THERE IS NO SECOND PLACE

The Law of the Sea Treaty "LOST" WILL SINK AMERICA

Possibly the Final Push for the Law of the Sea Treaty
By Paul M. Weyrich
CNSNews.com Commentary
October 30, 2007

The Law of the Sea Treaty ("LOST" to opponents, "UNCLOS" to supporters) is up for a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this Thursday, November 1.

The State Department pushed this treaty in 1981 when Ronald Reagan was president. He rejected it, primarily because of Part XI of the treaty, which regulates minerals on the seabed outside any sovereign state's territorial waters. It establishes an International Seabed Authority (ISA) to authorize seabed exploration and mining and collect and distribute the seabed mining royalty.

President Reagan strongly objected to the provisions of Part XI, saying that they were unfavorable to America's economy and security. The provisions of the treaty were not free market-friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the communist states.

During the presidency of George H. W. Bush, the treaty was not considered. President Bill Clinton supported the treaty but never forcefully enough to secure ratification in the Senate. The fact that he had a Republican Senate for six of the eight years of his presidency was a consideration.

Then came the presidency of George W. Bush. During his first term, he did not push the treaty. His second term has been different, however. Beginning in 2005, Bush made a determined effort to ratify LOST. Fortunately, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, M.D. (R-Tenn.), did not permit the treaty to reach the Senate floor.

Now the treaty is up for consideration again. Things have changed. The Democrats control the Senate and have held several hearings on LOST in the Foreign Relations Committee.

Many thought the treaty would pass through the committee without difficulty. But Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) had a different idea. He asked tough questions of the witnesses at the hearings. In fact, the word "tough" is not adequate to describe what Vitter did to those witnesses. They could not answer Vitter's questions. It was an embarrassment.

The result of those hearings was to slow passage of LOST. Vitter has asked for more hearings. He does not know if he will receive them.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is pushing for hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Some even want hearings before the Senate Finance Committee because the treaty gives the United Nations authority to tax economic activities in the deep seabed, the first time in American history that an entity outside of the United States government could demand taxes from American citizens arising from activity in the deep seabed.

Meanwhile, Frank Gaffney, Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, investigative reporter Cliff Kincaid and a dozen conservative organizations have begun a campaign to educate Americans about LOST.

Many state legislators also are lobbying their U.S. senators. Conservative organizations believe that if their supporters understand the substance of the treaty, they will revolt, as they did with the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007.

The establishment consistently has sought to pass legislation through the Congress when the American people are unaware. The Senate majority leader has the capacity to do so. The Senate minority leader has the capacity to slow legislation. It remains to be seen how LOST will be handled once on the Senate calendar.

That largely will be determined by the strength of the opposition in the Foreign Relations Committee. It also depends upon whether there are hearings before other committees.

The key to defeating the treaty is to secure 34 votes against it. Years ago, the majority leader could withdraw a treaty upon seeing the signatures of 34 senators. That leader was a Democrat, and we had to obtain the signatures of senators from both parties.

That will be the key to ensuring that this treaty is not ratified. The Bush administration does not want an international embarrassment, so if the conservative movement and other realists are able to produce the signatures of one-third of the Senate, you will hear nothing of it, and the treaty will be pulled quietly from the Senate calendar.

A clear minority presently is against the treaty. Most senators have not heard much about it nor focused upon it. One reason the treaty was not considered during Frist's four-year tenure was that the senators elected in 2000, 2002 and 2004 also had not focused upon it.

So, while Frist kept his word that the treaty would not come up for consideration, many senators never learned of the loss of sovereignty that the treaty would create nor of the taxing authority of the proposed ISA. Considering which nations have ratified the treaty, it is likely that several avowed enemies of the United States would sit on the ISA.

Should Americans place their future in the hands of their enemies? This is the main concern. I must believe that there are 34 senators who would oppose the treaty once they fully learned about it. So the effort has begun. Conservatives are now in the process of educating their senators. Some senators refuse to change their minds about LOST.

Will LOST be defeated? The odds are slightly against its defeat. Currently, four leading Republican senators -- Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Jr. (R-Ky.), Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Inhofe -- oppose LOST. It is too early to give up. These senators are tireless workers who never give up, so why should we?

Further LOST background is set out in this column from October 4.

WE ARE WINNING IN iRAQ! NOT THAT YOU COULD TELL BY THE 527 - DRIVE-BY -DOMINATE LIBERAL MASS MEDIA

SOURCE: TOWNHALL.COM

   

                




George W. Bush's Greatest Triumph?
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, October 31, 2007

On Monday, the U.S. military turned over the war-torn Karbala province to Iraqi security forces. The assumption of control by Iraqi security forces marked the eighth such handover by the U.S. military since the start of the Iraq war. Of the 18 Iraqi provinces, 10 remain under U.S. military control.

Cautious optimism is beginning to bloom in the desert. Though the Iraqi government itself has acknowledged its foot-dragging with regard to assuming responsibility over security -- "Allow me to say that we are late, very late, to reconstruct, to rebuild our forces for reasons that I do not want to mention here," said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- the situation in Iraq is steadily growing less tenuous. According to iCasualties.org, fatalities from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have decreased dramatically and consistently since May 2007, from 90 in May to 16 in October. Iraqi forces are either in control of or leading operations in broad swaths of 16 out of 18 provinces.

The troop surge in Iraq has produced real results on the ground. And as security improves, the movement to take back Iraq from warring factions will snowball.

