Thursday, May 31, 2007

'High priests of globalization' in Istanbul

'High priests of globalization' in Istanbul

'High priests of globalization' in Istanbul

Thursday, May 31, 2007
ISTANBUL - Turkish Daily News
Some call it "the multinational government", some call it the "elite club which shapes world policies" while others say it essentially "fixes" the world's fate. It literally breeds conspiracy theories all around the world with its secrecy, while participants say it is only a private gathering that should be respected.

Whatever it is, the mighty Bilderberg is at our door: The "high priests of globalization," as Will Hutton from The Observer once famously put it, begin their ultra-secretive annual meeting today in Istanbul. While the international media's silence gives rise to yet more conspiracy theories, the Turkish media is going nuts about it: from mass-circulation dailies to well-known weeklies, the media is Bilderberg-busy nowadays. Daily Vatan calls it "the most secretive meeting in the world," announcing: "Bilderberg in Istanbul." Weekly Aktüel says the "multinational government" is here to determine the fate of the world. It seems the hype will continue until the "high priests" end their Istanbul meeting on Sunday.

For those who have not heard about it yet, the Bilderberg Group is an "unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests" (Wikipedia), influential, powerful figures from the realms of economy, media and politics. The name comes from their first meeting in 1954, which was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands. As the date signals, Bilderberg is a creation of the Cold War. The idea came from Joseph Retinger, who was concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe at the time. So, Bilderberg, just like other organizations like NATO, aimed at strengthening the "unity of the West" against the "communist threat."

With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the group focused on enhancing the American-led globalization. But then, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington practically resulted in another focus, which one might call the relation between "civilizations."

Thus, after the first gathering in Istanbul (1959) and the second one in Izmir (1975), a third gathering in Turkey, widely regarded as a "bridge" between the East and the West, seems appropriate.

People that run the world:

If one aspect of Bilderberg that irks many is its secrecy, another one is the identity of its participants. Looking at the list of regular "Bilderbergers," one cannot but think that these are really "the people that run the world". Veterans like Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski are joined every year by newcomers such as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, soon-to-be-former-PM Tony Blair, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and countless others. Every year, the list also includes important "media people" from influential outlets such as The Financial Times, Washington Post, The Economist, The Times, Le Figaro and Die Zeit. The picture becomes complete with CEOs from the world's biggest companies such as Coca-Cola, Fiat, Suez-Tractebel, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum.

With such a mixture, conspiracy theories abound; the most famous one being the "invisible hand" theory. According to some, those who are lucky enough to attend the meetings and get a blessing from the "inner circle" witness breath-taking career leaps. An "obscure governor" from Arkansas, one year after attending the Bilderberg meeting in 1991, became the President of the United States, while Tony Blair of Britain was elected prime minister three years after his attendance in 1993. But why did Margaret Thatcher, a regular Bilderberger, lose her job as Prime Minister in 1990? The theory says that she lost the support of Bilderberg because she did not accept the transfer of British sovereignty to a "European Super State." Of course, John Major, who took the job as Prime Minister after Thatcher, was also a Bilderberger.

One may choose to believe or not, but the secrecy of the meetings – no cell phones, no getting out of the hotel during three days, no notes, no interviews – creates fertile ground for conspiracy theories. When senior representatives of media giants such as the FT, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post attend the meetings every year and next to nothing is printed in the same papers about Bilderberg, one starts to wonder.

Dedicated journalists:

There are a few journalists who are dedicated to unveil the secret of the Bilderberg, though. People such as James P. Tucker, Daniel Estulin and Tony Gosling. The first two are in Istanbul, tracking down the participants, while Gosling, a Briton who runs the Web site, could not come to the show. His Web site gets about three million hits a month, Gosling says, and attributes this great interest to the fact that "investigative journalism is pretty much dead" elsewhere. The Bilderberg is very powerful, especially financially, he told the Turkish Daily News over the phone: "So, if they come to a decision, it is effective."

Gosling has covered the last 10 meetings, and he thinks the gathering in Istanbul is of high importance. "There is a lot of tension on the Iran-Turkey border at the moment. Iraq is also right next door. This is an area of interest for Bilderberg," he said. "[The Bilderbergers] are worried that Islamic sentiment in Turkey is not in favor of an invasion of Iran. They are here to attempt to persuade the Turkish elite and bring them on board with the neocon plan for the Middle East."

But why the secrecy? Gosling posed the same question to David Rockefeller back in 2003. "He shrugged and said it was just a private meeting," he continues. "But the world does not buy this argument. There are politicians there and they are not private people. They are people who should be held accountable."

Gosling's claim, that the main topic of Bilderberg 2007 is Iran, is a widely held opinion. Other topics are energy policies and Turkey's bid for European Union membership, according to the daily Vatan. The paper is optimistic about the last item; it says the Istanbul meeting is a signal that the EU has "inched open the door" to Turkey, basing this claim on unnamed "Bilderberg sources."

A veteran of Bilderberg:

With four separate attendances in Atlanta, Ottawa, Stockholm and Lisbon, Turkey's former Central Bank governor, Gazi Erçel, is the most informed source one can find. "There are many international meetings such as Bilderberg, which have strict rules," he said to the TDN. As to the reason of the secrecy, he says it is a precaution to ensure that everyone talks sincerely on the topics, without the concern of being quoted.

The conspiracy theories stem from ignorance about the meetings, Erçel said, quoting Confucius: "Those who produce ideas without the knowledge are harmful. As they do not know what Bilderberg is, they believe in superstitions."

Erçel also got his share of mention in the conspiracy theories, as some accused him of "planning the 2001 financial crisis" at one of the meetings. "These are defective claims," he said. "Bilderberg is a high-level meeting. Everyone talks freely and very striking debates take place."

Over the years Bilderberg meetings had important Turkish participants. Among them are Süleyman Demirel, the former president; Gazi Erçel, former Central Bank chief; Mesut Yilmaz, former Prime Minister; Selahattin Beyazit, a businessman and a "constant participant"; Mustafa Koç, the CEO of Koç Holding; former ministers Ismail Cem, Hikmet Çetin and Kemal Dervis and also some well-known journalists. Among them, Fehmi Koru from the conservative daily Yeni Safak stands out, because until last year, he had written numerous critical columns on Bilderberg. Last year, things changed and he was also invited to the meetings. Afterwards, he wrote a six-day series on Bilderberg, telling much about the environment and the participants, but certainly not much on what was discussed. Koru is invited for a second time this year, but the "jump" in his career is yet to be seen!

