Aggrad02

Good Find.

Sounds pretty collectivist to me. A group of your peers decides what you can do with your own property? Or even worse, a government bureaucrat decides. How about let people decide what they want to do with their own property. Also public transportation is socialist/collectivist. A large group of people subsidize transportation for a few. In the case of rail/subways, the government also confiscates private property to serve the few. And who is to tell me how much I can grow through my own production so that it is sustainable? That is bull crap. --Dustan

If possible this would definitely be a good solution and the money spent would be invested wisely. (The only problem I see is that the vast majority of desert is also located in the Middle East ) I don't like the idea of stopping urban sprawl. How do you stop people from building on their own property. Public transport is also not high on my list for various socialist reasons, but I do feel that transportation is important so it is still on the list.

The problems with bio-fuels is that we have to eat. If we use our food for fuel other than our bodies, then the food supply can become compromised. We need to find other ways to become less reliant on fossil fuels. My biggest concern with fossil fuels is the that the majority of the worlds supply is in the Middle East and Russia. Hopefully we can develop more efficient solar and wind power sources, on top of that they can make combustion engines run more efficients as well, I think that Volvo has a car that gets 80 mph over in Europe. --Dustan

That was hilarious, but true.

Also the Military Commissions act also suspends the 5th and 6th amendments: Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Also the FISA bill violates the 4th amendment. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Also Bob, I just found that in Article III, Section II, the judicial power of the federal courts extend to all cases in which the United States is a party, meaning that any citizen or noncitizen that is to be tried for treason, or of being an unlawful enemy combatant, should be covered by the federal courts, which would include the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to be presented with evidence against you, the right to defense counsel and the right to a trial jury, all things that are denied by the Military Commissions Act. Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Also Bob you have the 14th Amendment, Section 1: which explicitly states that all persons are covered under the Constitution: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that it says that any law is applicable or non applicable to non-citizens inside the United States. Or better yet show me where the U.S. Constitution says that White People, or Black People, or Women, or Children have the right of habeas corpus. I await with bated breath. BTW: I could careless about non-citizens, especially ones who were found to be attacking the U.S., such as the Taliban. What I do care about is the law the lets the President of The U.S. declare anyone (including citizens inside the US) who he would like as an unlawful enemy combatant, and stripping them of all of their rights, including habeas corpus. -Dustan