Momentum is the key to continuing improvement in Iraq. "The reconstruction of Iraq does not hinge on security alone," says Maliki, "but security is the key to everything." And security continues to improve. According to the Department of Defense, over 67,000 Iraqis have volunteered to help coalition and Iraqi forces secure neighborhoods. Says one lieutenant stationed south of the Baghdad International Airport in the American-controlled Baghdad province, "The violence and IEDs in the [area of operations] seem to have slowed down considerably a couple months before we arrived. It was definitely due to Iraqi local nationals setting up their own checkpoints or ISVs (Iraqi Security Volunteers). They police their own roads and areas to keep [al-Qaeda] insurgents and any other bad guys out. They have done this with great success."

The potential for success in Iraq creates an interesting political situation domestically. While those on the right have maintained strong support for the war -- leaving aside the small minority of conservatives who back Chuck Hagel and Ron Paul -- those on the left have clamored for immediate withdrawal. That extremism has cost the left dearly. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most popular politician in America only a few months ago, has seen her fortunes tumble: Her favorability rating, which stood at 53 percent in April 2007, now stands at 29 percent. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has seen a similar drop in popularity: In May, Reid's favorability rating was 46 percent. It is now 19 percent.

The only hope for the left is the Machiavellian Senator Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. Among the leading Democratic presidential candidates, only Clinton has embraced moderate rhetoric about the future of Iraq. Her far-left base continues to fume, but Hillary's bet hedging will likely win her the Democratic nomination for president -- even Democrats recognize that snatching defeat from the jaws of victory isn't a winning 2008 campaign strategy.

Meanwhile, the Republican star rises with the burgeoning Iraqi stabilization. The media exaggerated the pronouncement of imminent Republican death -- a Rudy Giuliani nomination could spell renewed electoral success in 2008. In the face of a hostile media establishment and an unhappy American public, George W. Bush may have pulled off the greatest success of his presidency: winning democracy in Iraq and, in doing so, keeping a party of defeatists out of power.

Hey North American Union - Security and Prosperity Partnership - GOOD BYE AMERICA

A War We Are Still Losing
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
October 31, 2007

The terrorists swept into Cananea in a convoy of 15 vehicles. They were on a brazen, murderous mission.

They kidnapped seven policemen and two civilians. Outside town, they shot and killed four of the policemen and dumped their bodies in a park.

Local police who had not been kidnapped deserted their posts to a man. "When the state police arrived, there was not a single municipal police officer," the local governor later told the Associated Press. "We had to take over the command. There wasn't anyone there. They had all left."

Government forces tracked the terrorists into the nearby mountains. A pitched battle ensued. Fifteen terrorists were reported killed. Others got away, melting into the local population or deeper into the hills.

So went another sad episode in a region of the world where anarchy reigns. Assessing the day's carnage, the mayor of the targeted village spoke with bitter candor. "Our municipality has become the victim of the violence that pervades this entire country," he said in a statement. "The events of this morning are beyond shocking."

Where is this placed called Cananea? Is it in Iraq? Afghanistan?

No. It is almost in Arizona. Specifically, it is about 20 miles south of the U.S. border in the Mexican state of Sonora. Pull it up on Google Earth, as I did this week, and you will see that the nearest town of any size is Nogales, Ariz. The nearest big city is Tucson.

Cananea is in the war zone next door. It is a place where Mexican criminal syndicates, bolstered by Mexican army deserters, fight one another for control of the best smuggling routes into the United States.

The terrorist raid on Cananea, which took place on May 16, points to a monstrous strategic blunder by our government.

More than six years have transpired since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the quest to make our nation safer, we have sent armies halfway around the world to occupy and attempt to create democracies in both Afghanistan and Iraq. But our government still has not secured our own border.

The Government Accountability Office last week presented testimony to the House Foreign Relations Committee that demonstrated just how porous our southern frontier remains.

"Mexico," said the GAO, "is the conduit for most of the cocaine reaching the United States, the source for much of the heroin consumed in the United States and the largest foreign supplier of marijuana and methamphetamine to the U.S. market."

In the years since 9/11, the drug cartels that trade in South American cocaine have found Mexico to be a more -- not less -- attractive route for smuggling their product into American cities and towns to sell to American kids.

Citing an annual U.S. government analysis called the Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (IACM), the GAO said: "From 2000 to 2006, the IACM reported an increase in the estimated amount of cocaine flowing through Mexico to the United States -- from 66 percent in 2000 to 77 percent in 2003 to 90 in 2006."

"Despite the apparent increases in cocaine arriving in Mexico, the amount of cocaine reported seized in Mexico and along the U.S.-Mexico border for 2000-2006 did not increase proportionately," said GAO. On average during this period, GAO said, only about 13 percent of this cocaine was seized.

The record was worse for heroin. "Reported heroin seizures in Mexico and along the U.S.-Mexico border averaged less than 1 metric ton or less than 5 percent a year of the estimated export quality heroin produced in Mexico between 2000 and 2005," said GAO.

Americans have and will pay many prices for the failure of our president and Congress to secure our border. In 2005 alone, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, people using cocaine visited emergency rooms 448,481 times, while people using heroin visited emergency rooms 164,572 times. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that in 2002, Americans paid $180.9 billion to cover the negative consequences of drug use, which includes health costs, criminal justice costs, disability and death-related costs, and the cost of lost productivity.

