against the Fed</a></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Reality-Money-Federal-Reserve-Stephen/dp/1450553397?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Reality of Money and The Federal Reserve</a></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Federal-Reserve-System-History/dp/078641880X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Federal Reserve System: A History</a></span></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span><span><span><img alt="" border="0" height="1px" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=078641880X" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1px" /></span></span></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;"><strong></strong></span></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-38357685166968364752011-05-03T11:22:00.000-06:002011-05-03T11:22:46.701-06:00It's settled! Obama is eligible.......RIGHT? Not so fast!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</strong></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div id="__ss_7751154" style="width: 477px;"><strong style="display: block; margin: 12px 0px 4px;"><a href="http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse/birth-certificatelongform" title="President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate">President Obama's Long Form Birth Certificate</a></strong> <iframe frameborder="0" height="510" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/7751154" style="height: 506px; width: 480px;" width="477"></iframe><br />
<div style="padding-bottom: 12px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 5px;">View more documents from <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/whitehouse">White House</a> </div></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Now that Barack Obama has finally released his long-<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1936488299&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>form birth certificate, the controversy is over. Right? </span></strong></div><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">That's the news media's unanimous opinion. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://alerts.worldnetdaily.com/HS?a=ENX7CqhOP32w8SA9MKJE1f_nGHxKLF2DR_cStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1FI">Click here to learn more about the book that helped to reveal Obama's birth certificate.</a> </span></strong><br />
<br />
</div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1461077109&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Within minutes, perhaps seconds, of receiving the handout from the White House, our vigilant press watchdogs were busy attacking people like me and Donald Trump for even raising the issue of constitutional eligibility and proclaiming Obama meets all the requirements of the presidency. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Let me be the first to suggest the document Obama released demonstrates just the opposite – and raises far more questions than it answers.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1461125413&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>For me, the release was not unexpected. For about two or three weeks, Jerome Corsi, author of the upcoming and already best-selling book, ";Where's the Birth Certificate?," and I have been discussing our mutual expectation that Obama was going to be forced to act.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Between the unprecedented success of the book in pre-sales, polls showing most Americans not believing Obama's birth narrative and Donald Trump's megaphone, he had no choice.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
</div><br />
<strong> </strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Obama recognized he was losing the battle for public opinion. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1439189692&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>There's not a doubt in my mind that his central focus was to pull the rug out from under Corsi's book – which promises (and delivers, by the way) to prove Obama is ineligible for the presidency. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dpj_I1rs7uo/TcAvmUeWF9I/AAAAAAAAAx8/ktS4698SO7o/s1600/ourlives.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" j8="true" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dpj_I1rs7uo/TcAvmUeWF9I/AAAAAAAAAx8/ktS4698SO7o/s1600/ourlives.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">He was counting on the media to jump the shark as it did in the last 48 hours. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Somewhere-Village-Missing-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B00424HE36?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Somewhere In Kenya, A Village Is Missing It's Idiot; Bumper Sticker</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B00424HE36" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Now let me be the first to put everything in perspective <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0307591409&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>and quickly dispatch the conventional wisdom about this new "proof" that Obama has released. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">First, let's look at the document itself. I would like you to compare and contrast it with what I call the "control" long-form birth certificate from Hawaii circa August 1961 – the one belonging to the Nordyke twins, born just one day later than Obama's reputed Aug. 4 birthdate. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">What do you see? </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Do you see two documents that provide the same information? No. Do you see two identical documents? No. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Why not? </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B001NT0P0C&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>It's a simple question. Why would two long-form birth certificates from Hawaii, filled out at the same hospital within 24 hours of each other be so different? </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">No explanation was provided by Team Obama, and, of course, none was requested by the media watchdogs who were in a hurry to show they didn't miss the biggest political fraud of the 21st century. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Sadly, if what is represented on this new "birth certificate" is an accurate representation of Obama's actual birth, it does not prove he is eligible to be president, but just the opposite. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1440150737&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>One of the reasons I was so eager to see the long-form document is because I was relatively certain it would provide different information than we saw in the short form certification of live birth released in 2008.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> I was relatively certain Obama was hiding something, for instance, the real birth father. Because if Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was, in fact, his dad, then there is no way he is eligible to be president. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">He was a visiting student from Kenya, a subject of the United Kingdom. He conferred U.K. and Kenyan citizenship on his son at birth. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1450596797&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>The men who wrote the Constitution and used the phrase "natural born citizen" as a requirement of office intended that future U.S. presidents would not have "divided loyalties" or even the appearance of "divided loyalties." In other words, the type of president they were trying to avoid with this language was the very type represented by Barack Obama. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But it gets worse for Obama.</span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">His sister, Maya, recently confirmed that her brother was adopted at the age of 5 by his Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, who moved Obama there where he lived and attended school for several years. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Though we do not have any citizenship records for Obama during this <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1596985666&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>period, it is hard to understand how he could have been adopted by his Indonesian stepfather and moved to that country for years without a change in citizenship. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">But let's put that issue aside for a moment, because there's something about this adoption that is a game-changer with regard to the validity and accuracy of the "birth certificate" Obama just released. </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Anyone who has ever been involved in an adoption knows a few things most others don't know. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">When an adoption takes place in the U.S., the original birth certificate is either amended or replaced entirely <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1450596932&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>with a new document that shows the adoptive parent or parents as the birth parents. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="color: red; font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><u>Question:</u></span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"> Why is the adoption of Barack Obama not noted in the original long-form birth certificate released by the White House this week? </span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">We can hypothesize, of course, since no member of the media has bothered to ask the question. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Let's guess that the adoption took place in Indonesia and Hawaii authorities were never notified. Does that change the reality of the adoption itself? </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Of course not. But it does invalidate the document we all saw this week for the first time. It is not an accurate reflection of the most basic facts needed to determine Obama's eligibility for the presidency. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">That document should list Indonesian citizen <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1616233095&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Lolo Soetoro as his father – not Kenyan Obama. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">So here we have a man sitting in the White House who has two fathers – neither of which is able to confer U.S. citizenship on their son. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">And yet the Big Media look at this document and see no problems. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Meanwhile, I look at them and, for the first time, can report with confidence that there is no way on earth Obama is eligible to be sitting in the White House. He's not qualified. He doesn't meet the test. And he has provided all the proof we need to draw that conclusion. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1432752936&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>But, I must tell you, there is much more to this story than I can briefly share here. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">It's coming very soon in the book by Jerome Corsi that prompted Obama to release a document he hoped would quell this controversy. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">With your help, we can ensure Obama's political calculation does not succeed. </span></strong></div><strong></strong><strong></strong><strong><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Joseph Farah</span></strong></div><strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">Editor and Chief Executive Officer</span></strong></div><strong></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;">WND.com</span></strong></div><strong><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></strong><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/%C3%ADObamanos-Birth-New-Political-ebook/dp/B002SV372C?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">íObamanos!: The Birth of a New Political Era</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002SV372C" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Not-Enough-Moynihan-Life-/dp/0465013570?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Freedom Is Not Enough: The Moynihan Report and America's Struggle over Black Family Life--from LBJ to Obama</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0465013570" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Sale-Depression-Preserving-Sovereignty/dp/1439154775?