How To Products For Health, Well Being, Success, Tinnitus Relief, music. Complete Affiliate Toolbox Provided! Paul Tobey’s How To Products. -

Is war with Iran inevitable, even imminent? Or is peace at hand? From the public diplomacy of the administration, either conclusion may be reached. Consider. “West Offers Iran ‘Refreshed’ Deal,” ran the headline in the May 3 Washington Times. The story described an offer to Iran, agreed to by all five members of the Security Council - the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - of a sweetened grand bargain, if Tehran will suspend its enrichment of uranium. Blessing the offering in London was Condi Rice. Details will not be made public, but the offer is said to include Western aid to Iran for a civilian nuclear program, a light water reactor and a five-year stock of enriched uranium held for Iran by the International Atomic Energy Agency. America’s contribution would be support for Iran’s admission to the World Trade Organization, a conference to discuss regional security in the Gulf, a U.S. offer to sell Iran spare parts for its U.S.-built civilian aircraft and a beginning of the lifting of three decades of U.S. sanctions. News of this offer, plus the relaxed mood in Washington, which is utterly unlike the tense atmosphere prior to March 2003, suggests that war with Iran is far from the mind of this city. But to take the warnings and threats of the civilian and military leaders of this administration at face value would lead one to conclude the opposite - that war with Iran is indeed inevitable, and probably soon. Consider. Last month, Gen. David Petraeus was asked by Joe Lieberman, “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” “It certainly is. … That is correct,” answered the general. The next day, Petraeus testified, “Unchecked, the ’special groups’ pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.” Petraeus has since been promoted to command of all U.S. forces in the region. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, known as an opponent of war on Iran, followed Petraeus, accusing Tehran of being “hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons.” Last week, Gates was out front again. “What the Iranians are doing is killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq.” Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, is now also pounding the war drum. Iran’s “irresponsible influence,” its support of terror and its pursuit of atomic weapons, he said last week, is creating a “perfect nightmare” for the region. The Pentagon, said the chairman, is planning for “potential military … action” because of Iran’s “increasingly lethal and malign influence.” “It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capacity,” Mullen declared. A second U.S. carrier just entered the Persian Gulf. CBS reports that a target list of U.S. military planners includes the headquarters of the Quds Force and plants where Iran produces enhanced IEDs and the rockets used against the Green Zone. The network also reports that the State Department has begun drafting an ultimatum. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmal Khalilzad has chimed in: “Iran and Syria must stop the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq, and their malign interference in Iraq.” Iraqi Maj. Gen. Qasim Atta says 700 rockets and mortars have been fired at Coalition forces and the Green Zone, and most of the “Katyusha and Grad rockets and smart roadside bombs” were Iranian-made. The U.S. military is preparing a dossier on Iran’s role in the Iraq war. In the Landon Lecture at Kansas State, CIA Director Michael Hayden declared, “It … is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to the highest level … to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.” That day, State designated Iran the “most significant” and “most active” state sponsor of terror on earth. From the White House to State to the Pentagon to CIA, the Bush administration is now singing from the same song sheet: Iran’s Quds Force, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, is arming and directing “special groups” to kill U.S. soldiers and prevent a U.S. victory. Is the White House rattling sabers to prod Iran into talks? Perhaps. But the administration has also painted itself, and us, into a corner with the war talk. And there are only three ways out. The first is that Iran halts the attacks, ends its intervention and negotiates on the six-nation offer. The second is that Iran rejects the deal, refuses to stop the attacks and U.S. air strikes begin. The third is that Bush is bluffing and goes home railing against an axis-of-evil nation killing American soldiers, having done nothing. With Israel, the Israeli lobby, the neocons and Dick Cheney insisting on air strikes, and even Hillary Clinton talking about Iran being “obliterated,” the last course would seem the least probable. We are likely headed either for negotiations with Iran or war, after Bush returns from the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel’s birth. “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war,” said Winston Churchill in 1954, whose career often contradicted his wise counsel. Technorati Tags: Iran, War, Neocons, Foreign Policy, Petraeus Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter

Unmistakably Laweless