As the Bilderbergers gather, probably giggling among themselves about the conspiracy theories abounding, it would be appropriate to quote Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories, who had spoken to the BBC back in June 2004: "Should not we expect that the rich and the powerful organize things in their own interests? It is called capitalism!"


(According to

Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey)

Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey)

Mustafa V. Koç, Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey)

Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safak (Turkey)

George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece)

Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK)

Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal)

José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission (Portugal/International)

Franco Bernabé, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy)

Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France)

Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden)

Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium)

Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France)

Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France)

Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain)

Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK)

Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA)

Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France)

George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA)

Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark)

John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy)

Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA)

Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA)

Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA)

Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland)

Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA)

Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, (the Netherlands)

Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium)

Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA)

Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)

Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (the Netherlands/International)

Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA)

Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)

James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)

Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA)

Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK)

John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Netherlands)

Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA)

Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France)

Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA)

Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA)

Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (the Netherlands/International)

Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International)

William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA)

Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA)

Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada)

Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations (France)

Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy)

Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA)

Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway)

Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)

Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland)

Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland)

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK)

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy)

Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA)

Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada)

David Rockefeller (USA)

Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain)

Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA)

Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs (Germany)

Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany)

Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark)

Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland)

Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International)

John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA)

Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden)

Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor, The Financial Times (UK)

James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA)

Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA)

Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of management, Deutsche Post AG (USA)

Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

Currently reading :
Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time
By Carroll Quigley
Release date: By June, 1975


A brief article I just came across -

Commentary - May 26, 2007

Memories by Down the Middle

While you were sleeping, “the decider” has struck again by issuing a presidential directive giving himself full powers of authority, in the event of another attack or natural disaster. Since he did such a bang-up job defending the country on 9/11 and rescuing New Orleans from Katrina’s deluge, it only stands to reason that he be given full and total authority for the safety and protection the American people.

Of course, this is not the first piece of governmental pen-to-paper that we’ve seen of this nature, as Congress quietly made their move two years ago. But with the changing tide of emotions running throughout the country and the soon to be voted upon Congress, Mr. Bush has reasoned to trust no one other than himself, with something as important as the death of freedom.

Although this directive is altogether unconstitutional and and completely against the spirit of liberty, most Americans will go about their Memorial weekend, never suspecting such a thing has or could ever occur…and many of those who do take notice will once again, chalk it up to being a necessary evil, as they did with the Patriot Act. In reality, this is one more step toward dictatorship and the martial law it will soon bring. As simple as it seems, all one need do is to look at the history to realize the template.

But as much as you would like to put the sole blame on Bush for such tyrannical behavior…or maybe apportion this guilt, on behalf of this masquerade of a Congress, much of the responsibility is actually yours for allowing this behavior to continue unabated. Yes, a few are writing about these challenges and many more are reading about them, but who is actually “camping out” in front of their representatives’ offices or jamming their phone lines and e-mail addresses.? And who is willing to march among the millions that are needed, for the last chance of wrestling our government away from this un-American leadership?

What a shame to see our liberty go quietly into the night, while our fellow citizens concern themselves with plans of revelry for the Memorial Day weekend. Do they not see the burning of our constitution, deep within the smoke of their holiday pits…and do they not hear the cry of freedom over the roar of their pleasure boats, slicing the polluted waters…and can they not speak through their drunkenness, coherent enough to raise the alarm? And why did they not know that Lady Liberty could be so deaf, dumb and blind?

We celebrate another Memorial Day, to honor the memory of all the brave brethren who have fallen for our freedom. Only now, we must also remember their ideals, which have fallen behind them…for they, too are passed away. And they are passed away, not because those brave had failed in their duty, but because we have failed in ours.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Proof that Ron Paul is a uniter! A picture is worth a thousand words...

Proof that Ron Paul is a uniter! A picture is worth a thousand words...

At the Ron Paul Austin fundraiser, I took this picture from across the room with a telephoto lens so I would not disturb them. The older gentleman in the suit & tie is my father-in-law. He's a evangelical Christian who used to be a missionary in Mexico. He also founded a Christian Radio station in South Texas. He told me that the two of them had a very pleasant conversation that he enjoyed. This image really seemed powerful to me. Here we have two very different people sitting next to each other united by Ron Paul's message of freedom. There were Conservative Republicans, Independents, Libertarians, and even a fair number of Democrats who paid a $100 donation to support and hear Ron Paul.

Our country desperately needs a man who can unite people. We need Ron Paul to be our President

From: Republican Liberty Caucus Of Texas
Date: May 20, 2007 10:18 PM
Here's the speech that they were viewing -

(Check out the multi-cultural, multi-partisan support here) 8 min.

pt. 2 (9 min.)

UPDATE: Check out the support for Ron coming from OUTSIDE of the COUNTRY!

Saturday, May 26, 2007

Former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit On Dr. Paul

The following is a letter from Michael F. Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden Unit, to the editor of, regarding Congressman Ron Paul's exchange with Rudy Giuliani about why the al Qaeda network has targeted the United States.


In the dozen-plus years I have been active in matters relating to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I have watched them go from a small Islamist organization to a worldwide insurgent movement, while bin Laden has established himself as the primary source of inspiration and leadership for tens of millions of Muslim Islamists. This process has been made possible by two things: (a) the skill, courage, patience, and ruthlessness of bin Laden and his ilk, and (b) the refusal of the U.S. government to understand the motivation of bin Laden and his allies.

Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers. This, of course, is not to say that America is to blame for the war it is now engaged in, but it is to say that it is foolish – and perhaps fatal – for Americans to believe that are we are being attacked for such ephemera as primary elections, R-rated movies, and gender equality. If our Islamist enemies were motivated by such things their numbers would be minuscule and they would be a sporadic lethal nuisance, not, as they are, the most serious national security threat we face today.

Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Mr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are "over there," and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Mr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

At day's end, Mr. Paul has at least temporarily shaken the pillars of the bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy. Neither party, and none of the candidates, want to discuss the Islamists' motivation because they would have to deal with energy policy, support for Israel, and the 50-year record of U.S. support and protection for Arab tyrannies. These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Mr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies, and implicitly has said that the obsessive interventionism of both parties has inspired al-Qaeda and its allies to kill 7,000-plus U.S. civilians and military personnel since 11 September 2001. The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America's defeat only if Mr. Paul's frank statements are ignored.

