I knew a couple who used to take their young daughter with them to the nude beach. They believed that there wasn't any harm in exposing her to nudity. Today, she's an adult. I haven't seen any indication that early exposure to nudity did her any harm. Not only that, they probably immunized her against the trauma that sexually ignorant children will experience from such things as flashing. How pointless would flashing seem to a child who was already familiar with nudity? Yet today, many people would regard taking a young girl to a nude beach as sexual exploitation. If the parents were caught with their daughter at a nude beach today, she would probably be taken away from them and put in an institution where she'd most likely be raped instead of merely experiencing a healthy exposure to nudity under parental supervision. The parents would be branded pedophiles or maybe sexual predators. They'd be handcuffed and marched in front of the media, as an example. After being publicly reviled and ridiculed, they'd be sent to prison, all because they made a decision in keeping with their own personal beliefs about how to raise their child.
I won't try to interfere with people who want to deprive their children of all knowledge of sexual matters, although I believe they're doing profound harm to their children. However, it's their children and it's their decision. I'll respect it. No matter how bad a job they may be doing, the consequences of imposing my beliefs on them by force would be far worse. However, I demand the same respect from them in return. There are wide and legitimate differences of opinion about how to deal with children regarding sexual matters. I don't believe that anybody has a Holy Mandate to dictate to other people how they should raise their children. If, for example, somebody decides to take a nude photo of his child, that's nobody else's business. When evangelists enact legislation that turns photo developers into sex police, causing them to report nude photos of children, causing the children to be seized and the parents to be prosecuted, then those evangelists become the enemies of liberty. Predictably, they're also their own worst enemies, because the repression that they create will eventually turn against them.
There are thousands of different variations and opinions about how to raise children. That sort of thing must be the parents' decision, not only because it's nobody else's business but because of the intrusive surveillance that would be necessary to police it. Each family must decide how to raise its own children, however despicable other people may regard the methods and behavior that the family chooses to use.
|Goldspeak by Greenspan
Excerpts from Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, as reprinted from the book Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand with additional articles by Alan Greenspan - 1967
Source: Gold-Eagle, http://www.gold-eagle.com/greenspan041998.html
An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other....
But the opposition to the gold standard in any form from a growing number of welfare-state advocates was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.
Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited.
The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which through a complex series of steps the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.
The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.
In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.
This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.
I can provide a complete copy of Alan Greenspans essay, upon request. For further study, I recommend my essays Money and They Can Fool Too Many of the People Too Much of the Time. Copies of those essays are also available uponrequest.
That Won't Be Asked About Iraq
Congressman Ron Paul, U.S. House of Representatives,
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
Soon we hope to have hearings on the pending war with Iraq. I am concerned there are some questions that won't be asked and maybe will not even be allowed to be asked. Here are some questions I would like answered by those who are urging us to start this war.
01. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?
02. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate which just confirms that there is no real threat?
03. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?
04. Is it not true that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?
05. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?
06. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq's links to terrorism?
07. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?
08. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our "allies," the Kurds?
09. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda "is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses"
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States and who may again attack the United States and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world's worst suspicions about the US and isn't this what bin Laden wanted?
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
19. Iraq's alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?
|20. Did former President Bush not cite
the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad,
while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can
march into Baghdad?
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992 including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein's rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won't have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and not coincidentally we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?
35. Why don't those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?
Letters to the Editor
... The people are still sleeping, but the CA budget finally got passed, even though the Republicrats are still telling some truth it's all smoke & mirrors & the People are being conned again! The largest deficit in CA history & still there are over 100,000 non-violent prisoners in CA prisons!! Not one word is said in TV news or papers about the raises for the C/O's & Admin!
I was listening to Tom Friedman on Face the Nation (9-1-02) where he was saying: "the Gov't (Saddam) is afraid of the people." With what I know, I could say he should have been talking about the U.S.! Could the U.S. be doing the things they are doing if the people were told the truth about this RICO Corp.? No! What difference is there between the U.S. & Iraq? The Iraqi people know their Gov't is despotic. The U.S. Slaves are totally brainwashed, functionally illiterate, and deceitfully complacent, robotoids! The controlled media spoon-feeds the ignorant masses specious sound-bytes and pabulum to maintain their usurped power, to continue to allow them NOT to "suffer the consequences of their folly."
Then later on Fox News, (Brit Hume) Alexander Haig comes on & pretty much says what's real today the Pres. doesn't care what the people think or feel, he can just go ahead & unilaterally use "U.S." forces & attack Iraq! So now we have all the "talking heads" discussing go or no go tactics instead of asking why we are so involved in another country's internal affairs? And be so apathetic to problems in our own country!! Or why no one sees the similarities of
|a "Bully" family wanting to fight a "Bully" family?!