“Laws, good people don’t need ‘em, and bad people don’t obey ‘em, so what good are they?” –Utah Phillips Aside from the sheer black and white philosophy of that statement, the old folksinger brings up a good point. What good are laws, anyway? Do they really serve a purpose in society? Some say that civilized society is impossible without laws. Do laws create order or impose harmful restrictions that devalue society? Many say laws create order, and do no harm. Let’s take a look at how society creates, abandons, and lives with law, order, and the justice system. And let me take the time to explain to you why all of this lawfulness is simply not necessary. Say what? “Did you just try and tell me society can thrive without laws?” Yes, I did. You see, the average person uses history, and the overwhelming abundance of law as their rock solid argument for the benefits of it, as well as the reason for it’s introduction into human society. I would like to argue however, that there is a difference between Law and guidelines or “rules”. The former is what we are accustomed to in modern day society on a broad scale. It is “Law and Order”, it is “Crime and Punishment” it is a formidable justice system designed to take once reasonably resolved issues and relegated it to largely detached groups known and lawyers, and judges to determine one’s fate. The latter is what we know as “house rules”. We are all quite accustomed to this concept, right in our own little nuclear villages known as our homes, and families. No one ever seems to connect the adaptability of “house rules” on a slightly larger scale to create a world of both order and stability without the nasty side effects of a State driven hierarchy. Side effects? Yes, that nasty habit of power developing out of the need for law and order. Power is corruptible, ergo, hierarchies are also inherently corruptible. The two, of course, feed on one another and cannot really be separated. Corruption of course leads to oppression, and oppression leads to slavery, and well you get the idea. Laws also have a nasty habit of breeding into ever more constrictive policies, thus restricting humans from living even their own private life they way that they see fit. Besides, laws don’t even work. Laws don’t actually prevent very much at all. The threat of legal action looming over society’s head does very little in the way of keeping people out of trouble. What it does do, is exact revenge for those who do not wish to conform to the laws of a society, no matter how arbitrary. If law worked, we would have a nearly crime free society. Instead we are inundated with crime, even more so than before. Countries with liberal laws tend to have less crime over all. One reason for that is the mere fact that many behaviors are not criminalized so that people who are behaving in ways that don’t affect society aren’t clogging up the entire system, and preventing bigger problems from being rectified. There is another reason that I will address in just a moment. Laws only react. Reactionary techniques have failed mankind on almost every level, for the most part. Specifically with regards to the prevention of anything. Do laws harm society? It is my opinion that they do. Give me a minute to make my argument before you run off screaming about silly Anarchists and their wild ideas. While the general premise of establishing some sort of ethical code is a commendable ideal, the forcible institution of said ethical codes based on the opinion of a few and possibly even the arbitrary can and does harm society. First and foremost, the Law as we know it requires a force of people given the authority to decide what is right and what is wrong without the consensus of the people subjugated to that power. As I have mentioned, power is corruptible, as we can see in our legal system. The power to control these laws on a local level means giving enormous amounts of power to men and women who are just as corruptible as the next man. This kind of power holding and corruption is harmful to society. Just as the abuse of a person by their superior is abhorrent on a personal level - so too is it abhorrent on a larger societal level. The second reason is because the Laws are ever increasingly restrictive. So much so that it delves into your personal life, and personal decisions that have little effect on anyone but yourself. By criminalizing otherwise harmless behavior the “system” is then overburdened with petty crimes and complaints and has to use what little resources it has on that, rather than on larger, more serious problems in society. Third, it focuses on reaction and punishment, rather than prevention and reward. If we, as a society, could get our act together and actually teach people why we should behave in certain ways, rather than simply telling everyone what will happen if we don’t, we could feasibly have a self sustaining crime free society. That of course, requires a great deal of personal responsibility however. Speaking of personal responsibility… Although many people disagree with me on this point, it’s my point so I’ll make it if I want to. Laws take the responsibility of behavior out of the people’s hands, thus creating a black hole of personally developed ethical and moral codes beyond some very basic codes of character. It is, as some people call it, the “Nanny State”. The governmental hierarchy that establish laws across any