Sedition is accomplished by a tiny percentage of courageous fighters.

Is Serfdom an Executive Order Away?

The dangers of National Defense Resources Preparedness

Sheldon Richman | April 7, 2012

Sometimes a step back helps to provide perspective on a matter. President Obama provided such a step with his March 16 Executive Order—National Defense Resources Preparedness. In it we see in detail how completely the government may control our lives—euphemistically called the “industrial and technological base”—if the president were to declare a national emergency. It is instructive, if tedious, reading.

President Obama claims this authority under the Constitution and, vaguely, “the laws of the United States,” but it specifically names the Defense Production Act of 1950. As Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute and a Freeman columnist observed, the government’s authority to commandeer the economy, which was “abandoned” after World War II then substantially reinstated with the Korean War,

was retained afterward in the form of statutory authority for its reinstatement whenever the president might so order under the authority of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended. . . . Under this statute, the president has lawful authority to control virtually the whole of the U.S. economy whenever he chooses to do so and states that the national defense requires such a government takeover.

No Academic Exercise

The Executive Order, which requires no additional congressional approval, details who within the executive branch has what precise authority in the event the President invokes his emergency powers. We shouldn’t assume this is merely an academic exercise or that a third world war would need to break out. In the last decade, under circumstances representing no “existential threat” to our society, the executive branch has exercised extraordinary powers.

Reading the Executive Order, I was reminded of a quotation of Leonard Read’s (HT: Gary Chartier): “[A]nyone who even presumes an interest in economic affairs cannot let the subject of war, or the moral breakdown which underlies it, go untouched. To do so would be as absurd—indeed, as dishonest—as a cleric to avoid the Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not steal’ simply because his parishioners had legalized and were practicing theft.”

In other words, if one holds that a free economy is essential to human flourishing, one must look with alarm on the comprehensive power government’s chief executive claims in the event he (or she) declares an emergency.

Assessing Capabilities

Let’s go to the Executive Order. It begins by authorizing executive-branch officers to “assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime [!] and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel.”

But these officials are to do more than assess. They are to be prepared to “ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability,” to “improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements,” and to “foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors….”

That’s broad authority.

Further, the President’s order notes his authority to “require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense” (emphasis added).

That is, the government’s executive branch is first in line for whatever it wants (except civilian labor–perhaps).

Government Loans

Under the section titled “EXPANSION OF PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY AND SUPPLY,” the heads of agencies engaged in procurement are authorized to “guarantee loans by private institutions,” “make loans,” and “make provision for purchases of, or commitments to purchase, an industrial resource or a critical technology item for Government use or resale, and to make provision for the development of production capabilities, and for the increased use of emerging technologies in security program applications, and to enable rapid transition of emerging technologies.”

Think of the potential for corporatist rent-seeking.

There’s more. The power to pay direct subsidies(after consultation) is delegated to agency heads to “ensure the supply of raw or nonprocessed materials from high cost sources, or to ensure maximum production or supply in any area at stable prices of any materials in light of a temporary increase in transportation cost.”

The agencies are also authorized to “procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons” (emphasis added). Further, they are empowered to “provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities” (emphasis added).

Selective Service

In the section on personnel we learn that the secretary of labor shall “collect and maintain data necessary to make a continuing appraisal of the Nation’s workforce needs for purposes of national defense” and upon request by the Director of Selective Service, and in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, assist the Director of Selective Service in development of policies regulating the induction and deferment of persons for duty in the armed services.”

Maybe the government is making a first claim on all labor after all. Selective Service of course is the government agency that would oversee a military draft. We haven’t had a draft since the 1970s, but 18-year-olds are still required to register for it. So along with the commandeering of private resources in the event a president declares an emergency, there will be the commandeering of military (and other?) labor–slavery by another name. (Here you’ll find the old FEE pamphlet “The Conscription Idea” by Dean Russell.)

Advocates of the freedom philosophy have a dual concern: that the executive has virtually unchecked authority to declare an emergency and that in an emergency the private economy would be commandeered by government officers. The Executive Order is a breathtaking reminder that, as Higgs put it, “private control of economic life in the United States, to the extent that it survives, exists solely at the president’s pleasure and sufferance.”

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, where this article originally appeared.

The Ultimate Miracle. We are all Cosmic.

