Community Chest

How can we, as Americans, recover from the current spiral in newly created federal reserve notes, low interest rates that encourage debt, not saving, and the military industrial complex putting our troops into situations to breed hatred, local strife, and as on 9/11, result in harm?

How can we recover from the boomers' loss of social security retirement to inflation even as they've been lied to about a trust fund?  How can Medicare, after Boomers have added 40% to the number of seniors by 2015, stay solvent paying for $50,000 knee replacements twice per patient?

How can we use community efforts, de-funding the bulk of the federal government, to help those left behind?  Can we create Community Chests close to the needy and avoid the strings of federal government involvement?

------------------------

A couple decades ago when I was quite naive, I wrote a proposal for the Omaha Housing Authority.  My suggestion would eliminated offices, duplication of overhead and clerical workers around the city that administer the goals of the multitude of federal programs.

I'm sure it quickly hit the trash.

I suggested to OHA that they consolidate their grants and programs and buy a modest home near K-6 schools.  Those in need of assistance would be required to bring their children and spend 40 hours a week in the home.  Their school age children would attend the nearby school.  Rather than chasing down recipients, the Visiting Nurses drug test, give inoculations, and provide child health care advice at the community owned home.  A visiting nutritionist from the University designs healthy menus to be prepared.  A neighbor donates time to help prepare meals, another teaches sewing or knitting and later rocks the babies while the [mostly] single moms, looked for work or worked at the community home or school.

In other words, for at least 40 hours a week, the children are fed and cared for in a safe environment away from the streets, crime and danger.

Reading skill tests would assess kids and parents alike and the Spalding method used to start at the beginning to teach reading comprehension for those who have fallen behind.

Work at the Community home depends on actions.  If a parent brought their children on time and was dressed appropriately, their job assignment may be learning to search for dead-beat-dads on the Internet.  They learn computer and office skills which would help in a job search.  If they came late, slovenly or inappropriately dressed, they might instead rake the playground at the school or clean the bathrooms. Children would never face the embarrassment of being dirty or inappropriately dressed at school, as those conditions would be corrected before they left for school.

Moms would be encouraged to select a roommate and work shifts to pay rent helping them become more independent.  Every step toward independence would be encouraged.  Food would be prepared for recipients to take home for the weekend. No funds would change hands.  In order to marry or live with another, they would have to prove financial responsibility for themselves and for the family.  Too many today move in with a mom on welfare and contribute little or nothing to the household expenses.

A volunteer can take parents to garage sales shopping for kids clothes.  On the weekend, a kids movie might be rented, shown at the community house with popcorn.  No one is allowed inside the home without an appropriate ID.

Those who found a job might use the home for daycare, contributing some of their income, until they are on their feet.  Social workers and early childhood educators work at the home, too, charging for daycare, including overnight for shift workers, to buy food and essentials for those without jobs.

Sending checks for disability or unemployment from government should end.  Private disability insurance is available and unemployment in the States is paid for by the employers, not the government.  For all who fall through the cracks, the community chest becomes their benefactor.

Merkel isn't buying excuses

Merkel isn't buying excuse that recording her phone was unintentional. She is one smart COOKIE!
Remember years ago, the G12 demanded she 'stimulate' the economy to help save Greece! She declined and which nation in Europe again has seen an improving economic outlook? Answer: Germany
She said it all in a PBS interview, (paraphrasing:)
Since Luther, Germans have known how to succeed. We work hard, we save and we live thriftily.
Considering that Germany has recovered from the loss of two World Wars and reunification, I'd say she is onto something. With interest rates at under 1%, way below inflation, we turned our backs on savings years ago. We replaced bank loan officers paid by the bank to protect our assets with brokers paid by percentage and had no interest in whether the loan could or would be repaid. Bush thought the poor would grow the economy if he cut their taxes. He raised child credits and EITC until almost 50% paid no federal income taxes by 2008. They didn't save, invest or start businesses, though, they could barely pay the cable bill. And Bernanke just kept manufacturing new money which of course mainly benefits the 1%. Now Bernanke is replaced by a woman, and I have to say this, sorry, she may be left to 'clean up' in the end.
The Brits lost the world currency, their pound sterling; so it can happen. We are not immune. Its the middle class and poor who are paying the piper, sadly.
The money and power, the lobbyists, and the shakers and movers mostly live in ‘This Town,’ by Mark Leibovich. I recommend it.

"The Lakota have an even stronger concept than tribal sovereignty, namely personal sovereignty. I have been told by the author of “Atlantis“, Robert Klassen, that “tawamiciya” is a word in the Sioux language, meaning to belong to oneself, free of other men." Michael S. Rozeff

Society

Society's Choices vs Top Down Rules and Force

President Obama, recently said; "I think it's important to understand that you can't have 100 percent security and then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

I'd like to deconstruct the last sentence. Who makes the choices? He implies its 'society' but its not us making those choices and none of the choices will be voluntary. Society is voluntary or it once was....

from Nana's 1950 unabridged dictionary, 'society' meant:

1. Companionship and association with one's fellows, usually, friendly and intimate intercourse; company.
2. One's friends and companions collectively.

While today, a web search came up with, 'society' meaning:

1. The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. 
2. The community of people living in a particular region and having shared customs, laws, and organizations. 

Who benefits when we think of the government as a 'society' of voluntary interactions and not the power to exercise authority directing and controlling our actions? I think we know the answer.

Human Action A Threatise on Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

Human Action: A Threatise on Economics
by Ludwig Von Mises

FOREWORD TO 4TH EDITION 

Mises’ contribution was very simple, yet at the same time extremely profound. He pointed out that the whole economy is the result of what individuals do. Individuals act, choose, cooperate, compete, and trade with one another. In this way Mises explained how complex market phenomena develop. Mises did not simply describe economic phenomena — prices, wages, interest rates, money, monopoly and even the trade cycle — he explained them as the outcomes of countless conscious, purposive actions, choices, and preferences of individuals, each of whom was trying as best as he or she could under the circumstances to attain various wants and ends and to avoid undesired consequences. Hence the title Mises chose for his economic treatise, Human Action. Thus also, in Mises’ view, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was explainable on the basis of logic and utilitarian principles as the outcome of the countless actions of individuals.
Sprinkled throughout Mises’ scholarly and erudite explanations of market operations are many colorful descriptions of economic phenomena. For instance, on the difference between economic and political power: “A ’chocolate king’ has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers ... are free to stop patronizing his shops. He loses his ’kingdom’ if the consumers prefer to spend their pennies elsewhere.” (p. 272) On why people trade: “The inhabitants of the Swiss Jura prefer to manufacture watches instead of growing wheat. Watchmaking is for them the cheapest way to acquire wheat. On the other hand the growing of wheat is the cheapest way for the Canadian farmer to acquire watches.” (p. 395) For Mises a price is a ratio arrived at on the market by the competitive bids of consumers for money on the one hand and some particular good or service on the other. A government may issue decrees, but “A government can no more determine prices than a goose can lay hen’s eggs.” (p. 397)
In Mises’ view, the inequality of men was the beginning of peaceful interpersonal social cooperation and the source of all the advantages it brings: “The liberal champions of equality under the law were fully aware of the fact that men are born unequal and that it is precisely their inequality that generates social cooperation and civilization. Equality under the law was in their opinion not designed to correct the inexorable facts of the universe and to make natural inequality disappear. It was, on the contrary, the device to secure for the whole of mankind the maximum of benefits it can derive from it. . . . Equality under the law is in their eyes good because it best serves the interests of all. It leaves it to the voters to decide who should hold public office and to the consumers to decide who should direct production activities.” (pp. 841-842)
Mises’ 1949 comments on Social Security and government debt read as if they had been written yesterday: “Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national social security institution. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU. If the government spends the hundred dollars for current expenditures, no additional capital comes into existence, and no increase in the productivity of labor results. The government’s IOU is a check drawn upon the future taxpayer. In 1970 a certain Peter may have to fulfill the government’s promise although he himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that. Paul in 1940 saved one hundred dollars.... The trumpery argument that the public debt is no burden because ’we owe it to ourselves’ is delusive. The Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe it to the Pauls of 1940.... The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying in their wonderful achievement, social security.”(pp. 847- 848)
In the “Foreword to the Third Edition” of Human Action Mises mentioned the Italian and Spanish translations of this book. Since then it has been translated by Tao-Ping Hsia into Chinese (1976/7), by Raoul Audouin into French (1985), by Donald Stewart, Jr., into Portugese (1990), and by Toshio Murata into Japanese (1991). Its German-language precursor, Nationalokonomie (1940) has also been republished (1980).
The publishers of this new edition of Human Action have tried to correct the typos that inevitably creep into almost any book, especially one of this size. They have also included a completely new index, which they hope will help make the ideas in this book more readily accessible to readers.

Bettina Bien Greaves

Irvington-on-Hudson, New York
February 1996

Legitimate Authority

Today, a man with rudimentary pipe bombs was charged, I presume, with terrorism. Sixty years ago, could most of my cousins who loved playing with (researching properties of) dynamite be there, too?
The man was also labeled on the news as a militia-type. As an admitted anti-authoritarian,  like most, including Einstein, I respect legitimate authority.  To evaluating whether authorities know what they are talking about first, I plead guilty. If questioning can become an argument of guilt (you hate taxes and government,) I'm in trouble.
Unlike Thoreau who went to jail instead of paying a tax he opposed, I'm not THAT dedicated. I do hate paying taxes are used by Kerry, millions, to fund Islamic terrorists who now it seems staged Sarin gas 'victims' in attempts to push Obama over the red line in Syria.  Israel, after shuffling the WMD proof from the rebels to the US and finding Obama unwilling to act (smart move,) has bombed Syria twice.  If that doesn't start military conflict (we no longer call it war,) what will? Of course, like Libya's pounding by 1000s of bombs/day for weeks, we see no collateral damage on our compliant media.
Did the IRA stop putting bombs in London pubs because Brits sent MORE troops?  No. the more sent the more they bombed. Blowback is the weapon of the vastly overpowered.

Musings and Hodge Podge

A new Pope named Francis has progressives buzzing as Francis of Assisi gave up wealth to follow the Church.  Wikipedia concurs: "While going off to war in 1204, Francis had a vision that directed him back to Assisi, where he lost his taste for his worldly life. On a pilgrimage to Rome, he joined the poor in begging at St. Peter's Basilica. The experience moved him to live in poverty."

In 12th century Rome, a religious center of power, disagreement meant being burned at the stake literally.  Our Constitution protects the individual's inalienable rights to disagree with any majority, regardless of how extreme or mainstream, as long as we do not violate the rights of others.  Ludwig von Mises: "If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action." So why do we assume a government bureaucrat can design a better system for spending our funds than we can?  As some priests abused their power, so do some who administer DC's progressive ideas.  Great wealth is leaving the centers of commerce like New York City and settling in DC where unemployment is 3%.  Rome became rich, as well, as peasants paid priests to release their loved ones from purgatory.

Washington, DC wages wars worldwide by invading and occupying nations or covertly training Libyan and now Syrian Islamist rebels with funding from the monarchies in the Middle East.  What if American militias were being funded by Middle Eastern monarchies and trained by the Chinese military to unseat Obama?  What if a drone had hit the home of our Anthrax terror suspect in Maryland and then hit the first responders with a military 'double-tap?'

Charity comes from the heart not from DC or Rome.  Compassion comes from humans not from drone operators.  Don't confuse society with government or caring with confiscation of earnings or military actions.

GE paid zero corporate taxes last year and submitted a 52,000 page tax return. Imagine the loss in brain power and advancements in our economy if those tax attorneys had not been slaving away on that return but had started a business of their own?   Zero out corporate taxes and watch the growth that follows.  Corporations don't pay taxes, after all, as they only add them to the cost of their products or services.

Why I don't trust Glenn Beck

Following is a letter I sent in 2007.  I received no replies.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 15th, 2007

To: The Institute for Justice, The Nebraska ACLU, US Senator Hagel and US Senator Ben Nelson

Glenn Beck, on CNN Headline News November 12th, says "While our foreign enemies are the obvious ones, the physical threat may be developing domestically" and says Ron Paul's 'Revolution' and his record setting $4.3 million 'money bomb' from November 5th, Guy Fawkes Day --referring to the movie, "V is for Vendetta", when the people took back control of their government -- is tied in "with a historical terrorist attack".  "if fringe elements take that disenfranchisement and turn it into violence, we endanger the freedoms we`re supposedly all fighting for."

David Horowitz said, "There`s a strain of isolationism and anarchy in the American tradition which Ron Paul is tapping into. I think it`s very significant that he chose Guy Fawkes as an image."
"There are plenty of, unfortunately, libertarian Web sites which are indistinguishable from the anti-American left these days. LewRockwell.com and others like that. Totally in bed with the Islamofascists and have turned against this country."

Lew Rockwell's site, LewRockwell.com, was thus identified by name and slandered. 

Beck finishes this segment with, "The Ron Paul revolution, I think it`s meant to be a catchy slogan, but I fear some of his fringe supporters are taking the word "revolution" too literally."

Ron Paul's 'Revolution' is a non-violent attempt to change foreign policy, fix the monetary system and return control of our government to the people, the majority of whom are opposed to our war in Iraq and very skeptical of our interventionist foreign policy.

Rockwell and Paul are public figures, possibly immune from slander, but their supporters are not.

When Lew Rockwell's site's non-profit status was challenged early in the 2008 campaign as clearly supporting Ron Paul's candidacy, Rockwell gave up his non-profit status and requested private donations although no longer eligible as tax deductions.  Hitting the alternative minimum anyway in 2007, I sent him $200 and on November 5th, I sent my second $100 to Ron Paul's campaign.  The results of Paul's November 5th fund raising forced the main stream media to cover the Ron Paul campaign -- necessary for success. 

But did I put myself, my liberty and my personal assets at risk?  If, as Beck and Horowitz implied, LewRockwell.com and November 5th donors support an implied threat of domestic terrorism, am I not then guilty of supporting a suspected terrorist organization?  Can my computer files be searched without warrant?  Is the same true for all the tens of thousands of small Ron Paul 'money bomb' donors on November 5th?  Will all their names end up on the no-fly list?

Is there an action that can be taken against CNN Headline News, naming Beck and Horowitz,  for allowing slander on a national television broadcast and putting private citizens, such as myself, civil rights at risk -- based only on my political associations?

Nydra

(address removed)

Please contact me and let me know my options for preserving my good name as a patriot.  My Swiss ancestry makes me think that Switzerland's non-interventionist policies work much better than ours.

paper copy to Senator Ben Nelson

Here is my background.

---

My opposition to our covert foreign policy goes back to 1975.  An Afghan woman, married to an assistant attorney general of Afghanistan and related to the king (still in power), lived with our family for a year while attending UNO.  She was a delightful woman often making Kabul chicken, teaching us to eat with our fingers as we sat on the floor, and making elephant ear pastries for my little girls.  The cultural exchange of information was rewarding for all involved.

My husband's contract at Offutt often took him to the home office in McLean, Virginia.   While there, agents of our government took him to visit with the Afghan ambassador and the agents discussed the US sending trucks with large electronic equipment on top into northern Afghanistan to provide state of the art medical attention by broadcasting operations.  My husband, now deceased unfortunately, is not here to clarify what happened that day.  I do recall we laughed about the trucks  and their equipment as more likely to be used in some covert activities on the southern border of the USSR.  Little did we realize roads built in that area would allow access for tanks to eventually roll into Kabul.  

Things have gotten much worse for the Afghan people since 1975 with the invasion by the USSR and the infestation of radicalism that followed, brought by not only the ISI in Pakistan but the Wahhabis from Saudi.  

Eventually, I became a libertarian.

Harry Browne once said, paraphrasing,  if a close friend smokes, you tell him 'quit smoking or you'll get cancer'.  Browne was convinced terrorism would surely come to the USA based on 'poking that stick into the hornet's nest'- as he called the Middle East.  Based on what I was hearing and seeing, I agreed.  And many of us were very vocal in our concerns.  Our policies were making us unsafe - not only here at home from terrorism but when we traveled overseas.  

And when your friend comes to you with the news 'I have lung cancer', you do not gloat and say 'I told you so'.  In fact, you are devastated by the news and tell them 'we can beat this cancer.  We will do everything and anything we can to help'.  Watching the towers fall on 9/11, I was devastated, inconsolably so, as were many Americans.  I assumed a strike force would be sent immediately to the Afghan and Pakistani camps to capture and kill all involved in that deadly event.

The invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq coupled with the billions in aid being poured into Pakistan's dictatorship are not making us safer.  Threatening Iran is not making us safer.  Passage of legislation like the Patriot Act and the continuing trend of nationalization of local law enforcement by funding measures and Homeland Security (a third defense department after the Pentagon and the covert CIA) doesn't bode well for our personal liberty.  Citizens were supposed to police the federal government.  The Government wasn't supposed to police us.

When Ron Paul stood up to run for President, I knew I had to do everything I could to get him elected.  My grandkids are facing the falling dollar, saddled with the billions and trillions in debt and an aging boomer generation who will bankrupt Social Security and Medicare as we know them today.  They are being subjected to 'fear' every day even as schools have adopted 'lock down', a term I learned when I taught classes at the Correctional Center. 

My support of Ron Paul is to prevent a violent revolution, not create one.  Lew Rockwell and all the libertarians I have ever known do not believe in the initiation of force against anyone -friend or foe.  They know that only government agents and criminals initiate the use of force and thus they endeavor to limit the control of government over the individual by legal means.