Then, of course, there are the criminals who cross our borders to conduct business here for the cartels. Mexican drug trafficking organizations, the GAO said in an August report, have "regional managers throughout the country and rely on Mexican street gangs to distribute illicit drugs at the retail level."

If, one day, the powder that comes across our border is not heroin or cocaine but something even deadlier, and the thugs who bring it through are not drug dealers but al-Qaida terrorists, the current president and Congress will not be able to say: No one saw it coming.

Sharia Law comes in many forms. This is just one more.

'Islamophobia' Used to Crush Muslim Dissent, Panel Says
By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 31, 2007

(CNSNews.com) - Muslim extremists are branding opponents "Islamophobes" in an effort to paint themselves as the victim and silence dissent and opposition to their political and religious beliefs, according to a panel convened in Washington, D.C., Tuesday.

"'Islamophobia' has become ... the new battleground in this war" on terrorism, Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, said at the panel discussion.

She said the term "inverts victim and perpetrator" by portraying Islamic fanatics as the victim, thus allowing them to label dissent as a violation of human rights and, in effect, silence dissent.

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations has been lobbying hard for bans against "Islamaphobia, which are "tantamount to blasphemy strictures that have been used to curtail freedoms of expression, press, and religion by some of the OIC's most repressive member states," noted the Hudson Institute in its preview to the panel discussion.

The term "Islamaphobia" will be a major focus of the 2009 U.N. World Conference on Racism in Durban, South Africa.

Bayefsky said the goal of conference organizers, including Libya, Cuba and Iran, is to "deflect attention from the human rights abuses" and "to circle the wagons, to invoke mass hysteria, to suggest to people that they are under threat, which is in fact imaginary."

She said that by labeling themselves victims of Islamophobia, leaders of Islamic regimes can justify harsh crackdowns on internal dissent and legitimize calls for similar crackdowns on outside criticism - such as calls for the punishment of cartoonists who depict the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

"If you can claim the other guy is the human rights violator," Bayefsky said, "if you become the victim of racism and Islamophobia, then you justify the so-called struggle against the enemy of human rights."

Some panelists, including Fahad Nazer, a resident fellow at the Institute for Gulf Affairs, said that Islamophobia does exist, pointing to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), a long-shot Republican presidential hopeful, as an example.

Tancredo came under fire in July for suggesting in a radio interview that Mecca, a Muslim holy site, should be bombed if Muslim terrorists detonate a nuclear weapon in the United States.

"There is certainly something there," Nazer said of claims of Islamophobia being harmful to mainstream Muslims.

Bayefsky acknowledged that "insofar as it means discrimination against Muslims, there's nothing wrong with condemning Islamophobia."

"But the problem is that it has been manipulated as a term to mean something quite different, to suggest that there aren't particular cases of discrimination, but a kind of mass movement on the part of western governments and non-Muslims to denounce all of Islam, which is not the case," she added.

The panelists agreed that the United Nations was not a reliable vessel through which to address issues of human rights or discrimination against certain religions.

Nazer suggested that there is reason to believe the Islamic regimes themselves may be shifting their approach to dissent.

"They will reform, however they'll do it on their own terms and at their own pace," he said, specifically referring to Saudi Arabia. "The good news is that Saudi officials condemn terrorism routinely."

But, he said, "other developments ... are more ominous," such as reformers being asked to stop their political activism or being thrown in prison.

Nonetheless, Nazer said, "more than any [U.N.] declaration or conference, the Saudis are in a position to lead the Muslim nations by example and they can do so by lifting restrictions on speech, assembly and worship."

Political calculus 101 - From the Prince of Darkness

By Robert Novak                                         

Senate 2008

                   

Nebraska: Republicans are relieved that former Sen. Bob Kerrey (D) has decided not to run for the seat being made vacant by Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel's retirement. Kerrey certainly was not guaranteed victory, but he would have started as the front-runner.
                     
Although a very popular former governor and senator with bipartisan credentials, Kerrey would have faced some uncomfortable questions if he re-entered the political fray. Questions about his role in the slaughter of a Vietnamese village, a story that surfaced after his 2000 retirement from the Senate, could have made things ugly, as could have his close connections to millionaire felon Democratic donor Norman Hsu.
                     
                      This leaves former Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns (R), also a former governor and mayor of Lincoln, as the favorite in this race. Johanns has the backing of current Gov. Dave Heineman (R) and starts with high poll ratings and fundraising potential. He will face a serious primary challenge, however, from state Atty. Gen. Jon Bruning (R), who was already in the race before Hagel's retirement, planning to challenge the incumbent on his opposition to the Iraq War.
                     
                      On the Democratic side, next in line after Kerrey is Omaha Mayor Mike Fahey (D), who will decide on a run in the coming weeks. If he passes, the candidate would probably be Scott Kleeb (D), who lost a congressional race in the staunchly conservative 3rd District, a huge rural district encompassing nearly the whole state west of Lincoln.
                     
Without a high-profile Democrat, the Republican nature of this state makes it fairly safe. Even in a bad GOP year, this one becomes a contest only if the Republicans bungle it, either through a very bruising primary or through an unforeseen scandal. For now, this race can be moved to the second tier. Likely Republican Retention.

                   

House 2008

                   

Colorado-6: Rep. Tom Tancredo (R), amid his longshot run for President, has decided not to seek reelection in the House, where he has helped make immigration enforcement a prominent and divisive issue. Tancredo's retirement creates a second open seat, alongside GOP Sen. Wayne Allard's Senate seat, for Colorado Republicans to defend. Colorado is showing some of the best trends anywhere in the country for Democrats, which means an open seat is a cause for GOP concern.
                     
