Arizona and the Human Rights Movement

There is no civil rights issue for illegal immigrants. They went there illegally, no one MADE them go to the USA, with a foundation on their new home of breaking the law, and they should be given NO RIGHTS AT ALL inside the United States.

There are avenues that allow people who want to move to the United States to move there legally already in place.

They're exploited? Of course they are, but they knew this would happen before they left Mexico. It's not like they didn't know what they were getting into. Their kids should not be allowed to go to school on the taxpayers' dime, their kids should NEVER be given places in University or College when AMERICAN KIDS can't get places, their kids should NOT get automatic US citizenship, they should NOT be provided healthcare on the taxpayers' dime, they should NEVER be given drivers' licenses. Anyone that is identified as an illegal immigrant should be deported immediately, and they should be treated under the same rules that illegal immigrants in their homeland (wherever that may be) are treated. If you are stopped by law enforcement inside the United States, it should be a FEDERAL LAW that you are required to produce id (EVERYONE), then there would be no racial profiling towards immigrants. It's a requirement in every other country in the world. No ID on a law enforcement stop = MUCHO trouble.

The areas of no man's land between the US and Mexico should be setup with landmines immediately across the length of the border, with random areas turned on on different days. It's good enough for the USA to protect the South Korean border with the North, why can't they use the same thing to protect their OWN border. Don't give me the morality speech on using landmines - if they had issues with morality of using landmines the USA would have been a leading signatory of the worldwide Anti Land Mine Treaty pushed forward and publicized by the late Princess Diana, RIP.

Amnesty for illegals by Reagan has not worked - back in the day this was applied there were 2-3 million illegals given amnesty. Now some estimates have as many as 20 million illegals in the USA. No amnesty, no path to citizenship, period.

Round them up, deport them immediately, mine the border. Sheriff Joe Arpaio for President 2012 !

It's an extremist view, but it's the correct view for what is best for America and the World in general. I am an immigrant to Canada, follow all the rules, came here legally, and am now a PROUD CANADIAN. I am NOT an ENGLISH-CANADIAN, I am a CANADIAN, period. I am still very proud of my English heritage as well, but I chose to move to CANADA to setup a new life as a CANADIAN.

I came here legally so I could setup a life that was not based on a lie. Any life based on a lie is no life at all.

California has a border fence. It is stupid, but everytime I'm driving to california they have a checkpoint there on the AZ-CA border as well, as if to stop immigrants that already crossed national borders illegally in AZ's ungaurded segment. By the way, California has the cohones to boycott Arizona for legislating to do something that California already is doing along the US-Mexico border.

reply to post by FiatLux


Excellent posts, Fiat! I would be curious how the people who claim to be approaching this invasion from a "human rights" point of view reconcile the corporations who move factories to their countries (obviously Mexico, Central & South America), exploit their poverty (by paying a pittance of what they would have had to pay Americans), exploit their natural resources & destroy their environment; sometimes maiming them for life or killing them en masse. (which is of course why these corporations went there- they could get away with things that they couldn't hope to get away with here).
Even in this country, they are usually paid less than their American counterparts and have no workers compensation or rights under our labor laws. Employers use their illegal status is as a sword of Damocles to keep them complacent & quiet. How is that not also a violation of their "human rights"?
The intent here is most thinly veiled and it seems the illegals are fine with it as long as they are getting "theirs". (We are every bit as corrupt as Mexico. Without public assistance, we would be just as impossible for them to live with)

If they are given this "amnesty", things will certainly change with the advantages they gain. Those that do have work will be cast aside for new illegals coming in for obvious reasons. (This is why Reagan's "amnesty" didn't work)

And how is not a violation of OUR human rights that, as citizens of this country, we not only have to bear the expense (not to mention the daily consequences) of these foreign nationals, we are required to uphold the laws of this country while they are not? (EEOC & ACLU anyone?) There is discrimination here, all right- against Americans of any race.

It is interesting right now that the Roma have been facing a similar backlash in Europe; especially in France, but it's also happened in Greece & (I think) Turkey. Not that I approve- I adamantly do not! The Roma are historically nomadic just like the Bedouins. They really don't- or seek to, change the places they go. They travel to many countries, not "targeting" a specific one.
There was a news story in the past day or so that (I think Sweden, but one of the Scandinavian countries) illegal immigrants are becoming unwelcome in their target country/ -ies. I wonder how sympathetic Europe would be- knowing what it could cost them once the precedent has been set.

