Policies based on “scientific fact” have a history of being more than just problematic, as with the veneer of absolute truth behind them they have oftentimes been downright irrational. This historic record should act as a guide to our current political occupation with anthropogenic global warming.

Arguably, scientific fact changes more rapidly than religious dogma. What was undeniable truth one day might be discovered to be quackery the next. The most glaring example of this in the 20th century is the science of eugenics.

The science of eugenics insisted that the human gene pool was being polluted by various undesirable races and threatened to lead to the degeneration of the human species into a collection of feeble minded individuals. So popular was this science that it spawned no less than three Global conferences with attendees included scientific and political heavyweights of the time.

When eugenics took the form of government policy, it did so in a frightening way. Take for example the case of the Racial Integrity Act (RIA). In the name of fighting off the inevitability of human degeneracy that would occur if people were left to breed uncontrolled, the state of Virginia passed the RIA in 1924. This law allowed the state powers that today would cause us to recoil in horror. These powers included forced sterilizations, and the banning of intermarriage between minorities and whites.

Read more

Obama And His Appointees Dismantling US
Article: The Bulletin

President Barack Hussein Obama is proceeding to destroy America and has opened up a six-front war to do so:

1. He has a Democratic controlled Congress that is willing to rubber-stamp his wildest schemes, without even reading them…as we’ve already seen. The Democratic Party is now aiding and abetting the demeaning and destruction of America and has become the voice of leftist extremism. The moderates have disappeared or been transformed, issuing only occasional squeaking and whining before following the liberal party line drawn by Mr. Obama. Where have all the Democratic moderates gone?

Oh, this one’s easy. You see, with most politicians; they can be bought off. Millions of dollars here, earmarks there.

Mary Landrieu

Personal interests are what it’s all about; not what’s in the best interest of the nation. Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, for example, got $300 million for her vote. Roland Burris has his hand out in hopes of receiving some sort of handout; even though he isn’t exactly… liked among the Washington elite. When that doesn’t work; they resort to fear tactics and threats. Example? Ben Nelson of Nebraska. The White House had threatened to shut down Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base if Nelson didn’t shut his hole and vote with the Democrats. Why? Because that’s how they roll. They can’t get this bullshit of a bill passed the right way… THE MORAL WAY…you know; everyone has a say, nobody is paid off, no threats are made… they have to fight dirty.

Another thing I want to mention is the whole “Democratic controlled Congress” thing. Everyone is so quick to point out the “fuck ups” of George W. Bush; but they so conveniently dismiss the fact that the President cannot do ANYTHING without the support of the Congress. For the majority of the end of Bush’s presidency; Congress was Democratically controlled. I’ve heard so many people dog on Republicans and Conservatives for a variety of problems they’ve had with Bush and his Presidency, but again… Democratic congress, you biscuitheads. Your fingers are pointed at the wrong source. (Yes, this means you too, Green Day)

2. Mr. Obama has immense executive authority, which he has already used to damage the country. One notable example is his decision to try terrorists in New York City, thereby giving the terrorists the premier platform to broadcast their propaganda and recruit Islamic radicals to their cause. Another example is cap and trade by fiat of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than Congressional action.

Well, normally a president has to work through Congress; but not in His Majesty’s case. He can just SHAZAM his way through life. The rules don’t apply to him. The constitution doesn’t apply to him. The will of the American people aren’t important to him. The only thing that’s important to him is… well…. him. Of course he’s going to slob the knob of every Islamic radical he can. They are his people. He’s made it NO secret that he is a terrorist sympathizer. He promised throughout the campaign to close GITMO; which was a safe place to keep these Jihadist fucks to protect American citizens from another attack like the one we all witnessed on September 11th 2001.

Just a reminder. In case you forgot.

The one where 3,000 of our American brothers and sisters were massacred in the name of Jihad. But, that’s just one of many campaign promises he fell back on. He didn’t close GITMO. He moved it. To America. Right on our own soil. He’s giving NON-AMERICANS… no, worse that that, he’s giving ANTI-AMERICANS rights and liberties that we all enjoy thanks to the very document that BHussein HATES. The U.S. Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to give enemy combatants Miranda Rights? Where does it say that non-Americans are protected by our AMERICAN CONSTITUTION? It’s NOT a WORLD Constitution. It’s the American Constitution. If other nations want to live like Americans; a life of freedom, democracy, liberty, and choice… then they can sit their asses down and draft their OWN constitution. There’s no free-riding on ours. Well, ideally anyway. Now he’s going to TRY these bastards in the very place they committed the most heinous crimes imaginable.

3. He is filling the White House, the executive branch and

Van Jones

the court system with an army of radicals, socialists, Communists, Marxists, Maoists, and America-haters. The most outrageous example was Van Jones, the avowed Communist and believer that 9/11 was an American plot fashioned by President George W. Bush. Van Jones wasn’t too much of

Valerie Jarrett

an extremist for the White House; in fact, he was loved and respected as a key White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett publicly proclaimed at the time of his appointment. But, he was too extreme even for the mainstream media to cover-upand swallow. But, don’t kid yourself – extremists like that are the rule, not the exception in Mr. Obama’s world.

4. He stands ready to commit the U.S. to radical international treaties that will bleed away American sovereignty and commit the nation to

It's a Missile.

destructive policies. Watch what happens in Copenhagen, and watch the directions of Mr. Obama in matters of international laws and treaties. He has made it obvious he is more interested in pleasing the international community than in protecting the citizens of America. Couple that with his penchant for bootlicking our enemies, apologizing for America, and kicking around and betraying our allies and you have a prescription for international disaster. Note the betrayal of Poland and Czechoslovakia by his withdrawal of missile defense from those two important allies. He did so to appease Russia, again bootlicking enemies while betraying allies.

Don’t forget his eagerness to lick the asscrack of the terrorists in Palestine; who are already laughing in the face of our douchebag of a “leader”. He turned his back on our ally ISRAEL in order to cater to his terrorist Islamic brothers.

5. Mr. Obama seems ready to do anything to achieve his ends, a la the formula of Saul Alinsky and his

Rules for Radicals

book Rules for Radicals. Alinsky believed the ends justify the means, and that means anything goes. Mr. Obama has demonstrated he is willing to lie, use fascist-style tactics to silent critics, and do what it takes to achieve his agenda. He has even expressed his disdain for the U.S. Constitution in his now infamous quote that civil rights litigation and adjudication went off track because it did not focus on redistribution. His comments, record, and policies show he believes in redistribution of wealth, and views capitalism, free markets and profit as all part of a tainted system that is unjust. One of his major priorities is “spreading the wealth around,” as he admitted to Joe the Plumber.

"Spread the wealth around..."

6. Finally, the mainstream media is sanitizing and covering up Mr. Obama’s worst excesses,

Chris Matthews

as we’ve witnessed with major stories either ignored or almost totally neglected. In recent months, the dishonest, fraudulent, and biased mainstream media virtually ignored Climategate, one of the great scientific scandals of history; the Acorn undercover scandal; and the Van Jones appointment, as well as a long list of other far-out radicals. The mainstream media has becomean adjunct of the Obama plan to destroy America, as we know it.

This column will focus on the wild leftist radicals that he is packing into the federal agencies and the unconstitutional czars he is filling up the White House with. I question, when America elects a president who spends over 20 years hanging around with terrorists, racists, bigots, anti-Semites, Communists, Marxists, and socialists, what kind of appointments do you think he’ll be making? And, when he packs the White House with such crazies, what kind of policies do you expect to be forthcoming?