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1439154775" style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; margin: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px !important; padding-left: 0px !important; padding-right: 0px !important; padding-top: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMx4vqjBdjY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMx4vqjBdjY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object></div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/p7Gvd4Q5vJQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/p7Gvd4Q5vJQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object></div><div align="center"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object style="height: 390px; width: 640px;"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jCKT4OJ9tuU?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jCKT4OJ9tuU?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object></div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: large;"></span></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-35044679727676996952011-05-02T10:37:00.000-06:002011-05-02T10:37:50.784-06:00Bin Laden Dead...or Death of an Idea?!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/UB8WH73fdkg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: #660000;">I REALIZE THAT LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES WON'T GET THE POINT OF THIS POST OR THE BIG PICTURE OF WHY ITS IMPORTANT BUT WHO CARES WHAT THE FEW THINK ANYWAY! </span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0977102181&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe> I do not rejoice over ANY ONE'S DEATH in and of itself but I do rejoice over the ideas that died this day, ideas that only Bin Laden could perceive in his twisted mind and no replacement can affect. Each replacement must start with his own ego and and new ideas not so connected to his predecessor so in effect they are starting from square one. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>I have no false ideas here there will be a replacement but remember we know every replacement he has as well as we knew him so that in itself is not an issue, we can take them out too. What is so great about this is, its a propaganda victory against terrorists and that [<span style="color: red;">Propaganda</span>] is the most important thing here that the progressives do understand!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://links.heritage.org/ct/5869464:8673645332:m:1:217129843:FD6A4659CF3004AE6C043A2195C75FB3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_2">Bin Laden Dead</span></a></div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rTE9frLhdPg/Tb7dyLhI08I/AAAAAAAAAx4/MLBRAUuOMpE/s1600/32aa.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="315" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rTE9frLhdPg/Tb7dyLhI08I/AAAAAAAAAx4/MLBRAUuOMpE/s320/32aa.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_2"> </span></div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="color: #315b7e; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 26px; line-height: 110%; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"> <b>Justice has been done. Nearly 10 years since the 9/11 attacks that left more than 3,000 Americans dead, <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_3">Osama bin Laden</span> <a href="http://links.heritage.org/ct/5869465:8673645332:m:1:217129843:FD6A4659CF3004AE6C043A2195C75FB3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_4">was killed by a small team of U.S. military personnel</span></a> operating under the authority of the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_5">Central Intelligence Agency</span>. We first want to congratulate the men and women of our military and intelligence communities, past and present, who worked <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000XUAET4&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>tirelessly across three Administrations to bring ultimate justice to the man who killed so many. The <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_6">war on terror</span>, though, is not over.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> Bin Laden's death is the most significant victory in the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_7">war on terror</span> since the 9/11 attacks, more important than the arrest of <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_8">Abu Musab al-Zarqawi</span> in 2006. Bin Laden's elimination vindicates U.S. strategy in the region, started under <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_9">President George W. Bush</span>, and it will be seen as a major success for the United States, showing the world that America will remain committed to hunting down its enemies as long it takes.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> But while America should take great satisfaction in this tremendous achievement, the United States must remain vigilant against a terrorist threat that is not yet vanquished. Terrorists are trying to attack us both at home and abroad; with <a href="http://links.heritage.org/ct/5869466:8673645332:m:1:217129843:FD6A4659CF3004AE6C043A2195C75FB3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_10">38 terrorist plots</span></a> foiled since 9/11, these attempts will certainly continue, if not get worse.</b><br />
<b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b> <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0312567405&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>With bin Laden's death, which came by way of a small, covert strike force, there will be an impulse to believe that this action validates that <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_11">covert operations</span> are a cheap and simple answer to the most vexing national security problems. They are not. They are just one tool in the tool box. Among those tools, too, is the strategic and lawful interrogation of detainees, including those at <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_12">Guantanamo Bay</span>. President Obama and Congress should not use bin Laden's death as an excuse to turn back the clock on the counter-terrorism tools we need, like the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_13">PATRIOT Act</span>.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> That full range of tools must be applied to the United States' continued efforts against terrorism in <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_14">Afghanistan</span> and around the world. Bin Laden's death is a demoralizing blow against al-Qaeda that could be followed up by additional strikes against other al-Qaeda leaders. But though this is a significant achievement, much work remains. First and foremost, the United States must finish the job in Afghanistan and not relent in defeating the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_15">Taliban</span>.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> The operation also highlights that <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_16">Pakistan</span> is truly at the epicenter of global terrorism. The fact that the world's most-wanted terrorist was captured in a major Pakistani city 150 kilometers from the nation's capital should silence those <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_17">Pakistanis</span> who rejected the idea that bin Laden was hiding in their country as a Western conspiracy. It should also strengthen President Obama's hand in pushing the Pakistanis to continue to take action against other terrorists on their soil.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0199738661&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>The details on Pakistan's involvement in the operation are still unclear. If Pakistani intelligence played a substantial role in locating bin Laden, it would generate a deep reservoir of American goodwill for Pakistan. If, on the other hand, it was largely a U.S. unilateral operation, the positive impact on relations would be more short-lived.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_18">Ayman al-Zawahiri</span> will almost certainly take over as al-Qaeda's new chief. Zawahiri had in recent years become both the public voice and operational planner of al-Qaeda. However, since bin Laden was the founder and spiritual head of al-Qaeda, his death will demoralize the ranks of the organization and thus will likely be a major strategic setback for the movement. Zawahiri does not carry the same mythical aura as bin Laden and thus the organization will likely lose its luster among young recruits.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> But threats remain. <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_19">Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula</span> is responsible for three terror plots here in the last 18 months, something that the organization's core could not accomplish. And, likewise, the Taliban just last weekend <a href="http://links.heritage.org/ct/5869467:8673645332:m:1:217129843:FD6A4659CF3004AE6C043A2195C75FB3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_20">launched a new offensive</span></a> against U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Those are facts the U.S. government must bear in mind as the debate begins over the defense budget. There is no "peace dividend" with bin Laden's death -- our military is underfunded, and we must not shortchange our military men and women who are fighting to protect America.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002IKLO8W&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Though al-Qaeda suffered a significant blow last night, it was not a fatal one. It is worth stating again: <span style="color: #660000; font-size: large;">the <span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_21">war on terrorism</span> is not over</span>, and <span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #660000;">the </span><span class="yshortcuts" id="lw_1304350939_22" style="color: #660000;">war in Afghanistan</span><span style="color: #660000;"> is not won.</span></span> America must remain vigilant and continue its global fight against terrorism.</b><br />
<b> </b><br />
<b> <em>Edwin J. Feulner, Ph.D.</em></b><br />
<b><em> </em><em>President, The Heritage Foundation</em></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Osama-bin-Laden-Know-History/dp/0743278925?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Osama bin Laden I Know: An Oral History of al Qaeda's Leader</a></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0743278925" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Messages-World-Statements-Osama-Laden/dp/1844670457?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama Bin Laden</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1844670457" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hunt-Bin-Laden-Robin-Moore/dp/0891418385?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Hunt for Bin Laden</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0891418385" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Bin-Laden-Clintons-Unleashed/dp/0895260484?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Losing Bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0895260484" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/bin-Laden-Man-Declared-America/dp/0761535810?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0761535810" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Holy-War-Inc-Inside-Secret/dp/B001PO6APO?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001PO6APO" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><b> </b></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-86117929220445088942011-04-30T16:15:00.000-06:002011-04-30T16:15:51.488-06:00BORN IN THE USA? Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents Read more: Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents '<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red; text-align: center;"><u><b> REMEMBER IF THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE IS NOT TRUE FOR OBAMA THEN WHY DID JOHN McCain HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHEN HE WANTED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT?</b></u></div><div style="color: red; text-align: center;"><u><b><br />
