Steve Gagne

from the Official Ron Paul Presidential Campaign website

Ron Paul Raises $6 Million in One Day (12/17/07)

Candidate has most successful fundraising day in American political history

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA -- Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign had a record fundraising day yesterday.

In a 24-hour period on December 16, the campaign raised $6.026 million dollars, surpassing the one-day record of $5.7 million held by John Kerry.

During the day, over 58,000 people contributed to Dr. Paul’s campaign, including 24,940 first-time donors. Over 118,000 Americans have donated to the campaign in the fourth quarter.

The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million.

"We have the right message: freedom, peace and prosperity," said Ron Paul 2008 campaign chairman Kent Snyder. "We also have the right candidate: Dr. Ron Paul."

Congressman Paul will be campaigning in Iowa today and will be holding a press conference at 12:45 pm at the Des Moines Marriott in the Des Moines Room.

Paul Campaign Statement Following $6 Million Fundraising Day (12/17/07)

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Following its historic fundraising day on December 16th, Ron Paul campaign chairman Kent Snyder issued the following statement:

"There is an unprecedented outpouring of grassroots support for Dr. Paul. The message of freedom is powerful and uniting people across America. And, Dr. Paul is the only candidate offering real solutions to the issues Americans care about, with the record to back it up.

"Americans are sick and tired of our broken borders and they know the other candidates are not serious about illegal immigration. Dr. Paul has proposed serious and substentative legislation to fix our immigration problems once and for all.

The $6 million one-day total means the campaign has raised over $18 million this quarter, far exceeding its goal of $12 million.

"Finally, as Americans see the value of their dollar plummet, they know Dr. Paul has devoted his political career to stopping the inflation that makes it impossible for middle-class families to get ahead. Only Dr. Paul has a plan to cut spending, balance budgets and take care of people who have become dependent on government programs.

"Americans spoke loud and clear on December 16th. They want Dr. Paul's solutions."

As a Ron Paul supporter, I sadly think you may be right. Rudy Giuliani is a criminal, but so are the bulk of our electorate. Neither he nor any of them gives a rat's ass for freedom, for the Constitution, for the Republic, or for the rule of law -- not for any of the principles this country is based upon. So, yes, his bloviations on "strength" will draw enough votes from armchair generals; he therefore stands a good chance of taking the nomination, and perhaps even of beating the spooky lady.

Sad.

Hmm, those flyers I've been getting in the mail, with the Mexican flag and the American flag on the same pole--the Mexican flag on top, and the American flag upside down--give me the distinct impression that Ron Paul and his organization have been sucking up.

But not to the Left...

Robert Campbell

Robert

I don't know what you mean by "his organization". The official campaign has only a few dozen people working on it. And they are not responsible for most of the buzz. Nice people, but they can't even get their act together enough to fill completely or to mail out paid-in-full brochure orders for/to campaigners on a timely basis.

But there are over 84,000 volunteers (at last count), self-organized through Meetup-dot-com, who have essentially hijacked his campaign, and are portraying it as a run for each person's personal platform -- there are constitutionalists, libertarians, sound-money people, law'n'order types, 9-11 truthers, LEAP supporters, anti-tax people, pro-national sovereignty/anti-UN/anti-NWO/anti-one-world government types, anti-Fed/anti-CFR/anti-Bilderburg/anti-Trilateral Commission/anti-Bohemian Grove/anti-Rothschild/anti-Rockefeller types, pro-peace people, open-border people, closed-border people, anti-fascist/anti-corporate types, capitalists, free-trade people, pro-life people, states-rights people, gun-rights people, property-rights people, anti-Patriot Act people, pro-Civil Rights people, MUFON types, historians, Catholic Christians, Jews, Zionists, even some Objectivists. And then there are the certifiable nut cases, like the Republican Liberty Caucus (their PAC is headed by Ron Paul himself). But every single one of these people believes that Dr. Paul is speaking to and for them.

It is estimated that there will be over 100K volunteers by the time of the Florida primary, and nearly a quarter of a million by the time the general presidential election occurs.

But none in the Meetup groups is directed by campaign headquarters; these are true grassroot efforts. It is how a $4.3 million "Money Bomb" was raised from over 37,000 individuals in one day; it is why there were planes and boats and trolleys at the CNN/YouTube debates, filled with volunteers (dwarfing the support of other candidates); it is why there will now be a Ron Paul Blimp traveling around the country from now till the primaries; it is why there will be another "Money Bomb" fundraiser on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16). None of this is directed by official campaign headquarters.

Now, as far as "sucking up" goes, each of these supporters has his own beliefs, own standards, own values, and trying to get any particular group of them work together is like trying to herd cats. So how exactly does one "suck up" to himself?