For openers consider his latest appointment to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC),

Chai Feldblum

the agency that adjudicates discrimination claims. Her name is Chai Feldblum, she is a professor at Georgetown University and is a most radical homosexual activist. She has advocated polygamy and has said that “sexual liberty” trumps the Constitutional right to “religious liberty.” Of course, she underwent what is called a confirmation conversation – trying unsuccessfully to lie out of previous positions. However, Bill Donohue of the Catholic League found her newfound moderation a total “farce.”

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the lesbians and the gayboys, but when that becomes your goddamned identity – as in… that is ALL you are… something is horribly wrong. This woman; who is named after some sort of yuppie drink, will have left no legacy when she croaks. “Oh, that radical dyke chick? Yeah, I remember her. What a fucking nut.”. Wouldn’t it be bizarre and unacceptable if heterosexual folks went around reminding everyone else of how “straight” they are? What if white people walked around talking about how proud they are to be “white” and how they embrace their “whitehood”. 9_9 That’s right, I said it. What about those of us who are religious? “OHAI I LOVE GOD! HERE I AM!” People would think we’re nuts. Or what about those who believe in traditional marriage? Well, we all know what happens when someone goes public about their PRO-traditional beliefs. Carrie Prejean.

She is the primary author of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) now before both houses of Congress. The bill has been described by J. Matt Barber on the Renew America Web site as follows: “ENDA would force – under penalty of law – Christian, Jewish or Muslim business owners to hire people who unrepentantly choose to engage in homosexual or cross-dressing behaviors, despite the fact that these volitional behaviors are in direct conflict with every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology. … It’s a direct assault on the inalienable rights of people of faith. It pits the government directly against the free exercise of religion and is, therefore, unconstitutional on its face.” Recall, this president has announced this is not a Christian nation, contrary to American history, a history he more often deplores than proclaims.

Kevin Jennings

The Feldblum appointment is part of a larger effort to force the homosexual agenda on the American people, from the youngest school children on up. For the perfect example, take the safe-schools czar, Kevin Jennings. Here’s the way the Web site www.wordpress.com summarized his qualifications:· A former schoolteacher

· A gay

· An advocate of promoting homosexuality in schools

· A former drug user

· Dislikes religion

· Failed to report an underage student who told him he had sex with an older man.

That’s quite a resume’ there, pal. Dislikes religion? A GAY DISLIKING RELIGION? GASPZ! Could it be because every single major religion condemns homosexuality? That doesn’t mean that religious people condemn homosexuals; don’t get me wrong, a human is a human… unless they promote homosexuality in public schools and fail to report statutory rape to the authorities. This creep is a gay, and a childfucker. Hey, prove me wrong.

John Holdren

The views of Mr. Obama’s science and technology czar, Dr. John Holdren, are also bizarre. In the 1980s, in discussing population controls, he advocated compulsory abortion and sterilization as constitutional. No proposal is too extreme for the Obama team.

This radicalism pervades every corner of the White House and Mr. Obama’s appointments. Take Craig Becker, an Obama appointee to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He was a union lawyer, who was associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The SEIU is the union with close connections to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the corrupt group of community organizers best known for voter fraud and extortion and intimidation of lenders. Mr. Becker helped lay the groundwork for the Employee Fair Choice Act (EFCA). That is the proposed law that would do away with the secret ballot in union elections and would permit federally designated bureaucrats to determine employment terms if a union and employer did not reach a prompt agreement. This act is so blatantly anti-democratic that it is even opposed by a far-left liberal, George McGovern, former U.S. Senator and Democratic Party nominee for president.

Even if Congress won’t pass the EFCA, Mr. Becker believes he can get the wildly leftist Obama agenda established by rule making by the NLRB, thus eliminating the need for Congressional action. This is characteristic of the Obama administration – willing to implement the most radical measures without Congressional approval and rule by administrative diktat.

And Mr. Becker will have plenty of support from other top Obama appointees in the federal bureaucracy. There is Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, who was first elected to Congress in 2000, as the union candidate. For about 10 years in Congress, she had a perfect record of support for union proposals. And, she is likely to coddle unions and persecute employers as Secretary of Labor.

Hilda Solis

Secretary Solis has already announced her plan to give unions more power over employers and the economy. And, she has already started taking all controls off of union abuses. For example, her predecessor, Elaine Chao, took the responsibility of policing unions seriously. During her tenure, Ms. Chao obtained 929 convictions for corrupt union practices and recovered more than $93 million on behalf of union members (as reported in The American Spectator. The U.S. Labor Department unit that polices unions is the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS). Shortly after the union lapdog, Ms. Solis, took office, the Obama administration reported it was cutting OLMS’s budget by more than 9 percent. The American Spectator writes, “As a result, corrupt union bosses will have a much freer hand with which to bilk their members.”

That’s just a taste of what Mr. Obama is doing to the Department of Labor to make it an instrument of unionization and the union agenda. Two other appointments to The Department of Labor are Patricia Smith and Lorelei Boylan. Both have close ties to unions and while working for the New York State Department of Labor, they were in charge of a program in which New York state partners with unions and other liberal groups to police workplaces. The American Spectator writes, “But in practice empowering ‘regular people’ actually means that the government is deputizing unions to help police workplaces.” This is just another example of how the Obama administration seeks to control every aspect of the American economy and do so to favor their political supporters, in this case the unions. Given their way, American business will be run by union bosses and union thugs.

Another area where Mr. Obama seeks to impose government control is talk radio. There is Mark Lloyd, who was appointed to be associate general counsel and chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He is on record of favoring all kinds of regulation of talk radio, which would be designed to muzzle conservative talk radio. To show how extreme these Obama appointees are, consider Mr. Lloyd’s comments about the tyrant of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. Mr. Lloyd went on record in support of Mr. Chavez who, among other things, is a sworn enemy of America: “In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.” There is a deadly Orwellian flavor to Mr. Obama and his appointees – a vicious tyrant is transformed into an instrument of “democratic revolution.”

The “Czars” are even more radical and even more out of control than members of the cabinet, who are subject to Senate confirmation. They can escape any Senate confirmation and, consequently, are viewed by some legal authorities as end-runs around the U.S. Constitution. Carol Browner, global warming (energy) czar, is typical. She is one of the leaders of the Socialist International and, as such, advocates “global governance” and maintains that developed nations must shrink their economy to help alleviate global warming. The czars and their threat to U.S. constitutional government are covered in detail in an article in Newsmax entitled “Czars: Never Elected. Never Confirmed. Too Powerful?”

Thomas Sowell, the brilliant conservative pundit, makes an important point for those who think these radical extremists somehow got into the White House because of a failure to properly vet them. Mr. Sowell writes, “Why should we assume Obama didn’t know what such people were like; he’s been associating with these kinds of people for decades. Nothing is more consistent with his pattern than putting such people in government – people who reject American values, and resent Americans and America’s influence in the world.”

Wake up America. We elected one of the most dangerous enemies of America and he now sits in the White House, filled with other enemies of America, relentlessly going about his task of destroying the country as we know it and as the Founding Fathers intended it. You better join the forces in opposition to Mr. Obama’s vision for America because if he continues unobstructed for three more years, it may then be too late to save it.

It’s later than you think. Mr. Obama can kill the economy and America with his version of ObamaCare standing by itself (See The Bulletin, “ObamaCare Spells Doom for America,” Dec. 6-12, and “Wake Up Before Obama Destroys America,” Dec. 13-19). And, he seems to be firing shots with machine-gun rapidity that have the potential to destroy our economy and our country. There’s some element of truth in talk show host Michael Savage’s assertion that we now have a dictatorship. With supermajorities in both houses of Congress and with seemingly inept Republican leadership, with free use of extra-Constitutional methods, i.e. czars, there seems to be no real checks and balances that should keep an out-of-control radical runaway president in check.