given country begin to take on the role of a parental figure, dictating what isn’t acceptable behavior, and threating punishment if we don’t behave ourselves. (This isn’t the part most people disagree with, however). I personally see this increasing Nanny State as the reason and the need for more laws, and heavier restrictions. You know, to keep us from hurting ourselves, as it were. As the Nanny State continues to tell us what we cannot do, for our own good, it fails to tell us what we can do. It lures us into a false sense of safety, many times making life more difficult, and even more dangerous. Many people have adopted an ideology that is “If it isn’t against the law, it must be OK to do”. When pondering a situation they ask “Is it against the law? No, OK then, I guess we can do it”. It seems to me that I rarely see people actually examining the situation, and behaving in a way that is beneficial to society, regardless of what the law says. As more and more people adopt this ideology, they continue to do things which are without any sense or thought, they get hurt, and thus create a new need for a new law. We are tainting the learning curve here and creating a vicious cycle. “Well the company never told me I couldn’t use this product this way…”. “Well, gee I didn’t know it wasn’t safe to do that, there was no law saying I couldn’t….” There oughtta be a law! As fun as that is to say, the unfortunate truth is that many people see other people doing dumb things, and they say it, and sooner or later, wouldn’t you know, there is a new law, or regulation addressing that same idiotic behavior. What was my point again? Oh yes - by continually telling people what they cannot do, and creating more laws when people think they can do something they really ought not do, we are dumbing down society, and all but relegating personal responsibility to the far reaching corners of the globe. This is very harmful for society. Responsible behavior is much easier to lose, than it is to regain. So what then, you ask. Do we dive into a world of animal instincts? No, of course not. True “lawlessness” is not possible in modern day society for the very reason I mentioned above. It’s like a drug, we can’t seem to live without it. It could be possible, with an awful lot of work and a serious weening period, but we would descend into chaos if we tried to go cold turkey. It can work however. Remember those “house rules’ I mentioned in the beginning? Yes, you can use those, and begin to recreate or reestablish a society that is ordered and communal, lawless yet safe. Since many people think that it is the law that separates us form the animal kingdom, I would like to say one thing: Animals don’t have laws, but they do have “house rules” and the animal kingdom does seem to be doing better than humans, at the moment. What does separate us from the animal kingdom is our ability to learn, and evolve and progress through those evolutions in rapid fashion. Humans adapt to new situations very quickly, and have a creative and ethical streak that when combined with some old fashioned common sense should be able to moderate themselves. At the very least. We, the individuals who make up society, are selling ourselves short and underestimating our ability to do the right thing every time we make, or support a Law. Throughout history we have been told, sold, and forced into believing we cannot live without it to the point that the notion of necessity has been bred right into us. Don’t believe me? Take a look at remote tribes who function in a manner that is so foreign to us Westerners that we call them “primitive” or we pity them in some way. Yet the are surviving, living, evolving, and create worlds to live in that are nearly free of “crime” justice systems, regulations, and even gender and race barriers. They live fulfilled lives without everything we have right here, right now, and seem to be happier and safer because of it. In many ways, they are better off than we are. Stop selling yourselves short. You decide what is right for you.Technorati Tags: Laws, Society, Responsibility, Law, Government, Nanny State, Liberty If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter Anok Kropotkin [send her email] is a freelance writer and novice investigator. She’s a self-described political junkie, who feels that the voices of average Americans need to be heard. So she rants, raves, and writes. Visit her website at http://identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com

Government Responsible for High Gas Prices
In the past few months, American workers, consumers, and businesses have experienced a sudden and dramatic rise in gasoline prices. In some parts of the country, gasoline costs as much as $4 per gallon. Some politicians claim that the way to reduce gas prices is by expanding the government’s power to regulate prices and control the supply of gasoline. For example, the House of Representatives has even passed legislation subjecting gas stations owners to criminal penalties if they charge more than a federal bureaucrat deems appropriate. Proponents of these measures must have forgotten the 1970s, when government controls on the oil industry resulted in gas lines and shortages. It was only after President Reagan lifted federal price controls that the gas lines disappeared. Instead of imposing further restraints on the