Republicans have the consolation that this is a GOP district. Republicans have a strong registration advantage here, and Tancredo -- who usually faced vigorous challenges -- typically won easily.
                     
                      The likely Republican candidate early on is Wil Armstrong (R), son of former Sen. Bill Armstrong (R). There is also speculation that Colorado Secretary of State Mike Coffman (R) could run.
                     
Some Democrats fear that without Tancredo to run against, they may not be able to win over the independent voters who hold the balance of power in this district. The only candidate they have so far is University of Colorado Regent Steven Ludwig (D).
                     
If Democrats can recruit a top candidate, this is another seat Republicans will desperately be defending next fall. However, it could prove itself by next summer to be a safe GOP hold. Leaning Republican Retention.

                   

New York-21: Rep. Michael McNulty (D), who has represented Albany and the surrounding area for 20 years, is retiring at the end of his current term, creating only the third Democratic open seat.
                     
McNulty's family is a prominent one in Albany-area politics, and he easily won all of his elections, including his first, in 1988. It is possible his sister Erin McNulty-Ryan (D), mayor of the small town of Green Island, could seek the seat, but the district's political anchor is metro Albany. Albany Mayor Jerry Jennings (D) embodies the district's ethnic Democrat atmosphere, and he is close with Hillary Clinton. He has not decided yet whether to run. A Jennings rival, State Sen. Neil Breslin (D), has expressed interest, and he is probably the closest to the local political machine. Schnectady Mayor Brian Stratton (D), son of former Rep. Sam Stratton (D), is a possible candidate.

This is Hillaries tax bill or any of the Dems that get elected. Coming to a pocket book near you.

October 26, 2007

The Rangel Tax Bill: Roses Among the Thorns

by  JD Foster, Ph.D.

WebMemo  #1679

Representative Charlie Rangel (D–NY), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, introduced his long-awaited tax reform proposal on October 25. As with most attempts to reshape the tax policy landscape, this one contained some roses and some thorns. The roses were exceptional, and the thorns would hurt.

In the current Congress, the Rangel proposal has no chance of enactment, neither in its current form nor in any recognizable variant. Its importance is as a policy statement of the chief Democratic tax policy writer in the House of Representatives, expressed in black and white. As such, it offers a useful glimpse of where tax policy is likely to go in the next Congress if the chairman is allowed to work his will with a more sympathetic resident occupying the White House.

While the details are still trickling out, the basic roadmap is clear enough. Under the chairman's bill, taxes would increase by about a half-trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Much of that increase would fall on small businesses, especially on small manufacturers. The bottom line: higher taxes, fewer jobs, and lower wages.

While the overall bill is badly flawed, it nevertheless includes some excellent features that ought to be highlighted and included in future legislation. Subsequent analyses will delve into the Rangel plan in greater depth, but there are important issues to consider up front.

A Hidden Tax Hike

As part of his tax reform plan, Chairman Rangel is proposing a one-year extension of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) patch. The AMT patch has been extended every year since its adoption in 2001, sparing millions of unsuspecting taxpayers a huge tax hike. Breaking with prior practice, Mr. Rangel proposes paying for the patch by raising taxes on other taxpayers. In the past, Congress extended the patch without raising taxes. Chairman Rangel proposes to extend the patch and raise taxes, too.

Beyond 2007, Chairman Rangel would continue this pattern of raising taxes year after year. No doubt he will argue the contrary, pointing to Joint Tax Committee tables for support. However, the Congressional Budget Office revenue baseline scores current law with respect to taxes, and current services with respect to spending. Thus, the revenue baseline is assumed to be higher when a six-year-old AMT patch expires, but the spending baseline is not reduced when a nine-year-old SCHIP program expires. This asymmetric treatment of revenues and spending is unreasonable and unjustified. Its effect is that extending the AMT patch is shown as a tax cut according to JTC scoring, while allowing the patch to expire is not a tax increase. This is absurd.

Chairman Rangel is proposing a net tax increase on the order of a half-trillion dollars over 10 years. But if Congress continues with these illogical scoring rules as they apply to taxes, then according to analysis by the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee, the chairman is on course to raise taxes a whopping $3.5 trillion. That would be a crushing blow for the American economy, jobs, and wage growth.

The Roses

The Rangel bill is not all bad news. It also includes some excellent elements that ought not be lost in the avalanche of opposition. While the bill uses the confusion over the AMT patch and the revenue baseline as a screen for raising taxes, it also takes the excellent step of repealing the whole AMT system. This reform is long overdue. The AMT is today a tax policy without purpose, a complication without virtue. The problem with the Rangel bill is not the repeal of the AMT but the manner and extent to which the repeal is offset with other tax increases.

The Rangel bill also reduces the corporate income tax rate from the current 35 percent to 30.5 percent. The U.S. corporate tax rate hike is among the highest of the industrialized countries. It must come down significantly if American companies are to remain competitive at home or abroad. The only criticism of this portion of the bill is that the rate should come down further.

And the Thorns

In addition to the tax hike generally, the Rangel bill includes some terrible provisions. The worst of these is the new 4 percent surtax on married filers with adjusted gross incomes (AGIs) above $200,000 (4.6 percent for higher income taxpayers). Having recognized the importance of lower marginal tax rates, Mr. Rangel would cut the corporate tax rate with his bill. But then he raises tax rates on individuals and small businesses, indicating a serious condition of economic policy schizophrenia.