[And should anyone doubt the point of a North American Union, using NAFTA and the SPP as a basis for it, and creating a new currency, the Amero, to replace the U.S. dollar, I would refer you to The Late Great U.S.A.by Dr. Jerome Corsi, as well as Vicente Fox's recent comments that he and President Bush were planning exactly that, a North American Union, in all of their NAFTA/SPP negotiations. I also refer you to this graphic, and ask if there is subterfuge being used to finance this project on Route 35 with our tax dollars, surreptitiously:

Here are two quotable quotes:

Quotable Quotes

* "The freer the market is and the more respect you have for private property, the better the environment is protected."

-- July 13, 2007, in a YouTube interview

* "Fear is constantly generated by politicians to rally the support of the people. Environmentalists go back and forth, from warning about a coming ice age to arguing the grave dangers of global warming."

-- June 29, 2006, in a speech before the U.S. House of Representatives.

galt

Here is my Fear. Is Ron Paul channeling Neville Chamberlain? Sometimes, the only defense, is offense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob

You misread Dr. Paul. When the Iraqi invasion was first proposed, Dr. Paul sought moral and legal justification for a constitutionally-provided congressional Declaration of War, in order to empower the President to use all necessary force to start and finish the military actions there. President Bush and the rest of congress weaseled out of it, turning it into another "multilateral police action" where inadequate force was used, and the battle now will never end, i.e., it is just another perpetual war, the tool of a tyrant.

The war in Iraq has become nothing more than political theatre where the tickets are paid for with the blood of American soldiers.

Where were all the demonstrations against Christian fundamentalism from moderate Christians when Timothy McVeigh put on his bomb show in Oklahoma? I may be wrong, but I do not remember Billy Graham & Co. (or anybody for that matter) leading rallies to repudiate the Christian Identity movement and other such. (Whether McVeigh formally belonged or not is debatable, but the influence is undeniable and was widely commented at the time.) It also has been years and I do not recall over those all those years hardly any commentary at all from moderate Christians.

Ummm.....Michael.......pssst....I live in an area 6 miles from McVeigh's original home here in Florida, an area permeated with Christian fundamentalist types, and with whom I share much common ground. Part of that common ground is this: McVeigh was no Christian. His position is seen as a (possibly brainwashed) godless government patsy in the line of Ruby Ridge-WTC I-Waco-OK City-Flight 800-USS Cole-IIBT-WTC II-Afghanistan-Iraq-Burma, i.e., the elitist political program. Perpetual terror for perpetual war: perpetual war for perpetual power.

And though the Church as a collection of collectivist institutions has had (more than) its share of powermongering, that has nothing to do with what McVeigh did, nor with what individual Christians believe.

Even if someone associates with a racist group called "Christian Identity", does that make it Christian? Or to put it another way, if I (hypothetically) started to call my approach "Theistic Christian Objectivism", would that make it Objectivism? Does calling make it so?

No. It doesn't.

What makes it so is properly identifying what it is you are focusing on, identifying the relevant characteristics for the type of object you are observing, and guaranteeing by observation that there is ONE EGG of these relevant characteristics in the present instance, to allow identification between the specific object and your concept of it.

In your equation mcveigh = christian, you have not done this. So the Christian leadership, though sharing your (and my) horror at the bestiality of mcveigh's actions, have no moral responsibility to repudiate in this case; your chosen example is irrelevant.

I have a soft spot for jokes based on puns. .

.

.

Michael

Why do the French like only one egg?

Because, for a Frenchman. one egg is un oeuf.

(Barbara's going to excommunicate me again now -- I can sense it.)

Sincerement,

Étienne Antoine Gagné dít Belavance dela Frésnàye

Deborah Kerr also played Lygia in one of my mother's favorite movies, *Quo Vadis* (1951), with Robert Taylor as Marcus and Peter Ustinov as Nero. It was a classic, but it was also another case of the novel (by Henryk Sienkiewicz) being much better than the film. In this case it was a disappointment that Petronius was not cast better, as he was to my mind the major character in the book. The film was too Christian and did not have the balance the book had between that and classical paganism or Stoicism.

From Wikipedia:

Quo Vadis: A Narrative of the Time of Nero, commonly known as Quo Vadis, is a Polish historical novel written by Henryk Sienkiewicz. Quo vadis is Latin for "Where are you going?" and alludes to a New Testament verse (John 13:36). The verse, in the King James Version, reads as follows, "Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards."

Also from Wiki:

The title is Latin, meaning Where are you going? and refers to the encounter between St Peter and Jesus Christ on the Appian Way. Peter, fleeing from the persecutions of the Emperor Nero had a vision of Christ whom he asked "Domine, quo vadis?" (Lord, whither goest thou?). Jesus answered him, "Whither I go, thou can not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards" (John 13:36). Peter understood this to mean that Jesus was going back to Rome to be crucified again. Peter, following his own fate, returned to Rome and was crucified at the foot of the Vatican Hill where St Peter's Basilica stands today.