And no matter how you view Mr. Paul's words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Mr. Paul's frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda's one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner.

Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA

See also:

Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Dr. Ron Paul MP3

Antiwar Radio: Scott Horton Interviews Michael Scheuer
UPDATE: CNN reports on today's Scheuer / Paul press conference, you have to see the positive multi-partisan support to believe it:

Here's the original press conference:

CNN - May 16

Ron Paul on Bill Maher Show 5-25-07


Thursday, May 24, 2007

Bush can NOW SUSPEND elections!

Bush can NOW SUSPEND elections!

As of May 9, President Bush HAS GIVEN HIMSELF the power to SUSPEND our elections and DISMISS CONGRESS for any reason he chooses, for any length of time! FULL DOCUMENTATION below:

Nobody has picked up this story yet! The press is NOT covering this (barely anyone – only, Coast to Coast AM, and Alex Jones)

Call your Congresspeople and Senators ASAP and tell them to put a stop to

"The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive,"





ASK to know why is there no congressional review of this executive directive!
REQUEST they put this on the agenda in Congress and tell them to challenge it!

Capitol switchboard - 202-224-3121

Call your local paper and tell them you want them to cover this story! Call the ACLU and anyone else you can think of to get this out to the public!

Breaking News:

Last night, on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007, the world's largest late-night talk radio show aired this interview in which author and columnist Jerome Corsi discussed a new Presidential Directive, signed into law on May 9th, that he said grants dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency.

For more, see his commentary for WorldNetDaily.

Bush Grants Presidency Extraordinary Powers: Directive for Emergencies Apparently Gives Authority Without Congressional Oversight by Jerome R. Corsi

During the interview Corsi reported that the directive was, "signed quietly on May 9," "without congressional approval or oversight."

Corsi reported that this Executive Order is known as "The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," a.k.a. NSPD 51 or HSPD 20

This creates a new un-elected office of a "national continuity coordinator, whose job is to make plans for national essential functions of ALL







as well as

- private sector organizations

to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a "national emergency."

Corsi stated that a:

"Catastrophic emergency is loosely defined as ANY incident, regardless of location that results in extraordinary levels

of mass casualties, damage or disruption

severely affecting

- The U.S. population

- Infrastructure

- Environment

- Economy


- Government functions."

All the president has to do is "call" or "declare" a "national emergency" and this

includes - "the operation of business organizations."

- No necessity to go to congress

- Does NOT need Congressional approval

There will be NO congressional control "over" of which powers the president can use / "exert"…"once he's declared a national emergency by his own authority."

The host, George Noory, asks: "How does this differ, Jerry, prior to him signing? Could the president not have assumed control over everything in the first place?"

Jerry Corsi – "Prior to this, the only such authority would have been in National Emergency Act and that's defined in the US Code, Title 50, chapter 34, subchapter 2, section 1621 and under that US Code, the national emergency act allows the president to declare a national emergency BUT requires that the proclamation immediately go to Congress and be published in the Federal Register."

On May 9 the requirement to report to Congress was done away with!

Corsi notes:

"The Constitution was specifically crafted "to limit the power of the presidency. We have a Constitutional Republic where the different branches of government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial balance each other. Our Founding Fathers were well aware that the council of the ancient Romans, executive branch of the Roman government would declare emergencies and declare themselves to be dictators, or emperors, with all the powers of government in their office. If The Founding Fathers of the United States wanted to put such a provision in the Constitution they would have but they specifically eliminated any ability of the president to declare an emergency to assume the powers of a dictator, and that's basically what this national security directive that George Bush has signed on his own authority, on May 9, allows the president to assume virtually dictatorial powers."

George asks who created the document_

Jerry - "Totally, George, in the office of the president. This is George Bush's own creation."

George points out, and Corsi confirms, that it NEVER went to congress.

Corsi - "He signed it and it went into law, on his signature with no congress, no congressional oversight, no congressional review, no law being passed, this is George Bush's edict, pure and simple"

George: "Now with this wide-open definition of 'catastrophic emergency,' if we have another hurricane Katrina. One could assume, that's a catastrophic emergency."

Corsi confirms, "That's correct."

George - "Could you then kick all these powers into effect under this directive?"

Corsi - "Yes, you could."

"In my review today, the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America, which was declared again by President Bush, no law, no treaty, in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 and the working groups, you know these Tri-lateral shadow government groups, consisting of the bureaucrats of the United States, Mexico and Canada. They've been reviewing 'Continental emergencies' that could occur in, say a health emergency, Avian Flu or Katrina, an emergency of weather or environmental disaster."

George - "Could they also then, under this directive cancel an election?"

Corsi - "I believe they could, I believe the president could say: 'we're in a national emergency, I'm assuming these extraordinary powers, to preserve the Constitution I'm cancelling the election. There's no limit in this directive of the powers the president may assume. I went to the Congressional Research Service,

which defined, under the National Emergency Act, what the presidents powers under an emergency would be":

- Sieze property

- Organize and control the means of production

- Seize commodities

- Assign military forces abroad

- Institute martial law

- Seize and control all transportation and communications

- Regulate the operation of private enterprise

- Restrict travel

- and in a variety of ways, control the lives of United States citizens

Corsi emphasizes that the president "can declare on his own authority that a national emergency exists."

George asks a great question: "in a national emergency... can't government function without this directive anyway?"

Corsi - "Well absolutely George, I mean historically we've been through any, countless numbers of emergencies. We went through the flu epidemic following WWI. We've had countless earthquakes and tornados and hurricanes, Katrina etc. We've had wars, WWI and WWII and the president never had to have a... presidential directive that allowed him to become a dictator and assume all these powers."

Corsi - "There is NO LIMIT to the president's authority under this directive."

George - "Then what do we have Congress for then?"

Corsi - This would permit the president, if he wanted, to basically dismiss Congress... in the interest of preserving 'continuity of government'...the president might declare the emergency is so great that Congress cannot meet."

George – "Have any congressmen said anything to you or anybody about this?"

Corsi – "Entirely silent."