Also, the surtax applies to AGI, not taxable income. So while jacking up tax rates, Mr. Rangel has also found a backdoor way to phase down the number of itemized deductions taxpayers can take. Perhaps Mr. Rangel can explain what he has against charitable contributions; or the deduction for state and local taxes; or the home mortgage deduction at a time when the housing industry is reeling.

Another problem is that the bill increases the amount of the child credit that is refundable. In effect, this is another spending hike run through the tax code and paid for with a tax increase on other taxpayers. This Congress has excelled at the game of "tax and spend." Chairman Rangel has managed to propose an increase in both taxes and spending in a single tax bill.

The Rangel bill also eliminates the deduction introduced in 2004 specifically for manufacturing activities. This provision effectively lowers the tax rate on manufacturers. Eliminating the manufacturing deduction is fine when accompanied by a lower corporate tax rate. But manufacturers that operate as partnerships, sole proprietorships, or S corporations would not get a rate cut under the Rangel bill; they would get a new 4 percent to 4.6 percent surtax. This provision would be a hammer blow to all the manufacturing companies in America (and their workers) that are not traditional C corporations.

Conclusion

Raising taxes either overtly or covertly, under the cloak of revenue baseline games, is neither needed nor appropriate. With taxes already above the modern norm, Congress should be looking for opportunities to bring the level of taxes down.

The Rangel bill has other serious problems that are immediately apparent; others may appear as the bill is further scrutinized. Raising tax rates and weakening non-corporate manufacturers certainly moves in the wrong direction in terms of maintaining a healthy economy.

For all its flaws, the bill has some virtues that ought not be lost. Repealing the AMT and cutting the corporate tax rate are very high priorities for tax policy. Hopefully, someone in Congress will introduce legislation to achieve these goals without the thorns of the Rangel proposal.

What makes America Great?

America is all about human liberty.  The founder established for the first time in the history of the world a society whose government was founded on recognition of the inherent natural inalienable  right of the individual.  They established a constitution founded on the consent of the governed containing various constitutional checks on the power of government to prevent it from being abused.  The founders understood, paradoxically, it was government which was created to protect or to secure individual rights which poses the greatest danger to them.  The reason is the unique nature of political power.  The government alone among all institutions in society may legitimately use force to achieve its ends.  A good society would have few laws.  Laws that were clear and respected by the people.  Accordingly they sought to create a new science of politics that not only  checked the power of government through constitution but minimize the role of government to a few essential and legitimate functions.

The problem with the founders was they didn't know where to draw the line between the individual liberty and coercive power of law in the realm of economics.  They didn't yet have a coherent theory of individual rights.

The political revolution was not accompanied by a revolution in moral philosophy.  In the 1800's it was considered immoral to pursue one own self interest.  Even if he did so in such a way as to not interfere with the equal freedom of others to do the same.  To be moral one needs to sacrifice his own self interest to the needs of others.

At the same time civic virtue as consisting of the subordination of self interest to the public interest or common good, persisted in American political thought and American law.

These visions are hardly compatible with American capitalism, a free robust society of energetic enterprising individuals mutually profiting from each others pursuit of their own rational self interest,   in fact they foster a hostile attitude towards commerce and commercial activity.

This mixed ideology in American political thought made possible the mixed economy of the 20th Century.

We need to reaffirm the commitment  to individual rights and ground that commitment in a coherent theory of individual rights. The Constitutional protections of life, liberty and property have been insufficient to guard individuals from the tyranny of the so called " common Good" or "the public interest".

We need an ideal to struggle for like the morality of capitalism.  The only moral system is capitalism because it protects mans mind, his only means of survival. 

American individualism is what makes America great.

If you have liberty you will have all the growth you want.  America is about protecting our rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).  It's an individualist concept that makes Americans greatness.  The idea that you can pursue your own life and values.  The concept that life is important, that happiness is important.

If you want to make a moral argument , if you want to have a moral discussion, you have to give reasons.  We need to have discussions based on reason and fact.  Everyone needs to put on the table what their standards are.  State why this is your standard and defend it.  And if you can't, we're not having an intelligent discussion.

I'll tell you my standard.  Human life and the needs of human beings, not just for survival but for flourishing and happiness.  Humans are basically producers, creators and not depending on other people fundamentally.    My goal is for human life on Earth.  Life is a process of self generating and self sustaining action.  Human being need values in order to keep living.  Life is seeking your purpose.  Most importantly life is an individual process a personal process.  Morally this means we are all morally equal.  We are all beings with our own lives and our lives are our own.  We all have an equal need to gain values, we are all equally intitled to do what our lives require.  But we must take resposibility for our lives we must all make choices.  To be human is to be physical.  To have needs like food, shelter, clothing and medicine.  It is also to be spiritual.  With needs of conscienceness, like the need for insperation, meaning and knowledge.  Life is to have social needs that derive from the values we can get from others.  Needs like friendship, information and trade.

Bush believes in big government, in collectivism.  He has funded religious organizations, taken over education and moved away from individualism.  Bush doesn't talk about the proper role of government in society.  He has taken liberty out of the discussion and replaced it with growth.  The neo-conservatives and the left have the same philosophy.  The neo-conservatives are nothing but big government advocates.