And again from Wiki:

It {the apocryphal Acts of Peter} concludes describing Peter's martyrdom as upside-down crucifixion, a tradition that is first attested in this work. These concluding chapters are preserved separately as the Martyrdom of Peter in three Greek manuscripts and in Coptic (fragmentary), Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, Armenian, and Slavonic versions. Because of this, it is sometimes proposed that the martyrdom account was the original text to which the preceding chapters were affixed.

And finally, from Wiki

Sienkiewicz studied the Roman Empire extensively prior to writing the novel, with the aim of getting historical details correct. As such, several historical figures appear in the book. As a whole, the novel carries a powerful pro-Christian message.

But you say it "was too Christian and did not have the balance". Somehow I get the impression you may be reading more into it than you're reading out of it. But at least you're in good company. Give a Bible to a fundamentalist Christian and he'll do the same thing.

It is the year 2004 and Noah lives in the United States. The Lord speaks to Noah and says, "In one year, I am going to make it rain and cover the whole earth with water until all is destroyed. But I want you to save the righteous people and two of every kind of living thing on the earth. Therefore, I am commanding you to build an Ark."

In a flash of lightning, God delivered the specifications for an Ark. Fearful and trembling, Noah took the plans and agreed to build the Ark. "Remember," said the Lord, "You must complete the Ark and bring everything aboard in one year."

Exactly one year later, a fierce storm cloud covered the earth and all the seas of the earth went into a tumult. The Lord saw Noah sitting in his front yard weeping. "Noah," He shouted, "where is the Ark?"

"Lord, please forgive me!" cried Noah. "I did my best, but there were big problems. First, I had to get a permit for construction and your plans did not comply with the codes. I had to hire an engineering firm and redraw the plans.

Then I got into a fight with OSHA over whether or not the Ark needed a fire sprinkler system and floatation devices. Then my neighbor objected, claiming I was violating zoning ordinances by building the Ark in my front yard, so I had to get a variance from the city planning commission.

I had problems getting enough wood for the Ark, because there was a ban on cutting trees to protect the Spotted Owl. I finally convinced the U.S. Forest Service that I needed the wood to save the owls. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service won't let me catch any owls. So, no owls.

The carpenters formed a union and went out on strike. I had to negotiate a settlement with the National Labor Union. Now I have 16 carpenters on the Ark, but still no owls. When I started rounding up the other animals, I got sued by an animal rights group. They objected to me only taking two of each kind aboard.

Just when I got the suit dismissed, the EPA notified me that I could not complete the Ark without filing an environmental impact statement on your proposed flood. They didn't take very kindly to the idea that they had no jurisdiction over the conduct of the Creator of the universe.

Then the Army Corps of Engineers demanded a map of the proposed new flood plan. I sent them a globe.

Right now, I am trying to resolve a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that I am practicing discrimination by not taking godless, unbelieving people aboard!

The IRS has seized my assets, claiming that I'm building the Ark in preparation to flee the country to avoid paying taxes I just got a notice from the state that I owe them some kind of user tax and failed to register the Ark as a "recreational water craft."

Finally, the ACLU got the courts to issue an injunction against further construction of the Ark, saying that since God is flooding the earth, it is a religious event and therefore, unconstitutional I really don't think I can finish the Ark for another 5 or 6 years!" Noah wailed.

The sky began to clear, the sun began to shine and the seas began the calm. A rainbow arched across the sky. Noah looked up hopefully.

"You mean you are not going to destroy the earth, Lord.

"No," said the Lord sadly. "I don't have to. The government already has."

CNN Dirty Tricks With Wolf on Ron Paul

Posted by: "Anson" interpolarize@yahoo.com interpolarize

Fri Oct 5, 2007 7:19 pm (PST)

CNN Dirty Tricks With Wolf B.In The Situation Room

Posted October 5th, 2007 by Kevin@HarperRealty

SEE VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF PAGE:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Will_5_milli..._more_1004.html

I remember after I watched the Wolf Blitzer interview yesterday I felt

like Dr. Ron was off his game. What happened I thought? I study

subliminal advertising so I watched again looking for subliminal

messages and what I saw was shocking.

Words such as Darfur Match, Naked Woman, KKK, Not Join, Marked, "deal

with noo", fire, accident were prominently featured in the backround

as Ron was being interviewed.

Coincidence? I don't think so. Nothing on that set was happenstance.

The backround was designed to elicit a negative subconscious response

from the viewer and in my opinion it worked and should be guarded

against in the future.

SEE

CNN's The Situation Room, broadcast on October 4, 2007

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Will_5_milli..._more_1004.html

Scroll down to the video. When CNN camera goes to Ron, hit pause and

read the words on the screen behind him.

Future interviewers should be put on notice we are aware and watching.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

http://dailypaul.com/node/2933

Wow, it WOULD be awfully easy to change data in a computer and with no other way to verify the results - who's to know?