Even our Founders, political geniuses, still could not foresee and plan for the election to the White House of an America-hating radical, backed by supermajorities of the Democratic Party willing to follow him over the cliff to the destruction of America.

There’s just too, too much. No, really. Here’s your hope and change working. SUCKERS!

one nation ... indivisible, a cartoon about quality of education by social class

(source, more Herblock here)

What to do about income inequality? Another, prior question is of course why we think income inequality is a problem at all. If you want to read about that, go here or here first. So I assume that we agree that it’s a problem. Next step: how can we reduce income inequality? And how can we do that without destroying the incentives behind economic growth (assuming that much of economic growth is driven by financial rewards for effort, creativity, innovation etc. and that taking away resources from wealthy successful people takes away their will and creativity, hence driving down growth and making everyone, including the poor, worse off).

One thing that everyone thinks of is taxation, more precisely progressive taxation: this reduces the income of higher-earning families by a larger percentage than the income of lower earning ones. “Spreading the wealth around“, if you want. This makes incomes more equal in a direct way, but also in an indirect way because the tax revenues can be spend on poverty reduction (unemployment benefits, healthcare or education subsidies etc.). (An inheritcance tax can also help, because it promotes social mobility and discourages income inequality that is not the result of economic incentives, and because a lack of social mobility is correlated with income inequality – see here).

The problem, however, is that taxation is hardly ever progressive, even if it looks like it is:

Taxation in affluent countries does little to alter the market distribution of income. The reason is that taxes on income and corporate profits-which are progressively structured, reducing the incomes of high-earning households by a greater percentage than those of low-earning ones-are only part of the tax system. [But] their progressivity tends to be largely offset by the regressivity of payroll and consumption taxes. … Payroll and consumption tax rates usually are “flat”: the rate is the same regardless of individual or household income. Payroll taxes tend to be regressive because they apply to earnings rather than income, and wealthy households tend to get a smaller share of their income from earnings than do most households in the middle of the distribution. Also, payroll taxation often features a cap; in the United States, for instance, earnings above roughly $100,000 are not subject to the social security payroll tax. Consumption taxes apply to spending rather than income. They are regressive because lower-income households by necessity spend more of their income than their higher-income counterparts, so more of their income is subject to the tax. Lane Kenworthy (source)

Redistribution, then, does not occur through or because of the tax system itself, but through the systems of public spending:

(source, more on the Gini coefficient here)

Taxation is not irrelevant to redistribution, of course. Taxes provide the revenues that fund government transfers. Across countries, inequality reduction achieved via government transfers correlates strongly with tax revenues as a share of GDP. Lane Kenworthy (source)

So it’s the amount of taxes, rather than the system of taxes, that enables governments to redistribute and reduce income inequality.

More on income inequality.

CCNP exam success, particularly on the BSCI exam, demands you understand the details of route summarization.  This skill not only requires that you have a comfort level with binary conversions, but you have to know how and where to apply route summarization with each individual protocol.

You also have to know the “side effects” of route summarization.  With OSPF, there will actually be an extra interface created at the point of summarization, and this catches a lot of CCNP candidates by surprise.  Let’s take a look at the null0 interface and how it relates to OSPF summarization.

On R1, the following networks are redistributed into OSPF, and then summarized.

interface Loopback16

ip address 16.16.16.16 255.0.0.0

interface Loopback17

ip address 17.17.17.17 255.0.0.0

interface Loopback18

ip address 18.18.18.18 255.0.0.0

interface Loopback19

ip address 19.19.19.19 255.0.0.0

R1(config)#router ospf 1

R1(config-router)#redistribute connected subnets

R1(config-router)#summary-address 16.0.0.0 252.0.0.0

The summary address appears on R2, a downstream router.

R2#show ip route ospf

O E2 16.0.0.0/6 [110/20] via 172.12.123.1, 00:00:05, Serial0

Let’s go back to R1 and look at its OSPF table.

R1#show ip route ospf

O    16.0.0.0/6 is a summary, 00:01:51, Null0

Where did the null0 interface come from, and why is it there?  Packets sent to the null interface are dropped, and in this case, that’s a good thing.

When you configure summary routes in OSPF, a route to null0 will be installed into the OSPF routing table.  This helps to prevent routing loops.  Any packets destined for the routes that have been summarized will have a longer match in the routing table, as shown below…

C    17.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback17

C    16.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback16

C    19.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback19

C    18.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, Loopback18

O  16.0.0.0/6 is a summary, 00:01:51, Null0

.. and packets that do not match one of the summarized routes but do match the summary route will be dropped.

Preventing routing loops when performing route redistribution and summarization is vital.  OSPF gives us a little help in that regard in this situation, and as you study more complex redistribution scenarios on your way to the CCNP and CCIE, you’ll realize that we’ll take all the help we can get!

Now that the world leaders, who continually syphon money in vicious circles from their respective countries, and sitting on piles of WMDs are done pointing fingers at each other with the hoax of Global Warming, what will they do? COP15 was another global cash grab to redistribute the wealth. Once again it appears to be one massive global Liberal agenda with side trips for holiday shopping in Denmark. One has to gloat at the fact that Obama was completely disabled twice (remember the initial slap by the IOC on the Olympics for Chicago trip?) in Copenhagen. Then in SOP Obama kowtows and bows in his open disgrace and defeat.

As the global leadership attempted to scare the entire Earth’s population, there remains a Whistleblower Hero, who as yet remains unidentified with the release of emails from the University of East Anglia. This began “Climategate“, which now has increased confirmatiion with this recent Russian disclosure provided by Gateway Pundit.

What’s this, is hell due to freeze over?

One would have to believe that Congress and the Bogus POTUS would drop this hot potato and initiatives directly reflecting controls of industry, people, and transportation through legislation because “Global Warming” has proven to be a moot point. If the world didn’t buy it collectively, why would the United States population solely? Al Gore get ready to return that Nobel, Money, & Oscar.

Waiting for the official announcement from Copenhagen.

Update at 6:30pm CST – COP15 website link to latest: World leaders beginning to leave – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009
Looks like the spin doctors at the White House will send out the touting clowns. A done deal would have been announced on the world stage. How many Chicago-style backroom deals were brokered?

And this is the Mastermind on the World Government project. Here you will read how the UN is using other countries through Diplomatic Channels, lies and secret kept operations and actions to produce war in order to concrete its own power.

Meet the Mastermind in the World Government Project:

United Nations Origination (UNO)

The UN is, on the outside a toothless tiger permanently bankrupt and seeing itself as a peace and human rights organization with a single headquarters in New York, but 2 headquarters in Europe. The reality is that the UN is a walking history of a war producing and corrupted institution pursuing the idea of being the world’s government.

Here are only a handful of examples of 64 years of peace fraud.

• We teach our children that Korea was an American Police action but the truth is that Korea was a UN invasion gone badly. Lack of communication and a lack of strategy lead the UN into a disaster; then calling in as usual the United States for help. While our country took the heat the UN lifted itself up as the peace Negotiator while it made the U.S. look like a war loving country.
• Vietnam – it was the UN complaints about the Russians getting too strong in Southeast Asia and the request of the UN to America to send Military instructors there to teach the South Vietnamese how defend themselves. That is what led to a 10 year American disaster.
• Near East Region (Syria/Israel/and surrounding areas) – despite G.W. Bush’s comment of the axes of evil, Syria has complied with the UN and assisted America in the Operation Desert Storm also known as Gulf War 1. Syria has also been trying for 5 years to sign a peace treaty with Israel and end the conflict, but so far all attempts have been stopped or boycotted by the UN Lobbyists claiming that the peace treaty can only function when the entire region is involved instead of taking one problem at a time.