The bottom line of this situation is what is the point of having any laws at all? How can the US claim "equality" when it's own citizens are so clearly not? And if citizenship becomes so nebulous, HOW can they continue to demand taxes from us?

One last question. How can it not be treasonous for our own president to undermine our sovereignty as a nation by dragging this issue to the UN (of all people)?

To Smedley Burlap (Your AV fits your personna PERFECTLY, btw!)

You said
"Is Mexico being checked for the same thing? Not to my knowledge, but as far as I know the duly elected President of the USM has not brought his nation's potential human rights abuses to the UN, and the duly elected President of the USA has. That is the difference."

Pardon me, but are you out of your mind? We are sitting here as a country that has violated- CONTINUES to violate one international law & stated human right after another- attacking other countries (after we've damned near starved the citizens to death & deprived them of access to medicine), *unprovoked* & on the basis of confabulations, all but genocided their people (to include the most vile acts imaginable & are so frigging sick, brag photos were taken!), destroyed infrastructure to deprive them of the most basic necessities & looted their (& mankind's) historical treasures...we OPENLY & regularly kidnap & torture to the point of death. We have a prison camp as renowned as any the Soviets or Chinese (N Vietnamese) ever even wished for.
And the worst part? We didn't NEED to do this crap to ANY of these INNOCENT people. We have our private mercenaries & our "spooks"- and we sure as hell don't hold back when it comes to violating any other international law or standard of decency. All that was necessary was assassinating the problem if we just "had" to.
And you're whining about "human rights" involving the foreign invasion of a sovereign country?
I get it. The word "illegal" truly doesn't compute with you & your ilk, does it?

I think this thread is a scam. It is just bait for a mind#. Either you are a very sick individual or an operative for the lunacy that we have miserably allowed to take over our government.
Or (as the quote goes) Do I repeat myself?
Maybe you're just a garden variety troll.


By the way, where WAS our "duly elected president" when his constituents- the people who busted their butts & emptied their pockets to get his sorry, "celebrity" behind into the WH, BEGGED him to prosecute Bush & Cheney for WAR CRIMES? What about THOSE (genuine) human rights abuses?
Oh wait. He ESCALATED them.

reply to post by DogsDogsDogs


In the OP I said that the exploitative and abusive treatment of undocumented migrants in the US is a violation of their human rights.

In the second post, I said that the best and most likely solution to this problem will not be additional amnesties (which really only patch the problem temporarily) but the extension of a world citizenship to any person who requests it. With a world citizenship, everyone would receive equal protection under international law no matter what their nationality is. Mexican labourers could come to the US and be protected under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and yet they would not need to be extended US citizenships. They would not need to be granted access to services that are reserved for US citizens, privileges such as access to welfare programs.

In parallel to the welfare systems of the USA and other countries, a global welfare regime would need to be established (you may remember that there have been rumours of this coming from the Obama White House, the planning is well underway). The WHO could operate or else subsidize hospitals in the USA, so that migrant workers not entitled to use America's welfare system will not become a health risk or a financial burden.

I know that many people will immediately complain that the UN and its programs are heavily funded by the USA, but I think that this is a very shortsighted complaint. I expect that a sort of national income tax will be imposed; the nations of the world will be obliged to pay dues into the system proportionate to their gross national product. In time, the USA will be dwarfed in financial power by the Third World, and those nations will begin contributing ever-higher portions of the UN's budget.

It is not treason because the President only made a report on the law to the UN, and he is not obliged to follow their advice regarding it.

P.S. Of course genocide et cetera is a violation of human rights. It would have been nice if Obama had brought Bush and Cheney before a war crimes tribunal. However, he did not. He did bring Arizona's border laws before the UN, and that is why this thread has taken the shape that it has. I argue that the UN will conclude that a state has a right to secure borders, but that even illegal immigrants have basic human rights that must be protected. It's a popular issue on college campuses in my country, to say that "nobody is illegal." I expect that the UN will agree with this sentiment and that this will begin the lengthy process of turning the entire world into a "Schengen-Area."

It will take many years before any of this work is completed, and it is possible that all of the most virulent opponents of globalization will be dead by then. Rejoice!

edit: Technically, the UN decision IS binding, but as there is no enforcement mechanism, the USA can just ignore it until the bulk of its allies make a big enough fuss about implementing it.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by DogsDogsDogs

 

In the OP I said that the exploitative and abusive treatment of undocumented migrants in the US is a violation of their human rights.