market, Congress should consider reforming the federal policies that raise gas prices. For example, federal and state taxes can account for as much as a third of what consumers’ pay at the pump. The Federal Government’s boom-and-bust monetary policy also makes consumers vulnerable to inflation and to constant fluctuations in the prices of essential goods such as oil. It is no coincidence that oil prices first became an issue shortly after President Nixon unilaterally severed the dollar’s last link to gold. Basic economics says that when government restricts the supply of a good, the price will increase. Yet Congress continues to reject simple measures that could increase the supply of oil. For example, Congress refuses to allow reasonable, environmentally sensitive, offshore drilling. Congress also refuses to remove the numerous regulatory hurdles that add to the prohibitively expensive task of constructing new refineries. Building a new refinery requires billions of dollars in capital investment. It can take several years just to obtain the necessary federal permits. Even after the permits are obtained, construction of a refinery may still be delayed or even halted by frivolous lawsuits. It is no wonder that there has not been a new refinery constructed in the United States since 1976. Last year, in order to provide the American people with relief from high oil prices, I introduced the Affordable Gas Price Act (HR 2415). This legislation protects the American people from gas price spikes by suspending the federal gas tax whenever the national average gas price exceeds $3.00 per gallon. The Affordable Gas Price Act also expands the supply of gasoline by repealing the federal moratorium on offshore drilling, including in the ANWR reserve in Alaska . HR 2415 also provides tax incentives and protection from nuisance lawsuits for those seeking to build new refineries. Finally, HR 2415 authorizes a federal study on the link between our nation’s monetary policy and the price of oil. The free market can meet the American people’s demand for a reliable supply of gasoline as long as government does not distort the market through excessive taxation and regulation. Therefore, Congress should lower prices gas prices by pursuing an agenda of low taxes, regulatory relief, and sound money by passing legislation such as my Affordable Gas Act.Technorati Tags: Ron Paul, Gas Prices, Oil, Government, Interventionism, Free Market, Affordable Gas Price Act, HR 2415 Ron Paul is a republican member of Congress from Texas. If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter

Freedom from Moral Posturing
Politicians claim moral authority by implying that their decisions are dictated by moral principle - and by assuming that we can’t let everyone decide for himself what is moral and what isn’t. That leaves only the politicians to decide what is right and what is wrong. So they claim a license to use government to compel us to do everything that’s right and to forbid us to do everything that’s wrong. But the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to tell us how to live our lives. It gives the politicians no authority to make your financial decisions or your personal decisions. That doesn’t stop them, however. Democratic and Republican politicians treat us as dysfunctional children who need the attention of a strict government to decide what we can have, see, hear, and read, and what we can say publicly. Neither of the two major parties recognizes any limits on the government’s authority over your life. Of course, all politicians like to pose as supporters of your family. But their “support” really means making your decisions for you: Democrats invoke the “children” on behalf of every new government boondoggle and regulation - whether to censor the Internet or put a V-chip in your television set. Republicans claim they will restore family values by stamping out drug use or posting the 10 Commandments in schools. Somehow they think you can’t instill family values in your children unless the politicians apply force. None of the politicians believes you’re capable of deciding for yourself what’s best for your family. If they really trusted you, they’d repeal the income tax - so you’d have the wherewithal to make your own family decisions, so you could afford to send your child to schools that teach what you want your child to learn, and so you could afford to have one parent at home to supervise your children according to your values. Inspiration for What? America’s politicians lament the decline in moral standards. They tell us we must raise our sights above our own shabby little lives, and give ourselves to a greater cause. They say we must practice the politics of compassion, that we must use our resources to help others, that we must solve the problems of racism, poverty, and inequality. The oratory soars - but goes nowhere. The politician really means that you must give up your concern for your family and whatever else you care for - areas where you might actually make a difference - and support whatever causes he’s hitched his political wagon to. He means you must stop demonstrating your compassion in ways that make sense to you, and instead give him more money to divert to programs - government or private - that have the political pull to capture his allegiance. He means you must fight racism, poverty, and