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is habeas corpus extended to non-citizens. Legal non-citizens in the past have received this right, but it was never mandated by the constitution itself. So it is more of a privilege extended to legal resident non-citizens. One cannot take away a right one never had. And habeas corpus is not a natural or absolute right. It can be suspended in times of war or rebellion. Indeed, habeas corpus was suspended during the American Civil War. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/st.../rte-italic.png Italic See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus Ba'al Chatzaf I am sorry but the denial of habeas corpus to US citizens has already happened twice: Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_enemy...t#United_States Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but was transferred to jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen. On September 23, 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia, where he is also a citizen, on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship. The deal also bars Hamdi from visiting certain countries and to inform Saudi officials if he plans to leave the kingdom. He was a party to a Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which issued a decision on June 28, 2004, repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review. On May 8, 2002, José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was arrested by FBI agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held as material witness on the warrant issued in New York State about the 2001 9/11 attacks. On June 9, 2002 President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant". The order legally justified the detention by leaning on the AUMF which authorized the President to "..use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons..." and in the opinion of the administration a U.S. citizen can be an enemy combatant (This was decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Quirin)[42]. Padilla is currently being detained in Miami and is accused of supporting terrorism. * The November 13, 2001, Military Order, mentioned above, exempts U.S. citizens from trial by military tribunals to determine if they are "unlawful combatants", which indicates that Padilla and Yaser Hamdi would end up in the civilian criminal justice system, as happened with John Walker Lindh. * On December 18, 2003, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days[43]. But agreed that he could be held until an appeal was heard. * On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal. * The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28 it was thrown out on a technicality. The court declared that New York State, where the case was originally filed, was an improper venue and that the case should have been filled in South Carolina, where Padilla was being held. * On February 28, 2005, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him[44]. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the parallel enemy combatant case of Yaser Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), in which the majority decision declared a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." * On July 19, 2005, in Richmond, Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began hearing the government's appeal of the lower court (the District of South Carolina, at Charleston) ruling by Henry F. Floyd, District Judge, (CA-04-2221-26AJ). Their ruling Decided: September 9, 2005 was that "the President does possess such authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Joint Resolution enacted by Congress in the wake of the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed."[45] * In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (June 29, 2006) the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions. Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention, regarding the treatment of detainees, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror. Also see the Lakawanna Seven who were black mailed into pleading guilty, because if they didn't they would be declared unlawful enemy combatants and hauled away to jail to be held without habeas corpus. http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003...lo_6/index.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act According to Bill Goodman, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Joanne Mariner, from FindLaw, this bill redefines unlawful enemy combatant in such a broad way that it refers to any person who is engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States. This makes it possible for US citizens to be designated unlawful enemy combatant because it could be read to include anyone who has donated money to a charity for orphans in Afghanistan that turns out to have some connection to the Taliban or a person organizing an anti-war protest in Washington, D.C. As such habeas corpus may be denied to US citizens.[28] Jennifer Van Bergen, a journalist with a law degree, responds to the comment that habeas corpus has never been afforded to foreign combatants with the suggestion that, using the current sweeping definition of war on terror and unlawful combatant, it is impossible to know where the battlefield is and who combatants are. Also, she notes that most of the detentions are already unlawful.[29] The Act also suggests that unlawful enemy combatant refers to any person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that if the President says you are an enemy combatant, then you effectively are Also Lincoln was wrong for suspending Habeas Corpus. But Bush especially is since we are not at war or invasion or at rebellion: US Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 And Bob, I have no idea where you get the idea that the Constitution is not extended to non-citizens, all law in the US is applicable to anyone within our boundaries. That is why they have the main terrorist jail at Gitmo, Gitmo is not within the US' boundary. --Dustan

Obama's Bill: Global Poverty Act A nice-sounding bill called the "Global Poverty Act," sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations. [more] Well everyone here was wondering what types of things Obama will want to do. Here is one of the first, a bill that would require the US to spend money on foreign aid dependent on the U.N. whether we wanted to or not. And look at this part: The bill defines the term "Millennium Development Goals" as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000). The U.N. says that "The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion-or about 0.25% of their collective GNP." In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So not only does Obama want to tax you to pay "poor helpless people" around the world, but he wants to take away your only method of resistance, the right to bear arms. This is sickening. First Bush takes away many of our Civil Liberties with the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act, specifically the right to Habeas Corpus, and now Obama is going to come in and start taxing us to the hilt at the same time taking away our weapons. We are going to be left in a police state. They should just call this bill the "US to Poverty Act". --Dustan

?????? Ok, you lost me there, can you clarify. Thanks, Dustan

Welcome back, What type of group do you have? --Dustan

Well, we could start with the government indoctrination of children who then go run these companies... You might think that evidence is too indirect. But look at who owns and pays for what. E.g.: http://www.newshounds.us/2007/11/15/alert_...abels_it_18.php http://money.cnn.com/2006/08/24/magazines/...rtune/index.htm http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/08/07/googl...-search-myspace Note that FOX News is sanctioned by a government agency that controls their content: The FCC. The FCC decides who will and will not be permitted to broadcast. So I'd say by that fact alone they are suspect as being panderers to the government. I suspect that if you dig deeper you'll get to some nasty connections from Fox News and the government. Shayne Shayne, I have followed the RP blackout by the media, but it is not fascism. Yes there is plenty of fascist tendency to be found in our government, and if we are not careful more will be upon us (Read Naomi Wolf's 10 Steps to Fascism, or Judge Napolitano's Constitution in Exile), but private media companies choosing what to report and what not to report, or what to allow on their internet site is not fascism. Now might some in these companies want to espouse a fascist or socialist doctrine, probably. But it is not a government controlled effort. And though government education today is crud (which is why my children go to private school), I don't see how you make a logical leap from public education, to a private company choosing what to report, to fascism. Also I would bet that a great majority of CEO's didn't go to private schools, but that is just my guess and not based on fact. --Dustan

