Posts tagged labor
By Blake Taylore
Liberty, freedom, and owning oneself are always good things. How humans lost the acknowledgement and community support of their unalienable right to exist on earth, and own themselves is probably lost in history. And yet, there were always people, throughout history, who understood their own value as individuals, and how they had a right to own their lives, while deciding their own destinies, making their own choices, and keeping what they made. They understood nature’s laws; the human right to own themselves, and keep the fruit of their labor. They understood unalienable rights to be a gift from nature that every human can claim just for being born.
Unfortunately most people, early on, were tricked out of this innate gift of owning themselves. Yet, throughout the ages enlightened, and freedom loving humans fought to bring this truth to light, and to have their unalienable rights be acknowledged, and supported by their communities. Some freedom lovers fought for unalienable rights with their pen, some within their legal structure, and some by the sword. They all fought to have human-made governments obey the laws of nature that governed their unalienable rights.
But it wasn’t until the birth of America, when humans, educated with book and instinctual knowledge of what was right and wrong, would stand together, using both the pen and the sword, to build a nation with a foundational base of nature’s laws. Ever since the Declaration of Independence, America has been a symbol of freedom that many in the rest of the world looked to as a beacon of hope for liberty in their lives. Unfortunately, here in America, once again, throughout the recent decades, those who have based their lives on greed and power, buried the principles of nature’s inalienable rights, enslaving all Americans, stripping us of our privacy, dignity, rights, and wealth. We now all jump as high as TSA, FEMA, the now militarized police, or any other federal agency tells us to, without a blink of the eye. America has let the world down.
By Rory Carroll
Wisconsin governor Scott Walker survives bitterly fought recall election
Union activists had waged 18-month campaign against the governor whose victory has Republicans rejoicing nationwide
Wisconsin‘s governor Scott Walker survived a bitterly fought recall election on Tuesday after Republican voters mobilised in huge numbers, propelling him to a victory that will boost Mitt Romney’s run for the White House.
Television networks called it for the incumbent at 11pm local time after early returns from rural counties gave him an apparently unassailable lead even as voters were still queuing to cast ballots at polling stations in Milwaukee, a Democratic stronghold.
It was a devastating defeat for Democrats and union activists who had waged an 18-month campaign to oust Walker over his restrictions on collective bargaining and cutbacks of pension and health benefits of public sector workers.
Romney issued a swift statement saying the result would “echo beyond the borders of Wisconsin” by showing Republicans could stand up to “runaway government costs imposed by labor bosses” and demonstrated “what sound fiscal policies can do to turn an economy around”.
Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Model Statues for Planning and the Management of Change was funded by a grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (the lead federal agency); Federal Highway Administration (US Department of Transportation); US Environmental Protection Agency; the Federal Transit Administration (DOT); the Rural Economic and Community Development Administration (US Department of Agriculture). All of these agencies were members of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development which ran from 1993-1999.
Private funders included the Siemens Corporation; Henry M. Jackson Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; and the American Planning Association. These private organizations promote smart growth.
Siemens, for instance, benefits from the development of the ‘smart grid’ and is a key private for-profit corporation for solar, biomass, and other subsidized power generation. This huge multi-national corporation is involved in health care, building systems, financing, communications and more. Siemens is a German company that was nearly bankrupt until Hitler supplied free slave labor and money for technological development. http://www.usa.siemens.com/answers/en/
The Henry M. Jackson Foundation is a major grant funder. Their involvement on an international scale is detailed here:
The Foundation seeks to leverage its influence and effectiveness by convening and participating actively in groups of like-minded funders to discuss topics of mutual interest. Examples of funder partners or networks follow:
International Human Rights Funders Group
The Jackson Foundation is a founding member and former steering committee member of the International Human Rights Funders Group (IHRFG), an association of grantmakers dedicated to supporting efforts to protect human rights on both national and international scales. Members meet at least twice yearly to discuss issues of common concern in human rights philanthropy and reach out to potential funders to attract greater dollars to the human rights field. IHRFG also seeks to inform public policy on a national level. (text in italics is directly from the Jackson Foundation website)
The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth
The Jackson Foundation is a founding member of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities, a coalition that seeks to strengthen and expand philanthropic leadership and grantmaking that improves communities through better development decisions and growth policies. It brings together foundations, nonprofit organizations and other partners to address a range of environmental, social, and economic problems. (Text in italics is from The Funders’ Network for Smart Growth website)
The Funders Network membership list is vast. Annie E. Casey Foundation is just one of many members. Read the membership list here: http://www.fundersnetwork.org/connect
We suggest that you look carefully at the members of the Funders’ Network for Smart Growth and Livable Communities to see where the UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development money trail leads. Money and power flow back and forth along these channels. Enterprise Community Development and LISC, for example, are on the list. They are for-profit affordable housing developers who benefit hugely from subsidies in smart growth and redevelopment (urban renewal) zones. Wal-Mart is a partner. The Orton Family Foundation is a partner. You’ll find over 100 foundations and corporations on the list. Take a look. and look at this too, as an example of who funds the Smart Growth conferences.