Business is based on the pursuit of self interest and personal happiness.  The mind is a source of well being and the mind must be free in order to invent new products and services.  When you have government intervention it discourages innovation, risk taking and obstruct the process of wealth creation.

Business and politics create the intellectual roots of statism.  There is  risk in an increasingly mixed economy. The risk that politics can corrupt and threaten business.  Free individuals create wealth, wealth, makes possible the creation of a middle class.  The middle class means people don't have to work from sun up to sun down.  Some will become entrepreneurs and that creates an even larger middle class for the next generation.  Entrepreneurs don't work hard for the money.  They work hard because they love what they are doing.

There is a need for recognition of individual human self interest. The United States was founded on the idea that you had the right to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property).  However, there has grown the idea that if you do succeed shouldn't you be helping others.   Or even worse that the idea of individualism means do what ever you want, reckless behavior, indulgence and not being ethical.  This translates to human beings as nothing but implusive and self indulgence.

What Americans do is use there minds to figure out how to use nature and resources to transform our environment for our own good.  We need to look out for our own self interest, without using force against others, doing what we love in life guided by reason.  Think of what the world would be like if everyone called on the best within them.  This would be a world in which we could all be enriched, entertained and inspired by each other.

The left believes that business is bad.  That it exploits women, children, blacks and now the planet.  They come up with elaborate schemes to convince us why business is bad, why we need the justice of the state to bring about a more Utopian order.  They seek the equalization of opportunity.  Every new enlargement of the state is justified by the problems created by past enlargement.  They solve problems by creating ever bigger problems.  The Alternative Minimum Tax is a perfect example.  The Dems' create a tax to catch a few rich people.  Clinton increases the tax to cover a few more rich people that aren't paying their fair share.  Now 20 million people are considered rich and the government is set to collect 65 billion dollars it doesn't deserve.  They want more regulation and taxes to cripple business and individuals.  They advance the idea of social corporate responsibility.   They create so many laws you can not help but break them and that is what they want, so they can bring you down.  Examples: Martha Stewart and the Micro Soft jihad.

The only social responsibility of business is to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.

I think the left hates life and live according to the morality of death.  They are moochers and looters, destroyers that depend on others to provide for them and enable them.  They want to control society.

The left does not want an ownership society they want a we're all in it together society.  They think Americans have discarded their  pursuit for greatness.  Individual ambition and will power should be channeled into the cause of national greatness.   By making the nation great, individuals are able to focus their narrow concerns into a greater national project.  Ultimately Americans purpose can find their voice only in Washington.  They don't see a nation composed of individuals who should be given maximum liberty to make choices, instead the individual is part of a social organism that thrives only within the attachment to family, community and nation that proceed choice.  They want a political age built around authority not freedom.

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF LOSSING OUR INDEPENDENCE THROUGH Security and Prosperity Partnership

Source:USINFO.STATE.GOV

North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership

Bush, Fox, Martin outline trilateral efforts during March 23 meeting

President Bush speaks during a news conference in Waco, Texas on March 23 after talks with Mexican President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. (AP/WWP)

President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox announced the establishment of the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" in a March 23 joint statement.

 

Convening that same day in Waco, Texas, for a trilateral meeting, the North American leaders said the security and prosperity of their nations are "mutually dependent and complementary" and explained the impetus for the new initiative.

 

"In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient," they said in their statement.

 

The leaders indicated that the North American partnership will work to achieve these ends and "is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people."

 

As part of their efforts to protect North America from external threats, to prevent and respond to threats within North America, and to streamline legitimate cross-border trade and travel, the three countries will implement common border-security strategies, enhance infrastructure protection, implement a common approach to emergency response, implement improvements to aviation and maritime security, enhance intelligence partnerships, combat transnational threats, and implement a border-facilitation strategy.

 

To improve North American competitiveness and enhance the quality of life in the region, the partnership participants will pursue regulatory cooperation while maintaining high health and safety standards.  The North American nations will also promote sectoral cooperation in energy, transportation, financial services, technology and other areas.  Other initiatives include reducing the costs of trade and enhancing environmental stewardship.

 

To pursue the partnership mandate, ministerial-level working groups will be established to set specific, measurable, achievable goals and identify concrete steps toward these goals.  Within 90 days, the ministers will issue initial reports.  Thereafter, the groups will report semi-annually, the three leaders said in their statement.

 

Following is the text of the joint statement, as released by the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
(Crawford, Texas)
March 23, 2005

 

Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

 

We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, gather in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

 

Over the past decade, our three nations have taken important steps to expand economic opportunity for our people and to create the most vibrant and dynamic trade relationship in the world.  Since September 11, 2001, we have also taken significant new steps to address the threat of terrorism and to enhance the security of our people.

 

But more needs to be done. In a rapidly changing world, we must develop new avenues of cooperation that will make our open societies safer and more secure, our businesses more competitive, and our economies more resilient.

 

Our Partnership will accomplish these objectives through a trilateral effort to increase the security, prosperity, and quality of life of our citizens.  This work will be based on the principle that our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary, and will reflect our shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic values and institutions.  Also, it will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges, and promote the full potential of our people, addressing disparities and increasing opportunities for all.

Mexican President Viicente Fox, left, President Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin greet each other after a news conference in Waco, Texas, on March 23. (AP/WWP)

 

Our Partnership is committed to reach the highest results to advance the security and well-being of our people.  The Partnership is trilateral in concept; while allowing any two countries to move forward on an issue, it will create a path for the third to join later.