</b></u></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="color: red;">WOULDN'T IT BE A DOUBLE STANDARD ON OBAMA'S PART IF HE WAS NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME RESOLUTION THAT McCain WAS HELD TOO?</span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="color: #20124d; font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: large;">THIS IS BASED ON OBAMA'S OWN RECENTLY RELEASED BIRTH CERTIFICATE FROM HAWAII, IT'S IN PLAIN SIGHT FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. </span></u></b></div><h2 style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Palatino,Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1936488299&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>President's 'birth certificate' confirms dad Kenyan citizen.</span></b></h2><h2 style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Palatino,Georgia,Times New Roman,Times,serif;"><span>Posted: April 29, 2011<br />
8:13 pm Eastern<br />
</span> </span></b></h2><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: Palatino,Times New Roman,Georgia,Times,serif;">By Bob Unruh</span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
<span> © 2011 WorldNetDaily </span></b> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span> </span></b> </div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div class="KonaBody" style="text-align: center;"> <b>Perhaps it's a good thing that the U.S. Senate didn't take up a resolution on Barack Obama's status as a "natural born Citizen" in 2008 – as members did for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain while both were seeking the U.S. presidency. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The Democrat might not have <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD3">qualified</span> under the requirements the Senate, including Obama, a co-sponsor and then-senator, put in the resolution, including the demand that the candidate have "American citizen" parents. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>The candidates' circumstances were not the same: Questions were raised over McCain's eligibility under the Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen," because he was born to American citizen military parents while they are on assignment overseas. </b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b><em><a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=281625"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004YA0ZB6&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Be the first to get the new eligibility book signed by Jerome Corsi and help get TV commercials on the air to bust this issue wide open!</a></em></b><br />
<br />
<b><em> </em></b> <br />
<b>The specific allegations have been placed online by YouTube participate PPSimmons, who previously has analyzed and provided commentary on the issues of eligibility to the presidency: </b><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/VJgY86nmEHc?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Questions over Obama's have arisen because of his almost total concealment of documentation from his life – including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD4">College</span> records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago articles, Illinois State <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD5">Bar Association</span> records, Illinois State Senate records and <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD1">schedules</span>, medical records, Obama/Dunham <span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD6">marriage license</span>, Obama/Dunham divorce documents, Soetoro/Dunham marriage license and adoption records.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004Y1NLSY&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Specifically, because of the lack of documentation, it was suspected he might not have been born in Hawaii, or might have another circumstance that would preclude his eligibility under the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" requirement, such as a loss of that status by taking Indonesia citizenship during his childhood, or relinquishing that status by using a foreign passport during his college years. Or that he didn't qualify because of a dual citizenship inherited from a foreign national father. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>He only released a copy of his "<span class="IL_AD" id="IL_AD2">Certificate of Live Birth</span>" from Hawaii this week because, he said, those questions were distracting him from the nation's problems, such as massive spending, job instability and others. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>That document is this: </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="642"><b><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf"><img alt="" border="0" height="455" src="http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/042711obama.jpg" width="642" /></a><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;">Image released by the White House April 27, 2011</span></b></td> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<div> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=292441">But plaintiffs and lawyers</a> who earlier brought a lawsuit against Obama alleging he is ineligible <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1439189692&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>to be president, say he failed to meet the "natural born Citizen" requirement because his father is a foreign national, and the understanding of "natural born Citizen" at the time the Constitution was written was a citizen offspring of citizen parents. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>That's also what Obama, as a cosponsor, included in his <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=sr110-511">Senate Resolution 511 in 2008 regarding McCain.</a></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The statement includes two references to "Americans" as parents or "American citizens" as parents. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President," it states.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="635"><b><img alt="" border="0" height="410" src="http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/042911barack2.jpg" width="635" /><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;">First reference to "American" parents in Obama's resolution about McCain</span></b></td><td width="635"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;"><br />
</span></b></td><td width="635"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;"><br />
</span></b></td><td width="635"><b><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;"><br />
</span></b></td> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The second reference is to "American citizens" as parents. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr> <td width="635"><b><img alt="" border="0" height="410" src="http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/042911barack3.jpg" width="635" /><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;">Second reference to "American citizens" as parents in Obama's resolution about McCain</span></b></td> </tr>
</tbody> </table><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The text of the resolution is:</b> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><blockquote><b>2d Session<br />
<br />
S. RES. 511<br />
<br />
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1461077109&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.<br />
<br />
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES<br />
<br />
April 10, 2008<br />
<br />
Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. COBURN, Mrs. CLINTON, and Mr. WEBB) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary<br />
<br />
April 24, 2008<br />
<br />
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment<br />
<br />
April 30, 2008<br />
<br />
Considered and agreed to<br />
<br />
RESOLUTION<br />
<br />
Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.<br />
<br />
Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen' of the United States;<br />
<br />
Whereas the term `natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;<br />
<br />
Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;<br />
<br />
Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen';<br />
<br />
Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;<br />
<br />
Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; and<br />
<br />
Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it<br />
<br />
Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.</b></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The statement was sponsored by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who was joined by Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.; Thomas Coburn, R-Okla.; Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.; Jim Webb, D-Va.; and Obama.</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><img alt="" border="0" height="563" src="http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/042911barack1.jpg" width="635" /><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: xx-small;"></span></b> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><a href="http://leahy.senate.gov/press/press_releases/release/?id=1c931141-2829-4e83-865e-84c97cd07b68">Leahy issued a statement at the time that praised the action, </a> but mentioned Obama only as a cosponsor and did not address questions over his eligibility. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1596986255&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>His statement cited The New York Times for "publishing a report calling into question the legality of McCain's presidential run based on whether he is a 'natural born Citizen,' as required by the Constitution." </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"This bipartisan resolution erases any doubt that Senator McCain is eligible to run for president," said Leahy. "The Senate was right to quickly pass this measure, and we can now put to rest any question of his eligibility." </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"There's no question in my mind that Senator McCain is eligible to become president, and I'm proud that my colleagues in the Senate came together on this resolution to help quickly put this debate to rest," McCaskill stated at the time. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Leahy's statement was specific on the issue of U.S. parents. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>"Because he was born to American citizens, there is no doubt in my mind that Senator McCain is a natural born citizen. I recently asked Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, a former federal judge, if he had any doubts in his mind. He did not," he said then. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1596986484&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>The video cited Vattel's The Law of Nations, writings from which the U.S. Founders drew both ideas and definitions. There, "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens," according to Book 1, Chapter 19, Paragraph 212. </b></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><b><br />
