Best Demonoid Substitutes Well, since Demonoid disappeared I've been frantically searching for it's substitute. I am not sure it exists, so here are the next best things:
Checkpoints like this, either "immigration" or "DUI," are simply to condition Americans to get used to the police state.
YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE DETAINED AS PER THE 4TH AMENDMENT AND DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS AS PER THE 5TH AMENDEMENT! Watch this to see EXACTLY how to handle it!
This is a GREAT video. Anyone who has a
problem with how this checkpoint was handled has a
problem with the 4th and 5th Amendments of the
Constitution of the U.S.A.. It must be stated from
the outset though that these techniques only apply
at checkpoints inside (as opposed to those on borders)
the USA and only if you are being detained with for no
other reasons (probable cause, reasonable suspicion, a
warrant, a suspended license or registration or a
motor vehicle violation). In otherwords, just part of a
random check stop.
The 4th Amendment gives you the right not to be
stopped and questioned (or "detained") PERIOD. Yes, I know
the Supreme Court has said the DUI checkpoints are
Constitutionally legal because they promote the
"general welfare," but let's face it, that is not what
the 4th Amendment is about. Read Mark Levin's book
"Men In Black" to see how the Supreme Court has virtually
taken over this country. Also, If you are stopped they can
ONLY detain you only long enough to ask their couple of
questions and after that, it's considered harassment and/or
detainment which is illegal. In other words, if they detain
you more than what is necessary to get their 2 questions
out, then it has crossed over into "arresting" you and then you have
your 5th Amendment rights to remain silent. The 5th
Amendment gives you the right to NOT answer their
questions if you are being "detained." And, if you are not
being "detained" then you must be free to go!
Once you are being detained then you are in the
process of becoming arrested and according the 5th
Amendment means you DO NOT have to answer ANY
questions (other than name). And, once it's been
established that you are NOT being detained (by asking
them if you are being detained and they don't say yes), then
you are free to go.
I should note that the Hiibel case says if asked, you must
give your name (and nothing else) through.
All Americans should make it a point to handle
every immigration or DUI checkpoint the same way.
I use the same technique (repeating the line
"Am I free to go or am I being detained"
to every question. It's your absolute
constitutional right to do this as well as your
OBLIGATION as someone who loves your freedom and
our great Constitution. If the officials at the
checkpoint do not like this then they do not honor
the Constitution of which they are sworn to
uphold.
Harassment, Pure & Simple. Watch the A-hole Federal Agents in this video. They know who this guy is (you can clearly hear them say "Hi Terry" yet they continue to ask him if he is a US citizen. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, should handle all DUI and Immigration road blocks the same way.
Free Market
Command or totalitarianism.
Socialism/Communism
or
1. The few plunder (steal) the many.
2. Everybody plunders everybody.
3. Nobody plunders anybody. http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/the_law.pdf
or
1. An economy that believes in slavery to one degree or another (income taxes are a form slavery).
2. One that absolutely doesn't believe in slavery (yet to exist).
OCALA, Florida (CNN) -- Actor Wesley Snipes was sentenced Thursday to three years in prison for three misdemeanor counts of failing to file tax returns -- the maximum requested by federal prosecutors.
"Snipes' long prison sentence should send a loud and crystal clear message to all tax defiers that if they engage in similar tax defier conduct, they face joining him," said Assistant Attorney General Nathan J. Hochman of the Justice Department's Tax Division.
Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Douglas Shulman said the law is clear on taxes.
"There is no secret formula that eliminates a person's tax obligations, nor are there any special exceptions," he said.
"The majority of Americans pay their taxes timely and accurately. Those who willfully violate the law must be held accountable."
So, let's get this right "the law is clear on taxes" and "those who willfully violate the LAW must be held accountable." Please Mr Shulman, CITE THIS LAW OF WHICH YOU SPEAK!!!
The famous "hockey stick graph" PURPOSELY DIS-CLUDED THE MID-EVIL WARMING PERIOD to fabricate the "global warming" results wanted.
Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.
In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming.
Murray Rothbard considered this the best text available on price theory.
Gas prices are up and oil executives are once again testifying before Congress. Clearly, many politicians, pundits, and consumers lament the rising cost of gas. Before we join them in their chorus, let us take a step back and ask this question: Are gas prices really all that high?
A change in price can be a result of inflation, taxes, changes in supply and demand, or any combination of the three.
First, we need to take into account inflation. The result of the Federal Reserve printing too much money is a loss of purchasing power of the dollar: something that cost $1.00 in 1950 would cost about $8.78 today. As for gas prices, in 1950 the price of gas was approximately 30 cents per gallon. Adjusted for inflation, a gallon of gas today should cost right at $2.64, assuming taxes are the same.