Paper trail. But if one is going to print stuff why not use a paper ballot in the first place?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob --

What this guy Jim Condit is talking about is that these systems produce no paper trails. What has been happening is that an expected outcome is announced for a particular election ahead of time. Then when the election occurs, exit polls show an entirely different set of numbers. But then the votes are "counted", and voila, the results match what was "predicted" before the voting occurred. But there's a problem...the "actual" numbers read from the machine and reported to the public don't match the actual count of people voting. (e.g., It looks like at least 40% of the votes from the last Iowa straw poll went missing.) And a "recount" consists of verifying that these skewed figures were read correctly from the machine, since there is no audit trail of the actual votes.

As I mentioned to Chris, this guy has already documented how the same thing happened in 1988 and 1996.

steve

A quick look at this post suggests it is the hard Left's attempt to prove the last two Presidential elections were fraudulent.

Actually this guy is more concerned with the 88 & 96 elections, when so called "moderate" repubs took the nominations rather than the conservative candidates. What we ended up with was Bush sr. & Clinton.

This is a letter from someone who has been on the topic since forever.

The GOP does what ever it can to make Elections turn out the way they see fit Neo-Cons rule tru the Voting Machines!

NOTHING is ever done in the open. It would be impossible to devise a more totalitarian, Un-American way to run an election, i.e., hiding all the ballots (evidence) from the people and the candidates.

EVERYTHING – with regard to the ballots (the evidence) was conducted IN THE DARK, BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, and BEHIND POLICE GUARD.

COMPUTERIZED, SECRET COUNT USED IN IOWA STRAW POLL TO BE USED IN ALL PRIMARIES, and HALF OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AGAINST RON PAUL

This is why our “Vote in Sunshine” / Citizens for a Fair Vote Count coalition went to Ames, Iowa for the Straw Poll. This is why many of you donated over $5000 on short notice to help us make this happen! WE needed to raise this computerized votefraud issue EARLY – because the Ruling Elite in NYC and DC have been using this weapon (computerized votefraud) to control elections in the USA since at least as far back as 1988. (Remember, we have only Bushes and Clintons in the White House since 1988.)

In all 49 states and half of New Hamsphire, all votes are “counted” at all elections by one of four computer companies, namely Diebold, ES &S, Hart, and Sequioa. These four companies actually “count” 96% of the US vote.

How is this possible? This is possible because between 1973 and 1988 – the Super Criminals behind the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee strong-armed 3100+ counties to (unconstitutionally) delegate the counting authority to one of these four Computerized Votefraud Syndicate companies.

The big TV Network corporations (ABC, CBS, NBC, and now CNN and FOX) work hand in glove with the four “compuer-vote-counting” companies to pull off this scam on the American people. And, of course, the Big TV Networks are controlled by the same ruthless crowd that controls the computerized voting machines, and the RNC, and the DNC. (That’s why the BIG TV Networks protect, with the exception of a few minor exposures, the computerized “counting” of our USA vote; it’s also why they minimize and censor Presidential Candidate Ron Paul.)

Call your local county if you do not believe me. Ask them if you and other citizens can count the ballots to double check the computers on election night – before the ballots disappear? Ultimately you will be told that you will be arrested if you try to do so, unless you live in one of those ten proud counties in New Hampshire, where the elections are still counted by the neighborhood citizens, by hand and in the open – machine free and computer free.

WE WENT TO AMES, IOWA TO EXPOSE THE COMPUTERIZED VOTEFRAUD SYNDICATE EARLY SO THEY COULDN’T DO TO RON PAUL in 2008 WHAT THEY DID TO PAT BUCHANAN in the 1990s.

Our Vote in Sunshine / Citizens for a Fair Vote Count Coalition went to Ames, Iowa to raise this issue at the earliest opportunity. See some of the confrontations with the “police state” Iowa GOP operatives at voteinsunshine.com –

What we didn’t expect was to have all the Presidential Campaigns sit on the sidelines and betray their supporters by not insisting on an open count.

Naturally, 95% of those awake to this issue are Ron Paul Supporters. But we didn’t expect the paid staffers of the campaign to not only sit on their hands, but to also lock arms with the Iowa GOP to protect the hiding of all the ballots (evidence) from the people and the candidates and the press.

Furthermore, the paid staffers of the Ron Paul campaign also told all the volunteers NOT to help verify the vote. So, HUNDREDS of able bodied young men were holding signs and chanting ONLY, instead of helping us try and get a fair vote for Ron Paul and everybody else at the Ames Straw Poll. More on this incredible behavior of the paid staff in a future update in this series.

Meanwhile, Walter Reddy of Connecticut (the William Wallace of Ames, Iowa 2007), Greg Gorey of Texas, Emily of Texas – and about 8 other individuals performed the heroic task of documenting how many people voted, and collected about 900 voter verification card and affidavits to try and double-check the real count. (That was about 6% of those who voted; if some campus police hadn’t let the IOWA GOP use them to scare off almost half of our volunteers, and if the RP paid staff hadn’t told volunteers not to help us, or failed to tell them how to contact us, then we could have gotten maybe 7000 to 10,000 voter verification cards and affidavits. (Almost nobody we talked to or ran into was comfortable with the Diebold computers, and those who seemed to be just waved us off with a smile as if they thought it was “out of bounds”, meaning they probably hadn’t looked into the subject at all.)