  The truth is the UN is not interested in any peace treaty ever. If so, in my opinion, the problem could be solved within 6 months. Any peace in the near east right now would be against the interest of the UN who needs those conflicts. Otherwise the existence and the costs for the UN would be questioned.

• Iraq conflict – It was the UN Weapons inspector of German descent Hans Blix planting the idea of existing Weapons of mass destruction in our heads through constant complaining about how un-cooperative Saddam Hussein was, and how suspicious the tracks were. Together with Hussein’s permanent threats against the U.S. and Israel; Hans Blix’ conclusions lead the U.S. Intelligence to its interpretation of Satellite pictures, which finally lead to the Iraq war. As soon as the damage was done and the U.S. was at war the UN pulled back and spoke out against the War. They removed Hans Blix from Office and blamed the un-liked UN critic G.W. Bush for the outcome.

Those are only a few excerpts of how the UN works – and the same game goes on right now with Iran. The only difference now is that with Barrack Obama they have a socialist puppy dog the UN can manipulate as they please.

The UN is an institution driven by corruption and fraud in every aspect. And yet the United Nations is involved in every decision regarding political, financial, economical, environmental, and Foreign affairs.

Did you know the UN is not accountable to anyone? Who is controlling the financial conduct of the United Nations? Who is controlling what happens with the donations? Who is controlling what happens with the money governments pay if they don’t fulfill their CO₂ limits (Yes this money is administered by the UN as well)? Who is controlling what happens with the money if we buy these so called CO₂ tickets?

The answer is nobody because the UN is not required to report to anybody.

Those are the 4 main key players in order to run the world government. Now you might ask yourself, what is with the GUS (former Soviet Union), China and Australia? Australia is already involved in the UN and is correctly contemplated as part of the British Empire as well as Canada. They are oriented on what the British Empire is doing. China is just about to establish its place as a World Power, and is in the process of becoming a full participant in the UN. Not to forget that China is a Communist country and Russia is acting like a sleeping Bear which doubles the danger Russia presents. Russia knows that it holds a third of the ground resources in the world and this wealth allows them to interfere when it suits them. 

Conclusion

What has all of this got to do with Copenhagen? The question is the other way around – what has Copenhagen got to do with the environment?

Fact is that in the end the countries participating agree on two major issues. 

1)    How much CO2 emissions is every country allowed or how much of a percentage must we reduce?

This question does not really occur if we don’t want to lose employment. Fact is if we don’t fulfill the agreement we can buy our way free by paying a fine to the UN, or buying CO2 emissions tickets from third world countries. In that case I ask myself the following questions?

• What happens with the fines paid to the UN? And don’t tell me that it is invested in Environmental projects – That is an insult to every thinking Americans intelligence.
• If we buy tickets from poor countries – what country can afford to sell its tickets? Only a country that does not have any industry whatsoever. But 90% of the countries without a functioning industry are in the middle of some sort of a war and would buy weapons with that money.

2)    How much money are the countries pumping into the third world and what for?

The official statement is that with the money donated (right now 15 Billion Dollars by the European Union – well President Obama is not there yet), the UN will finance Environmental projects in third world countries.

OK, we all know now that 60% of the money disappears in “administrative” channels and from the remaining 40% the UN buys way over priced material from its affiliated partners. Those partners of course are also in countries where some sort of war dominates, and through the backdoor the war is financed. And not to forget that from the actual purchased material, 90% is being stolen by warlords and sold on the black-market to finance the ongoing Genocide.

The entire Copenhagen summit or any previous or following summit is a hoax and has only one purpose, to collect money the UN can use to finance the wars in the world with one hand and with the other hand act as the peace loving humanitarian so as to give itself a right to exist.

Because as long as the UN acts like a peace lover and humanitarian, and campaigns with its peace and health building actions, the citizens of the countries will not question the existence of the United Nations, and the UN can concrete its power as a world government.

And I have never heard of a country demanding the audition of the accounts of the UN without being slandered.

That is why we should stop Obama from spending any more money on and to the UN. No matter what treaty he signs in Copenhagen we should make it clear we are not willing to pay and participate.

And we should re-think what and where we spend our money on, and what projects we support. We have so many poor people in our own country that need our help, people who are without their wrongdoing in financial distress. We have family and loved ones of fallen soldiers in our country that need our help, children that need our support. Let us focus first there.

I do not say African countries don’t need our help, the children there are the real victims and it breaks my heart, but first those countries need to prove to us that they are willing to do their fair share including showing us how they plan to pay back their debt.

And the UN needs to open its accounts – we have a right to know what happens with our money because let’s be honest here – the money Obama gives to them is not his, It is our Tax Dollars.

The key players in the Money laundering and redistribution Fraud of the UN are as follows:

African Countries and representatives of the African Continent

You might ask, what do they have to do with all of that? From January to November those countries run from one putsch to the next, one dictator supersedes the next one.

In mid November when the countdown to Christmas is opened and the hearts of the Christians are filled with love and compassion, Right on time, the ongoing Genocide stops and we are swamped with pictures of poor suffering babies and women to seduce us to donate. And yet there are many, many real poor countries, Africa is the world champion in collecting donations.

Private donations – Private people in the rich countries collect per year an average of 5 Million Dollars – This makes about 30 Countries who are participating in the private collection – 150 Million Dollars every year. This has been going on since the 60’s which gives us a rough estimate of approximately 7.5 Billion Dollars in private donations. With this money help organizations claim to buy food, medics, and construction materials. The distribution is going through UN channels and 65% of the Cash disappears in unknown channels. Another 30% ends up officially stolen by the Warlords where the UN, I am sure takes it cut from the black-market profit of those goods, and the remaining 5% actually ends up at the victims door.

That makes a total of approximately 4.9 Billion Dollars in almost 50 years of Private Donations administered by the UN.  WHERE IS THE MONEY?

And this is only in the private sector. How about the official payments demanded in those summits.  

The G8 (G20) meet 4 times a year and the Climate Gate Summit is once a year that makes a total of 5 Meetings.

In every meeting you do not see Asians or any other poor countries, no, only the African Countries show up with their colorful traditional clothes and traditional dances permanently demanding money and credit cuts.

Why does a continent that performs Genocide become a credit anyway, if not to buy weapons to maintain the war?

In all five summits are agreements of debt reduction and direct donations to Africa.

The debt cuts allow African countries to apply for more credit, just to assure in the next summit that these very same credits are cut again. In addition to the credit cuts they demand direct donations in the Billions by the western civilized world.

Putting a number to it we are talking about an average of 30 Billion Dollars every year since 1975 this makes a total of 1Trillion 20 Billion Dollars through 2009. That number is not too high since the European Union just made an agreement of 15 Billion Dollars for the official third world countries (98% goes to Africa) alone at the Copenhagen summit.

Now add the 1 Trillion 20 Billion Dollars officially, plus an additional 7.5 Billion Dollars from Private donations which is a grand total of 1.27.5 Trillion Dollars. Now consider that 60% of the money disappears in unknown channels, only 5% actually goes to the people, and the rest ends up as food, Construction Materials, or prescription drugs purchased by UN affiliated company’s that ends up on the black market ( http://is.gd/5p1Uh ).