Read more: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292901#ixzz1L2vAOWV3" style="color: #003399;">Obama's McCain resolution demands 'American' parents</a> <a href="http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292901#ixzz1L2vAOWV3" style="color: #003399;">http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=292901#ixzz1L2vAOWV3</a></b></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Obama-Americas-Postmodern-President/dp/1451611110?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Deconstructing Obama: The Life, Loves, and Letters of America's First Postmodern President</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1451611110" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Barack-Toilet-Novelty-Presidential-Bathroom/dp/B003EN9S58?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Barack Obama Toilet Tissue Paper Novelty Gag Joke Presidential Bathroom Roll</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003EN9S58" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Wars-Bob-Woodward/dp/B004MKLRRO?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Obama's Wars</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004MKLRRO" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pinheads-Patriots-Where-Stand-Obama/dp/0061950718?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Pinheads and Patriots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0061950718" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Crimes-Against-Liberty-Indictment-President/dp/1596986247?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1596986247" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Diaries-Laura-Ingraham/dp/1439197512?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Obama Diaries</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1439197512" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Deception-Mask-Comes-Off/dp/093085280X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=093085280X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Radical-Chief-Barack-American-Socialism/dp/B004Q7E0V8?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004Q7E0V8" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Corruption-Cheats-Crooks-Cronies/dp/1596986204?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1596986204" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Blueprint-Subvert-Constitution-Imperial-Presidency/dp/0762761342?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0762761342" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-1-20-2013-1-20-13-bumper-sticker/dp/B00228KSPU?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Anti Obama "GONE" 1-20-2013 1-20-13 bumper sticker decal</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B00228KSPU" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Barack-Obama-Unexamined/dp/B0023RT022?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0023RT022" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Zombies-Liberal-Brainwashed-Generation/dp/B0048ELEBS?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0048ELEBS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamas-Untold-Story-African-Family/dp/0307591409?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Obamas: The Untold Story of an African Family</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0307591409" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-Obama-Decision-Maker/dp/B001MCLZTK?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">"What Would Obama Do?" Decision Maker</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001MCLZTK" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Overhaul-Insiders-Administrations-Emergency-Industry/dp/0547443218?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Overhaul: An Insider's Account of the Obama Administration's Emergency Rescue of the Auto Industry</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0547443218" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Defeat-Repeal-Socialist-Programs/dp/0062073303?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Revolt!: How to Defeat Obama and Repeal His Socialist Programs</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0062073303" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Great-Speeches-African-Americans-Frederick/dp/0486447618?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Great Speeches by African Americans: Frederick Douglass, Sojourner Truth, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Barack Obama, and Others (Thrift Edition)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0486447618" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div><div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: center; text-decoration: none;"><br />
</div></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-20201018852816954182011-04-20T16:32:00.000-06:002011-04-20T16:32:04.500-06:00Is Congress ABOVE It's Own Laws? You be the Judge!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">FactCheck.org and Snopes.com are BOTH Liberal hack sites that will not tell the truth about this subject, simply because the Agenda of the progressives would be slowed down by such an amendment! </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">These sites have never supported any thing connected to allegations against the Federal Government.It is uncanny just how many times they have supported the Fed and smeared the right instead of the Left! </b></span><br />
<br />
</div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"><span style="color: black; font-size: 12pt;"></span></span><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1604266139&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>No one has been able to explain to me why young men and women who serve in the U.S. Military for 20 years, risking their lives protecting freedom, only get 50% of their pay. </span></span></b></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-olDbqNG9XqI/Ta2u6IcymCI/AAAAAAAAAxY/ZaBmSc3fGjM/s1600/10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="317" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-olDbqNG9XqI/Ta2u6IcymCI/AAAAAAAAAxY/ZaBmSc3fGjM/s320/10.png" width="320" /></a></div><br />
</div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0275947386&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>While </span></span></b><b><u><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;">Politicians</span></span></u></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"> who hold their political positions in the safe confines of the capital, protected by these same men and women, <u>receive </u></span></span></b><b><u><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;">full pay</span></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"> at retirement after only serving</span></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: red; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"> one term</span></span></u></b><b><u><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;">.</span></span></u></b><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"> THIS IS NUTS!!!</span></span></b></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"></div><b> </b><br />
<div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;">It just does not make any sense.</span></span></b></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HwoJDtDjIH8/Ta2v3naBbxI/AAAAAAAAAxc/C4_QkoEYalE/s1600/46703_1483791869197_1665875264_1160146_1380085_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HwoJDtDjIH8/Ta2v3naBbxI/AAAAAAAAAxc/C4_QkoEYalE/s320/46703_1483791869197_1665875264_1160146_1380085_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="text-align: center;"></div><b> </b><br />
<div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; text-align: center;"><br />
<b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></span></b></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; text-align: center;"></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; text-align: center;"><b><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt; font-weight: bold;">This will get national attention if other news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?</span></span></b></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal" style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; text-align: center;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LnqkpAZNNvM/Ta2wc34mv0I/AAAAAAAAAxg/IULnD5F5K1Y/s1600/47302_1473736482028_1192157830_31186069_2528457_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LnqkpAZNNvM/Ta2wc34mv0I/AAAAAAAAAxg/IULnD5F5K1Y/s320/47302_1473736482028_1192157830_31186069_2528457_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
</div><b> </b><br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="yiv1096800152ecxMsoNormalTable" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr> <td style="padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;" valign="top"><div></div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="yiv1096800152ecxMsoNormalTable"><tbody>
<tr> <td style="padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;" valign="top"><div style="text-align: center;"></div><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="yiv1096800152ecxMsoNormalTable"><tbody>
<tr> <td style="padding-bottom: 0in; padding-left: 0in; padding-right: 0in; padding-top: 0in;" valign="top"><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div class="yiv1096800152ecxmsonormal"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0446549177&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>35 States file lawsuit against the Federal Government </b></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. </b></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. </b></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9lNAUkz66U/Ta2w-l_cCgI/AAAAAAAAAxk/ZDGVMUplWvk/s1600/60339_1505898326054_1192157830_31252386_2671659_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W9lNAUkz66U/Ta2w-l_cCgI/AAAAAAAAAxk/ZDGVMUplWvk/s1600/60339_1505898326054_1192157830_31252386_2671659_n.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"></span></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>This is an idea that we should address.</b></span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"></span></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. </b></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HsnoghsZj7k/TM4DWerI3SI/AAAAAAAAAio/0cKTUXCOzzs/s1600/6a01053596fb28970c0134856ba92f970c-450wi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HsnoghsZj7k/TM4DWerI3SI/AAAAAAAAAio/0cKTUXCOzzs/s320/6a01053596fb28970c0134856ba92f970c-450wi.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0446537527&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.</b></span></span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q4r218qYPts/TNggG4RHwwI/AAAAAAAAAkw/lSPzA96K4f0/s1600/taxman.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-q4r218qYPts/TNggG4RHwwI/AAAAAAAAAkw/lSPzA96K4f0/s1600/taxman.gif" /></a></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=091298645X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>It would seem that whenever congress tells us we need to change something, to make it better IT NEVER SEEMS TO APPLY TO THEM LIKE IT DOES TO US! </b></span> </div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><u style="color: red;"><br />
</u></b></span></span></div><div style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; text-align: center;"><div class="body"><div class="pbk"><h2 class="me">hyp·o·crite</h2><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="pg"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">–noun</span></span></span></b></span></div><div class="pbk"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="pg"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;"> </span> </span></span></b></span><br />
<div class="luna-Ent"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="dnindex"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">1.</span></span></span></b></span></div><div class="luna-Ent"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="dnindex"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;"> </span> </span></span></b></span><br />
<div class="dndata"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">a</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">person</span> </span><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/who">who</a><span id="hotword"> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">pretends</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">to</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">have</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">virtues,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">moral</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">religious</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">beliefs,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">principles,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">etc.,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">that</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">he</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">she</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">does</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">not</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">actually</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">possess,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">especially</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">a</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">person</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">whose</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">actions</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">belie</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">stated</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">beliefs.</span></span></b></span></div><div class="dndata"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;"> </span> </span></b></span></div></div><div class="luna-Ent"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="dnindex"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">2.</span></span></span></b></span></div><div class="luna-Ent"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span class="dnindex"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;"> </span> </span></span></b></span><br />