The Jesus debate: Man vs. myth By John Blake, CNN (CNN)– Timothy Freke was flipping through an old academic book when he came across a religious image that some would call obscene. It was a drawing of a third-century amulet depicting a naked man nailed to a cross. The man was born of a virgin, preached about being “born again” and had risen from the dead after crucifixion, Freke says. But the name on the amulet wasn’t Jesus. It was a pseudonym for Osiris-Dionysus, a pagan god in ancient Mediterranean culture.  Freke says the amulet was evidence of something that sounds like sacrilege – and some would say it is: that Jesus never existed. He was a myth created by first-century Jews who modeled him after other dying and resurrected pagan gods, says Freke, author of  "The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?" “If I said to you that there was no real Good Samaritan, I don’t think anyone would be outraged,” says Freke, one of a group of mythicists who say Jesus never existed. “It’s a teaching story. What we’re saying is that the Jesus story is an allegory. It’s a parable of the spiritual journey.” On this Easter Sunday, millions of Christians worldwide will mark the resurrection of Jesus. Though Christians clash over many issues, almost all agree that he existed. But there is another view of Jesus that’s been emerging, one that strikes at the heart of the Easter story. A number of authors and scholars say Jesus never existed. Such assertions could have been ignored in an earlier age.  But in the age of the Internet and self-publishing, these arguments have gained enough traction that some of the world’s leading New Testament scholars feel compelled to publicly take them on. Most Jesus deniers are Internet kooks, says Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who recently released a book devoted to the question called “Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.” He says Freke and others who deny Jesus’ existence are conspiracy theorists trying to sell books. “There are people out there who don’t think the Holocaust happened, there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Ehrman says. “Among them are people who don’t think Jesus existed.” Does it matter if Jesus existed? Some Jesus mythicists say many New Testament scholars are intellectual snobs. “I don’t think I’m some Internet kook or Holocaust denier,” says Robert Price, a former Baptist pastor who argues in “Deconstructing Jesus” that a historical Jesus probably didn’t exist. “They say I’m a bitter ex-fundamentalist. It’s pathetic to see this character assassination. That’s what people resort to when they don’t have solid arguments.”  The debate over Jesus’ existence has led to a curious role reversal. Two of the New Testament scholars who are leading the way arguing for Jesus’ existence have a reputation for attacking, not defending, traditional Christianity. Ehrman, for example, is an agnostic who has written books that argue that virtually half  of the New Testament is forged. Another defender of Jesus’ existence is John Dominic Crossan, a New Testament scholar who has been called a heretic because his books challenge some traditional Christian teachings. But as to the existence of Jesus, Crossan says, he’s “certain.” He says some Jesus deniers may be people who have a problem with Christianity. “It’s a way of responding to something you don’t like,” Crossan says. “We can’t say that Obama doesn’t exist, but we can say that he’s not an American.  If we’re talking about Obama in the future, there are people who might not only say he wasn’t American, but he didn’t even exist.” Does it even matter if Jesus existed? Can’t people derive inspiration from his teachings whether he actually walked the Earth? Crossan says Jesus’ existence matters in the same way that the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s existence mattered. If King never existed, people would say his ideas are lovely, but they could never work in the real world, Crossan says. It’s the same with an historical Jesus, Crossan writes in his latest book, “The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus.” “The power of Jesus’ historical life challenges his followers by proving at least one human being could cooperate fully with God. And if one, why not others? If some, why not all?” The evidence against Jesus’ existence Those who argue against Jesus’ existence make some of these points: -The uncanny parallels between pagan stories in the ancient world and the stories of Jesus. -No credible sources outside the Bible say Jesus existed. -The Apostle Paul never referred to a historical Jesus. Price, author of “Deconstructing Jesus,” says the first-century Western world was full of stories of a martyred hero who is called a son of God. “There are ancient novels from that period where the hero is condemned to the cross and even crucified, but he escapes and survives it,” Price says. “That looks like Jesus.” Those who argue for the existence of Jesus often cite two external biblical sources: the Jewish historian Josephus who wrote about Jesus at the end of the first century and the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote about Jesus at the start of the second century. But some scholars say Josephus’ passage was tampered with by later Christian authors. And Price says the two historians are not credible on Jesus. “Josephus and Tacitus – they both thought Hercules was a true figure,” Price says. “Both of them spoke of Hercules as a figure that existed.” Price concedes that there were plenty of