Germany and Austria received a 100 Million dollar credit after WW2, also known as the Marshal Plan. That would equal an amount of approximately 1.5 Billion Dollars today – both countries have paid off their debt in full, including interest as of 2 years ago, and yet both of them belong to the richest industrial countries in the world.

Africa, on the other hand has no economy or industry what so ever. After over a Trillion dollars in donations they have nothing to show for it except Genocide and state of the art weapons that some western countries would love to have. And yet Africa is never forced to pay back anything or show any progress.

Responsible for the distribution of the finances and the credit reduction is the World Bank and the United Nations. And the UN is not accountable to anyone. There is no controlling the United Nations. Every criticism is washed away.

A third of this money comes from the United States of America. Imagine how we could lower our deficit by using that money for ourselves.

 WHERE IS THAT MONEY? – WHERE IS MY MONEY

 The World Bank

 The World Bank was established in 1945 to provide leverage loans to developing countries for a capital program. The World Bank is strongly affiliated with the United Nations and now participating in more than 31 worldwide activities that have nothing to do with the traditional banking areas. For example: Conflict development, Environment, Gender, Health – Nutrition and Population, Information/Computing and Telecommunication, Law and Justice, Mining, Labor and social protection, Private Sector and so forth (http://is.gd/5lePI ). All areas where I ask myself what does that have to do with banking.

 The European Union

The European Union was originally founded as an economical counterbalance to the free enterprise, U.S. Market, and trade organization system. Today, The European Union has 27 members, a combined currency, and their own defense force as a military counterpart to NATO. The European Union is strongly undercut in socialist principles where even the Christian conservatives are more or less having socialist agendas. The idea is the total control of every aspect of life, economy, and personal living. The European ideal is a centralized government that is in total control, including the media.

They control the media by undercutting them through credits. All banks are one way or the other in governmental control, and since every company lives off of bank loans and credits the governments use this opportunity to infiltrate the media so they can transport their indoctrination of socialism to the people. Another stronghold of the EU is the socialist Medicare that forces citizens to give away their private information.

The European Union has 2 headquarters and is strongly represented and connected in and with the UN.

 The United States of America

The United States was founded on the principles of freedom and prosperity through hard work, as opposed to the European Union who believes in redistribution and punishment of hard work. The U.S. has always played a major role in the UN. Every time the UN has produced troubles in another country, or was diplomatically unable to solve a problem, they ask the United States to become the World’s Police force, on demand. However, once we solve the problem the UN and the EU blame us for our alleged “Imperial Interests”.

But the truth is we have the right to benefit first, once we have solved the problem.

The UN claims that we (The Unites States) owe them years of membership fees (yes it is true; in addition to all the donations we still pay membership fees). But let us do a little more math here. Considering what we owe the UN and what the UN owes us, for all the military actions we have performed under the UN Flag, the United Nations would owe us so much money we could reduce our Federal Deficit by 15 to 20%.

Those are 4 of the 5 major Key players the UN needs in order to control the world as Shadow Government. The UN itself, how this organization operates and controls and maintains its power, will be shown in my final Blog. And I will show you interesting facts there.

A lot of Blog Posts talk about the Copenhagen treaty as having a lot to do with building a World Healthcare and world government system. Well, those people are not so far off from the truth, but not the way they’re thinking of it… There is a method at work here.

• On Friday October 9^th 2009, the Peace Nobel Prize Committee announced to award Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize. – Everybody was asking why and what for. Even Obama was surprised.

  Back then I wrote a blog clearing up that this was a clear signal from the Europeans to President Obama reminding him of the Liberal Agenda (http://is.gd/5iiqM).

• Meanwhile Obama has pushed through with foul tricks his Health care agenda. 
• For about 3 weeks European Countries have sent more or less direct signals to the United States as of what they expect from us in the Copenhagen Summit.
• On November 6^th the Copenhagen Environmental Summit had started.
• On November 6^th the UN announced already the amount of money needed for third world countries – a minimum of 10 Billion Dollars.
• On November 7^th President Obama had sent a clear Signal to Copenhagen by having his Czars in the EPA announce Greenhouse Gas as injurious for health. And though we would all agree on that, the question is why now and why so fast. The answer is simple and stated in the United States Federal Law – Now Obama can sign any treaty without consulting or getting approval from the House or Senate.

In Laymen terms, Obama can now, of his own free will; sign over American Tax dollars and American Industry.

Job Well done Obama Czars, this is one more example that proves that you know how to get around the will and well being of the American tax payer.

• November 10^th Obama receives the Nobel Peace Prize.
   
• November 11^th The European Union agrees on the verge of Copenhagen for an additional 15 Billion Dollars for the Third World Countries.

Dear Readers this is NOT THE WAY to a world government – the world government IS ALREADY HERE through the back door and I will prove that to you – Right here right now.

The UN is smart enough to know that a world government as dreamed of by Gene Roddenberry, a Science Fiction Author and founder of the show Star Trek, and convinced communist will always shipwreck on national interests. So the conclusion is to rule through a shadow government by influencing world economy and politics.

The flag of the United Federation of Planets was not by accident almost 1:1 taken from the UN Flag.

We have to take a closer look at the behind the scenes action and what institutions, organizations, and official meetings the UN uses to control their power influence. And this is determining the key players of the master plan to control the world.

Let’s get started at the beginning, the summits, because in order to determine the key players we need to know the control mechanism and meetings, and how the deals are made behind the scenes.

There are five major summits per year that the world looks at. Up until now the United States of America has always been known for its independency because every President so far was looking out for the U.S. interests first. This made it hard for the UN and the European Union to come through with their War driving Policy through the back door and their Socialist Agenda of redistributing the wealth in order to bind the 3^rd world countries closer to them.

AND THIS IS HOW THE UNITED NATIONS AS A WORLDWIDE SHADOW GOVERNMENT IS CONTROLING THE WORLD

They use the two major summits (5 meetings per year) as political and diplomatic platforms to transport their ideals and will to the people. This is the only way to do that because a direct or official takeover would call for too much protest within the citizens of the individual countries.

G8 later G 20 Summit
(Group of 8/20)

 The G8 summit, founded in 1975 by France emerged out of the G6 (Group of 6) meaning the 8 richest countries in the world. Since the 2008 Washington Summit this group will be replaced by the G20. The G20 meets an annual 4 times per year.

The finance ministers, economy ministers, and environmental ministers meet to determine the economy of the world – How to regulate and organize the money transfers and the world economy, as well as the key interest rate of the World Bank. This is the leading factor which determines the key interest rate of the individual countries.

Always represented, giving big speeches, and making demands in the billions on the apron strings of every G meeting, is the UN.

This institution has meanwhile found their way into every aspect of life, no matter if it’s an individual problem of a country or if it is a problem concerning the international relationship. There is nothing the UN is not involved in.

And another group is always present – always in the tow line of the UN – always full of demands – representatives of the African continent. Those individuals are very interesting to look at and I will address them later.

Now that we have covered the current Environmental Summit and the upcoming G20 Summit here are the key players in both summits. In the final Blog part 4/4 I will connect the dots.

World Environmental Protection Summit or Climate Gate Summit

This summit takes place once a year. This year the summit is hosted by Copenhagen. I have covered this year’s summit in the parts 1 and 2 in this continues blog.

Now that we have covered the 5 major summits we are not to forget the permanent sessions of the UN councils. The next step in order to understand how the world Government works we need to take a closer look at the key players. Those we cover in the next Blog.

So stay tuned to see how we are already infiltrated and indoctrinated in the World Government.