You mean this unavailable book by Ayn Rand?: http://www.amazon.com/fascist-new-frontier...d/dp/B0007HWIII Shayne No he means the one that is available here: http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=AR89M or http://www.ilab.org/db/book177_3955.html or can be found as part of this book, specifically on pg.98-99: http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Column-Writ...s/dp/1561142921 --Dustan

Where is your proof that the government is causing Youtube or Digg to censor? And yes in the instances that you listed (Digg and youtube) we do have a free market. Also I am quite displeased with the reporting of the media. Ethically the media is supposed to have integrity and report the facts as they happen, it is clear that this is not the case and they are pretty much a cross between a propaganda machine and a filthy tabloid, right out of the Fountain Head. But they are privately owned and can do as they please, this is not fascism. If you don't like it then you can start your own media company and not censor. -_Dustan

Shayne, Both of the sites that you listed are private companies (Youtube and Digg) they can do whatever they please, if you or anyone else doesn't like it then they can use another service. It is called a free market. I am not familiar with the torrent case. --Dustan

Dustan, it was Patrick's idea for Obama to use his tactic in the first place, Patrick thought it would be a good way to respond to Hilary. So there is no "vs." here. Intellectually dishonest... It's just people looking for dirt where there is none. Kevin Kevin, It is still dishonest to take a speech directly from someone else (regardless of friendliness) and present it as your own without crediting it. Having a speech writer is different than taking a speech that has already been presented to the public by someone else. Which "words" are Obama's and which are someone else's that he happens to find convenient to use? He already has a problem with a perceived lack of substance, and when the Clintons attack him for a this lack of substance by claiming that he (Obama) is "just words", not only does he dodge the criticism by making a straw man argument, as pointed out by MSK (look it is not hard to give credit where it is due, Obama should try it), but "the words" that Obama uses are not even his own. Obama fought the criticism of a lack of substance with a plagiarized speech, he proves the Clintons' point. Obama comes from academia I am surprised that he was not more careful. --Dustan

Not only is he good, He is intellectually dishonest. That speech was taken from a '06 speech by Deval Patrick: Digg Link You would figure with today's technology + the internet that politicians would be a little more careful. --Dustan

Good article. I actually read Obama's book Audacity of Hope, if he tries to implement 1/10th of the social programs that he called for in his book, we will be broke, absolutely broke. --Dustan