"Exploitive" treatment? You sneek into a country illegally, then illegally get a job (The company who gave them the job is just as guilty), then can`t figure out, that if you weren`t here in the first place, there would be no exploitation of said person. Real hard to figure that one out, isn`t it Smedley? "Abusive" treatment? You enter a country illegally, without the correct documentation, without going through the correct entry process, then cry foul because you can`t understand why people are POed at you? Hey Smedley, try using common sense for a change, how about it? Yep, they keep breaking Federal immigration laws, yet people like you keep crying "abuse and exploitation". Which is worse? Those who continue to break those laws, or those thinking it`s ok that they do break those laws? I think they are equally to blame.

In the second post, I said that the best and most likely solution to this problem will not be additional amnesties (which really only patch the problem temporarily) but the extension of a world citizenship to any person who requests it. With a world citizenship, everyone would receive equal protection under international law no matter what their nationality is. Mexican labourers could come to the US and be protected under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and yet they would not need to be extended US citizenships. They would not need to be granted access to services that are reserved for US citizens, privileges such as access to welfare programs.

And as long as the world is made up of individual countries, with their own set or rules and laws, your not going to see this. There is no need for it. Follow the laws, and you will have no problems. Break the laws, and suffer the fate as anyone would.

In parallel to the welfare systems of the USA and other countries, a global welfare regime would need to be established (you may remember that there have been rumours of this coming from the Obama White House, the planning is well underway). The WHO could operate or else subsidize hospitals in the USA, so that migrant workers not entitled to use America's welfare system will not become a health risk or a financial burden.

Again, if your not in the country illegally, then there would be no need for such things. Oh and by the way, where would said money come from to fund such a place? Another burden for the tax payers? Or is your favorite U.N. going to fund it? You better pray it`s not the tax payers that get stuck with it, just as they do with all the other pork this spend happy government keeps throwing on the pile.

I know that many people will immediately complain that the UN and its programs are heavily funded by the USA, but I think that this is a very shortsighted complaint. I expect that a sort of national income tax will be imposed; the nations of the world will be obliged to pay dues into the system proportionate to their gross national product.

I don`t know who`s worse, the U.N. itself, or those of little thought who want to push the U.N.`s agendas down everyones throat. Nothing like putting an added burden on top of the taxes now being paid, is there Smedley? Do you even give a damn? I very much doubt it. No, you have an agenda to push with little thought of how it will effect those around you even with the corruption within it, so to heck with what everyone else thinks.

In time, the USA will be dwarfed in financial power by the Third World, and those nations will begin contributing ever-higher portions of the UN's budget.

Where do you think that money came from that the third world got Smedley? It was taken out of the pockets (redistribution of wealth) of the hard working tax paying citizens of the world. Yep, no agenda here, so don`t look, and please move on people.

It is not treason because the President only made a report on the law to the UN, and he is not obliged to follow their advice regarding it.

And he made a report for what reason and gave it to the U.N.? Couldn`t handle it himself maybe, or to maybe make himself look good in their eyes? If you use a little logic, he would be just as guilty as anyone in this case, for allowing the flow of illegals to continue. No illegals, no problems. Oh, by the way? Where is the Mexican government in all of this garbage?

P.S. Of course genocide et cetera is a violation of human rights. It would have been nice if Obama had brought Bush and Cheney before a war crimes tribunal. However, he did not. He did bring Arizona's border laws before the UN, and that is why this thread has taken the shape that it has. I argue that the UN will conclude that a state has a right to secure borders, but that even illegal immigrants have basic human rights that must be protected.

If so, then the Mexican government is just as much to blame in this. For an instance, why are the people leaving that country in droves? Could it be, because of the corrupt government there? How about the human rights they violate? Or is that ok because it`s not the U.S.? Go to Mexico Smedley, and pick on that government for violations.

It's a popular issue on college campuses in my country, to say that "nobody is illegal." I expect that the UN will agree with this sentiment and that this will begin the lengthy process of turning the entire world into a "Schengen-Area."