As stated in a previous post on the same subject, when a country achieves a certain level of economic growth – or, more precisely, rising levels of GDP per capita because economic growth as such can be the result of rising population levels – it is assumed that this reflects a higher average standard of living for its citizens. Economic growth is therefore seen as an important tool in the struggle against poverty (if you wonder why poverty is a human rights issue, go here). If a country is richer in general, the population will also be richer on average. On average meaning that GDP growth isn’t necessarily equally distributed over every member of the population. That is why GDP growth isn’t sufficient proof of poverty reduction. Separate measurements of poverty and inequality are necessary.  

So in theory, you can have GDP growth and increasing levels of poverty, on the condition that GDP growth is concentrated in the hands of a few. However, that’s generally not the case. GDP growth benefits to some extent many of the poor as well as the wealthy, which is shown by the strong correlation between poverty reduction and levels of GDP growth (always per capita of course). It’s no coincidence that a country such as China, which has seen strong GDP growth over the last decades, is also a country that has managed to reduce poverty levels substantially.  

Unfortunately, growth isn’t a silver bullet. Poverty is a complex problem, requiring many types of solutions. Promoting economic growth will do a lot of the work, but something more is required. In a new paper, Martin Ravaillon gives the example of China, Brazil and India. The levels of poverty reduction in these three countries doesn’t mirror the levels of economic growth. Although half of the world’s poor live in these three countries, in the last 25 years China has reduced its poverty level from 84% of the population in 1981 to just 16% in 2005 (see chart below). China is exceptional, but Brazil also did well, cutting its rate in half over the same period (8% of Brazilians still live on less than $1.25 a day). Regarding India, there are some problems with its statistics, but whichever statistic you use, there’s a clear reduction.  

poverty reduction in China, India and Brazil

(source)

Ravaillon points out that the intensity of poverty reduction was higher in Brazil than in India and China, despite lower GDP growth rates.  

Per unit of growth, Brazil reduced its proportional poverty rate five times more than China or India did. How did it do so well? The main explanation has to do with inequality. This (as measured by the Gini index, also marked on the chart) has fallen sharply in Brazil since 1993, while it has soared in China and risen in India. Greater inequality dampens the poverty-reducing effect of growth. (source)  

Which is rather obvious: higher levels of income equality means a better distribution of the benefits of growth. So the “pro-growth strategy” against poverty is important but not enough, and should be combined with Brazilian type anti-inequality measures (focus on education, healthcare and redistribution).

“When a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it,” wrote Vinoba Bhave. Oh really?

Like so many of the wonderful aphorisms spun by Gandhians about the nature of truth (and, principally, by Gandhi-ji himself) this inspiring line from Vinoba-ji is itself true only in the most metaphysical and therefore trivial sense. Truth, it seems, isn’t a requirement for a socially, politically, or spiritually stirring catch-phrase, even when the very subject is truth.

Naturally, we give guys like Gandhi-ji and Vinoba-ji the benefit of the doubt. They were not only among the most brilliant men of the twentieth century, but were impressive in both the purity of their motivations and clarity of their ethics. The moral certitude of the line quoted above would, however, feel quite a bit sketchier were if it were attributed to, say, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, or George W. Bush, all of whom might be equally plausible authors.

There are good reasons not to be too hard on Vinoba-ji. Sure, he failed to recognize that almost all the fun lies in the argument and very little of it resides in the ultimate truth of the matter. But fun wasn’t really his big thing. And we must readily acknowledge that it is convenient to be able to offer the occasional pronouncement without having to “show your work”, as though all of life were a high school math exam.

I spew this kind of unsubstantiated crap all the time. Sometimes I get called on it; often, when the things I say have the veneer (if not the deep resonance) of truth, I get away with it. Which brings us back to Vinoba-ji – and to our story.

I live half of each year in the country Gandhi-ji and his faithful lieutenant, Vinoba-ji, made. India fascinates and perplexes me; and I find nothing more confounding than the paucity of ethical (or even effective) political leadership in the place that gave the world these two great men. I am fond of underscoring the tragic irony of India’s useless political cesspool by questioning how this could happen in the country that gained independence through something as ballsy and original as the radical application of nonviolence and achieved the largest peaceful redistribution of wealth in the human experience.

This latter accomplishment, of course, refers to Vinoba-ji’s spectacular Bhoodan Land Gift Movement. Between 1951 and 1963, Vinoba-ji walked the length and breadth of India, asking landowners to allocate a portion of their holdings to be given to the landless poor. In that time, five million acres of land were given –- and the movement also established the basis for subsequent legislative land reform in India.

But, a friend asked, is there any documentation to support this assertion that the Bhoodan Movement represented “the largest peaceful redistribution of wealth in the human experience”?

Enter Rahul Brown, who is perhaps best known to readers of memestream as the auteur behind such films as The Law of Love and A Close Shave. Rahul came up with the following calculations to support the claim.

Consider the average price of agricultural land in India today: $4 / square foot, by one estimate. Land within 40 km of a city is presently worth Rs. 20-40 lakh (roughly $44.4K – $88.8K at current exchange) per acre, by another estimate.

Thus, in modern terms, Vinoba-ji’s 5 million acres might be worth:

5M acres = 217.8B square feet
217.8B square feet * $4 / sq. ft = $871B

or

somewhere between
5M acres * $44.4K / acre = $222B
and
5M acres * $88.8K / acre = $444B

Rahul was willing to be conservative. He wrote, “Assume that half of the land is totally worthless. (Is anything totally worthless?) That still places the modern value of the Bhoodan Movement at between $111B and $435B USD. This would seem to verify MBJ’s comment. By comparison, the Gates Foundation’s current endowment is $34B, and the entire foundation world’s assets are roughly at $290B.”

The long-suffering American wealthy might argue that their tax dollars make Vinoba-ji’s project look like chump-change. (People in other countries pay taxes too; but, in the unique American epistemology, if you don’t know that other countries exist, perforce they don’t — or at least couldn’t possibly matter.) Leave aside the question of whether the direct benefits conferred on taxpayers by the payment of tax disqualifies this as pure wealth redistribution; if the Tea Party class is even half as aggrieved as their ceaseless whining suggests, the taking of their assets by taxation sounds like coercion, deprivation of basic liberty, and barely sublimated violence – hardly peaceful.

That’s the argument I’d make in support of Vinoba-ji’s achievement. Truth worth arguing for.

By Dr. Tim Ball and Judi McLeod Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Obama Science Czar John Holdren is directly involved in CRU’s unfolding Climategate scandal. In fact, according to files released by a CEU hacker or whistleblower, Holdren is involved in what Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms “a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people”. “The files contain so much material that it is going to take some time t o put it all in context,” says Ball. “However, enough is already known to underscore their explosive nature. It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised.

“The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied.”

Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”.

I recently had an impromptu political conversation with a middle-aged man who told me he is a bus driver.  I did not know him, so I was surprised when he launched into a political discussion.  Expecting a partisan tone, I mainly listened.  I was surprised, however, at just how non-partisan…how distinctly American…he was.  He was bothered that the U.S. Government has been doing so much…spending so much…which he would have to pay for.   The distinctive American part came in his comment, “I just want to be left alone to make a living.”   Translation: I don’t want to be taxed more.  Subtext: I deserve what I make, and I don’t want to pay for anyone else.  Had he said, “I want my money,” I would have had a different reaction, but as he put his view, it sounded reasonable rather than greedy.  It struck me that his view is a home-grown American one…perhaps even “the” American political philosophy.   The autonomous individual who works hard for what he or she makes (which is in his case not exorbitant) and feels justified in wanting to keep it.  