<div class="dndata"><span style="font-size: large;"><span id="hotword"><b><span id="hotword" name="hotword"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1596985879&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>a</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">person</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">who</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">feigns</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">some</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">desirable</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">publicly</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">approved</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">attitude,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">especially</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">one</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">whose</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">private</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">life,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">opinions,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">statements</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">belie</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">his</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">or</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">her</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">public</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">statements.</span></b> </span></span></div></div></div></div></div><div style="color: red; font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; text-align: center;"></div><div style="color: red; font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="ety" style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><i><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">Origin:</span></span></i></b></span></div><div class="ety"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><i><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;"> </span> </span></i><br />
<span class="rom-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">1175–1225;</span> </span></span><span class="rom-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">Middle</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">English</span> </span></span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">ipocrite</span> </span></span><span id="hotword"> < </span><span class="rom-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">Old</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">French</span> </span></span><span id="hotword"> < </span><span class="rom-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">Late</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">Latin</span> </span></span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">hypocrita</span> </span></span><span id="hotword"> < </span><span class="rom-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">Greek</span> </span></span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">hypokritḗs</span> </span></span><span id="hotword"> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">a</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">stage</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">actor,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">hence</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">one</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">who</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">pretends</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">to</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">be</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">what</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">he</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">is</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">not,</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">equivalent</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">to</span> </span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">hypokrī́</span> </span></span><span id="hotword">( </span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">nesthai</span> </span></span><span id="hotword">) ( </span><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword">see</span> </span></b><b><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span id="hotword"></span><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal;">hypocrisy</a></span><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> </span></b><b style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span id="hotword">) + </span><span class="ital-inline"><span id="hotword"><span id="hotword" name="hotword" style="background-color: transparent; cursor: default;">-tēs</span> </span></span></b></span> <span id="hotword"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">agent</span> <span id="hotword" name="hotword">suffix</span></b></span> </span></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANKboOs5MbI/TNhGdWLQR6I/AAAAAAAAAlg/doUS6GPf0Gs/s1600/69099_1521771882883_1192157830_31283724_2580899_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ANKboOs5MbI/TNhGdWLQR6I/AAAAAAAAAlg/doUS6GPf0Gs/s320/69099_1521771882883_1192157830_31283724_2580899_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004P1J0PQ&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We not SUPPOSED to have an elite that is above the law.</b></span></span><br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% yellow;">I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.</span></b></span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"></span></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b> This is one proposal that really should be passed around.</b></span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lYtOfnE-fG4/TNgNVgiHvaI/AAAAAAAAAj8/t4GoT3XBUdQ/s1600/quotes1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lYtOfnE-fG4/TNgNVgiHvaI/AAAAAAAAAj8/t4GoT3XBUdQ/s1600/quotes1.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=145550145X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>IF AMERICANS ARE NOT HYPOCRITES, THIS WILL BE A NON-POLITICAL ISSUE! TO PLACE THIS INTO A POLITICAL FRAMEWORK IS SIMPLY UNFAIR, THIS IS ABOUT BEING FAIR TO AMERICANS! </b></span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><br />
</b></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bVxB5h12HIE/TNgDvDqxhzI/AAAAAAAAAjo/FP0qpstu7ws/s1600/5pledges.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-bVxB5h12HIE/TNgDvDqxhzI/AAAAAAAAAjo/FP0qpstu7ws/s640/5pledges.jpg" width="449" /></a></div><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><br />
</b></span></span></div><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"></span></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b>Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:</b></span></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q6cehXA5mHo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y87wnklpSFQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/TDKC3HMppPo?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b> <span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004R62LSM&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe> </span></b></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: large;"><span style="color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 18pt;"><b><span style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;">"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."</span></b></span></span></div><div style="color: blue; font-family: Georgia,"Times New Roman",serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: 18pt;"></span></span></div></div></div></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="color: red;">America.....it really is this simple, we the people have ALL THE POWER, they make us think they do, but its the biggest lie in <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0073379069&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>history. Their power, every bit of it COMES THROUGH US!</b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue; font-size: large;"><b>And that also means that <u style="color: red;">every EVIL THING</u> that congress does and has done is because <u style="color: #660000;">WE FELL ASLEEP</u> at the wheel of great power, giving over OUR say to people who couldn't care less about any one else including our country! </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Introduction-American-Essentials/dp/0393932664?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">We the People: An Introduction to American Politics (Seventh Essentials Edition)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0393932664" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/We-People-Bonus-Dvd-Amaray/dp/B003INBNRU?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">We the People (Bonus Dvd) (Amaray)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003INBNRU" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Carson-Dellosa-PEOPLE-GOVERNMENT-AMER/dp/B000F8V38U?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">WE THE PEOPLE GOVERNMENT IN AMER</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independence-Constitution-Constitutional-Amendments/dp/1441408444?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1441408444" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pocket-Constitution-Text-Bicentennial-Commission/dp/0880801441?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Pocket Constitution (Text from the U.S. Bicentennial Commission Edition)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0880801441" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fathers-Constitution-Chronicle-Establishment-Chronicles/dp/1456321064?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Fathers of the Constitution: A Chronicle of the Establishment of the Union (Volume 13 in The Chronicles of America Series) (Timeless Classic Books)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1456321064" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Just-Facts-Constitutional-Amendments-Constitution/dp/B00026L8KS?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Just The Facts - The United States Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments/ The Constitution</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B00026L8KS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independence-Constitution-United-America/dp/1936594102?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1936594102" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Heritage-Guide-Constitution-Edwin-Meese/dp/159698001X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Heritage Guide to the Constitution</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=159698001X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Birth-Constitution-America-Charlie-Brown/dp/6303451659?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Birth of The Constitution:This is America Charlie Brown [VHS]</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=6303451659" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/US-Constitution-Commemorative-Silver-Dollar/dp/B001SUCE64?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">1987 Proof US Constitution Commemorative Silver Dollar</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001SUCE64" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/U-S-Constitution-Fascinating-Facts-About/dp/1891743007?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1891743007" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Declaration-Independence-Constitution-Constitutional-Amendments/dp/1441408444?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1441408444" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Just-Facts-Constitutional-Amendments-Constitution/dp/B00026L8KS?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Just The Facts - The United States Bill of Rights and Constitutional Amendments/ The Constitution</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B00026L8KS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Constitutional-Amendments-Proposed-1789-2010/dp/1598843168?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789-2010 [2 volumes]</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1598843168" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/McDonald-Publishing-CONSTITUTIONAL-AMENDMENTS-SMART/dp/B003LP6FDM?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS SMART</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003LP6FDM" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Federalism-Supreme-Court-Seventeenth-Amendment/dp/0739102869?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0739102869" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gateway-Liberty-Constitutional-Amendment-ebook/dp/B004TMMO2W?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Gateway to Liberty: The Constitutional Power of the 10th Amendment</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004TMMO2W" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/First-Amendment-Freedom-Speech-Constitutional/dp/1591026326?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate (Bill of Rights)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1591026326" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Amendments-Declaration-Independence-Confederation/dp/193659465X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=193659465X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B000F8V38U" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div></div><br />