 

Advancing our Common Security

 

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders.  As part of our efforts, we will:

 

-- Implement common border-security and bio-protection strategies;

 

-- Enhance critical infrastructure protection, and implement a common approach to emergency response;

 

-- Implement improvements in aviation and maritime security, combat transnational threats, and enhance intelligence partnerships; and

 

-- Implement a border-facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at our shared borders.

 

Advancing our Common Prosperity

 

We will work to enhance North American competitiveness and improve the quality of life of our people.  Among other things, we will:

 

-- Improve productivity through regulatory cooperation to generate growth, while maintaining high standards for health and safety;

 

-- Promote sectoral collaboration in energy, transportation, financial services, technology, and other areas to facilitate business; and invest in our people;

 

-- Reduce the costs of trade through the efficient movement of goods and people; and

 

-- Enhance the stewardship of our environment, create a safer and more reliable food supply while facilitating agricultural trade, and protect our people from disease.

 

Next Steps

 

We will establish Ministerial-led working groups that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working groups will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.  They will identify concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set implementation dates that will permit a rolling harvest of accomplishments.

 

Within 90 days, Ministers will report back to us with their initial report.  Following this, the groups will report on a semi-annual basis.  Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant.

 

Through this Partnership, we will ensure that North America remains the most economically dynamic region of the world and a secure home for our people in this and future generations.

Update on the solution to the dying honey bee. I wish the news was better.

This is the problem something mysterious is killing honey bees, and even as billions are dropping dead across North America, researchers are scrambling to find answers and save one of the most important crop pollinators on Earth.  Now, in a mystery worthy of Agatha Christie, bees are flying off in search of pollen and nectar and simply never returning to their colonies. And nobody knows why. Researchers say the bees are presumably dying in the fields, perhaps becoming exhausted or simply disoriented and eventually falling victim to the cold.

Threats to bumblebees fly under radar
By JEFF BARNARD, Associated Press Writer Mon Oct 8, 4:15 PM ET

GRANTS PASS, Ore. - Looking high and low, Robbin Thorp can no longer find a species of bumblebee that just five years ago was plentiful in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon.

Thorp, an emeritus professor of entomology from the University of California at Davis, found one solitary worker last year along a remote mountain trail in the Siskiyou Mountains, but hasn't been able to locate any this year.

He fears that the species — Franklin's bumblebee — has gone extinct before anyone could even propose it for the endangered species list. To make matters worse, two other bumblebee species — one on the East coast, one on the West — have gone from common to rare.

...."We have been naive," said Neal Williams, assistant professor of biology at Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania. "We haven't been diligent the way we need to be."

....A huge problem facing scientists is how "appallingly little we know about our pollinating resources," said University of Illinois entomology Prof. May Berenbaum, who headed the National Academy of Sciences report.

Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, worries that on top of pesticides and narrowing habitats, disease could be the last straw for many of the bee species.

"It definitely could all come crashing down," he said.

Here is another theory or thoughts on the subject.

First and most important: There are some 20,000 species of bees in the world, and many thousands more types of pollinating insects. What you're hearing about, "colony collapse disorder," affects one species of bee – the European honey bee. That species happens to be the one global agriculture relies upon for about 30% of its pollination requirements. So while we're not talking about losing all the world's pollinators, we are talking about losing a significant fraction of them. That's the worst-case scenario, with the species wiped out completely.

Second, there's no reason at this point to think European honey bees are going to be wiped out, now or ever. The die-offs so far appear to affect some beekeepers more than others, sometimes in the same area. That's one reason scientists are so puzzled, but it strongly suggests the losses may have something to do with how individual beekeepers are managing their bees. The "significant percentage" of failing hives is still a drop in the bucket when viewed against the global population of honey bees, and there are lots of beekeepers (even in the U.S., which appears hardest hit) who have not had, and may never have, significant losses of colonies. Plenty of honey bees remain to replace the ones that have died. It's not yet time to scream that the sky is falling.

Third, it's almost impossible to get hard numbers on how many colonies have died recently, and how much of the current uproar is media hype based on guesses, estimates and anecdotal accounts from the handful of beekeepers who have had the most colony losses. If you talk to other beekeepers, most admit they have colonies die off every winter, but they don't always keep records on how many. A lot of the reports we're hearing are based on personal recollection rather than careful documentation. In other words, the scary figures you're hearing could be exaggerated.

Fourth, even the original report describing and naming the phenomenon explicitly says it's something that has been seen before (repeatedly), named before, and studied before – in all cases without coming to any conclusion about the cause. The researchers didn't like the older names for the syndrome (which usually included the word "disease," which has connotations about infectiousness that don't seem applicable here), so they renamed it colony collapse disorder. That point has largely eluded the press, with the result that most people think this is a new phenomenon, when in fact the researchers who described it note reports of similar die-offs dating back to the 1890s.