Yep, just like it`s ok to break the immigration laws of other countries, right? What do you think laws are for Smedley? It`s to keep things like this from happening. Or is all of this ok in your book? They break the immigration laws, then people like you complain that the illegals are treat with disrespect. They disrespect the laws, so in turn are shown no respect. Hard to figure that one out, isn`t it Smedley?

It will take many years before any of this work is completed, and it is possible that all of the most virulent opponents of globalization will be dead by then. Rejoice!

Yep, to hell with those sovereign people from those sovereign countries. Right Smedley?

edit: Technically, the UN decision IS binding, but as there is no enforcement mechanism, the USA can just ignore it until the bulk of its allies make a big enough fuss about implementing it.

Only in the eyes of the U.N. is it binding. Yes, when their allies cry, whine and throw a temper tantrum, the U.S. is suppose to buckle under because of it, right? Even with the corruption within the U.N., others still want that agenda pushed onto the people of the world. What a sick twisted lot it takes to do that.

Again Smedley, when you have proof that the corruption is out of the U.N., then come back and talk to the citizens of the U.S. about your agenda, ok? Until then, you know where it can be put.


Smedley, what part of this don`t you understand? Each countries government has corruption within it for the people of that country to contend with, why on Gods green Earth, would they want to contend with corruption on a global government scale? You either don`t have a clue, or you don`t give a fat rats flying backside how everyone else feels about this subject, as long as you see your agenda work even if it hurts others or not. Which is it, really?

reply to post by FiatLux

And as long as the world is made up of individual countries, with their own set or rules and laws, your not going to see this. There is no need for it. Follow the laws, and you will have no problems. Break the laws, and suffer the fate as anyone would.

A constitutionalist should say to you:

Would you impose the secular order of states on the sovereign people of the world? All men are created equal, how dare you deny them their god-given rights! Do they not have the right to bear arms and form orderly militias? For, does not every generation have the right, the duty to water the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution? You would rather the law be followed than the god-given rights of man be honoured?

As my OP clearly says, there is nobody for migrant workers to cry to about their poor living conditions. They are here illegally and they cannot have their human rights honoured because they would be deported and face starvation. But, I suppose you are right, and they should be denied their god-given rights if the law and the state say that they are illegal persons.

A tax levied on states is not the same as a tax levied on individuals. As little as a 1% income tax on the states of the world could provide emergency medical care for the uninsured persons of the world. Such a small tax would not be felt at the individual level.

The third world created their money the same way the first world did, by printing bank notes with values based on the strength and productivity of their economies.

Obama took the report to the council because the USA is up for review on November 5th.

On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon . . . Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance.

I'm not picking on America. I didn't make the scheduled report to the UN. France, Japan and Cameroon are "picking" on Arizona.

When America's allies demand it go along with the world, America always begrudgingly agrees. Study your history.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux

 

A constitutionalist should say to you:

No, don`t even think of going there sonny, because your the furthest thing from a constitutionalist there is. A consitutionalist wouldn`t stand for having any corrupt government, you know, even like the U.N.? So try spitting in the wind some other place to see where it lands.

Would you impose the secular order of states on the sovereign people of the world? All men are created equal, how dare you deny them their god-given rights! Do they not have the right to bear arms and form orderly militias? For, does not every generation have the right, the duty to water the tree of liberty with the blood of revolution? You would rather the law be followed than the god-given rights of man be honoured?

Lol, what rhetoric. God given rights? You mean the right to take jobs away from from the legal citizens of the U.S.? You mean to be able to live on U.S. dollars without paying taxes? You mean to be able to get free health care without paying as everyone else has to? You know where you can file that rhetoric don`t you? Would you impose taking away our free will to live in a sovereign country? If so, you violate more than our human rights, you violate the God given gift of free will.

As my OP clearly says, there is nobody for migrant workers to cry to about their poor living conditions. They are here illegally and they cannot have their human rights honoured because they would be deported and face starvation. But, I suppose you are right, and they should be denied their god-given rights if the law and the state say that they are illegal persons.

I`ll tell you again Smedley so you can give your finger pointing a break, ok? I hate to see that finger get so tired. Try your rhetoric on the Mexican government, you know Mexico, that place where most of the illegals are from? You are so worried that they are being abused and mistreated by the U.S. citizens, yet you forget that the country they are coming from forced them into this. But oh no, it`s all the U.S. citizens fault, right? What do think immigration laws are for? No, they are not there just to make people like you upset and cry HUMAN RIGHTS. When illegals flood into a country where the job market is dropping like a rock, what do you think happens to the rest of the legal citizens?