mythical stories that were draped around historical figures like Caesar. But there’s plenty of secular documentation to show Caesar existed. “Everything we read about Jesus in the gospels conforms to the mythic hero,” Price says. “There’s nothing left over that indicates that he was a real historical figure.” Those who argue for the existence of Jesus cite another source: the testimony of the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ early disciples. Paul even writes in one New Testament passage about meeting James, the brother of Jesus. These early disciples not only believed Jesus was real but were willing to die for him. People don’t die for myths, some biblical scholars say. They will if the experience is powerful enough, says Richard Carrier, author of “Proving History.” Carrier says it’s probable that Jesus never really existed and that early Christians experienced a mythic Jesus who came to them through visions and revelations. Two of the most famous stories in the New Testament – the conversion of Paul and the stoning death of Stephen, one of the first Christian martyrs - show that people seized by religious visions are willing to die, Carrier says. In both the Paul and Stephen stories, the writers say that they didn’t see an actual Jesus but a heavenly vision of Jesus, Carrier says. People “can have powerful religious experiences that don’t correspond to reality,” Carrier says. “The perfect model is Paul himself,” Carrier says. “He never met Jesus. Paul only had an encounter with this heavenly Jesus. Paul is completely converted by this religious experience, but no historical Jesus is needed for that to happen.” As for the passage where Paul says he met James, Jesus’ brother, Carrier says: “The problem with that is that all baptized Christians were considered brothers of the Lord.” The evidence for Jesus’ existence Some scholars who argue for the existence of Jesus says the New Testament mentions actual people and events that are substantiated by historical documents and archaeological discoveries. Ehrman, author of “Did Jesus Exist?” scoffed at the notion that the ancient world was full of pagan stories about dying deities that rose again.  Where’s the proof? he asks. Ehrman devoted an entire section of his book to critiquing Freke, the mythicist and author of “The Jesus Mysteries: Was the ‘Original Jesus’ a Pagan God?” who says there was an ancient Osiris-Dionysus figure who shares uncanny parallels to Jesus. He says Freke can’t offer any proof that an ancient Osiris figure was born on December 25, was crucified and rose again. He says Freke is citing 20th- and 19th-century writers who tossed out the same theories. Ehrman says that when you read ancient stories about mythological figures like Hercules and Osiris, “there’s nothing about them dying and rising again.” “He doesn’t know much about ancient history,” Ehrman says of Freke. “He’s not a scholar. All he knows is what he’s read in other conspiracy books.” Craig A. Evans, the author of “Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence,” says the notion that Paul gave his life for a mythical Jesus is absurd. He says the New Testament clearly shows that Paul was an early enemy of the Christian church who sought to stamp out the burgeoning Jesus movement. “Don’t you think if you were in Paul’s shoes, you would have quickly discovered that there was no Jesus?” Evans asks.  “If there was no Jesus, then how did the movement start?” Evans also dismissed the notion that early Christians blended or adopted pagan myths to create their own mythical Jesus. He says the first Christians were Jews who despised everything about pagan culture. “For a lot of Jewish people, the pagan world was disgusting,” Evans says. “I can’t imagine [the Gospel writer] Matthew making up a story where he is drawing parallels between Jesus’ birth and pagan stories about Zeus having sex with some fair maiden.” The words of Jesus also offer proof that he actually existed, Evans says.  A vivid personality practically bursts from the pages of the New Testament: He speaks in riddles, talks about camels squeezing through the eye of a needle, weeps openly and even loses his temper. Evans says he is a man who is undeniably Jewish, a genius who understands his culture but also transcends his tradition with gem-like parables. “Who but Jesus could tell the Parable of the Good Samaritan?” Evans says. “Where does this bolt of lightning come from? You don’t get this out of an Egyptian myth.” Those who argue against the existence of Jesus say they aren’t trying to destroy people’s faith. “I don’t have any desire to upset people,” says Freke. “I do have a passion for the truth. … I don’t think rational people in the 20th century can go down a road just on blind faith.” Yet Easter was never just about rationale. The Easter stories about the resurrection are strange: Disciples don’t recognize Jesus as they meet him on the road; he tells someone not to touch him; he  eats fish in another. In the Gospel of Matthew, a resurrected Jesus suddenly appears to a group of disciples and gives them this cryptic message: “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” And what did they see: a person, a pagan myth or a savior? Albert Schweitzer, a 20th-century theologian and missionary, suggested that there will never be one answer to that question.  He said that looking for Jesus in history is like looking down a well: You see only your own reflection. The “real” Jesus, Schweitzer says, will remain “a stranger and an enigma,” someone who is always ahead of us.