Fifth, if what we're seeing is indeed a recurrence of a century-old phenomenon, that's a pretty good argument against theories of causation involving things that haven't been around that long. Yes, it's an assumption that current and past die-offs have a common underlying cause. Some researchers don't accept that assumption – they're the ones proposing things like pesticides as possible causes, and they may yet prove to be correct, since some modern pesticides can indeed kill honey bee colonies in a manner consistent with the present symptoms. But the leading hypothesis in many researcher's minds is that colonies are dying primarily because of stress. Stress means something different to a honey bee colony than to a human, but the basic idea isn't all that alien: If a colony is infected with a fungus, or has mites, or has pesticides in its honey, or is overheated, or is undernourished, or is losing workers due to spraying, or any other such thing, then the colony is experiencing stress. Stress in turn can cause behavioral changes that exacerbate the problem and lead to worse ones like immune system failure. Colony stress has existed, in various forms and with various causes, as long as mankind has kept honey bees, so it could indeed have happened in the 1890s. Many modern developments like pesticides or mite infestations can also cause stress (in fact, many of the things theorized to be involved can cause stress, so it's possible multiple factors are contributing to the problem, not just one). Unfortunately, stress is difficult to quantify and control experimentally, so it may never be possible to prove scientifically that colony stress explains all this year's deaths.

Sixth, it's never a good idea to trust what the media are telling you. At least once in the present case the media got something completely wrong and created a huge mess: The story about cell phones was basically a misrepresentation of what one pair of reporters wrote about a study that they misinterpreted. In a nutshell, the original research didn't involve cell phones, and the researchers never said their research was related to honey bee colony die-offs. Even details like the alleged Einstein quote are dubious. No one has yet found proof that Einstein said anything about bees dying off – the earliest documented appearance of the "quote" is 1994 and, yes, Albert was dead at the time.

The bottom line? No one is certain what's going on, but a lot of the theories can't – by themselves – explain everything we're seeing. More important, the situation hasn't yet risen to the level of a catastrophe (except, sadly, for some of the affected beekeepers). If the same thing keeps happening every winter for another decade or so, then we might really start worrying. But for now, classifying this as a "problem with potentially severe economic impact should it persist" would be a more realistic assessment.

But we are not out of the woods.  This from Europe.

Rome, August 6 - Italian                 bees are been killed off by the millions and environmentalists                 and honey producers warned today this was a sign of a worrisome                 turn for the environment.
                The National Beekeepers' Association UNAAPI said the country was                 witnessing a silent "slaughter of bees" and that Italian                 honey production would plummet by at least 50% this year.
                "Bees are our 'sentinels of the environment', very much like                 butterflies and fireflies. Unlike ants, termites or coachroaches                 they are extremely delicate and will not adapt to a negative environment,"                 UNAAPI Chairman Francesco Panella told ANSA.
                "A bee does not survive contact with toxic substances and                 dies before it even reaches the hive. Pure honey, in fact, is                 nature's real wonder product," said Panella, distressed that                 the shocking mortality rate has not yet shaken the authorities                 and the public out of their complacency.
                He claims the situation in Italy is far worse than in neighbouring                 France where in June environmentalists and the influential daily                 Le Monde drummed up a campaign highlighting the plight of French                 bees, claiming they were being felled by a new high-tech pesticide                 being marketed by a major multinational.
                Panella said ANAAPI was still collecting data but that in Italy                 the situation was compounded by the severe drought which has struck                 southern regions in particular.
                "We are facing an ecological and economic disaster,"                 he said.
                He termed the new generation of pesticides "violent and virulent"                 because they are longer-lasting, encompassing treatment from seed                 through growth.
                Bees have been especially hard hit in northern Italy where
                vinegrowers have used deadlier pesticides to combat a new virus                 which destroys grape vines.

Reports are coming in from Europe and the Middle-East: Bees are disappearing! In some areas over 40% of the hives are empty.

This might be the answer.

UPDATE: July 21,2007

SPAIN: July 19, 2007

MADRID - A parasite common in Asian bees has spread to Europe and the Americas and is behind the mass disappearance of honeybees in many countries, says a Spanish scientist who has been studying the phenomenon for years.

The culprit is a microscopic parasite called nosema ceranae said Mariano Higes, who leads a team of researchers at a government-funded apiculture centre in Guadalajara, the province east of Madrid that is the heartland of Spain's honey industry. He and his colleagues have analysed thousands of samples from stricken hives in many countries.

"We started in 2000 with the hypothesis that it was pesticides, but soon ruled it out," he told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

Pesticide traces were present only in a tiny proportion of samples and bee colonies were also dying in areas many miles from cultivated land, he said.

They then ruled out the varroa mite, which is easy to see and which was not present in most of the affected hives.

For a long time Higes and his colleagues thought a parasite called nosema apis, common in wet weather, was killing the bees.

"We saw the spores, but the symptoms were very different and it was happening in dry weather too."

Then he decided to sequence the parasite's DNA and discovered it was an Asian variant, nosema ceranae. Asian honeybees are less vulnerable to it, but it can kill European bees in a matter of days in laboratory conditions.

"Nosema ceranae is far more dangerous and lives in heat and cold. A hive can become infected in two months and the whole colony can collapse in six to 18 months," said Higes, whose team has published a number of papers on the subject.

"We've no doubt at all it's nosema ceranae and we think 50 percent of Spanish hives are infected," he said.

Spain, with 2.3 million hives, is home to a quarter of the European Union's bees.

His team have also identified this parasite in bees from Austria, Slovenia and other parts of Eastern Europe and assume it has invaded from Asia over a number of years.

Now it seems to have crossed the Atlantic and is present in Canada and Argentina, he said. The Spanish researchers have not tested samples from the United States, where bees have also gone missing.

Treatment for nosema ceranae is effective and cheap -- 1 euro (US$1.4) a hive twice a year -- but beekeepers first have to be convinced the parasite is the problem.