George – "Do they know about this?"

Corsi – "Its shocking how little congress knows about what the president is doing."

George – "How did you pick up on this story?"

Corsi – "I got emails from readers who said you've got to look at this directive from May 9…began looking at it… was shocked."

"There was NO press release of any substantive nature"

"The press release putting this on public notice, JUST published the directive. There wasn't even a Presidential statement EXPLAINING it."

"No discussion from the white house, they refused to explain it," according to Corsi.

"They just did a press release that posted the directive itself. No Press conference by president Bush.When I called the White House they refused to call me back and give me a statement on this"

George - "This is dangerous, this is dangerous."

Corsi - "This is EXTREMELY dangerous"

George - "Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, or a Conservative, or a Libertarian the point is: no one person in this country should have omnipotent power."

Corsi - "That's right. When the Founding Fathers created the Constitution, they'd just got rid of King George the 3rd. They did not want an Imperial President that could become a dictator in the course of an emergency. This is equivalent to the Fuhrer of the Reichstags fire saying, 'I've got all the authority of the German state. It's the equivalent of a Roman dictator saying, the Roman state has an emergency and I am now the dictator, the emperor, not a council, but the dictator, in charge of the entire Roman government.

Our Founding Fathers knew this could be done by an executive and they created a LIMITED REPUBLIC with a balance of powers to prevent this EXACT type of directive from ever being written."

George - "If the power grid goes out for 2 hours, he can kick this directive into effect?"

Corsi - "Yes he can. ANY time the president decides there's a national emergency, he can kick this directive into effect and take over dictatorial powers

George - "So the day we have the election next year, the day we have it, if something happens in the morning, whatever it is can he cancel the election?"

Corsi - "YES. He can assume control of the Federal, State, Local, territorial and tribal governments."

George - "For how long?"

Corsi - "Unspecified George, until the President decides the emergency is over, could be YEARS, but that directive does not say how long it could be in existence, as long as the President wants."

George - "we've got to get congress to really go into an uproar about this. This is dictatorship. Whether its used or not, it should not be a law."

Corsi - "It's outrageous, George. It's a complete contradiction of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, which established limited government checks and balances between the different departments. This allows the President to negate CHECKS AND BALANCES and take over as a dictator, JUST by DECLARING a national emergency exists on his OWN authority."

Corsi - "This supersedes The National Emergency Act."

George asked why the President didn't call a news conference to explain this.

Corsi - "Why didn't Bush take this to congress and say I want to "pass this as a law [and this is WHY] amending the National Emergency Act. We already have an act in place which DEFINES the President's ability to declare an emergency, but that law requires the President to bring the declaration of an emergency to Congress and to PUBLISH it in the Federal Registry, where Congress would have the opportunity to overturn it, or negate it. This directive has NO specification that the President has to take a declaration of an emergency to Congress at all."

Corsi - "Part of this directive is classified, you can't even read the appendix."

George asked if, during WWII, FDR invoked "anything like this."

Corsi - "F.D.R. did NOT invoke extraordinary emergency powers of the presidency. The only thing I can think of in American history that's similar would be some of the actions taken by President Lincoln during the Civil War, which Constitutionalists have been arguing about ever since, suspending Habeas Corpus. There were any number of things that Lincoln did."

George - "Could he in theory say: I want everybody to get chipped. I want everyone to take a vaccine, under this directive?"

Corsi - "Absolutely. He could say, 'We've got an Avian Flu epidemic that's affecting the Continent, so I'm going to put together under my direction, a continental health service and I'm going to require that everybody be quarantined, unless they get a vaccine.'"

Corsi - "Remember on April 30, President Bush, on his own authority, signed a Transatlantic Agreement with the European Union, creating a Transatlantic Economic Council to integrate us with the E.U. and that ALSO did not go to Congress. So this Presidential directive, establishing these emergency powers, involves a series of decisions George Bush has made in his own office without going through Congress."

Corsi – "This looks like a power-grab that negates the Constitution."

Corsi clarified that this does not give the Vice President any special powers. "It's all in the office of President...In fact the President has created a 'national continuity director...she also has never been elected. She is now the czar for 'national continuity."

A caller called in and pointed out that this type of thing has been going on for decades, including during Bill Clinton's Administration.

Corsi - "Bill Clinton may have. The idea is an ancient idea. The Roman emperors knew how to use these emergency powers to declare themselves supreme leaders. Adolf Hitler knew it at the Reichstag fire. It's an old idea, its just shocking that President Bush has actually put it into a May 9, signed executive order which makes it law."

George asked what happens when people and soldiers say no?

Corsi - "It would take extraordinary efforts because the President would have the ability to CONSIDER IT AN ACT OF TRAITORSHIP. If someone refused to follow the President's orders, even as a dictator. This directive gives him the ability to direct any decision he wants."

George expressed that he thinks a soldier would be apt to first protect the Constitution.

Corsi – "I would hope so, but first OUR SENATORS AND CONGRESSMAN must first protect the Constitution and bring this Presidential directive under Congressional examination IMMEDIATELY."

At approximately 37 minutes into the first hour, a caller (Jim from Huntsville, AL) called in supporting the directive saying that the President should, "dissolve Congress" until we win the war, "and then perhaps if common sense comes back into politicians, allow Congress to be seated again. I think if he enacts these powers that it is the best thing for the people of the United States of America."

Corsi - "The problem is, is that the Constitution sets up limited powers. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, facing a war on two oceans, a world war STILL went to Congress and got a Declaration of War. That's something we've not done with Iraq, something we didn't do in Kosovo and we didn't do in Vietnam. We're not following the Constitutional procedures and we're going down this slippery slope to the point where the President, under this directive, could declare [by] himself, that there's an emergency, he's a dictator."

Congressman Ron Paul is the ONLY elected representative to directly address this recently on the house floor. Here is the link to the Tuesday, May 22 speech on the house floor:

If you want to TAKE ACTION then please watch this historic speech and pass it on to everyone you know!

This speech is available @ 3 sources:


MySpace - small picture, great sound

Google - big picture, not as good quality sound

Preserve the rule of law that protects us all - the United States Constitution, the highest law of the land.