<br />
<div style="color: #660000; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>The Obama deception, its long but worth the listen IF YOUR NOT HIS DISCIPLE, in that case just put your hear back where it was!</b></span></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" height="292" id="1303338216.85" orig_size="425x355" width="350"><param name="allowNetworking" value="internal"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="never"><param name="enableJSURL" value="false"><param name="enableHREF" value="false"><param name="saveEmbedTags" value="true"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAaQNACwaLw&rel=1&autoplay=0"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eAaQNACwaLw&rel=1" allownetworking="internal" wmode="transparent" allowscriptaccess="never" enablehref="false" enablejsurl="false" autostart="false" orig_size="425x355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="292" width="350"></object></div></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4685965631602732683.post-58155042725952318642011-04-06T17:04:00.000-06:002011-04-06T17:04:59.640-06:00Shutdown Phobia : The Truth is interesting the cause unsuprising!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div style="text-align: center;"><b>This blog is dedicated to the average voter that isn't as stupid as Washington portrays them to be. For the great Americans around us who love this country more than their own lives and HATE what Liberals, Socialists, and the Un-American media outlets are tearing down.....our Constitution and History!</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0060520841&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Our problem as American is we believe what we see on the T.V. news is true because after all, they do this for a living; don't they? Well the real truth is they HUNT for news true or not for a living, they deceive, misapply facts, rearrange results and otherwise MAKE the news INSTEAD of reporting it!</b></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><b>Many are legit reporters, but the overwhelming temptation to recreate the news is too much for some and being pushed to get answers where there are none to be had; makes things even harder. But the majority in Liberal media are progressive in their outlook, so what is obvious to us is hidden from them as the enemy ideology.</b></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif;">For most reporters its about getting news to the people as fast and accurate as possible, but for a lot in charge its about trumping the competition with bigger better news so they can take the time slot or just look better so it puts the reporters in a position to get facts wrong despite their best intent. </span> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="color: red; text-align: center;"><u><span style="font-size: large;"><b> WHAT ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT SHUTTING DOWN? IS IT AS BAD AS BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE US <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002MA8UN0&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>BELIEVE?</b></span></u><b><u><span style="font-size: large;">,OR <span style="color: #660000;">IS A TRICK OF DIVERSION</span> AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN IN THE PAST?</span></u></b></div><div style="color: red; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="color: red; text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<b>A strong majority of the public [60%] would rather have lawmakers reach a compromise on spending than see a government shutdown, according to a poll released Thursday. But compromise in Washington ALWAYS results in NOT enough being done to fix the problem and thus the issues never get fixed and get worse. </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>The American people never seem to learn how Washington works, this is a distraction because neither side in this really wants to fix the issue, neither side will cut enough spending to do anything meaningful to balance the budget, because their both wasters of taxpayer money! Washington thinks that our money is 'finders keepers LOSERS (US) weepers' and that mentality is always in play.</b> <b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #660000; font-family: "Trebuchet MS",sans-serif; font-size: large;"><b>If I ran my economic life like the Fed does theirs I'd be put in jail FOREVER for money laundering and counterfeiting!</b></span><br />
<br />
<b>SPEND! SPEND! SPEND! </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://3.gvt0.com/vi/mb_IhD0_MD8/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mb_IhD0_MD8&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mb_IhD0_MD8&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><br />
<br />
<b>In the case of 'The Government' shutting down, although it is not a great thing its not as dangerous as the media hype<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0984234802&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>, and liberal republican hypes make out to be. History makes it clear that this government shutdown doesn't hurt the country long term and is temporary at best. Besides, the Government is destroying America by BEING OPEN so what's few days down going to do? Slow down the destruction...maybe?</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b> In times when our country is going broke a billion dollars at a time, and our healthcare system was MADE WORSE by O' bummer-care, our boarders are porous and our Laws are up for interpretations of judicial idiots without a clue. How the hell is it a big whoop if the people responsible for the mess shutdown? What did we do before the Federal bums had this power? Our founders DID NOT WANT the Fed to get this big for this very reason, so these results PROVE that to a thinking mind, a Fed so big it can't meet the demands of its own checkbook is a Fed too big. Raising the bar of debt higher proves only one thing, the Fed is a money hungry monster without self control.</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>WHAT HAPPENS? </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://3.gvt0.com/vi/_l2a79lPJdc/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_l2a79lPJdc&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_l2a79lPJdc&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed></object></div><br />
<br />
<b>For once I agree with Boxer! </b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/acRe9eeLTc4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> </b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> <u style="color: #20124d;"><span style="font-size: large;">Here's the History of Government shutdowns:</span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b> </b></div><ul style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">1981:</span> President Reagan vetoed a continuing resolution and 400,000 Federal employees were sent home at lunch and told not to come back. A few hours later, President Reagan signed <u><span style="color: #660000;">a new version</span></u> of the continuing resolution and the workers were back at work the next morning.</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">1984:</span> With no approved budget, 500,000 federal workers were sent home. An emergency spending bill has them all back at work the next day.</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">1990:</span> With no budget or continuing resolution, the government shuts down during the entire three-day Columbus Day weekend. <span style="color: red;">Most workers were off anyway</span> and an emergency spending bill signed by President Bush over the weekend has them back at work Tuesday morning. No harm, no foul!</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">1995-1996:</span> Two government shutdowns beginning on November 14, 1995, idled different functions of the federal government for various lengths of time until April of 1996. <u style="color: blue;">The most serious government shutdowns in the nation's history resulted from a <span style="color: red;">budget impasse</span> between Democratic President Clinton and the Republican-controlled Congress over funding for Medicare, education, the environment and public health.</u><span style="color: blue;"> <span style="color: black;">It is interesting WHY these people cannot understand that its THEIR stupid spending sprees that cause 98% of our problems, if they would simply do as any of us MUST do with our budget's at home ....CUT OUT THE PORK. These people are a menace to common sense, is it not a requirement to have brains in congress?</span></span></b></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Medicare:</span> Some 400,000 newly eligible <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/federalbenefitprograms/p/medicarepro.htm">Medicare</a> recipients were delayed in applying for the program. Again a DELAY not a direct direct issue over time that would cause the country problems. </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Idiots-Security-Medicare-ebook/dp/B001NQGN8S?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Complete Idiot's Guide to Social Security and Medicare, 2E</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001NQGN8S" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Medicare-Rules-Regulations-2010-PMIC/dp/1570666156?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Medicare Rules & Regulations 20</a></b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Debt-Relief-Lock-Box-Reconciliation-Fiscal/dp/B0001141JE?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Debt Relief Lock-Box Reconciliation Act for Fiscal Year 2001 : report together with additional views (to accompany H.R. 5173) (including cost estimate ... Budget Office) (SuDoc Y 1.1/8:106-862/PT.1-)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0001141JE" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Poorly-designed-lock-box-proposal-economy/dp/B0006RH3TS?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Poorly designed lock-box proposal poses risks to the economy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0006RH3TS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Social Security<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003DM3R3E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />:</span> Claims from 112,000 new <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/socialsecurity/a/socsecapply.htm">Social Security</a> applicants were not processed. 212,000 new or replacement Social Security cards were not issued. 360,000 office visits were denied. 800,000 toll-free calls for information were not answered.</b></li>