Oriana Fallaci considered herself an aethiest, an individualist, and egoist. She was not a philosopher but a journalist/novelist. Her work is very interesting. She never (to my knowledge of her work so far which is limited) laid out a philosophy, but it can be gleamed from her novels. Here is the first paragraph of the prologue of her novel A Man (It is very Rand-esque): A roar of grief and rage rose over the city and boomed, relentless, obsessive, sweeping away any other sound, beating out the great lie. Zi, , zi, zi, He lives, he lives, he lives! A roar that had nothing human about it. In fact, it did not rise from human beings, creatures with two arms and two legs and mind of their own; it rose from a monstrous, mindless beast, the crowd, the octopus that at noon, barnacled, with clenched fist, distorted faces, contracted mouths, had invaded the square of the orthodox cathedral, then stretched its tentacles into the nearby trees, jamming them, submerging them, implacable as the larva that overwhelms and devours every obstacle, deafening them with its zi, zi, zi. Escaping it was hopless. Some tried. They shut themselves up in houses, shops, offices, wherever it seemed possible to find refuge, at lest not to hear the roar. But filtering through the doors, the windows, the walls, it still reached their ears and after a while they also succumbed to its spell. With the pretext of having a look they would come out, approach a tentacle and be swamped: to become a clenched fist, a distorted face a contracted mouth. Zi, zi, zi! And the octopus grew, expanded in sudden leaps, at each leap another thousand, another ten thousand, another hundred thousand. By two in the afternoon there were five hundred thousand, by three a million, by four a million and a half, and by five no one was counting. They did not come only from the city, from Athens. They also came from far away, by trains, by boats, on buses, from the countryside of Attica and Epirus, from the Aegean Islands, from the villages of Peloponnesus, from Macedonia, Thessaly: creatures with two arms and two legs and a mind of their own before the octopus swallowed them, peasants and fisherman in their Sunday suits, workers in their overalls, women leading their children, students. The people. That people which until yesterday had avoided you, left you alone like a irksome dog, ignoring you when you said: "Don't let yourselves be regimented by dogma, by uniforms, by doctrines, don't let yourself by fooled by those who command you, by those who promise, who frighten, by those who want to replace one master with another, don't be a flock of sheep, for heaven's sake, don't hide under the umbrella of other people's guilt, think with your own brains, remember that each of you is somebody, a valuable individual, responsible, his own maker, defend your being, the kernel of all freedom, freedom is duty, a duty even more than a right". Part of the last: I set off in search of your tale. The familiar legend of the hero who fights alone, kicked, despised, misunderstood. the familiar story of the man who refuses to bow before churches, fear, fashions, ideological formulas, absolute principles from whatever direction they come, in whatever color they are dressed; a man who preaches freedom. The familiar tragedy of the individual who will not fall in line, who will not resign himself, who thinks with his own head, and therefore dies, slain by all. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orianna_Fallaci

Sorry guys that I haven't been around lately, but I have been extremely busy with my business and with supporting Ron Paul. After the Texas primaries I will have more time to post on this wonderful board. But the reason that I am here is because last year I made a bet with Bob that Ron Paul will win the election. He is mathematically out as far as delegates go and will not run third party, there is a slim chance of a brokered convention, but even if that is the case I don't think RP is going to have the leverage to win it. Therefore I am here to concede defeat and pay up. Bob, if you take paypal I will send it to you that way, or would you rather me send you a money order. --Dustan

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8...;show_article=1 Clinton: $5,000 for Every U.S. Baby Sep 28 01:09 PM US/Eastern By DEVLIN BARRETT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus. "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said. The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States. (more)

Hi Dustan, Once you register your Ojo using your choice of phone numbers you can take the phone anywhere in the world and connect it to the internet and it will work fine. I know owners of the Ojo who live in the states and have registered Ojos for overseas relatives and then sent the Ojos to Turkey and Chile. Their relatives connected the Ojos to their broadband cable modem or router and they worked fine. One even kept the line open around the clock with no problem. i know that WorldGate did send a call from Virginia Beach up to a satellite and down to headquarters north of Philadelphia and the picture was perfect with the usual audio synchrony. No computer need be involved. Just a broadband connection. If you go to www.ojophone.com and under the menu heading COMMUNITY you will find OJOSODES and I believe the second one demonstrates the Ojo working using a satellite. I am still not satisfied that I am answering your specific question. I suggest that you call the company or better still ojoservices at 1 877 367 6965 and I am sure they have the knowledge you seek. They have facilitated Ojos in over 56 countries. galt What I mean is that on the road the internet that I use is mostly wireless. How would the Ojo work with wireless internet that my comp is connected to? Can the Ojo connect to wireless internet on its own, or must it use a USB. Thanks, Dustan

From your analysis, they don't have the "right" but the "might". So does that mean "might" makes right? Where do you live, I might be mightier than you and have a right to your production/property. BTW: Law does not make something moral, the mob does not making something right either. Hitler (who we have all been talking about lately) was elected in, does that mean Germany was "right" in their decision of the Holocaust? --Dustan

If I have a wireless card and am getting my service from say a hotel on the road, Can I hook up my Ojo to my laptop? --Dustan

I am sorry that answer is no good. I am still waiting to hear who this people are that have a right to my production and a right to protect me. :poke: BTW: Your answer sounded like it was right out of Orwell's 1984 :sick: