Water on the Moon!

Scientists. Have found. Significant. Amounts of WATER. On the moon!!!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091113/ap_on_sc/us_sci_shoot_the_moon

This is like, the coolest news in the last decade! Oh, the possibilities! -B

For further information on this awesomeness:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/prelim_water_results.html

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and America Is Not

((Wow, I think I love the Swiss! - Brett))

Why Switzerland Is Still Free and America Is Not
by Ron Holland


The American Time magazine article headline asks, "Will Switzerland Vote to Ban Minarets on Mosques?"

Swiss citizens are becoming concerned about the threat that Islam presents to their traditional culture, economy and religious institutions. As an American, I know how I would vote were I Swiss but the decision will be made by the Swiss electorate as they have this referendum right on all issues.

In Switzerland, the people still rule and have the ultimate right to decide decisions above the government or parliament. Through the right of referendum they can cancel legislation and with the initiative they can pass or create legislative action on issues parliament refuses to act upon.
The bias and closed statist views shown in the article is business as usual for the US media elites out to protect the American political establishment and are so evident in this headline and article. It isn’t the question they asked but rather the question they didn’t dare ask is the "700-lb gorilla in the room."

Quoting from the article, "Critics say the SVP, the largest party in Switzerland's coalition government, has taken advantage of the country's unique brand of direct democracy to push its populist, anti-immigrant agenda on the Swiss electorate. Citizens have the right to propose new laws in Switzerland – the only thing they need to force a nationwide vote on an initiative is a petition of 100,000 signatures."

The question not asked is why doesn’t the American electorate have oversight over legislation and unpopular government regulations in the United States like in Switzerland? Imagine if 4% of the American voters signed a petition requiring a nationwide vote "yea or nay" on the banking bailouts, going to war in Iraq, auditing the Federal Reserve, nationalized health care or on the trillions in new Washington debt added because of the financial meltdown. The United States would still be a decentralized republic with limited government had we had the political option to hold back Washington and the special interests.

How America would be different if we had Swiss-style political rights to restrain government where the people rule instead of the special interests. Imagine an America where the billions in graft and political influence that control Congress could still buy legislation but not ultimate control if we as a people could overrule their actions.

What if the will of the people still ultimately controlled the political system and direction with true limited government at the federal, state and local level? Imagine the American electorate overriding Congress and demanding a strong dollar backed by real gold reserves, an audit of the Federal Reserve, a rollback of the bailouts, a declaration of war for foreign military intervention, the abolishment of the Patriot Act and a return to banking privacy.

Yes, a Swiss political party (The Swiss Peoples Party) promotes a nationalist agenda to the Swiss voters and they will ultimately decide in referendum yes or no on the issue. This is currently impossible in the United States but Swiss direct democracy and limited confederation government have worked in Switzerland for hundreds of years.

This is far superior to the two-party monopoly in America where the elites controlling both parties can push their self-serving agendas without restraint. Currently, short of the Tenth Amendment movement, state nullification or outright state secession, there is no real effective way to push back against Washington.

Until the American people can find a way to restrain the Federal government, the bureaucracy and the judiciary, the best place for Americans to secure and safeguard their wealth is outside their own country. Switzerland is one of the best jurisdictions to consider because their political system has preserved the rights and freedoms we once had as Americans. Still the ultimate problem for Americans is the necessity to restore our liberties at home because history has shown that wealth without liberty is only a temporary condition at best.

I say, it is time to take a real look at direct democracy in the United States or else Americans who value their property and liberties will have little choice but to first transfer their wealth to safety outside the US as it will be lost in the coming crash of treasury debt and the dollar. Next we must stand and fight the Washington leviathan through the political tools of the 10th amendment and John C. Calhoun’s political ideal of nullification both of which the Feds will probably just ignore. Our final democratic political tool is to exercise the political right of state-by-state secession with all the political and historical baggage this entails.

Trust me, Swiss style direct democracy in the United States would be an easier way to control Washington and the special interests but we only have a few years before the Washington debt and dollar collapse is upon us. Therefore I’ll close with a question. Is anybody here for secession?

November 12, 2009

Article originally posted at www.lewrockwell.com

Iran and Propaganda

Top Things you Think You Know about Iran that are not True
-by Juan Cole

Thursday is a fateful day for the world, as the US, other members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany meet in Geneva with Iran in a bid to resolve outstanding issues. Although Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had earlier attempted to put the nuclear issue off the bargaining table, this rhetorical flourish was a mere opening gambit and nuclear issues will certainly dominate the talks. As Henry Kissinger pointed out, these talks are just beginning and there are highly unlikely to be any breakthroughs for a very long time. Diplomacy is a marathon, not a sprint.But on this occasion, I thought I'd take the opportunity to list some things that people tend to think they know about Iran, but for which the evidence is shaky.