Yet at the same time millions of people in this country fill our prisons
& jails for doing the same thing! People have truly capitulated
their power in favor of the State.... The only way this can occur
is with a bogus (fiat) money system (fraud) & that fraud has to be
perpetuated by secrecy & deceit! When exposed, it will fall quicker
than a house of cards, & in order to prevent this, more & more
draconian measures will be taken to keep the "sheeple" ignorant & pacified....
Hey bud, how are you? Well, I hope. I just got the latest issue, and I am pleased. I also enjoy the others that you send.
I noticed somthing in yours that made me take exception. That was the fact that many times prison guards will punish us for our views. This is true. I suffer from it from time to time myself. Oh well. As it sits now, I am labled as a threat to the safety and security of the facility that I am at. This is no big deal here, as they will do this to most anyone who does not conform to the proper thought paterns, (Being a rat really seems to make them happy, and not being one really seems to worry them.) At any rate, I have no problem with you publishing my name in here. As a matter of fact, I would suggest a prisoner support and contact network. For prisoners of our politics only, of course. This could include a listing of names and mailing addresses of men and women on the streets and incarcerated who share the same ideas. Pseudonyms for those on the streets would be acceptable, for safetys sake, of course. The government has most prisoners labled already, but not all citizens, yet. Why help?
Don wrote an interesting piece on a quote by Thomas Jefferson. He then equated Homeland Security with the Gestapo. I remember when they first proposed H.S., and I was angered, and scared by the paralels between it and Gestapo. My thoughts on the subject are to bury your guns, and ready yourselves to fight back. I will NOT lie down and accept the continual theft of my rightful freedoms. They are our BIRTHRIGHT. Join the military, learn what you can about waging war, as it will come to that if the Feds do not stop pushing decent honest citizens. The new laws make it illegal to do many things once taken for granted. I should be clear on this. I will not fight for no reason. I belive that there is a point that must not be crossed. It was crossed a long time ago. When we allow the government to incrementally take our freedoms, it is the same as letting it happen all at once.
I want to add somthing to the article on page three on the right side. DO NOT use hand loads for home defense. The prosecutor, will demonize you by saying somthing like "The defendant was not happy to use factory ammunition, He had to brew up some real man killer bullets. This shows premeditation." Just a thought.
Well folks, I hope you enjoyed my thoughts. Thank you for listening.
Brian; Sterling, Colorado
Working the System
Original Source Unknown. Forwarded by Steve, of Fremont, California
A man was going up to bed, when his wife told him he'd left the light on in the garden shed she could see it from the bedroom window. But he said that he hadn't been in the shed that day. He looked himself, and there were people in the shed, stealing things.
He rang the police, but they told him that no one was in his area, so no one was available to catch the thieves. He said OK, hung up, counted to 30 and rang the police again. "Hello. I just rang you a few seconds ago because there were people in my shed? Well, you don't have to worry about them now, I've just shot them all."
Within five minutes there were half a dozen police cars in the area, an Armed Response unit, the works. Of course, they caught the burglars red-handed.
One of the policemen said to the man, "I thought you said you'd shot them!" The man replied, "I thought you said there was no one available!"
Buck Hunter Shoots Off His Mouth
What do you think of the piccolo?
Dear Music Student
That would be the Mexican word for pickle, right? I like the big ones in the big bottle at the Seven-Eleven.
Cancellations If you don't want to keep receiving this newsletter, print REFUSED, RETURN TO SENDER above your name and address, cross out your name and address, and return the newsletter. When I receive it, I'll terminate your subscription. You may also cancel by letter, e-mail, carrier pigeon, or any other method that gets the message to me.
Back Issues Back issues or extra copies of this newsletter are available upon request.
Reprint Policy Permission is hereby granted to reproduce this newsletter in its entirety or to reproduce material from it, provided that the reproduction is accurate and that proper credit is given. Please note that I do not have the authority to give permission to reprint material that I have reprinted from other sources. For that permission, you must go to the original source. I would appreciate receiving a courtesy copy of any document or publication in which you reprint my material.
Submissions I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons for the newsletter, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise.
Payment This newsletter isn't for sale. If you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash, U.S. postage stamps, prepaid telephone cards, and so forth. I will accept checks or money orders only by prior arrangement. I don't accept anything that requires me to provide ID or a signature to receive it. In case anybody is curious, I also accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.
Sam Aurelius Milam III, editor