On the issue of devaluation of property through regulatory means, we find it reprehensible that counties and cities recognize that development rights have value when they’re being purchased in conservation easements, but they have no value when they’re being taken away through regulations. You won’t find many General or Comprehensive Plans that don’t embed sustainable communities strategies in their elements. Most states require it by law through their legislation. These policies fund and support UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.
More and more non-profit organizations are being created, fragmenting from others, spinning off and creating more non-profits. Funding comes from state and federal grants, from your taxes and fees, private grants, donations (tax write-offs), and from lawsuits. You’ll find the League of Women Voters advocating for Smart Growth. The Lung Association lobbies for Smart Growth. The National Association of Realtors advocates for Smart Growth. The Chamber of Commerce does too. So does the AFL-CIO. Are your dues or professional fees paying for UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development. Are you volunteering for a group supporting UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development?
SPEAK OUT. REFUSE TO PAY OR PAY UNDER PROTEST, AND TELL THE
MEMBERSHIP WHY YOU ARE TAKING ACTION.
BERLIN/PARIS | Sun Jun 3, 2012 1:45pm EDT
(Reuters) – When Jean-Claude Trichet called last June for the creation of a European finance ministry with power over national budgets, the idea seemed fanciful, a distant dream that would take years or even decades to realize, if it ever came to be.
One year later, with the euro zone’s debt crisis threatening to tear the bloc apart, Germany is pushing its partners for precisely the kind of giant leap forward in fiscal integration that the now-departed European Central Bank president had in mind.
After falling short with her “fiscal compact” on budget discipline, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is pressing for much more ambitious measures, including a central authority to manage euro area finances, and major new powers for the European Commission, European Parliament and European Court of Justice.
She is also seeking a coordinated European approach to reforming labor markets, social security systems and tax policies, German officials say.
Until states agree to these steps and the unprecedented loss of sovereignty they involve, the officials say Berlin will refuse to consider other initiatives like joint euro zone bonds or a “banking union” with cross-border deposit guarantees – steps Berlin says could only come in a second wave.
Eurozone finance ministers have agreed to boost the EU’s rescue fund to 800 billion euros, to help countries like Spain recover from their crippling debt woes. Spain’s financial crisis has prompted the government to announce its biggest austerity measures in over three decades. The country’s vowed to cut 27 billion euros from its budget this year. It comes after tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets on Thursday, to fight against labor reforms.
Michael Mross, economic analyst says that while the country struggles to rise out of its debt crisis, it will never be able to implement the new cuts.
Text content: http://www.activistpost.com
Video Content: http://breakthematrix.com
In a stunning move, on March 16, 2012, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the President and his specifically designated Secretaries now have the authority to commandeer all domestic U.S. resources including food and water. The EO also states that the President and his Secretaries have the authority to seize all transportation, energy, and infrastructure inside the United States as well as forcibly induct/draft American citizens into the military. The EO also contains a vague reference in regards to harnessing American citizens to fulfill “labor requirements” for the purposes of national defense.
Not only that, but the authority claimed inside the EO does not only apply to National Emergencies and times of war. It also applies in peacetime.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order exploits the “authority” granted to the President in the Defense Production Act of 1950 in order to assert that virtually every means of human survival is now available for confiscation and control by the President via his and his Secretaries’ whim.
The unconstitutionality of the overwhelming majority of Executive Orders is well established, as well as the illegality of denying citizens their basic Constitutional and human rights, even in the event of a legitimate national emergency. Likewise, it should also be pointed out that, like Obama’s recent Libyan adventure and the foregone conclusion of a Syrian intervention, there is no mention of Congress beyond a minor role of keeping the allegedly co-equal branch of government informed on contextually meaningless developments.
As was mentioned above, the scope of the EO is virtually all-encompassing. For instance, in “Section 201 – Priorities and Allocations Authorities,” the EO explains that the authority for the actions described in the opening paragraph rests with the President but is now delegated to the various Secretaries of the U.S. Federal Government. The list of delegations and the responsibility of the Secretaries as provided in this section are as follows:
The text source: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us .
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.
But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.
There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready:
You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.
Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, “Yes,” you reply, “but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.” Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.
“But,” you may still say, “the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.” Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.
Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?
But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else’s would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.
Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.
If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.
Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.
Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: “How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?” But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.
To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!
Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845
 A reference to Britain’s reputation as a foggy island.
Ron Paul vs. Bernanke at Financial Services Hearing – February 29, 2012
Now more than every we need the Champion of the Constitution!
Please visit Ron Paul’s official campaign site by following the link below and donate today!
Adam Kokesh – Freedom is Inevitable
Recorded at LibertyFest West, February 11, 2012