<li><b> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Answer-Book-ebook/dp/B003DM3R3E?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Social Security Answer Book</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003DM3R3E" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Preparing-Social-Security-Disability-Hearing/dp/B0035KOO4A?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Preparing for Your Social Security Disability Hearing</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0035KOO4A" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Social-Security-Vision-Gamble/dp/0471771724?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Battle for Social Security: From FDR's Vision To Bush's Gamble</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0471771724" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Inside-Story-ebook/dp/B004H1T9BE?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Social Security: The Inside Story, 2011 Edition</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004H1T9BE" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Politics-Privatization-Government/dp/0700615229?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Social Security: History and Politics from the New Deal to the Privatization Debate (Studies in Government and Public Policy)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0700615229" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-Board-Game-Christian/dp/B0026NC3Z4?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Social Security Board Game Christian Edition</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0026NC3Z4" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Healthcare:</span> New patients were not accepted into clinical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) clinical center. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ceased disease surveillance and hotline calls to NIH concerning diseases were not answered. </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/health-care-nightmare-awaken-Nursing-Reprint/dp/B0008ETE4G?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The health-care nightmare: when will we awaken? (A Glance Back in Time).(from Nursing Forum, vol. 11, p. 336, 1972)(Reprint): An article from: Nursing Forum</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0008ETE4G" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Obamacare-Sally-Pipes/dp/1596986360?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Truth About Obamacare</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1596986360" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamacare-Wrong-America-Constitutional-ebook/dp/B004GB0OMS?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Why Obamacare Is Wrong for America: How the New Health Care Law Drives Up Costs, Puts Government in Charge of Your Decisions, and Threatens Your Constitutional Rights</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004GB0OMS" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obamacare-Disaster-Peter-Ferrara/dp/1934791342?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Obamacare Disaster</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1934791342" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Sick-Sicker-ObamaCare-Canadian-Style/dp/B004GNEE40?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Sick and Sicker: ObamaCare Canadian Style</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004GNEE40" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Obamacare-Bumper-Sticker-Decal/dp/B003DLGI9A?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Hell No! Anti Obama, Anti Obamacare Bumper Sticker Decal</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003DLGI9A" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Obama-Health-Law-Encounter-Broadsides/dp/1594035067?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It (Encounter Broadsides)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1594035067" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> This could become an issue for extended times of shutdown but there are many ways to get this information outside the C.D.C. AND THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY SOURCE LOOKING INTO DISEASES, THERE ARE MANY PRIVATELY RUN COMPANIES DOING THE SAME RESEARCH EVERYDAY. </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Control-Communicable-Diseases-Manual-Heymann/dp/087553189X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Control of Communicable Diseases Manual</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=087553189X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Outbreaks-Detectives-Epidemic-Intelligence/dp/0151011206?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Inside the Outbreaks: The Elite Medical Detectives of the Epidemic Intelligence Service</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0151011206" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Communicable-Non-Communicable-Disease-Basics-Primer/dp/0897895088?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Communicable and Non-Communicable Disease Basics: A Primer</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0897895088" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Non-communicable-Diseases-Developing-Countries-Phaswana-mafuya/dp/1612099963?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Non-communicable Diseases in Developing Countries</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1612099963" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/non-communicable-diseases-Lifestyle-Diseases-Emerging/dp/B004FLMLXO?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Why no one talks about non-communicable diseases.(Lifestyle Diseases, the Emerging Threat): An article from: UN Chronicle</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004FLMLXO" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Prevention-non-communicable-diseases-Pacific-mobilisation/dp/9822033311?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Prevention of non-communicable diseases in the Pacific: Training module for social mobilisation and community action (Handbook)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=9822033311" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> What really is amazing to me is this FALSE caring from the Liberals and Republicans about what would happen if they DIDN'T WORK hard at screwing you the taxpayer every day! Does this sound like Washington really gives a crap about you or ITS AGENDA....YOU CHOOSE!</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Environment:</span> Toxic waste clean-up work at 609 sites stopped as 2,400 Superfund workers were sent home. They don't clean things well in the first place so if their gone what's the worst that could happen? Nature does a better job than man does anyway, a case in point is the gulf oil spill that was hyped beyond measure. The ocean cleaned the spill without our help with microbes we couldn't see. </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Red-Hot-Lies-Misinformed-ebook/dp/B001KW04RQ?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001KW04RQ" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apocalyptics-Cancer-Environmental-Politics-Controls/dp/0671417436?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Apocalyptics: Cancer and the Big Lie : How Environmental Politics Controls What We Know About Cancer</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0671417436" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Organic-Lies-Misconceptions-America-ebook/dp/B002YX0NOO?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Organic Lies: Misconceptions of the United States Organic Act in America and the World</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002YX0NOO" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dioxin-War-Truth-Perfect-Poison/dp/0745322123?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Dioxin War: Truth and Lies About a Perfect Poison</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0745322123" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Little-Agenda-Debunking-Experts/dp/1589803523?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts'" Lies</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1589803523" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fluorescent-Lighting-Big-Lie-ebook/dp/B001B0SOZ6?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Fluorescent Lighting - The Big Lie</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001B0SOZ6" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Environmental-crisis-debate-degradation-Africa/dp/B000RR3RV0?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Environmental crisis or 'lie of the land'? The debate on soil degradation in Africa [An article from: Land Use Policy]</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B000RR3RV0" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Benath-Dirt-Environmental-Assessments/dp/B0008I7PUW?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">What Lies Benath? How ESAs Can Dig Up the Dirt.(Environmental Site Assessments ): An article from: Journal of Property Management</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B0008I7PUW" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Lies-Beneath-Katrina-Nation/dp/0896087670?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">What Lies Beneath: Katrina, Race, and the State of the Nation</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0896087670" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> Environmentalists <u>DO MORE DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT THAT A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN WOULD</u>. Getting the Government out of this job is probably the best way to save the environment! </b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Law Enforcement and Public Safety:</span> Delays occurred in the processing of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives applications by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; work on more than 3,500 bankruptcy cases reportedly was suspended; cancellation of the recruitment and testing of federal law enforcement officials reportedly occurred, including the hiring of 400 border patrol agents {<span style="color: red;">Wow, this might just be the thing for Liberals because they don't want the boarder protected, illegals arrested or the public protected at least not from them!</span>}; and delinquent child-support cases were delayed. But knowing how inept the government is in processing forms of any kind when its open, at least this would be a great excuse for the delay. Why then, does it happen when things are normal and the government is in operation?</b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Government-Agencies-Basic-Classics/dp/0465007856?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do And Why They Do It (Basic Books Classics)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0465007856" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Jack-Robinson/dp/B004EQAUYC?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Bureaucracy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004EQAUYC" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-PowerPoint-Template-Backgrounds-Templates/dp/B004R9JJS4?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Bureaucracy PowerPoint Template - Bureaucracy PowerPoint (PPT) Backgrounds Templates</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004R9JJS4" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Standard-Deviants-School-Government-Bureaucracy/dp/B00007CVU5?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Standard Deviants School - American Government, Module 9 - The Bureaucracy (Classroom Edition) [VHS]</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B00007CVU5" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Douglas-Adams/dp/B002GJZUHQ?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Bureaucracy by Douglas Adams</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002GJZUHQ" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Bureaucracy-Democracy-Accountability-William-Gormley/dp/0872893472?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and Performance</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0872893472" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Administrative-Law-Bureaucracy-Democracy-5th/dp/0135109493?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Administrative Law: Bureaucracy in a Democracy (5th Edition)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0135109493" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Teaching-Systems-American-Government-Module/dp/B001E2PU12?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Teaching Systems American Government Module 9: Bureaucracy</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B001E2PU12" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">US Veterans:</span> Multiple veterans' services were curtailed, ranging from health and welfare to finance and travel. This happens every day regardless of a shutdown because of bureaucracies in government so whats the difference? As a veteran myself I can attest to inept government delays even while their open for business.</b></li>