I`m at the point where I believe you don`t even give a flying crap. You just want your world government, corruption and all no matter the cost to or the burden on everyone else.

A tax levied on states is not the same as a tax levied on individuals. As little as a 1% income tax on the states of the world could provide emergency medical care for the uninsured persons of the world. Such a small tax would not be felt at the individual level.

And just who is going to levy such a tax? Your one and only U.N.? That`s a joke. By the way, where do you think those states would get that money? Oh, that`s right, from the working people. Redistribute the wealth from the pockets of the working people, and give it to those who want something for nothing, or won`t stand up to their own countries government for their rights.

The third world created their money the same way the first world did, by printing bank notes with values based on the strength and productivity of their economies.

So then what is the need for all the illegals coming to the U.S.? The U.S. is beginning to look like a third world nation with the way the job market is, and the unemployment rates are going up. And the dollar is about as good as toilet paper. So why burden the U.S. with more unemployed people to help drag it down even faster? Oh, that`s right, because you want a world government, so to heck with the citizens.

Obama took the report to the council because the USA is up for review on November 5th.
On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon . . . Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance.

Yep, that says it all. They are nothing but bureaucrats is all, and nothing more, from the top down. Throw some corruption in the mix, and it makes it even worse.

I'm not picking on America. I didn't make the scheduled report to the UN. France, Japan and Cameroon are "picking" on Arizona.

Oh no, not you Smedley. You wouldn`t do such a thing. And all your rhetorics been about what now?

When America's allies demand it go along with the world, America always begrudgingly agrees. Study your history.

Do you know what I say to that? File your corrupt world government in that special place next to the rhetoric your trying to spread.

reply to post by FiatLux


According to your definition, a constitutionalist shouldn't stand for America. All governments in America have been corrupt from the beginning, like every other government in the world. A constitutionalist would not stand for any government, not even the one defined by the constitution.

You are right, if Mexico isn't respecting human rights then America shouldn't either.

Most tax dollars come from the pockets of the wealthy, not the working class.

You don't understand the first thing about credit, or you would know that the US dollar is still extremely valuable and powerful.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux

 

According to your definition, a constitutionalist shouldn't stand for America.

By all means quote me where I say that, oh bright one.

All governments in America have been corrupt from the beginning, like every other government in the world. A constitutionalist would not stand for any government, not even the one defined by the constitution.

So the government that came up with the Constitution was corrupt? How about some valid proof on that?

Your getting to be a joke anymore, one that`s getting a little more lame with each thread.

You are right, if Mexico isn't respecting human rights then America shouldn't either

I see, it`s ok to over look what Mexico is doing, in favor of slamming the U.S.? Not picking on America? You just want to keep picking a fight, don`t you? Your status in the art of rhetoric is pretty well set in concrete.


By the way, did you pull that one out of the One World Government book "Responces To Those Who Don`t Agree With The O.W.G.."? Try being at least a little more clever in your rhetoric to me, ok? Sounds like something a little child would say.

Most tax dollars come from the pockets of the wealthy, not the working class.

I see, like the working class doesn`t pay enough taxes? Gee Mr. Know It All, the last time I knew, the working class DOES pay PLENTY of taxes, and just because they don`t have the amount of money that the rich does, are they each suppose to pay as much as the rich, dollar for dollar? And because they don`t pay as much in taxes as the rich, is that suppose to mean something?

I see now, it`s about the tax levy you want put on the countries. Just like those working class people can afford to be taxed even more. That`s right Smedley, take more away from them, so the middle income can now be low income, and the low income can become the poor. Yeaaaahhhh, great thinking on your part and the O.W.G. I believe the working class is having enough trouble making ends meet, let alone now someone wants to take even more from them. You sure are a piece of work Smedley.

You don't understand the first thing about credit,

First off, you don`t know jack about me, second, try using logic while your trying your best to think up things to throw back at me, and third, Earth to Smedley, do you read me?

or you would know that the US dollar is still extremely valuable and powerful.

Compaired to what, a roll of toilet paper? Yep, worth as much as a roll, and doesn`t tear when you use them, just takes a few more to do what toilet paper does best. You think and sound just like an elitist Smedley. Sounds like someone who has been schooled by them. If not schooled, brainwashed maybe.

reply to post by FiatLux


I don't need to give proof that Washington's government was corrupt. I thought you agreed that every government has corruption in it? Here's some reading material for you, though.