You might leap to the conclusion as I initially did that he must be a Republican, but he told me he voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004.   This meant that what I was hearing was not a party platform but what a…shall I venture to say…”real American” believes and values.  No digressions or sidetracks, or personality politics (e.g., scandals). I was  given a chance to have a real political discussion.  I told him that while I understood his point, there are 30 million Americans without health-insurance.  Surely a matter of life and death, or even one’s health even if not immediately life-threatening, is worth redistribution.  Even as the bus driver correctly believes that he deserves his earnings, he benefits from living in a society, which entails some redistribution because of interdependencies.   More specifically, we are living in an industrial society, the institutionalism of which requires a safety net involving redistribution.  Although he didn’t seem to go along with my point, we both showed a (what I would term “healthy”) skepticism toward big government (against “Washington”) and big business (e.g., the insurance and banking industries).   For example, government ineptitude (e.g., H1N1 vaccine, Katrina) and the greediness of big business (e.g., pre-existing conditions).  Even though he and I did not agree on the need of governmental redistribution where one’s health is on the line, our agreement to oppose big government and big business strikes me as another part of what might be termed a distinctly American political philosophy. 

It occurs to me today that it would be nice were the political discussions aired by the media so focused on core political ideas (and differences).  Someone wants to keep his earnings while someone else favors redistribution for a sustenance safety-net.  Is there any agreement on the proper purposes of redistribution?  Basic food, shelter and health?  Or more, such as education and a job?  Somewhere, presumably, a line must be drawn.  Because the US is an empire-scale polity, the question is perhaps best decided at the republic or state level.  The majority in Texas is apt to have a different answer than the majority in Massachusetts.  Their respective public policies should reflect their distinct answers.  Perhaps even some of the large and diverse republics should be federal systems, with regions or provinces making some of the decisions for a better fit.  Getting better fits is better than one-size-fits-all where a Union that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific (and into the latter) is concerned. 

In any case, my own view on the substance of the political discussion is that it is unrealistic to live in an institutional society and not recognize that redistribution to cover basic needs of the citizens is necessary.  At my worse, I view the “I just want to be left alone to make a living” statement as selfish and greedy.  At my best, I view it as a distinctly American view of self-reliance, independence, and hard work that I admire even if I think it can no longer be the whole story.

M.C. Escher, hands drawing each other, symbolizing cooperation and mutual assistance

(source, and here is more M.C. Escher)

Economic rights are a subset of human rights. Put very briefly and simplistically, they are what could be called anti-poverty rights: for example, there’s a right to a certain standard of living, to social security, to work, to fair wages, to healthcare, housing etc.

It’s an understatement to say that there’s no universal consensus on these rights. Some say that these aren’t “real” human rights, even some who believe that poverty is a real problem (like Bill Easterly for example). Others say that these rights are useless or even harmful. Here are a few of the most common objections raised against economic rights, and my counter-objections.

The big state criticism

Economic rights are believed to require invasion of privacy and hence violations of an important freedom right (freedom rights such as free speech, privacy, habeas corpus etc. are usually distinguished from economic rights, political rights etc.). In order to verify whether people have a right to social security benefits or healthcare benefits, the state has to check people’s income (legal and illegal), their family composition, their health, their medical consumption, their lifestyle etc.

The assumption behind this criticism is that the state is the only or the main party responsible for the realization of economic rights. This is not the case. People in need can call on other people to help. And these other people have a moral responsibility to help. The duties of mutual assistance, charity and philanthropy point to a horizontal aspect of economic rights. People in need do not only have a vertical right to assistance, or a right directed at the state. Their economic rights can be addressed at their fellow citizens, and these have a duty to respect and protect these rights. It’s only when horizontal duties fail that the state should intervene. If we think of economic rights in this way, the dangers of an overbearing state don’t look that ominous anymore.

The rule that economic rights should – in part – be realized by citizens has another advantage as well: economic rights tend to foster community spirit and feelings of solidarity and belonging.

But this insistence on solidarity shouldn’t obscure the rule that people have a responsibility to help themselves and support themselves. This kind of independence is a part of freedom and an important good. Solidarity comes into play only when self-help is unsuccessful or impossible, and the state comes into play only when solidarity is unsuccessful or absent.

Different kinds of duties

Another objection: some say that economic rights, if they are rights at all, are radically different from “normal” human rights – also called freedom rights – and can therefore be given a lower priority (and maybe aren’t even real rights at all). Freedom rights imply duties of abstention or forbearance, whereas economic rights require duties of active help, involvement and intervention. In the case of violations of freedom rights, the remedy is easy: stop doing what you’re doing. In the case of violations of economic “rights”, the remedy is often very difficult if not impossible. If there is no work, no one can give it to me. If a country is poor, no one can raise the standard of living.

When freedom rights are violated, the victim can go to a court and a judge can force the violator to stop his or her actions. When economic rights are violated, it’s useless to go to a court. Not only isn’t there an obvious violator who can be stopped, there is often no one who can stop the violation from happening. Hence it looks like these rights are unenforceable and often have no remedy. Rather than rights, it seems that they are aspirations or policy goals, often long term policy goals.

However, there’s again an erroneous assumption underlying all of this. The distinction between the two types of duties – forbearance and active assistance – isn’t clean-cut. Freedom rights require active intervention by the state in order to enforce forbearance. They require an efficient judiciary and police force. For some states, this may be as unattainable as prosperity. In fact, it’s precisely because of a lack of prosperity that many states are unable to guarantee protection for freedom rights. Of course, the fact that economic rights are a prerequisite for freedom rights isn’t a sufficient reason to call them rights. But neither is it a reason not to call them rights.

Conversely, economic rights often require more forbearance than active intervention. Economic rights in China during the Great Leap Forward would have been better served by state forbearance. All types of human rights require forbearance and intervention. Perhaps economic rights generally need more intervention, but that is a difference in degree and not in essence, and it isn’t a sufficient reason to reject the label of “rights” for the aspirations inherent in economic rights.

Ought implies can

There’s another criticism of economic rights, related to the previous one. Economic rights are said to violate a general rule for rights: ought implies can; there can be no obligation to do something if there is no capability to do it. You cannot have a duty to help someone who’s drowning if you can’t swim yourself. Hence the person drowning doesn’t have a right to be assisted by you. The same is said to be true of economic rights which therefore aren’t real rights. If a poor country doesn’t have the resources to help its poor citizens, then these citizens don’t have a right to be helped.

However, we don’t follow the same logic in the case of freedom rights. Freedom rights also require resources, as we have seen. When a state doesn’t have the resources necessary to protect its citizens’ freedom rights, we usually don’t say that the citizens of such a state have lost their freedom rights. People have rights irrespective of the probability that they can be protected. Or better: the less people’s rights are protected, the more important it is that they have rights (see here). And anyway, violations of economic rights don’t occur because there are insufficient resources but because of an unequal distribution of resource, nationally or internationally. So the “can” part of “ought implies can” isn’t as fanciful as the critics of economic rights believe.

Economic rights are superfluous and useless

This is supposed to be the case because free markets should automatically produce a certain standard of living for everyone that is high enough to realize the goals inherent in economic rights. Free trade, deregulated markets and low taxes cause profits to rise, which in turn means more investments, which in turn means more and better jobs and higher incomes. All boats rise on a rising tide.

Now, it’s my belief that history – and especially recent history – has shown that this isn’t enough. Free markets are beneficial, but they don’t automatically provide high standards of living for everyone.

Economic rights are harmful and counterproductive

This is a stronger version of the “useless” argument. Economic rights are believed to require a big state (see above), high taxes and intrusive regulation. All of this hinders the economy and the creation of wealth. As a result of economic rights, there is less wealth to redistribute, and economic rights therefore undo what they want to achieve.