Currently reading:
Trilateralism the Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management
By: Holly Sklar
Release date: November, 1980

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Excerpt from a letter to a friend

I thought that other readers might be interested in this point:

PS -

Oops, there's one thing I forgot. Our founding fathers and mothers weren't perfect BUT something I have been reminding myself of recently (as I am engaged in the academic study of women's spirituality and religious studies) is that America - and the desire for liberty that birthed it - was born out of the ashes of 1000 years of INQUISITION in Europe. Fuck the naysayers! The men and women who founded our country (yes, there were women, I collect stories about them since they are underreported) were not stupid. They may not have been perfect human beings but when it came to Liberty and Freedom they were Wise. IN THE FACE OF THIS NEW INQUISITION ( THE TORTURE THAT IS GOING ON) THEIR WORDS/EXPERIENCES/DEEDS ARE MORE POIGNANT AND APPLICABLE THAN EVER! As Alex Jones says in a video on my page, "the answer to 1984 is 1776."


Currently watching:
Women & Spirituality: Burning Times
Release date: 21 December, 1999

Tuesday, May 22, 2007



What Really Divides Us?

Today's Propaganda alert:

[Thanks Squidink, for the following, @ the DISINFO blog]

A simple search brought up the following article. I've included a few pertinent lines. Please read, and tell others. Jeese, even Wonkette is smearing him as a racist. DO SOME RESEARCH!!!

What Really Divides Us?

" is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines."

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."

"The true antidote to racism is liberty."

Rep. Ron Paul, MD
December 24, 2002

Posted by squidink on May 19, 2007 - Saturday at 6:39 PM


Ron Paul Rebuts Racist Views

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 -

Ron Paul a Racist?

Monday, May 21, 2007 -

Ron Paul Racist Smear - Today's High Alert

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Friday, May 18, 2007

Libertarian Answers to Post-Patriarchal (a.k.a. feminist) Values

Libertarian Answers to Post-Patriarchal (a.k.a. feminist) Values

How can we replace the cultural ethics of dominance and control with more cooperative ways of interacting?

Government is the primary patriarchal institution in our culture. It is based on the ethic of dominance and control. Reject the culture of government and cooperation will blossom. Free the schools. Free the airwaves. Withhold your support of government and avoid dependence on it. If your goals can only be met by dominance and control (government action), it is time to re-evaluate your goals.

How can we encourage people to care about persons outside their own group?

By removing barriers to trade, travel, and charity. By abandoning the myth of the government safety net. Caring grows where there is no exploitation or restriction, but through taxes and regulations we exploit and restrict each other needlessly.

How can we promote the building of respectful, positive, and responsible relationships across the lines of gender and other divisions?

Respectful, positive, and responsible relationships cannot be created by law. Laws which now dictate our (personal and economic) relationships destroy respect, responsibility, and harmony. They should be repealed. Merchants everywhere compete to build positive relationships with their customers in spite of natural and artificial divisions.

How can we encourage a rich, diverse political culture that respects feelings as well as rationalist approaches?

Libertarians welcome voluntary social experimentation and the diversity it brings. Government seldom encourages political diversity or shows respect for feelings.

How can we proceed with as much respect for the means as well as the end (the process as much as the products of our efforts)?

Libertarianism is means-oriented. Libertarians reject the initiation of force as a means of achieving any social or political goal.

How can we learn to respect the contemplative, inner part of life as much as the outer activities?

Only if we have the leisure time generated by a free and prosperous economy.

--Harry Reid, The Liberator, page 9, Winter 1993

Currently listening:
Under the Pink
By: Tori Amos
Release date: 01 February, 1994

Pagan Libertarians / Libertarian Pagans

SEE ALSO - my post: Excerpt from a letter to a friend

The Wiccan Rede:

"And it harm none, do as ye will."

Live and Let Live: Libertarian, Animal-Rights, Pro-Life, Feminist, and Pagan Resources

Live and Let Live: pro-life / animal-rights / libertarian 'zine
Published by James Dawson
P.O. Box 613
Redwood Valley CA 95470

Libertarians for Life

Association of Libertarian Feminists

Pagan Institute Report: Essays on Pagan Activism">Healing Our World: In An Age Of Agression by Mary J. Ruwart

Help for the Politically Homeless – Beyond Left and Right

Help for the Politically Homeless – Beyond Left and Right

Persuasion Versus Force

Persuasion Versus Force

by Mark Skousen (of the Utah Skousen clan)

Sometimes a single book or even a short cogent essay can change an individual's entire outlook on life. For Christians, it is the New Testament. For radical socialists, Karl Marx' and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto is revolutionary. For libertarians, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is pivotal. For economists, Ludwig von Mises' Human Action can be mind-changing.

Recently I came across a little essay in a book called Adventures of Ideas, by Alfred North Whitehead, the British philosopher and Harvard professor. The essay, "From Force to Persuasion," had a profound effect upon me. Actually what caught my attention was a single passage on page 83. This one small excerpt in a 300-page book changed my entire political philosophy.

Here's what it says:

"The creation of the world -- said Plato -- is the victory of persuasion over force... Civilization is the maintenance of social order, by its own inherent persuasiveness as embodying the nobler alternative. The recourse to force, however unavoidable, is a disclosure of the failure of civilization, either in the general society or in a remnant of individuals...

"Now the intercourse between individuals and between social groups takes one of these two forms: force or persuasion. Commerce is the great example of intercourse by way of persuasion. War, slavery, and governmental compulsion exemplify the reign of force."

Professor Whitehead's vision of civilized society as the triumph of persuasion over force should become paramount in the mind of all civic-minded individuals and government leaders. It should serve as the guideline for the political ideal.

Let me suggest, therefore, a new political creed: The triumph of persuasion over force is the sign of a civilized society.

Surely this is a fundamental principle to which most citizens, no matter where they fit on the political spectrum, can agree.

Too Many Laws

Too often lawmakers resort to the force of law rather than the power of persuasion to solve a problem in society. They are too quick to pass another statute or regulation in an effort to suppress the effects of a deeprooted problem in society rather than seeking to recognize and deal with the real cause of the problem, which may require parents, teachers, pastors, and community leaders to convince people to change their ways.

Too often politicians think that new programs requiring new taxes are the only way to pay for citizens' retirement, health care, education or other social needs. "People just aren't willing to pay for these services themselves," they say, so they force others to pay for them instead.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Taxation is the price we pay for civilization." But isn't the opposite really the case? Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success.