How did it work out for Justin Rivera?

The Gaffer in Chief, Obama stumbles without his teleprompter

WHY ARE THESE WOMEN SMILING?

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everybody.  Everybody, please, please have a seat.  (Applause.)  Everybody, sit down, sit down.  I was going to head over here earlier and they said, no, no, this place is full of women and they’re still settling down.  (Laughter.)  I said, what do you mean settling down?  What are they doing over there?  Just creating havoc. 

Obama is really one of the dumbest presidents that we  have ever had. Gaffe over gaffe. He is as ignorant as he is arrogant. 

We really do have an idiot in the White House.

Crony capitalism crippled the institutional polity in this country.

I have gone from opposing single-payer in general, ACA in particular, to moderately supporting the Obama bill. With or without ACA, low income seniors are and will remain the most vulnerable demographic.

The Bush Prescription legislation was passed with a wink and a kick in return for Democratic support of his administration's military "engagements in the ME. The degree of truth in what has become dogma among many on the modern Right is of marginal relevance when one considers the lobby distribution by industry. Pharma is at the top, spending almost a third more than the no. 2 competitor, which is insurance, with BCBS at the top.

Here is the link:

LOBBYING

Top Industries

  All years (1998-2011)          2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001  2000  1999  1998 

Or pick an industry from an alphabetical list
or organized by sector & industry of all 121 profiled.

Industry	Total
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$2,323,394,297
Insurance	$1,659,290,574
Electric Utilities	$1,555,710,459
Business Associations	$1,290,793,552
Computers/Internet	$1,269,039,757
Oil & Gas	$1,223,869,210
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing	$1,067,685,931
Education	$1,050,432,943
Hospitals/Nursing Homes	$1,000,453,611
Civil Servants/Public Officials	$956,045,810
TV/Movies/Music	$937,923,664
Real Estate	$920,866,353
Securities & Investment	$903,207,613
Health Professionals	$882,840,942
Air Transport	$835,111,074
Misc Issues	$735,782,671
Telephone Utilities	$707,395,875
Automotive	$689,862,490
Telecom Services & Equipment	$663,480,550
Defense Aerospace	$598,337,813

Crony capitalism crippled the institutional polity in this country. A little larceny never hurt anybody, but we're way beyond that. Choose your own favorite visual for excess. 

USA has a strong institutional structure that can be salvaged with some tweaks (term limits) and some fresh blood on the inside. Maybe Marco Rubio is our savior. Maybe not. What is more likely is that the next generation of Washingtonians will be *slightly* better - across the board. One can make a cultural argument that humanity is improving in some sense. (I'm also conditionally supportive of shifting some power back to the states but that too has problems.) 

What I like about the "democracy ain't easy" statement is the deeper and fairly profound assertion that humanity will be at each other's throats for some considerable distance into whatever is left of our future. It's what we do. There will be no perfect and no final solution for anything. Democracy isn't a spreadsheet app. The perfect being the enemy of the good etc.

THE REMEDY


Getting back to the action plan, I am convinced that the absolute best thing Washington can do to "course correct" is overhaul the tax code. The trickle-down along multiple vectors would be incalculable. I'm not sure this group can do it but prioritizing tax code reform and following through with implementation would unleash the "animal spirits" in a way that would make the Chinese spit in their tea cups.

Healthcare is not insoluble but it is does qualify as "high maintenance" to use that elegant phrase of endearment.

I would like to see one of two paths take hold. If SCOTUS upholds the mandate, then the healthcare provider enterprises should be highly regulated using an architecture similar to the quasi-private-public models of many utilities. 

Alternatively, if the mandate is struck down, then Medicaid should be offered as an option, along with competitive insurance "exchanges" to bring some market-forced cost control into the private healthcare providers (the latter is already part of the current ACA.) 

Both approaches should emphasize prevention, which is more important than I initially thought, particularly in controlling obesity-related chronic disease (also part of the current ACA which I initially scorned), and criminal prosecution. There will never be a perfect or permanent solution for fraud but proper emphasis can make that particular career choice more unattractive.

- ANONYMOUS

Misión Imposible

Obama lectures The Supremes

Obama: Size of majority means health care is constitutional


By Stephen DinanApril 2, 2012, 04:02PM WASHINGTON TIMES


NBC News starts probe of edited Zimmerman 911 callObama: Size of majority means health care is constitutionalPoll shows Hatch with big lead among Utah delegatesDanger signs for Romney in new general election pollWhite House downplays flap over Biden comments


In his press conference on Monday, President Obama said he was confident the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law because it was passed by "a strong majority" in Congress.


Mr. Obama defended the law, saying it was helping average Americans, and then said it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn it.


"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," he said.


The health-care law passed the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009, 60-39, powered by Democrats' overwhelming majority in the chamber. No Republicans supported the legislation. Then, in March 2010, Democratic leaders pushed the bill through the House by a more narrow margin, 219-212, again not winning any Republican votes.


The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, said he expects the court to defer to the will of elected officials in this case — and said that's the same argument conservatives usually make.


"For years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and — and passed law. Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this — this court will recognize that and not take that step," Mr. Obama said.

Had enough war yet? The Neocons think not.

Here we go again. Their seems to be no end to the Neocon appetite for Middle Eastern wars fought by the United States. The rebels in Syria are fighting to set up a Sunni Islamic theocracy and they are of course backed in their aims by Al Qaeda, but pay no attention to that.

A rebel win in Syria will destabilise the Middle East, cause massive numbers of refugees as Alawites and Christians flee and probably give rise rise to another civil war in Lebanon. Pay no attention to that. None of that is in the interests of the West and certainly not in the interest of the people of The USA who will pay the consequences. (see above) Victory for the rebels will end the freedoms Syrians enjoy like rights for women and religious freedom. See Egypt and Libya. However the Neocon march moves on. Hey, they are not doing the fighting or paying for it.

This is a layup to an attack on Iran and is going to blowup in our faces.