They are also harmful in another way: they violate freedom rights, especially the right to privacy and the right to property (because of redistribution). We’ve already seen that we can mitigate this risk when we include horizontal duties. But even if this risk is real, why should property and privacy automatically rank higher than the absence of poverty? If we assume that economic rights are real rights, then it’s not surprising to see that they can contradict other rights. Contradictions between human rights are very common. The right to privacy is often in conflict with free speech for example. Sometimes one right has to be limited for the sake of another. So why should this be a problem when dealing with economic rights?

Of course, one shouldn’t dramatize. Economic rights and freedom rights are generally not incompatible. On the contrary, they are interdependent. Freedom for the poor often doesn’t mean a whole lot. But, on the other hand, the squeaky hinge gets the oil: poverty has to have a voice if it is to be eliminated.

1. 
2. I’m pretty sure I can legally redistribute this under the fair use provision of the copyright act, but just in case wordpress takes it offline, download it and re-up it in ya own time

A.J. Jacobs is doing some interesting things.  He’s the guy who read the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica, and who tried to live by all the Biblical rules for a year.  And now he’s doing a Guinea Pig Project, with a book about the various undertakings he’s gotten into as a human guinea pig.  Here’s an interview with him that I enjoyed:

http://www.smithmag.net/memoirville/2009/09/10/interview-aj-jacobs-author-of-the-guinea-pig-diaries/

Today I read an article by him in the December issue of O Magazine.  He was talking about tithing.  Listen in:  ”Since I’m a writer, I also tell myself this: one out of every ten words belongs to someone deserving.  In that previous sentence, it was the word deserving.”

He’s clever, and I’d definitely like to meet him.  Heck, I’d like to BE him.  I like these guinea pig things. My jubilee blog here IS one of those guinea pig things (“Hey… what if I actually lived out jubilee for a year.”).

But beyond being entertained, I was also touched and challenged.  If I’m going to tithe on my writing income, then every 10th word belongs to the poor, every 10th minute does, every 10th thought, every 10th project.

I’m a Christian, and I believe in the priesthood of all believers and that the work I do every day is God’s work (in that it should be honoring to Him, dedicated to His service and in line with His principles).  And then I should give 10% away, as a start.  Not legalistic shoulds, shoulds that come from gratitude.  But I don’t often think of part of my actual workday or part of my actual output as belonging to others.

Jacobs gave me something to think about, and I’m also going to go read all his books.  Though maybe not the whole Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Busboys & Poets (the original location on 14th) here in DC used to have a trash ball machine next to the bathrooms.  And my kids and I were customers.  Maybe we were the only ones… perhaps that was the problem.

But I loved it.

The idea was that you could pay a quarter and get one of those cool, hermetically sealed capsules with a piece of trash in it.   That’s it.  Not convinced?  Well, I always figured the money went to something good, since the machine took up valuable real estate in the middle of an activism-focused bookstore.  I doubt the owners’ kids were getting Gucci loafers with the proceeds.

And here’s the other cool thing: sometimes the trash was, well, not so trashy.  Perhaps 1 out of 9,734,242 times you might get a dollar in your trash ball.  Or a homemade, hand-written fortune or message, or an actual comic out of a Bazooka gum wrapper (but alas, not the gum, which had long ago been chewed up and stuck to someone’s shoe out on U Street).

The possibility was the thrilling part.  Sort of like Las Vegas, only cheaper.

And I always felt virtuous buying trash.  Because just think about it… the trash would have been in a landfill otherwise, or it would have been litter.  Never mind that it became one of those after I had the thrill of paying for it and then opening the case with my teeth.  It’s the idea.

Well, maybe you “had to be there.”  And if you had, my beloved trash ball machine still might be there too.

I read an interesting article today in The Washington Post called “Grappling with a wealth of guilt: Young heirs seek moral balance between inherited windfalls, social responsibilities.”   Here’s the Post article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111902137.html

It resonated with me because it raised a topic that I’ve written about here.  Here’s the line that got me: “Burke Stansbury, 33, a nonprofit administrator who inherited $1 million in stock three years ago, opened up about how his newborn’s breathing problems were forcing him to reconsider how much of his fortune he should use for his family and how much to give away.”

OF COURSE he is thinking about this.  And any parent would.  And no one would fault him (or should, in my opinion).

I wrote two posts about this; here’s a link to help you find one, which can lead you to the other: http://jubileeyear.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/children-are-the-exception/

I was taking exception with my own inclination to use money to spoil my children (who do not want to be spoiled, thank you very much), money that could otherwise truly solve problems or address needs for others.  This is a totally different thing than using our own money to meet the serious needs of our own children.  Like Stansbury would naturally be inclined to do.

So wouldn’t it be cool if we would use our big bucks to help other people’s kids with their breathing problems? Stansbury sounds like the sort of guy who would.

This sure relates to the notion that we don’t have adequate healthcare in America until everyone has adequate healthcare.  I want my government to use the wealth it has to take care of everybody’s newborns, and toddlers, and teenagers, and parents and grandparents.

We’ll probably all need to give twice to see such things happen.  And we should.

Hi all!
All of the material on this web site was leaked by a hacker who got all the contents of Jeremy Shum’s hard disk. Please redistribute it before somebody takes it off! It is really valuable if you want top get high distinction for all ya subjects lol!

For more information about jeremy shum, just google “jeremy shum“

Thanks!

The NBA has been playing all year, regional’s have been played and it’s time for the national championship. The players have all put their hearts and souls in the game, striving for the national championship.

Teams line up on the floor and are down to the last half, the score is 68 to 73 the east is in the lead. Sweat is running off the teams members faces as they press for the win and the east opens with a three point shot, the west is credited with the score.

Everyone sits in horror as they see the west get credit for the score earned by the east.

Players are in shock as they race for the the other end of the court for a blocked shot and the ball is returned by the east. Again with a two point shot, and the score clock again credits the west for the score.

The score is now even, 73 all. The announcer explains that the score was given to the west because they had a lower score and it was not fair that the east should be given more as the west has worked just as hard as the east did therefore it is only right that the west is credited for the basket.

By now the east is beginning to loose interest and the west gets the ball and walks down court and a player from the east reaches in for the ball and is called for a fowl. The east has already made two shots, it is time for the west to make a shot so they move to the fowl line under the new rules of equal opportunity.

First fowl shot scores and the score is held pending the second shot. When the second shot fell, the two baskets was divide equally between the east and the west.

Players begin to protest.

Basket ball has just entered political correctness of redistribution of points and the players now recognize that it does not matter how hard they play, there is no rewards for their efforts. No one on either team has came this far just to call it a draw, and decide to quit, game over and start to quit when they are advised they will not as it is the spirit of the game, not who wins or loses.

The sweat dries up as no one is interested in scoring, or even moving forward as the police close in to assure no players leave the field as they sit down and start passing the ball back and forth between the teams to keep the shot clock from running out, and the game clock from stopping. All the player now, realize that they cannot leave until the clock is run down and it matters not what they do, they cannot win or get ahead.

However, those that govern have no intentions to see production drop off and call in the taskmasters, with whips snapping and blood from the back of several players begins to flow. Without rewards and competition for motivation, punishment is dealt out to force the players to continue.

The rules have changed. Freedom has died.

Punishment is dealt out to all that resist. Remember the fine and jail sentence for all that don’t purchase government mandated health care approved of by Obama? That is what slavery socialism is all about. That is your introduction to the future as Obama and company envision it.

Socialism is just a fancy word for slavery. 

That’s the view from all that already live in this slavery,

Duane