<li><b> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Serving-Americas-Veterans-Reference-ebook/dp/B003980PS2?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Serving America's Veterans: A Reference Handbook</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003980PS2" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Service-Your-Country-Insiders-Veterans/dp/0806528729?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">For Service To Your Country: The Insider's Guide to Veterans' Benefits</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0806528729" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Military-Advantage-2010-Military-com-Veterans/dp/1591145287?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Military Advantage, 2010 Edition: The Military.com Guide to Military and Veterans Benefits (Military Advantage: The Military.com Guide to Military &)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1591145287" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b></li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Veterans-Benefits-Dummies-Rod-Powers/dp/0470398655?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Veterans Benefits For Dummies</a> </b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Travel:</span> 80,000 <a href="http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/passporthowto.htm">passport applications</a> were delayed. 80,000 visas were delayed. The resulting postponement or cancellation of travel cost U.S. tourist industries and airlines millions of dollars. Again this happens while the Government is open so what's their excuse for slowness during open season? These are lame reasons to blame a shutdown for when nothing that happens during a shutdown doesn't happen when its open!</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">National Parks:</span> 2 million visitors were turned away from the nation's national parks resulting in the <u style="color: red;">loss of millions in revenue</u>. Please remember that congress can waste billions in one day so this is nothing compared to the congress being in session.</b></li>
</ul><b style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </b><br />
<ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><b><span style="color: #660000;">Government-backed Loans:</span> FHA mortgage loans worth more than $800 million to more than 10,000 low-and-moderate-income working families were delayed.</b></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u style="color: red; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1933995068&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>SO ITS JUST DELAYS, A VERY LITTLE BIT OF INCOME COMPARED TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WASTED BY AN OPEN GOVERNMENT [<u style="color: red;">Notice I didn't say transparent</u>] and if you get right down to it a little kid throwing a tantrum because it can't spend for a while!</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b>On the other hand they are good at making the most out of nothing, so the Progressives could use this as an excuse to raise thew dept sealing to even higher levels, further degrading Americas economy...so we are damned if we don't and damned if we do. Progressives do not care about you the taxpayer, they have an AGENDA and that agenda will run you over if you get in the way!</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><u><b>POLITICO says:</b></u></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div id="continue"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>"A shutdown, the theory holds, could satisfy the intense hunger among conservative Republicans and some budget-hawk Democrats to take a symbolic stand on spending before the nation breaches the debt limit, which Treasury Secretary <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B0045JLPYC&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Timothy Geithner now says will happen no later than May 16.</b></span></div><div id="continue"><br />
</div><span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>From an economic perspective, failure to raise the debt limit — or to even come close to failure — would have vastly larger implications than a brief shutdown. It could lead to an equity market collapse and a huge spike in interest rates as investors demand much larger payments for the increased risk of buying U.S. debt."</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Read more: <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52602.html#ixzz1ImgS1CYT" style="color: #003399;">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/52602.html#ixzz1ImgS1CYT</a></span></b></div></div><b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>For those who don't know what money is worth these days here is a breakdown [Pre-inflation to come level's that is!] :</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B0037FT6NM&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>FoxNews.com took a look at what <span style="color: red;">$100 million</span> can get the federal government these days, and here's what turned up: </b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><div class="sect vert"> </div><span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- 1,404 annual <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Government-Jobs-America-Estimates-Available/dp/1933639571?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">federal salaries.</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1933639571" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> A recent estimate pegged the average federal pay at just over $71,000. With $100 million, the administration could fund 1,404 of those every day. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- Nearly a full year's worth of foreclosure prevention funding. The president's fiscal 2011 <a class="kLink" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/10/governments-million-day-loss-snowstorm/#" id="KonaLink1" style="font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static; text-decoration: underline ! important;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;"><span class="kLink" style="color: blue ! important; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;">budget</span></span></a> calls for $113 million in foreclosure prevention "activities," which covers counseling for about 40,000 homeowners every month. Five and a half days of closings would help nearly 200,000 homeowners every month.</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B0001IQQ0E&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>-- 18,692 Pell Grants. Washington increased the maximum Pell Grant award by $600 last year, putting the total value at $5,350. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- 667 full-body scanners for U.S. airports, more than the double the number the Transportation Security Administration plans to buy this year. Calls for the installation of the scanners increased after the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas. The TSA, as of late December, had only 40 in operation, with plans to deploy 150 this year and buy another 300 at the same time -- at a cost of between $130,000 and $170,000 apiece. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- More than 300 new customs officers for screening at U.S. <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B001JTN9MW&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>ports. The fiscal 2011 budget includes $94 million for that many new officers, hired to screen passengers and cargo at "ports of entry." The <a class="kLink" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/10/governments-million-day-loss-snowstorm/#" id="KonaLink2" style="font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static; text-decoration: underline ! important;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;"><span class="kLink" style="color: blue ! important; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;">money</span></span></a> is also going toward improving screening on the front end, at foreign airports and elsewhere. Five and a half days of shutdown could save or create 1,755 customs jobs.</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- The total cost, and then some, for next year's handling of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. The Department of Justice's fiscal 2011 budget request includes $73 million for the "transfer, prosecution and incarceration" of Guantanamo prisoners. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- 93,949 monthly Social Security <a class="kLink" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/10/governments-million-day-loss-snowstorm/#" id="KonaLink3" style="font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static; text-decoration: underline ! important;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;"><span class="kLink" style="color: blue ! important; font-family: inherit ! important; font-weight: inherit ! important; position: static;">payments</span></span></a>. With Social Security going broke, recipients might want to get their <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004P1J0PQ&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>payments while they can. The government estimates the average monthly check is $1,064. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- One full Haiti aid package. Obama's initial pledge of U.S. aid for earthquake-stricken Haiti was exactly $100 million. </b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- 40 Super Bowl ads from the U.S. Census Bureau. The bureau angered some lawmakers after it was revealed its Super Bowl ad promoting the 2010 Census cost $2.5 million. But why stop there?</b></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b> </b></span><span style="font-size: large;"><b>-- Full funding for the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004IEA4DM&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>bureau, which has its work cut out for it as the economy appears to stagger toward some kind of recovery, is funded for $109 million in the president's 2011 budget plan.</b></span><br />
<br />
<b>Read more: <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/10/governments-million-day-loss-snowstorm#ixzz1Imhyj3yL" style="color: #003399;">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/10/governments-million-day-loss-snowstorm#ixzz1Imhyj3yL</a></b><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>That's just 100 million, just imagine what all those Billions in waste, fraud, and abuse could go to, if we could trust these bozo's with it!</b></span><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: transparent; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; font-size: large;"><b style="color: #20124d;">Money doesn't do anything its the spenders who do it and they must be reigned in.</b></span></div></div><b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Just-Facts-Emergence-America-Progressive/dp/B000VD5HUO?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank"><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=094546617X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Just The Facts: Emergence of Modern America - The Progressive Era</a> </b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/America-Progressive-1890-1914-Lewis-Gould/dp/0582356717?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1914</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0582356717" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Standing-Armageddon-Grassroots-Progressive-ebook/dp/B004RI1EX8?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Standing at Armageddon: A Grassroots History of the Progressive Era</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B004RI1EX8" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tyranny-Change-America-Progressive-1890-1920/dp/0813527996?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Tyranny of Change: America in the Progressive Era, 1890-1920</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0813527996" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /> </b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537527?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Revolution: A Manifesto</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0446537527" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Edward-Griffin/dp/091298645X?ie=UTF8&tag=theope-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">The Creature from Jekyll Island:</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theope-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=091298645X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u style="color: red;"><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><u><span style="font-size: large;"></span></u></b></div></div>Ministerofbloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00206599185841490926noreply@blogger.com0