inequality not through your own kindness and decency, but by giving him more power and money to reward the squeaky wheels - the unappeasable organizations and grievance mongers who live off the ills they bemoan. WHOSE STANDARDS WILL PREVAIL? When a politician promises to raise moral standards in America, it’s easy to think he’s referring to the moral standards in which you believe. You think you’ve found someone who’s going to use the force of government to impose your moral values on others. But when government acts, the values imposed won’t be yours and they won’t be mine. Moral values will be set by whoever has the most political power - people like Teddy Kennedy or Newt Gingrich. Is that what you want to impose on others? And don’t forget that the force of government will be used to impose those values on you as well. No one is going to exempt you from the “Make America a Moral Place Act [of 2001].” Even if you have some reason to believe Congress will legislate the moral rules you like, those rules are only temporary. The next Congress will go off in its own direction. SET THEM FREE The entire effort to wed morality and politics is based on the assumption that there are immoral or irresponsible people who can’t be bent into shape unless the government does it. Yes, there are people who won’t act responsibly. There are people who have no regard for the consequences of their own acts. There are people who seem to be incapable of behaving wisely or benevolently. Politicians exploit these people to justify rigid controls on your life. Because some people won’t plan for their old age, you must be forced into Social Security. Because some people will do funny things after looking at dirty pictures on the Internet, your access to the Internet must be restricted. So what should we do about people who won’t take responsibility for their own actions? I believe the answer is simple: Set them free. Give them the freedom to make their own decisions, to face the consequences of their own acts, to see for themselves what their actions do to others, and how others respond to them. Only free people have an incentive to be virtuous. Only people who bear the consequences of their own acts will care about those consequences. A free society rewards virtue and punishes irresponsibility. Government does just the opposite. What do we do about people who might not plan for their own retirement? Set them free. Let each person know that his future depends largely on his own actions. If younger people see some older people who haven’t planned ahead and have to rely on charity, the young will be more likely to provide for the future. Today when someone plans poorly, the only consequence younger people see is a call for more government. What do we do about people who are insensitive to other people? Set them free. Let other people shun them or respect them for what they do. Let them feel the results of being civil or uncivil. Freedom & Responsibility It is often said that freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin - that if you want freedom, you must first accept the responsibility that goes with it. The truth is simpler. Freedom and responsibility aren’t two sides of the same thing; one isn’t a precondition for the other. They are the same thing. Freedom is responsibility. Responsibility is experiencing the consequences of your own acts - not the consequences of others’ acts or making others pay for what you do. And that’s what freedom is. Without government to force others to pay for your pleasures or mistakes, and without forcing you to pay for what others do, you are a free, responsible human being. Freedom and responsibility are inseparably linked - not because they should be, but because they are. Responsibility accompanies freedom, whether or not you want it to. We are told America must have a moral revival before we can have greater freedom - that people must be educated to be responsible before they can be free. This puts the cart before the horse. If we expect a government program to make people responsible, we will wait forever. We don’t need a moral revival, we don’t need politicians making moral decisions for us. We need do only one thing to induce people to act more responsibly: Set them free.Technorati Tags: Politicians, Morality, Constitution, Democrats, Republicans, Freedom, Liberty, Responsibility If you enjoyed this post, please make a donation to help keep this website active: Click Here for the Free Populist party Newsletter Originally published at HarryBrowne.org and excerpted from The Great Libertarian Offer. Harry Browne (RIP 1933-2006), the author of Why Government Doesn’t Work and many other books, was the Libertarian party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, a co-founder of DownsizeDC, and the Director of Public Policy for the American Liberty Foundation. See his website. More Articles from Harry Browne

Midi Utilities.
selling services and software for musicians. Midi Utilities. - Mudcrutch (Bonus Track Version) by Mudcrutch Learn To Play Electronic Keyboards. Learn To Play Electronic Keyboards is a course of 18 keyboard lessons including how to read sheet music. Learn To Play Electronic Keyboards. - Make fast money Now! […]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 at 6:20 am and is filed under Party. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.