Thus, legislators, ostensibly concerned about poverty and low wages, pass a minimum wage law and establish a welfare state as their way to abolish poverty. Yet poverty persists, not for want of money, but for want of skills, capital, education, and the desire to succeed.

The community demands a complete education for all children, so the state mandates that all children attend school for at least ten years. Winter Park High School, which two of our children attend, is completely fenced in. Students need a written excuse to leave school grounds and an official explanation for absences. All the gates except one are closed during school hours, and there is a permanent guard placed at the only open gate to monitor students coming and going. Florida recently passed a law that takes away the driver's license of any student who drops out of high school. Surely, they say, that will eliminate the high dropout rate for students.

But suppressing one problem only creates another. Now students who don't want to be in school are disrupting the students who want to learn. The lawmakers forget one thing. Schooling is not the same as education.

Many high-minded citizens don't like to see racial, religious or sexual discrimination in employment, housing, department stores, restaurants, and clubs. Yet instead of persuading people in the schools, the churches and the media that discrimination is inappropriate behavior and morally repugnant, law-makers simply pass civil rights legislation outlawing discrimination, as though making hatred illegal can instantly make it go away. Instead, forced integration often intensifies the already-existing hostilities. Does anyone wonder why discrimination is still a serious problem in our society?

Is competition from the Japanese, the Germans and the Brazilians too stiff for American industry? We can solve that right away, says Congress. No use trying to convince industry to invest in more productive labor and capital, or voting to reduce the tax burden on business. No, they'll just impose import quotas or heavy duties on foreign products and force them to "play fair." Surely that will make us more competitive, and keep American companies in business.

Drugs, Guns, and Abortion

Is the use of mind-altering drugs a problem in America? Then let's pass legislation prohibiting the use of certain high-powered drugs. People still want to use them? Then let's hire more police to crack down on the drug users and drug dealers. Surely that will solve the problem. Yet such laws never address the fundamental issue, which would require analyzing why people misuse drugs and discovering ways they can satisfy their needs in a nondestructive manner. By out-lawing illicit drugs, we fail to consider the underlying cause of increased drug or alcohol misuse among teenagers and adults, and we fail to accept the beneficial uses of such drugs in medicine and healthcare. I salute voluntary efforts in communities to deal with these serious problems, such as "no alcohol" high school graduation parties and drug-awareness classes. Tobacco is on the decline as a result of education, and drug use could abate as well if it were treated as a medical problem rather than a criminal one.

Abortion is a troublesome issue, we all agree on that. Whose rights take precedence, the baby's or the mother's? When does life begin, at conception or at birth?

Political conservatives are shocked by the millions of legal killings that take place every year in America and around the world. How can we sing "God Bless America" with this epidemic plaguing our nation? So, for many conservatives the answer is simple: Ban abortions! Force women to give birth to their unexpected and unwanted babies. That will solve the problem. This quick fix will undoubtedly give the appearance that we have instantly solved our national penchant for genocide.

Wouldn't it be better if we first tried to answer the all important questions, "Why is abortion so prevalent today, and how can we prevent unwanted pregnancies?" Or, once an unwanted pregnancy occurs, how can we persuade people to examine alternatives, including adoption?

Crime is another issue plaguing this country. There are those in society who want to ban handguns, rifles and other firearms, or at least have them tightly controlled and registered, in an attempt to reduce crime. We can solve the murder and crime problem in this country, they reason, simply by passing a law taking away the weapons of murder. No guns, no killings. Simple, right? Yet they only change the outward symptoms, while showing little interest in finding ways to discourage a person from becoming criminal or violent in the first place.

Legislators should be slow to pass laws to protect people against themselves. While insisting on a woman's "right to choose" in one area, they deny men and women the right to choose in every other area. Unfortunately, they are all too quick to act. Drivers aren't wearing their seatbelts? Let's pass a mandatory seatbelt law. Motorcyclists aren't wearing helmets? Let's mandate helmets. We'll force people to be responsible!

More Than Just Freedom

How did we get into this situation, where lawmakers feel compelled to legislate personal behavior "for our own good"? Often we only have ourselves to blame.

The lesson is clear: If we are going to preserve what personal and economic freedom we have left in this country, we had better act responsibly, or our freedom is going to be taken away. Too many detractors think that freedom is nothing more than the right to act irresponsibly. They equate liberty with libertine behavior: that the freedom to choose whether to have an abortion means that they should have an abortion, that the freedom to take drugs means that they should take drugs, that the legalization of gambling means that they should play the roulette wheel.

It is significant that Professor Whitehead chose the word "persuasion," not simply "freedom," as the ideal characteristic of the civilized world. The word "persuasion" embodies both freedom of choice and responsibility for choice. In order to persuade, you must have a moral philosophy, a system of right and wrong, which you govern yourself. You want to persuade people to do the right thing not because they have to, but because they want to.

There is little satisfaction from doing good if individuals are mandated to do the right thing. Character and responsibility are built when people voluntarily choose right over wrong, not when they are forced to do so. A soldier will feel a greater sense of victory if he enlists in the armed forces instead of being drafted. And high school students will not comprehend the joy of service if it is mandated by a community-service requirement for graduation.

Admittedly, there will be individuals in a free society who will make the wrong choices, who will become drug addicts and alcoholics, who will refuse to wear a safety helmet, who will hurt themselves playing with firecrackers, and who will drop out of high school. But that is the price we must pay for having a free society, where individuals learn from their mistakes and try to build a better world.

In this context, let us answer the all- important question, "Liberty and morality: can we have both?" The answer is, absolutely yes! Not only can we have both, but we must have both, or eventually we will have neither. As Sir James Russell Lowell said, "The ultimate result of protecting fools from their folly is to fill the planet full of fools."

Our motto should be, "We teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves."

Freedom without responsibility only leads to the destruction of civilization, as evidenced by Rome and other great civilizations of the past. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot." In a similar vein, Henry Ward Beecher added, "There is no liberty to men who know not how to govern themselves." And Edmund Burke wrote, "What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue?"

Today's political leaders demonstrate their low opinion of the public with every social law they pass. They believe that, if given the right to choose, the citizenry will probably make the wrong choice. Legislators do not think any more in terms of persuading people; they feel the need to force their agenda on the public at the point of a bayonet and the barrel of a gun, in the name of the IRS, the SEC, the FDA, the DEA, the EPA, or a multitude of other ABCs of government authority.

A Challenge to All Lovers of Liberty

My challenge to all lovers of liberty today is to take the moral high ground. Our cause is much more compelling when we can say that we support drug legalization, but do not use mind altering drugs. That we tolerate legal abortion, but choose not to abort our own future generations. That we support the right to bear arms, but do not misuse handguns. That we favor the right of individuals to meet privately as they please, but do not ourselves discriminate.

In the true spirit of liberty, Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If we are to be effective in convincing others of the benefits of a tolerant world, we must take the moral high ground by saying, "We may disapprove of what you do, but we will defend to the death your right to do it."

In short, my vision of a responsible free society is one in which we discourage evil, but do not prohibit it. We make our children and students aware of the consequences of drug abuse and other forms of irresponsible behavior. But after all our persuading, if they still want to use harmful drugs, that is their privilege. In a free society, individuals must have the right to do right or wrong, as long as they don't threaten or infringe upon the rights or property of others. They must also suffer the consequences of their actions, as it is from consequences that they learn to choose properly.

We may discourage prostitution or pornography by restricting it to certain areas and to certain ages, but we will not jail or fine those who choose to participate in it privately. If an adult bookstore opens in our neighborhood, we don't run to the law and pass an ordinance, we picket the store and discourage customers. If our religion asks us not to shop on Sunday, we don't pass Sunday "blue" laws forcing stores to close, we simply don't patronize them on Sunday. If we don't like excessive violence and gratuitous sex on TV, we don't write the Federal Communications Commission, we join boycotts of the advertiser's products. Several years ago the owners of Seven Eleven stores removed pornographic magazines from their stores, not because the law required it, but because a group of concerned citizens persuaded them. These actions reflect the true spirit of liberty.

Lovers of liberty should also be strong supporters of the institutions of persuasion, such as churches, charities, foundations, private schools and colleges, and private enterprise. They should engage in many causes of their own free will and choice. They should not rely on the institutions of force, such as government agencies, to carry out the cause of education and the works of charity and welfare. It is not enough simply to pay your taxes and cast your vote and think you've done your part.

It is the duty of every advocate of human liberty to convince the world that we must solve our problems through persuasion and not coercion. Whether the issue is domestic policy or foreign policy, we must recognize that passing another regulation or going to war is not necessarily the only solution to our problems. Simply to pass laws prohibiting the outward symptoms of problems is to sweep the real problems under the rug. It may hide the dirt for a while, but it doesn't dispose of the dirt properly or permanently.

Liberty Under Law

This approach does not mean that laws would not exist. People should have the freedom to act according to their desires, but only to the extent that they do not trample on the rights of others. Rules and regulations, such as traffic laws, need to be established and enforced by private and public institutions in order for a free society to exist. There should be stringent laws against fraud, theft, murder, pollution, and the breaking of contracts, and those laws should be effectively enforced according to the classic principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The full weight of the law should be used to fine and imprison the perpetrators, to compensate the victims, and to safe-guard the rights of the innocent. Yet within this legal framework, we should permit the maximum degree of freedom in allowing people to choose what they think, act and do to themselves without harming others.

Convincing the public of our message, that "persuasion instead of force is the sign of a civilized society," will require a lot of hard work, but it can be rewarding. The key is to make a convincing case for freedom, to present the facts to the public so that they can see the logic of our arguments, and to develop a dialogue with those who may be opposed to our position. Our emphasis must be on educating and persuading, not on arguing and name-calling. For we shall never change our political leaders until we change the people who elect them.

A Vision of an Ideal Society

Martin Luther King, Jr., gave a famous sermon at the Lincoln Memorial in the mid-1960s. In it, King said that he had a dream about the promised land. Well, I too have a vision of an ideal society.

I have a vision of world peace, not because the military have been called in to maintain order, but because we have peace from within and friendship with every nation.

I have a vision of universal prosperity and an end to poverty, not because of foreign aid or government-subsidized welfare, but because each of us has productive, useful employment where every trade is honest and beneficial to both buyer and seller, and where we eagerly help the less fortunate of our own free will.

I have a vision of an inflation-free nation, not because of wage and price controls, but because our nation has an honest money system.

I have a vision of a crime-free society, not because there's a policeman on every corner, but because we respect the rights and property of others.

I have a vision of a drug-free America, not because harmful drugs are illegal, but because we desire to live long, healthy, self-sustaining lives.

I have a vision of an abortion-free society, not because abortion is illegal, but because we firmly believe in the sanctity of life, sexual responsibility, and family values.

I have a vision of a pollution-free and environmentally sound world, not because of costly controls and arbitrary regulations, but because private enterprise honors its stewardship and commitment to developing rather than exploiting the earth's resources.

I have a vision of a free society, not because of a benevolent dictator commands it, but because we love freedom and the responsibility that goes with it.

The following words, taken from an old Protestant hymn whose author is fittingly anonymous, express the aspiration of every man and every woman in a free society.

Know this, that every soul is free
To choose his life and what he'll be;
For this eternal truth is given
That God will force no man to heaven.

He'll call, persuade, direct aright,
And bless with wisdom, love, and light,
In nameless ways be good and kind,
But never force the human mind.

About the Author: Mark Skousen is Adjunct Professor of Economics and Finance at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida, and editor of Forecasts & Strategies, one of the largest financial newsletters in the United States. He is the author of over a dozen books, including High Finance on a Low Budget (co-authored with his wife, Jo Ann), The Complete Guide to Financial Privacy, Scrooge Investing, The Structure of Production, Economics on Trial, The Investor's Bible: Mark Skousen's Principles of Investment, and The Making of Modern Economics: The Lives and Ideas of the Great Thinkers. He has a Ph.D. in economics from George Washington University, is a former economist with the Central Intelligence Agency, and is a former President of the Foundation for Economic Education.

For more information on Mr. Skousen and his books, please see

Copyright 1992 by Mark Skousen. All rights reserved.
A version of this essay originally appeared in the September, 1991, issue of Liberty magazine.

Advocates for Self-Government on KPFA, Berkeley

Former Advocates president, Marshall Fritz, was interviewed by Aaron Dorfman, a reporter for Berkeley's KPFA:

Aaron: What's the core idea of libertarianism?

Marshall: Libertarianism is a combination of the best of left and right. Liberals believe in freedom of expression, conservatives believe in freedom of enterprise. There are some people who are against both these ideas, free enterprise and freedom of expression – we call them Marxists, fascists. And there are people who are in favor of both those ideas, free enterprise and freedom of expression. We call those libertarians.

Aaron: Are you with an organization?

Marshall: There are 50 or 60 major libertarian organizations. I'm with the Advocates for Self-Government. We specialize in teaching people who believe in the freedom philosophy how to be more effective communicators.

Aaron: You talk about "communicating with to the left." A lot of our audience would be considered "left." So how would you communicate with them?

Marshall: It's important for libertarians, when communicating to the left, to understand that intentions are of paramount importance to a person on the left. And libertarians, for better or worse, are often more concerned with the results of a political action rather than the food intentions of the people who are perpetuating those actions.

So one of the things I teach libertarians is to become sensitive to the left and to the left's need to know the good intentions of libertarians. The left, for example, needs to know that libertarians want to help the poor. That it's not just the process of justice that we're interested in, but the results, too.

Aaron: What do you mean by "intentions" versus the "process"?

Marshall: Frequently if you point out to someone on the left that an idea has failed – for instance, helping the poor through government force – they will reply that their intentions were good and that they meant well. So they get away from the actual solution of the problem into, "Yes, but we're trying so hard. We really want to do good." Libertarians need to be sensitive to that desire on the left to help, and not just be chiding them because the ideas don't work out.

Aaron: Why is free enterprise so central to the libertarian philosophy?

Marshall: First of all, all of us could agree that no man is an island. Each of us needs to produce or make something of value. One of might be a teacher, one a farmer, one a poet. And then we must enter into economic exchanges, because the poet needs food, and he wants his kids taught and so on.

Those exchanges can take place with or without the presence of a gun. If they're taking place with a gun, then we're talking about socialism, fascism, mercantilism, or just plain authoritarianism. What I believe in, and all libertarians believe in, is a pacifist exchange system – that is, when human beings come together to make those economic exchanges, no one brings a gun to the exchange table.

That is what we mean when we talk about "capitalism." We don't mean state capitalism. where big businesses go to the government and get them to help out with all kinds of subsidies, or by repressing competing new entrepreneurs. That's state capitalism, and no libertarian is in favor of that.

But unfortunately, the word "capitalism" has been sullied by people who don't really understand it, who don't see it as a peaceful or a pacifist exchange system.

Aaron: Should we have public education in this country?

Marshall: For sure! We've already got schools that are open to the public. I mean if you look at restaurants, and Disneyland, are they open to the public? Of course they are!

Aaron: You know what I mean. I mean, "public education."

Marshall: I think we need a separation between school and state. We need to get compulsion out of the equation.

Today we have compulsory attendance. That's just the same as slavery. Slaves don't work. They just give you rebellion, resentment. And that's what we're getting out of the kids today

We've got compulsory financing. It's not necessary. Schools should be 1/3 the cost of government schools today. People can afford good schools at 1/3 today's price.

And we've got compulsory curriculum. You know, you don't let piggly wiggly tell you what to put in your kids stomach. Why should you let the educationalists tell you what to put in your kids mind? It's none of their business.

Aaron: But what would you say to people in need of affordable housing, good education, health care – any of those? Because you don't want the state involved. Who's going to do it?

Marshall: Benjamin Franklin warned us, 200 years ago, that people seemed to be willing to trade their liberty for security – and they end up with neither. And that's what's been happening to us. In fact, the last several generations have not been very vigilant in the protection of our liberties.

Instead they've said: "Government, I will give up my independence if you will just make me secure. I certainly wouldn't be able to spend my own money on catastrophic insurance policy – I'd probably spend the money going to club med, or buying a catamaran, or something silly like that."

"So government, please, I can't run my own life, and I'm sure other people can't govern their own lives, either. So, give us national health insurance so everyone is required to do what I can't make myself do."

And that's real unfortunate because you end up with something as important as health eventually being treated like the Post Office or the Department of Motor Vehicles. I ask people all the time: "Hey, come on, get real! Who would you want to deliver your oxygen supply – the Post Office, or UPS?"

Aaron: But there are people who need health care now who can't afford it.

Marshall: There's a huge problem in health care. One, the cost has been driven up so high by the government being involved. Two, the demand has been driven up because the government has been funding it. So the cost has escalated.

If you get rid of the monopoly that the AMA has; if you got rid of the many laws that constrict the drug companies; if you opened the provision of healthcare up to midwives and paramedics of various levels, and took away the state restrictions that give doctors a monopoly; if you allowed the free market to flourish; then, you would see a broad spectrum of health care. Everyone – the rich, middle class, and the poor – would have better health care.

I do think there is a "health imperialism" that is rooted in some sort of elitism. There are people who say: "I know what the right health standards are, and I am going to force my idea of health standards on the rest of the population. And even though some of these people would rather spend their money [in some other way], I don't think they should do that. I think they should be forced to pay for expensive health care [regardless of their wishes] (brackets original in article)."

[Editors note: I would add – Prohibitive regulations prevent poor people from starting home-based businesses, i.e. a single mother who wants to sell her own home-baked cookies as a way to make ends meet, or maybe just to earn some extra cash, so she doesn't have to pay a fortune to a daycare center while being forced to seek outside employment. Maybe she also wants to spend more time with her children, raising them herself.

Or, what if there is an elderly black, handicapped woman who says, "I don't want any part of your paternalistic domestic imperialism (i.e. National Health Care System)! I go to the curandera, herbalist, or shaman down the street and they let me pay through work-trade answering the phones a few hours per month." Do you really want to force her to pay into a government monopoly, or worse coerce someone (under the threat of jail or death) to do it for her? - BETH]

Marshall: I don't really understand why some people want to force their standards of health care, or education, or other things, on other people – regardless of whether or not those other people want it.

Aaron: Any point you'd like to add?

Marshall: I want to thank KPFA and all the supporters of KPFA for keeping this station on the air. I think you guys are doing something marvelous.

The Liberator, page 8, Winter 1993