THIS UNPLEASANT SUBJECT MUST BE RAISED NOW

So now, we have the paid RP campaign staff saying that HIDING the ballots from the Ron Paul Campaign and the people and the press – is doing everything “in the open” ?

This is unpleasant – but the behavior of PAID RP campaign staff must be raised at this point – before it is too late.

THE BATTLE IS RAGING NOW

The battle is raging NOW. We just took a big defeat in Ames, Iowa because all the paid campaign staff we encountered told the volunteers NOT to help us verify the vote – and the campaign itself did NOTHING to help verify the vote.

The paid staff all seemed to be totally devoted to playing kissy-face, huggy-bear with the crooks at the Iowa GOP – who HID all the ballots (evidence), then came out on stage and announced their alleged vote count --- which the RP paid staff seems to be happy to take on BLIND FAITH.

As I said, the battle is raging NOW. There is no time to battle-train or potty-train Jesse Benton and the other PAID staffers who are, de facto, betraying the Ron Paul Campaign, Ron Paul, all the millions of volunteers, and America – by locking arms with the Iowa GOP, the RNC, the DNC, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX – to protect the Computer-Votefraud Syndicate.

Hey, Benton! Spend 20 minutes on votefraud.org and educate yourself on the computerized votefraud problem – or resign immediately.

I’M WORKING FOR RON PAUL AND AMERICA – NOT FOR WHOEVER THESE QUIZZICAL PEOPLE ARE ON THE PAID STAFF OF THE RON PAUL CAMPAIGN

I don’t care a WHIT for sparing the political reputation of Jesse Benton, the Iowa GOP with whom he is in bed with (along with the rest of the paid staff on the Ron Paul Campaign, as far as we can tell), or sparing Kent Snyder, Lew Moore, or Joe Seehusan (heads of the RP campaign at national and in Iowa).

I CARE FOR Dr. RON PAUL, CAROL PAUL, and the millions of SINCERE volunteers who are pouring their hearts out for this campaign.

And why are the volunteers pouring their hearts out? To save America from the encroaching police state and world tyranny of the Ruling Elite of the CFR, New World Order, etc. in D.C. and NYC.

And the TWO MAIN WEAPONS being used to bury and defeat the one candidate, Ron Paul, who would turn American around on all front towards the Constitution – is the media suppression being perpetrated by the 5 Big TV Networks against the Ron Paul Campaign (which the paid staff absolutely refuses to challenge), -- and THE COMPUTERIZED VOTEFRAUD SYNDICATE, which can fix any key election, except in those ten counties in NH which are machine-free, computer-free and still count the votes in the open and by hand.

For the record, when asked, Ron Paul did NOT distance himself from concern about the way the votes were to be counted. Ron Paul told the press when asked about our federal lawsuit, that, “. . . now is the time to ask questions.”

We also know from people on our team who talked to Carol Paul and Ron Paul in Ames, Iowa that they are both worried about the suppression of their campaign by the Big Media – and by the secretive vote counting systems that are being used to count the vote for the contests related to Presidential Election 2008.

See the Homepage at >>> votefraud.org – be sure to answer the confirmation email.)

Jim Condit Jr.

Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count

www.votefraud.org --

PO Box 11339, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211

votefraud@fuse.net

Of course, there was also the fact that SOMEONE had to tell Oswald where Kennedy would be that day...

Barbara

But Oswald was in Mexico City with ME that day. We were planning the next memorial of the loss of the Titanic. It had that humongous shipment of Hellman's Mayonaise on board, bound for Mexico when it sank. Such a great loss to the Mexicans, it's why they memorialize Sinko da Mayo.

:homestar: Welcome to the S.S. Homestarrunner-dot-com. I'm your captain, Homestar Runner...

In 1972 George McGovern was attacked because he proposed giving every American $1,000. The Democrats just increase the amount but make the group that gets the grant smaller.

Why not just slash taxes on consumer goods? And why not deregulate the education market? This will make children cheaper to raise and college cheaper to attend. Would also allow the firing of a heap of bureaucrats.

Really, all these government programs arent even needed. All you need is a negative income tax system (which provides a minimum level of income). That would replace every social service and allow people to spend their money on what THEY think is good.

Richard Nixon proposed both in 1969, but everyone was too busy criticizing the war to notice. So the democrat congress sliced & diced his proposals till all we got was Social Security taking over all the local welfare rolls for the aged, blind, and disabled. (the "AABD Conversion"), which doubled the paperwork and the number of bureaucrats needed to run the programs.

Also provided some nifty cover for the bureaucrats to fleece the system. As a welfare bureaucrat in my county (early-mid 70's), I took part in an investigation that uncovered $10's of millions of welfare fraud -- more than the entire yearly county budget. Turns out that 84% of the fraud was by welfare department employees opening & certifying their own cases. Talk about a blank check. Of course, my boss had to stifle the investigation when he found it was going to interfere with his political ambitions.

Michael,

I've tried to take the "cons" out of "conspiracy," too.

Without the cons and the piracy, we don't have much left, now, do we?

Bob

If you (and Michael) don't stop this I'm gonna lose it. :hyper:

Steve

p.s. Congrats on your reward.

Bob; Do you have any evidence for that charge?

No. It was a cheap shot. Mea Culpa! Sometimes I just cannot help myself. When they announced Habemus Pappam with Benny 16, I responded with Seig Heil! I guess the fact that Benny 16 was a Hitler Youth sticks in my craw. I am not generally anti-Catholic even though I had the shit beaten out of me by Catholic bullies (when I was a kid). You see, I personally killed Christ, or so they said. Even so, I should not keep holding a grudge.

Shame on me double. I should have more self control.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob --

Funny. Growing up, I got the shit beaten out of me for being an atheist.

Then I grew up & after some changes became a pentecostal preacherman. When I finally followed what I knew I was supposed to do & converted to catholicism (to make my wife happy), Pope John Paul II died. Guess it killed him to have me a catholic. Maybe if I hadn't he'd still be alive. Naaaaahhh......

But he was the only one who could make it possible for me. Oh well.

At the time JPII died, I really felt concerned that "the Rat" was going to be named Pope. I had the same response you did. But after some deep thought and meditation (Xians call it prayer), this was the answer I got:

Do you remember when Ronald Reagan was your President? Do you remember what they called his presidency? Yes, it was called the 'Teflon Presidency' -- and do you remember why? It was because, no matter what went wrong, nobody could make anything 'stick' to him. Like with a CIA operative, he always maintained 'plausible deniability' for any ill effects of his chosen policies.

Likewise with Pope John Paul II. He always had a 'Teflon Papacy' before Me, and before you. And the reason is that he had Cardinal Ratzinger to serve as his foil, and to take the heat for any unpopular pronouncements. John Paul, in all his actions, took credit for being 'John Paul the Great' -- the Apostle of Love, while Cardinal Ratzinger was regarded as a wizened old fool. They played an effective game of 'good cop - bad cop' with the whole world for more than a quarter century -- and pulled it off successfully.

But now John Paul has passed, and Cardinal Ratzinger must find a new way, as Benedict XVI. Pray for him now, that he may find the strength necessary to always speak the Truth in My name. For that is the commitment of every one who takes the chair of Peter, which he makes before My face.

Steve; I guess you're against open borders. Joe Duarte gave an excellent talk at the Objectivist Center Summer Seminar 2007 on the immigration "problem".

Chris

In my salad days, when I accepted the whole objectivist/libertarian lines more consistently, I believed in the benefits of the free flow of goods and services, and the total freedom of anyone to associate with anyone they choose.

This works all fine and dandy provided the society is made up only of rational adults, but as a matter of fact, it isn't. And you can't base the application of your principles on woulda-coulda-shoulda-and-if-the-queen-had-balls-she'd-be-king. It doesn't work. If you try to do that, you end up believing in a eutopia myth, similar to the communist concept of the "end of history", that is, their end of the historical hegelian dialectic, in which the state "just withers away". It's not gonna happen. So you're left with a bunch of wreckage of human lives, for which a blind application of your (my) principles is responsible, and the people responsible (you and me) refusing to accept responsibility. I see this as a repetitive motif in human history, and I don't see objectivism or libertarianism as being immune from it.

Great. We're turning the only philosophical foundations for a free productive society into a justification for parasitism, gang warfare, slavery and human trafficking. Just what we need.

And would it have been worth it, after all,

After the cups, the marmalade, the tea,

Among the porcelain, among some talk of you and me,

Would it have been worth while,

To have bitten off the matter with a smile,

To have squeezed the universe into a ball

To roll it toward some overwhelming question,

To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,

Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”—

If one, settling a pillow by her head,

Should say: “That is not what I meant at all.

That is not it, at all.”

from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", T.S.Eliot, 1917

===============

BTW, is there a synopsis of the seminar available online?

Yes, there is advanced math that doesn't involve measurement, e.g. non-metric topology.

Merlin,

Does non-metric topology use any units?

Michael

Yes, "unit" meaning "member of a set", but not meaning "a basis of measurement". I comment about Rand's ambiguous use of "unit" in the 2nd link in msg #198.

Using Topoi one can even eliminate set theory. I suppose elements of a set would correspond roughly to Michael's "units". But even those can be made to go away.

The fact that any mathematical theory has objects and relations means they constitute units in a trivial sense. Anything expressible in some sort of human language or another has units, so mathematics is not special in that sense.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, can you point me at a book on that subject?

Even so, the answer is still 476. That's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I mean, how many times have you advocated for your Reality Lite viewpoint, and not insisted on it here? If you want to discuss how we get mental content, then you don't discuss math, you don't discuss physics, you don't discuss set theory, you don't discuss Aristotle. "Popper said...." "Aristotle said......" "Rand said....." "Plato said...." "J.S.Mill said......" but not one of these people did anything but hypothesize in the absence of evidence. What would YOU say?

Experimental psychology is the scientific field that actually identifies how we get our mental content, how we do concept formation: i.e., learning. And it is not so verbal-centric that it ignores the 2-year pre-verbal period of learning we all go through from 5 months of gestation onward, wherein we acquire concepts such as "me-feel" (focus), "me"-"not-me" ("identity"), "me-do"-"not-me-do" ("causation"), "not-me-do"-"me-feel" ("pain/pleasure principle"), etc., etc., etc. It is because all these essential "axiomatic" concepts are learned, are formed, are inferred, at the pre-verbal level that later definitions appear circular or to tend toward infinite regression. You just can't remember how you got where you are, so you make it up as you go.

The late experimental psychologist Robert Gagne (1916-2002, not an immediate relative) isolated 5 different types of learning, and proposed a process for applying the nine necessary conditions for learning (in the form of instruction -- his theories in learning have been applied to the military, kindergartens, home study programs, etc., with great success). From his work we find that the simplest answer to the question of the origin of mental content is, "It is learned."

Though in some respects simplistic, based on postulation rather than evidence, and showing signs of what I have called elsewhere "knowledge stubs", Ayn Rand's hypotheses concerning concept formation echo significant parts of what has been theorized by Gagne et al. And if these principles are taken seriously, one realizes that our "knowledge" is the experienced concrete, generalized and integrated with what we have known before. This is learning, this is concept formation. It makes foolish any assertions about distinctions in types of "induction", because it's all the same thing. And there is no guarantee of automatic infallability.

I suspect that would be the type of answer you would want, were you to be consistent to the principles you've advocated here.

Zero population growth was a very bad idea. It is worth noting that in much of Europe the population is actually declining. The same is true of Japan. China's one child policy is leading to the same effect.

What is wrong with zero population growth? Or with a declining population?

In many societies, the young economically support the old. In the USA, there is the social security system - in which funds paid by those working today go to support those now retired. In China, the young send money to their parents. In either case, a declining population means a declining ratio young/old which means fewer people supporting more.

Since it may be necessary to avoid prolonged discussion on the subject: The above paragraph is not to be taken as an endorsement of these economic arrangements and all that accompanies them - merely a reflection on current reality.

Alfonso

Which, as it turns out, is the real reason for the "open borders" movement and the 20-30 million illegal immigrants the current administration wants to make instant citizens. Due to the American Holocaust of abortion, over 47 million people who would have been born in the past generation under other circumstances, and over 120 million in the next generation, will never be. That's 167 million taxpayers, gone, poof, into thin air, and their physical remains sold as dog food. That's why the politicians think we need a massive infusion of new taxpaying citizens, and it doesnt matter if they speak english, it doesnt matter if they're educated -- because the next generation will be, at our expense, it doesnt matter if they believe in the American way or capitalism, or freedom, or anything at all, because by that time, as far as the politicians are concerned, we'll all be dead. That's the great ideal -- a new generation of milch cows, to pay our social security, and after that we die, and what we leave behind is their problem. Free trade, it's a beautiful thing.

The answer is 476.

Back in the 60's Atherton Press compiled a series of articles on this subject, on natural regulation of animal populations. Several writers surveyed known animal populations over the previous hundred years or so, and noticed a pattern that appeared to be malthusian, in that an incremental increase in resources appeared to trigger an exponential increase in populations. After shooting sky high, the population would outstrip resources, destroy their environment, and fall to a bare subsistence level, far below the previous stasis level, until the environment recovered. The population would then have a chance to return to its previous stasis level. The population growth curves actully looked like a human heartbeat as represented by an EKG. (Of course if the environment was taxed beyond recovery, it resulted in the creature's extinction.)

During that time everyone and his brother-in-law was advocating drastic measures for the supposed "overpopulation" that was happening in human society. Of course, nothing of the sort was happening; at the time it was just over-concentrations of population in a few pockets where the people with the biggest mouths lived. But I took the bait and started to figure out what the result would be if the then-current population projections were accurate. What I came up with (in 68) was this: that in 300 years, every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth could have 6 acres of land for their own exclusive use and possession. At the time I was making these calculations, it took nearly an acre of land to produce all the products needed for an individual; I projected that by that time, technological advance would reduce that requirement to under a 1/4 of an acre, most of it renewable. That's it. Of the 6 acres for each individual, 5-3/4 acres would be virtually unused. Nearly 96% of the earth's land surface would be empty under theoretical "overpopulation" conditions. And that isn't even happening. The problem now is that, compared to the projections, the world is virtually uninhabited; the resources are just being handled so badly.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to Bill's point.