So, you think that if Mexico isn't being punished for breaking the law, then America shouldn't be punished for breaking the law either, is that correct?

And because they don`t pay as much in taxes as the rich, is that suppose to mean something?

Yes, it means that the wealthy will pay the vast majority of any global-level taxes.

If the US dollar were worthless, then it wouldn't be the basis of world trade anymore. It is still the basis of world trade, ergo it is worth more than its competitors the ruble, yen, pound and euro.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by FiatLux

 

I don't need to give proof that Washington's government was corrupt. I thought you agreed that every government has corruption in it? Here's some reading material for you, though.

Using what a self proclaimed socialist wrote will get you no where. And you using that, doesn`t surprise me in the least. There are a lot of books on the market written by socialists, and much of it is written to make their cause look good, when it`s more BS than anything. Did I say that Washingtons government was corrupt? Was I talking about the government of over two hundred years ago, or was I talking about the governments in the world today? I`ll make this as simple as I can for you, because I do know how you like to twist things around, and this way you won`t be able to. I--was--talking--about--the--governments--of--today--Smedley. Now read that one word at a time so it won`t confuse you, and you can keep it straight then.

So, you think that if Mexico isn't being punished for breaking the law, then America shouldn't be punished for breaking the law either, is that correct?

And you like to twist things around, to make yourself look good, don`t you? Is that statement you just made, a quote of what I said? Don`t bet your life on it Smedley, that would be a loss you can`t handle. I`ll ask one more time for a quote from you where I said that, and this time, either put up, or back off. I`ll make my point one more time, and try, mind you, not to get it twisted around as normal. The point is, you seem to over look Mexicos human rights violations, and how it has forced many of it`s own citizens to flee to the U.S. illegally, in favor of knocking the U.S. citizens for standing up against this flood of people coming here during an economic downfall, a fast rising unemployment rate, and when the dollar is at one of it`s lowest values in history. More or less, you seem to like taking jabs at the working class in the U.S., and think that people should just set back and take your rhetoric ridden guff. Take your double standard rhetoric, and your O.W.G., and put them both in that special place where the sun never shines. Now, did I make that clear enough?

Yes, it means that the wealthy will pay the vast majority of any global-level taxes.

And of course, no regard for the everyday working class, middle and low income is there? Do you care one bit if they can afford to have more taxes taken from them? From what I`ve read so far.........no. Just as long as their money is taken away, and given to those who your O.W.G. thinks should have it. Nothing socialistic about that, is there? It`s like you think that the middle and low income people won`t get taxed for it. Think again Mr. Bright One.

If the US dollar were worthless, then it wouldn't be the basis of world trade anymore. It is still the basis of world trade, ergo it is worth more than its competitors the ruble, yen, pound and euro.

It shouldn`t be the basis for it, in the state that it`s in. It`s worthless, and you know it. The elite have way to much control over it. The elite are doing everything in their power to keep the house of cards standing, with no regard as to what will happen to everyone else when it does fall. They themselves know it`s worthless, and they are going to make sure, when it does go down, there won`t be a worthless dollar left in anyones pocket. Take the dollar down, as you take it all away from the common people, to make sure they hurt when it`s all over. Not till they have their grubby mitts on all of it, will they be happy. But, it`s not the money we should worry about, it`s who has most the gold is at this time or is in control of it, but that is for another thread.

reply to post by FiatLux


Now I understand:

~Once upon a time there was convened the finest congress on all the continent. Inspired by God, these great men composed three sacred documents; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. These three treatises contain all of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. O! If only the fallen world of today could be saved! But alas, salvation lies only with the word of our Founding Fathers, which is dragged through the mud by sinful men! But do not worry; the Lord will send a miracle to restore the sacred Constitution.~

I am fine with the working classes being given big tax breaks and making the wealthy pick up the slack. The wealthy won't even face a significant increase in their own tax rate.

The dollar is still valuable as a way of measuring the value of goods and services being exchanged. You should know that the elites monitor as many social statistics as they can think of. They want to be able to put a price tag on everything. That's why the dollar is valuable, although it is more valuable as information stored on a computer than it is as money. Money is hard to transfer, but data can be exchanged instantly, anywhere in the world.