Belief: Iran is aggressive and has threatened to attack Israel, its neighbors or the US

Reality: Iran has not launched an aggressive war in modern history (unlike the US or Israel), and its leaders have a doctrine of "no first strike." This is true of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, as well as of Revolutionary Guards commanders.


Belief: Iran is a militarized society bristling with dangerous weapons and a growing threat to world peace.

Reality: Iran's military budget is a little over $6 billion annually. Sweden, Singapore and Greece all have larger military budgets. Moreover, Iran is a country of 70 million, so that its per capita spending on defense is tiny compared to these others, since they are much smaller countries with regard to population. Iran spends less per capita on its military than any other country in the Persian Gulf region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates.


Belief: Iran has threatened to attack Israel militarily and to "wipe it off the map."

Reality: No Iranian leader in the executive has threatened an aggressive act of war on Israel, since this would contradict the doctrine of 'no first strike' to which the country has adhered. The Iranian president has explicitly said that Iran is not a threat to any country, including Israel.


Belief: But didn't President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map?'

Reality: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did quote Ayatollah Khomeini to the effect that "this Occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" (in rezhim-e eshghalgar-i Qods bayad as safheh-e ruzgar mahv shavad). This was not a pledge to roll tanks and invade or to launch missiles, however. It is the expression of a hope that the regime will collapse, just as the Soviet Union did. It is not a threat to kill anyone at all.


Belief: But aren't Iranians Holocaust deniers?

Actuality: Some are, some aren't. Former president Mohammad Khatami has castigated Ahmadinejad for questioning the full extent of the Holocaust, which he called "the crime of Nazism." Many educated Iranians in the regime are perfectly aware of the horrors of the Holocaust. In any case, despite what propagandists imply, neither Holocaust denial (as wicked as that is) nor calling Israel names is the same thing as pledging to attack it militarily.


Belief: Iran is like North Korea in having an active nuclear weapons program, and is the same sort of threat to the world.

Actuality: Iran has a nuclear enrichment site at Natanz near Isfahan where it says it is trying to produce fuel for future civilian nuclear reactors to generate electricity. All Iranian leaders deny that this site is for weapons production, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly inspected it and found no weapons program. Iran is not being completely transparent, generating some doubts, but all the evidence the IAEA and the CIA can gather points to there not being a weapons program. The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate by 16 US intelligence agencies, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, assessed with fair confidence that Iran has no nuclear weapons research program. This assessment was based on debriefings of defecting nuclear scientists, as well as on the documents they brought out, in addition to US signals intelligence from Iran. While Germany, Israel and recently the UK intelligence is more suspicious of Iranian intentions, all of them were badly wrong about Iraq's alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction and Germany in particular was taken in by Curveball, a drunk Iraqi braggart.


Belief: The West recently discovered a secret Iranian nuclear weapons plant in a mountain near Qom.

Actuality: Iran announced Monday a week ago to the International Atomic Energy Agency that it had begun work on a second, civilian nuclear enrichment facility near Qom. There are no nuclear materials at the site and it has not gone hot, so technically Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, though it did break its word to the IAEA that it would immediately inform the UN of any work on a new facility. Iran has pledged to allow the site to be inspected regularly by the IAEA, and if it honors the pledge, as it largely has at the Natanz plant, then Iran cannot produce nuclear weapons at the site, since that would be detected by the inspectors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted on Sunday that Iran could not produce nuclear weapons at Natanz precisely because it is being inspected. Yet American hawks have repeatedly demanded a strike on Natanz.


Belief: The world should sanction Iran not only because of its nuclear enrichment research program but also because the current regime stole June's presidential election and brutally repressed the subsequent demonstrations.

Actuality: Iran's reform movement is dead set against increased sanctions on Iran, which likely would not affect the regime, and would harm ordinary Iranians.


Belief: Isn't the Iranian regime irrational and crazed, so that a doctrine of mutally assured destruction just would not work with them?

Actuality: Iranian politicians are rational actors. If they were madmen, why haven't they invaded any of their neighbors? Saddam Hussein of Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. Israel invaded its neighbors more than once. In contrast, Iran has not started any wars. Demonizing people by calling them unbalanced is an old propaganda trick. The US elite was once unalterably opposed to China having nuclear science because they believed the Chinese are intrinsically irrational. This kind of talk is a form of racism.


Belief: The international community would not have put sanctions on Iran, and would not be so worried, if it were not a gathering nuclear threat.

Actuality: The centrifuge technology that Iran is using to enrich uranium is open-ended. In the old days, you could tell which countries might want a nuclear bomb by whether they were building light water reactors (unsuitable for bomb-making) or heavy-water reactors (could be used to make a bomb). But with centrifuges, once you can enrich to 5% to fuel a civilian reactor, you could theoretically feed the material back through many times and enrich to 90% for a bomb. However, as long as centrifuge plants are being actively inspected, they cannot be used to make a bomb. The two danger signals would be if Iran threw out the inspectors or if it found a way to create a secret facility. The latter task would be extremely difficult, however, as demonstrated by the CIA's discovery of the Qom facility construction in 2006 from satellite photos. Nuclear installations, especially centrifuge ones, consume a great deal of water, construction materiel, and so forth, so that constructing one in secret is a tall order. In any case, you can't attack and destroy a country because you have an intuition that they might be doing something illegal. You need some kind of proof. Moreover, Israel, Pakistan and India are all much worse citizens of the globe than Iran, since they refused to sign the NPT and then went for broke to get a bomb; and nothing at all has been done to any of them by the UNSC.

George W. Obama Supports Extending PATRIOT Act Provisions

Posted by David Kramer on September 16, 2009 09:16 AM www.lewrockell.com

"The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law’s authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called “lone wolf” terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

Expanding the Bush war in Afghanistan. Expanding on the Bush corporate welfare bailouts. Keeping in place Bush’s Fascist “PATRIOT” law. I just don’t know how much more of this Obama “change” I can handle.

[Thanks to Travis Holte]"

.... is there an Anarchy Party? It's starting to sound more sane. -B

Ridge Says Was Pressured to Raise Terror Alert - Political News - FOXNews.com

Straight from the horse's mouth! -B

Ridge Says Was Pressured to Raise Terror Alert - Political News - FOXNews.com

RIP Geocities

This evening, I received an email from AT&T informing me that Geocities was closing. Here's the opening excerpt:

"Dear AT&T Yahoo! GeoCities customer,

We're writing to let you know that AT&T Yahoo! GeoCities, our free web site building service and community, is closing on October 26, 2009.

On October 26, 2009, your GeoCities site will no longer appear on the Web, and you will no longer be able to access your GeoCities account and files."

Now, I had, once, long ago, a geocities website. It was the mid-90's and the internet was still an untamed frontier, taking shape and forming its manifold identities. It felt cutting-edge and incredible to be able to have one's own website back then.

I remember mine had some very basic animated pictures I found by browsing around, and I used a neon green text over a black background. At the time, it seemed cool, though the sight of websites like that now strains my eyes. Internet technology and graphics have come a long way since then, and the new cutting-edge frontier is cloud computing and mega-bandwidths. I no longer hear the screech of the dial-up modem as it raped the phone line for only a few ounces of speed, and while I'll never miss that sound, the memories of those early days are still fond ones.

So it really is like the end of the era. The internet's birthing pains are largely past us, and it has grown into full adulthood as more and more people around the world gain easier access to it. Websites like Angelfire and Geocities, though, will always have a soft place in my heart. Their names will conjure up memories of a time when the digital west remained untamed, and the horizon held so much mystery.

RIP Geocities.

The Police State Takes Another PASS At Freedom

REAL ID by Any Other Name Stinks As Bad

by Becky Akers

During its decline from a republic to a democracy, lying Leviathan prattled about being a "government of, by, and for the people." But the beast increasingly forsakes that pretence as it continues sliding into tyranny.

One instance of the State’s new and brutal honesty came last fall when Congress bailed out billionaires despite our overwhelming opposition. Another around that same time saw the criminals running New York City overturn a law on term-limits that voters had twice upheld. More than ever, government is of, by and for Our Rulers.

And then there’s the Feds’ dogged quest for a national ID card. Four years ago, these bozos tried to turn your driver’s license into just such a monstrosity with their infamous REAL ID Act. This dictate required licenses to include "defined minimum data elements," most likely biometric identifiers such as fingerprints or retinal scans and RFID tracking chips. It would also make even more of our business contingent on the State’s whims: before we entered a courthouse or opened a bank account, among other activities, we’d have to produce our REAL ID for a bureaucrat’s approval – or rejection.

Congress passed this monumentally anti-constitutional legislation without even debating it, then deputized the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement it. Reincarnated Nazi Michael Chertoff was Secretary of DHS; he spent much of his time – and millions of our taxes – trying to ram REAL ID down the nation’s throat.

All our money bought him was the biggest revolt against DC’s diktats since 1861. Departments of Motor Vehicles in many states vehemently objected to overhauling their systems just to please DHS; the governors of those states just as vehemently protested the enormous expense of said overhaul and waxed indignant about REAL ID’s invasions of privacy. If anyone’s gonna tyrannize Montanans or Mainers, by gum, it’ll be their local masters, not Washington’s overlords. Legislatures put teeth in the dissent as states passed resolutions and even laws against complying with REAL ID.

At this point, we might expect Feds who constantly bray about democracy, who eagerly slaughter their own serfs as well as foreign ones for its glory, to throw in the towel on a national ID. Have not the people spoken, indeed, shrieked, that they’ll have nothing to do with this abomination? But Our Rulers never weary in their evil-doing. Nor do they hesitate to show us exactly how stupid they think we are. And so a litter of senators introduced the "Providing for Additional Security in States' Identification Act of 2009" (PASS ID) last week. Essentially, they stripped the name "REAL ID" off the old bill, slapped a new title on it, and tweaked a few of the details.

Just as they did with REAL ID, the Feds insist that PASS ID is not a national ID – oh, my, no. So what if every American has a uniform card that he must constantly show to government’s goons? That’s not a national ID, you silly citizen, you! If you were as wise as our legislators, you’d realize that both REAL and PASS ID are simply driver’s licenses with "strong security standards." Or so say politicians who also assure us that they’re bossing this democracy according to the will of the people. True, REAL ID had some "troubling aspects": it would have forced states to link their databases, which "could provide one-stop shopping for identity thieves and the backbone for a national identification database." But "PASS ID addresses those privacy … concerns..." Thus do its sponsors hallucinate about the differences between two identical bills while figuring they’ve snowed us yet again.

PASS ID does depart from REAL ID in one important aspect: it bribes the states to cooperate with a whole lot more of our taxes. Remember the indignant governors, grousing about REAL ID’s violation of our rights? Surprise: that no longer troubles them a-tall. Indeed, members of the National Governors Association so pant to push their hot little hands more deeply into our pockets that they now support REAL–er, PASS ID.

PASS ID also thoughtfully eases the burden on DMVs. Bureaucrats there need not curtail their three-hour lunches nor keep their feet on their desks past 3:30 each afternoon as they bring their little fiefdoms into compliance. But you and I will still be jumping through REAL ID’s hoops as we seek to satisfy the DMV numbskull that our birth certificates are authentic and we live where the State’s records say we do. Of course, the approximately 423 documents that substantiate such claims already reside on various government computers, but unless you bring a copy with you for the numbskull, you’ll be walking rather than driving to work. Actually, you may still be walking even if you produce every single paper the numbskull demands: after paying PASS ID’s higher taxes, who’ll have money left for licenses that cost many multiples of their former price?

Naturally, Our Rulers have our best interests at heart as they impose this totalitarianism. They repeatedly cite "the 9/11 Commission's recommendation to enhance the security of driver's licenses" as though anyone other than the stooges on Leviathan’s payroll gives said Commission an iota of credibility. Heck, even some of the stooges damn the Commission, especially those it set up as fall guys for the Fed’s role that tragic day.

Our Rulers also aver that PASS ID "helps fight terrorism" despite experts’ frequent refutations. "Going back to 9-11," says Bruce Schneier, author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World, "every one of those terrorists had an ID. Some of them had forged IDs, some used their real name, and some of them got real IDs with a fake names [sic] by bribing a motor-vehicles clerk." Nor is this just one man’s opinion. International consensus notes the missing link between ID and security: "Harvey Mattinson, a consultant at the information technology arm of GCHQ [Government Communication Headquarters – ‘one of the three UK Intelligence Agencies’], said that the only real value of identity cards would be to help state bodies share information about people."

No wonder Leviathan obsesses over ID. "State bodies" not only "share information" about us, they also pin our names to our addresses so that we are easy to find and fine. The State’s usual motive for its crimes – money – explains its lust to identify us, too. Linda Lewis-Pickett, president and CEO of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, "think[s] each state agency has looked at DMVs as revenue generators – 'Come in and pay taxes and give us money.'" After we pay those taxes, the drivers' licenses and plates those DMVs dispense generate further revenue when officials track us to a billing address.

There’s a further benefit in matching names with citizens: it controls us and quashes dissent. Few patriots are brave enough to speak out against Leviathan’s evil when its lackeys can respond, "Papers, please." Perhaps that’s why the Constitution empowers government merely to count citizens but never to identify them – unless they vote in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 7) or run for the presidency (Art. II, Sec. 1). It is rulers, not us, who must identify themselves lest they wreak wickedness against us (Art. I, Sec. 7).

Which brings us to the author of the REAL ID Act, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI). None too happy that we’ve scrapped his legacy, this heavy-handed dunderhead thundered, "Maybe governors [who objected to REAL ID] should have been in the Capitol when we knew a plane was on its way to Washington wanting to kill a few thousand more people." Sensenbrenner also snarls that PASS ID, REAL ID’s twin even if it lacks his name on its legislation, sends us "right back to where we were on Sept. 10, 2001."

Would that it did.

June 26, 2009

Becky Akers [send her mail] writes primarily about the American Revolution.

Copyright © 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.