But taxes have not stayed the same. The tax per gallon of gas in 1950 was roughly 1.5% of the price. Today, federal, state, and local taxes account for approximately 20% of gas's posted price. Taking inflation and the increase in taxes into account (assuming no change in supply or demand) the same gallon of gas that cost 30 cents in 1950 should today cost about $3.13.
Neither have supply or demand remained constant. The world economy is growing. China and India are obvious examples. At the same time, Americans continue to love driving SUVs and trucks. As for supply, we are prohibited (whatever the reasons may be) from using many of the known oil reserves in our own country. Furthermore, due to government regulation, the last oil refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976. In addition, the Middle East is politically unstable which leads to a risk premium on the world's major source of oil. It is obvious that the demand for oil has grown while supplies have been restricted.
The average price of gas in the United States today is approximately $3.25. The question is, why are gas prices not higher than they are?
Blaming greedy oil companies on the rising price of gas is simply irresponsible. The profit margins of a few selected industries are as follows:
Periodical Publishing 24.9%
Shipping 18.8%
Application Software 22.5%
Tobacco 19%
Water Utilities 10.2%
Major Integrated Oil and Gas 9.5%
Hospitals 1.4%
Drugstores 2.8%
The water utility industry has higher profit margins than major oil and gas firms! Why isn't every CEO with profit margins above that of the oil companies made to testify before Congress for "price gouging"? Clearly, greedy corporate profits are not the issue.
Again, while just over nine percent of the price of a gallon of gas goes to oil company profits, approximately twenty percent of the price of a gallon of gas is composed of federal, state, and local taxes.
Those who want the government to step in and do something about the high price of gas are either forgetful of recent history or too young to remember the oil crisis of 1979. During that time, restrictions on the price of gasoline led to the inability of some to find gas at all. Price ceilings always lead to shortages. The only thing worse than having to pay "too much" for gas is not being able to find gas at any price.
Let us not be swayed by politicians out for power or by reporters out to create news where none exists. Facts and economic logic should prevail rather than rhetoric.
World cereal stocks are at an all-time low, food-aid programmes have
run out of money and millions face starvation. Yet wealthy countries
persist with plans to use grain for petrol. Plus Iain Macwhirter on how food prices are rocketing
The irony is extraordinary. At a time when world leaders are
expressing grave concern about diminishing food stocks and a coming
global food crisis, our government brings into force measures to
increase the use of biofuels - a policy that will further increase food
prices, and further worsen the plight of the world's poor.
What biofuels do is undeniable: they take food out of the mouths of
starving people and divert them to be burned as fuel in the car engines
of the world's rich consumers. This is, in the words of the United
Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, nothing
less than a "crime against humanity". It is a crime the UK government
seems determined to play its part in abetting. The Renewable Transport
Fuel Obligation (RTFO), introduced on 15 April, mandates petrol
retailers to mix 2.5 per cent biofuels into fuel sold to motorists.
This will rise to 5.75 per cent by 2010, in line with European Union
policy.
The message could not have been clearer if the Prime Min ister,
Gordon Brown, had personally put a torch to a pyre of corn and rice in
Parliament Square: even as you take to the streets to protest your
empty bellies and hungry children, we will burn your food in our cars.
The UK is not uniquely implicated in this scandal: the EU, the United
States, India, Brazil and China all have targets to increase biofuels
use. But a look at the raw data confirms today's dire situation.
According to the World Bank, global maize production increased by 51
million tonnes between 2004 and 2007. During that time, biofuels use in
the US alone (mostly ethanol) rose by 50 million tonnes, soaking up
almost the entire global increase.
Next year, the use of US corn for ethanol is forecast to rise to 114
million tonnes - nearly a third of the whole projected US crop.
American cars now burn enough corn to cover all the import needs of the
82 nations classed by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
as "low-income food-deficit countries". There could scarcely be a
better way to starve the poor.
The threat posed by biofuels affects all of us. Global grain
stockpiles - on which all of humanity depends - are now perilously
depleted. Cereal stocks are at their lowest level for 25 years,
according to the FAO. The world has consumed more grain than it has
produced for seven of the past eight years, and supplies, at roughly
only 54 days of consumption, are the lowest on record.
The president of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, has already warned
that 100 million people could be pushed deeper into poverty because of
food price rises caused directly by this imbalance between supply and
demand. Even consumers in rich countries are suffering. We now pay
higher prices for our food in order to subsidise the biofuels industry,
thanks to measures such as the renewable fuels directive.
This is not just a short-term price blip, but the beginnings of a
major structural change in the world food market. Population pressure -
still something of a taboo subject - is also certainly playing a part.