Moreover, taxation isn't wrong simply because it violates rights (although it does that), nor is it wrong simply because it contradicts the purpose for which the taxes are being levied (although it does that). It is wrong for a far more serious and fundamental reason. It is wrong because it betrays the very purpose for the government's existence in the first place! In that respect, it is even worse than the theft from which it claims to offer us protection.

Quoting Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . ." (Emphasis added)

Governments are instituted to secure these rights, not to violate them! There might be some excuse for endorsing taxation if one had never been introduced to these ideas in the first place. There is none for a man of Greenspan’s knowledge and sophistication.

Now we're probably going to have to split this into several seperate discussions:

1) Morality in an imperfect world, and

2) How to make the imperfect world more perfect, and

3) Errors in our own understandings.

The first point concerns the the compromises we all make (including Greenspan) in order to work in a world full of immoral people, institutions, and expectations.

The second concerns the methodology we might use to obviate those aspects of living in our current mixed economy that occasion us to make those compromises -- definitely a seperate topic.

The third concerns our own misunderstandings concerning principles and applicability. I think I should start with the last one first.

There are a number of implicit expectations on our internal wish-lists that we have hung on various statements by others, concerning rights, responsibilities, role of government, etc. But there are some points are made explicit elsewhere that contradict our understandings in this discussion.

Firstly, the Declaration of Independence, as worded and approved by the Founders, explicitly abandoned Paine's "life, liberty, and property" for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", stating that rights exist only in a state of action, not in regard to an object itself. Thus the commonsense definition of private property ownership is NOT part of the this nation's foundation document. That doesn't mean we cannot make it part of the future, but it definitely is not out of our national past. Because of this crucial difference in understanding regarding property, the national impetus held that, whereas you could not tax a man's person, nor his freedoms, you could, on the other hand tax agricultural products, which increased, not solely by man's efforts, but grew by the "Grace of God", and was thus not man's property but God's. And the common religious tradition at that time was that the wayfarer, the widowed, the orphaned, the homeless, the halt, the lamed, all had a claim on any excess created in this manner, i.e., by the "Hand of God." Furthermore, manufactured goods were made of the agricultural products and natural resources discovered in the land. These products were seen as subject to not only the claims made on agricultural products, but also to a societal claim on "privileged activities", activities that would not have existed but for the producer's relation to society -- this claim being called "the excise". This is the basis of recognizing taxation in the past. If you wish to dispose of the myth, you must at least postulate a principle of similar mythic impact, or be left with an inherently self-contradictory principle of government smack dab in the middle of your philosophy.

Secondly, in her discussion of the relation between the right of self-defense and government, AR emphasized a point that is being soft-pedaled here. The state is a corporate entity to whom we surrender our right to initiate retaliation WITHIN A SPECIFIC LIMITED GEOGRAPHIC AREA. Note that this must needs be a unitary enterprise (see her discussion re: "competing governments"), and does not constitute surrendering our right of self defense. Because of this necessity (of the government being a unitary entity), it must regard actions against itself as a "threat", thus assuming its own institutional sense of self defense, a right-in-action, of initiating action against perceived threats. There is nothing in Objectivist theory that provides any guarantee that the state, resting within its powers, will restrain itself in exercising this; 100% taxation ("tribute" or serfdom) could quickly become the order of the day. But it is because the state can do this, with none to oppose, that the powers of government must be strictly limited by the rule of law, under the control of civil authority. Thus civil authority is there, not to "validate" or "enforce" taxation (institutionalized theft), but to sharply limit it. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

So our theoretical spin has got to change if we want to get this right.

(oops wife says I gots to go.)

As far as Morality in an imperfect world, remember that "I owe no debt of morality to those who would treat me immorally." If I am facing an essentially irrational situation, do not expect my actions to make sense according to your standards.

As far as making it a more perfect world, O'ism has a long way to go, adequately answering questions of "how" in human society, before it will be mature enough to guide society cleanly. (Telling people that they are irrelevant isn't very productive.) It will have to recognize and embrace the cultic and mythic aspect of human belief systems, to answer societal man's needs, without closing off growth. (A la David Kelley "T&T" rather than "I am AR's spiritual heir" LP.) Good manners wouldn't hurt, either.

steve

Globalization is one of the most powerful forces for liberty. That is why free trade, sound money and free immigration are the most important political issues for Objectivists to champion. In such a climate, those countries with poor tax policy and fiscal policy will be disciplined economically.

Jim

No, globalism is not "one of the most powerful forces for liberty", it is the process of indebting every nation in the world, every man, woman, and child, to the IMF, World Bank, and other international banking organizations so they can suck the lifeblood, every drop of wealth, out of every human being on the face of the planet.

Once we are all on that treadmill, the debts are structured so that repayment schedules are always greater than the resources available to repay them, so that they can never be repaid: perpetual debt, perpetual servitude. This is a recipe for disaster, and its end result is first, chaos, next, war, and then, tyranny.

I suggest that this is the opposite of what you wish to accomplish.

"Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think" INDEED!

Say no more! Say no more!