| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley |
|
||||||||||||||
| 3000 | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Dec 19th, 2006 09:19 am |
|
1st Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed116.html
We didn't. I'm being critical. Fred Reed must be read to appreciate Fred Reed's writing; I think. While I read Fred Reed I post Fred Reed's writing. I think too. So here are 3 thousand souls who no longer occupy human bodies. On their way to the hereafter these 3 thousand souls journey along some path of some kind, I suppose, and meanwhile there are some 300 thousand souls traveling somewhere too. Here are some efforts to account the souls: http://cryptome.org/mil-dead-iqw.htm http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15266.htm http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/iraq1.pdf http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Suppose that two numbers do exist and suppose that someone somewhere actually knows exactly how many souls are traveling from their human bodies to the next place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearly_gates Suppose that Saint Peter has an order handed down from above (The boss) asking for a tally on the innocent people who have to leave the earthly world early. This is a bit of a leap of faith, I am asking, to suppose that the boss is worried about deaths that were not a part of the overall plan. So the boss asks Saint Peter to account for these somewhat late ‘abortions’. Suppose that the boss, after a few years, checks back with Saint Peter. The boss casually asks for a rough estimate. The boss says: “How many innocent people have aborted their existence in human form since this Iraqi Freedom Project began – Pete.” Pete: “I’m having a little trouble with the concept of ‘innocent’, ah, sir.” The boss is patient and understanding but the boss is busy and pressed for time. The boss: “Just give me a rough number of American Soldiers who went to Iraq and died in Iraq.” Pete: “That would be about Three Thousand – roughly speaking.” The boss: “Good enough” Pete: “Is that it?” The boss: “Yes; do you have any questions?” Pete: “Well; there are at least 10 times more souls arriving at the gate sir.” The boss: “More souls!” Pete: “At least ten times more souls sir” The boss: “Aborted?” Pete: “They are at the gate sir.” The boss: “I see” Some time passes. Pete: “Ah…do you want me to count these?” The boss: “Ok, sure, count them too. I’m busy with Christmas and all that right now. I’ll get back with you later.” Pete: “One more thing, if I may, ask?” The boss: “Go on.” Pete: “Should I count the numbers going the other way too?” The boss: “That isn’t our jurisdiction. Let them eat cake.” Pete: “OK” The boss: “Merry Christmas” Pete: “If you say so.” The boss hurries along shaking his head thinking: “I need a new accountant – one without a conscience.”
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Dec 19th, 2006 01:20 pm |
|
2nd Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul356.html
I read Dr. Ron Paul when he writes, publishes, and the new words arrive into view - for me. I've heard him speak, in person, and his message then was "Support the troops" followed by "Bring them home" and even "Buy them a beer". I may be able to find that speech. http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=73 That is the speech. I'm listening to it again. If you listen too, then, you can hear Ron Paul refer to an Anarchist. I heard that reference while I sat in the audience. I also heard someone claim that more than one Anarchist was, in fact, present in the audience. Ron Paul expressed concern. I felt left out because I am an anarchist who believes in self-government, democracy, republican representation, liberated markets, liberty, freedom, truth, justice, and all that; too. I just happen not to believe in false authority, hence, anarchism. True authority is provided by nature, or God, or any source other than one man enforcing false authority upon another man, woman, or child. I won’t go to far into why I felt left out during the speech; suffice to say now that no one during the entire conference allowed me to publicly defend my viewpoint and I suspect that I was pointed out as an anarchist (literally behind my back). “Don’t hide behind them” are words that I just listened to as spoken by Ron Paul as I write this stuff. Suffice to say: I spent time and energy going to Las Vegas seeking answers concerning liberty and my questions were actively ignored. “I’d like to support the troops; I’d bring them all home tomorrow if I could.” Ron Paul (3/4ths into the speech). No beer? My memory isn’t up to par. I imagined the beer comment. I didn’t imagine the anarchist comment. Anyway; the date on the audio tape is Saturday, February 19, 2005. I attended. The Congressman spoke. The message remains the same. Bring the troops home, or, noninterventionist foreign policy. A problem: “Since so many apparently now believe Washington and Jefferson were wrong on the critical matter of foreign policy, they should at least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.” The problem: Why can’t Ron Paul or any support of the constitution have the intellectual honestly to admit that the constitution empowered George Washington and Alexander Hamilton (among others) to draft (subscript or enslave) an army (nearly the size of the all volunteer army that successfully fought the British in 1776 AGAIST taxation without representation) an army used to suppress a peaceful revolt AGAIST taxation without representation? Answer: Anyone pointing this fact out is not heard. Anyone pointing this fact out is suppressed. Anyone pointing this fact out is demonized, called names, publicly humiliated, ignored, bypassed, censured, stamped out, put down, rejected, and otherwise silenced. It is convenient, now, to apply quaint admonitions from the 1700s concerning foreign policy. What about domestic policy? The Constitution advocates the violent suppression of peaceful rebellion. This EXACTLY: http://www.law.emory.edu/cms/site/index.php?id=3081#7656 Section 8 Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Specifically this: Suppress Insurrections Example: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/text.html “the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit” (GW, Aug 11, 1794) Dr. Ron Paul asks: “It’s hypocritical and childish to dismiss certain founding principles simply because a convenient rationale is needed to justify interventionist policies today.” Answer: Yes; and the same logic and reasoning must apply to policy at home. Dr. Ron Paul writes: “Of course we frequently hear the offensive cliché that, “times have changed,” and thus we cannot follow quaint admonitions from the 1700s. The obvious question, then, is what other principles from our founding era should we discard for convenience? Should we give up the First amendment because times have changed and free speech causes too much offense in our modern society? Should we give up the Second amendment, and trust that today’s government is benign and not to be feared by its citizens? How about the rest of the Bill of Rights?” At the Financial Markets Conference in Las Vegas my questions were suppressed. That was an example of Free Speech. The constitution authorizes the suppression of insurrection. That is something that has not changed with the times. Look at Waco if anyone has any doubt as to what is meant by the term ‘suppression of insurrection’. Look at the ‘suppression’ of the whiskey rebellion in the 1700s by George Washington and Alexander Hamilton. Look into how and why the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the concept of liberty was subverted, covertly, and set aside to ram the Constitution down the people throats and know, please, that the Bill of Rights was written in a desperate attempt to salvage what was left of liberty after the constitution destroyed it. The constitution (strictly speaking) legalized slavery. It still does. If liberty does speak, in written words, then those words are not spoken in the constitution. Liberty is spoken, in written words, in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. It’s like a putrid shit sandwich. The bread now stinks because the meat is rancid. Military law preserves more liberty than the U.S. Constitution. That should be enough reason to indict any politician on charges of suspicion of conspiracy to commit treason. Treason against what you may wonder? Against liberty Read the fine print. Ask for specific definitions of terms like: "suppress insurection". If the answer is: "That is a superfluous question?" OR If no one will answer at all Then I smell a RAT. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198 http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Money+Masters http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3968544393356669182&q=confessions+of+an+economic+hit+man http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=the+history+of+oil P.S. Dr. Ron Paul is, in my opinion, an exception to the rule.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 02:26 pm | |
| Power Independence > News > News > 3000 | Top |