With the world population growing by 78 million a year, and expected to
reach nine billion by the middle of the century, there are simply many
more mouths to feed.
In addition, rapid economic growth in India and China has created
tens of millions of new middle-class consumers, all demanding
western-style diets high in meat and dairy products, thereby vastly
increasing the quantity of grain required for livestock production.
Weather plays a major role, too: the FAO's latest food situation
brief reports that, in 2007, "unfavourable climatic conditions
devastated crops in Australia and reduced harvests in many other
countries, particularly in Europe", while Southern Africa and the
western United States have been hit hard by severe drought. Rising oil
prices also increase the cost of food, as fossil fuels are important
throughout the agricultural process, from tractor diesel to fertiliser
production.
Inconsistency
The most important structural change, however, is the increasing
interlinking of world energy and food markets. Once, food was just for
people. Now rising demand for transport fuel - particularly in rich
countries - is sucking supply away from the world food market and
increasing the upward pressure on prices. In the words of Josette
Sheeran, executive director of the UN World Food Programme (WFP): "We
are seeing food in many places in the world priced at fuel levels,"
with increasing quantities of food "being bought by energy markets" for
biofuels.
Rising oil prices feed back into the process. With food and fuel
markets intertwined, increases in the price of oil are shadowed by
increases in the price of grain. The real-world result from this
structural shift may be that hundreds of thousands of people starve in
the next few years - unless policies promoting biofuels are urgently
reversed.
This is not to suggest that government targets on biofuels are
driven by some kind of malicious desire to starve the world's poor.
Indeed, both Brown and his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, have expressed
concern about the food supply crisis and the role of biofuels in
causing it. But for these two political leaders to voice their concerns
while allowing the increased use of biofuels in the UK to be pushed
forward - all in the same week - is nothing short of bizarre.
As Oxfam's Robert Bailey puts it: "This inconsistency at the highest
levels simply beggars belief." The aid agency calculates that the RTFO
represents a £500m annual subsidy from motorists and taxpayers to the
biofuels industry - more than double the amount the WFP is urgently
seeking from donor countries to try to mitigate the impact of food
price rises on the world's poor.
The EU, meanwhile, persists in the erroneous belief that biofuels
can help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The main reason for its
speedy introduction of the replacement fuel initiative was as a sop to
motor manufacturers who were lobbying hard against proposed higher fuel
economy standards. With biofuels, the EU hoped, it could cave in to the
car industry while still getting reduction in emissions.
Yet recent research suggests otherwise: two major studies published in Science
magazine in February showed clearly that once the agricultural
displacement effects of the new fuels on rainforests, peatlands and
grasslands are taken into account, emissions are many times worse than
from conventional mineral petrol. In other words, it would be better
for the climate if we just went back to fossil fuels. Biofuels are not
a "necessary but painful" way of saving the climate; they are a
calamitous mistake by almost every criterion, whether social, ethical
or environmental.
Reversing the damage
The industry claims that "second-generation" biofuels, using
by-products such as corn stalks and woodchip as a feedstock, will be
able to redress the balance. But if this technological advance is
achieved (and that is by no means certain) it could usher in an even
worse scenario: the annihilation of the world's forests. If all plant
life was seen as potentially convertible for transport fuel, there
would be nothing to stop what was left of the planet's biosphere from
being strip-mined to keep rich motorists on the road. There is no
simple solution. Much of the increased biofuel demand comes from the
US, where Democratic and Republican politicians alike have talked
themselves into a dead-end search for "energy security" - with US-grown
corn top of the list.
But the UK and the EU can reverse some of the damage by immediately
ditching their own biofuels policies and providing vital aid funding,
principally through the WFP, to help prevent widespread starvation in
the short term. Politicians need to realise that there is no such thing
as "sustainable biofuels", either now or in the future. As for
investors, they need to realise that pouring money into biofuels is a
bad bet: subsidies will be quickly withdrawn when policymakers face up
to the reality of their ghastly error.
In the meantime, millions face starvation and death from increasing hunger and malnutrition. There is no time to lose.
2008: the year of food riots
Egypt Thousands of demonstrators in Mahalla
el-Kobra loot shops and throw bricks at police during protests at
rising food prices and low salaries, as part of nationwide strike Haiti At least four people killed in the southern city of Les Cayes after food prices rise 50 per cent ...
NOTICE: This site is for personal use only. The downloading of any content, pictures, articles, posts, pictures, images, videos hosted on it or linked to it is prohibited.FAIR USE NOTICE: The above may be copyrighted material, and the use of it on Swamp-Ass.com may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available on a non-profit basis for educational and discussion purposes only. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 USC § 107. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Home
Portal
Calendar
Gallery
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
SwampAssHub
