> 4,000  US Troops dead
> 30,000 wounded
> 30% develop serious mental health problems
> $ 1 trillion spent
> 600,000 Iraqi civilians killed
> 2 milliom Iraqi displaced inside Iraq
> 2 million Itaqi Refugees in Syria and Jordan
> 40% professiohnals left Iraq

Why did we do it? For Iraqis? They didn’t want us there.
> 80% Iraqis “strongly opposed to presence of coalition troops”

Why are we still there, then? To achieve victory.
How do we define a victory in Iraq? This is a question to Bush, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Really, Cean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and the majority of American people, who at one point or another supported the start or continuation of this war.

Our current President, similarly to the previous President, defines it like this:

“Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” ”The drawdown is scheduled to be completed by August 2010, decreasing troops levels from 142,000 while leaving a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011. The plan is to transition the mission of the remaining troops from combat operations to counter-terrorism and the training, equipping, and advising of Iraqi security forces.”

And this:

“I want Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future, and to reach the political accommodation necessary for long-term stability. That’s victory.“

So, we are still there because we have to train them until they take full responsibility. Ok. How’s the training going?

According to the following quote from wikipedia, Iraqi police was bad before the war, now it is good. Now it works for the people.

“During the Saddam Hussein regime, the Iraqi police was used as an instrument to terrorize, intimidate and incite fear into the populace, using torture, threat and murder. Today, the new Iraqi police force is tasked with protecting people from such acts. The police course curriculum includes democratic policing, human rights, first aid, police ethics, leadership and communications.”

Did you get it? “…  human rights, first aid, police ethics, leadership and communications.”  Reminds me of a huge difference between Tzar pollice and Soviet militia.

The total personnel, from the same source – “Currently there are over 340,000 Iraqi police.”  Plus there is the National Police, Border enforcement, Facilities Protection Service, 14 divisions of Iraqi Army, each division consisting of 4 brigades, Air Force, Navy.

The Iraqi Army, or as it is called sometimes now, the New Iraqi Army, is well-equipped by ten’s of billions of US dollars:

“Iraq became one of the top current purchasers of U.S. military equipment with their army trading its ”AK-47″ assault rifles for the U.S. M-16 and M-4 rifles, among other equipment. This year alone, Iraq accounts for more than $12.5 billion of the $34 billion US weapon sales to foreign countries (not including the potential F-16 fighter planes.)

That’s as far as training go. What about responsibility? Do the Iraqis take responsibility for their own future?

Well, it looks like they do.

According to YahooNews:

“Syria, Lebanon and Iraq backed Iran’s atomic programme on Saturday, which they said has “peaceful” aims.” “Hoshyar Zebari, foreign minister of former foe Iraq, said: “We reject any threat against Iran and insist on Iran’s rights to use peacefulnuclear energy.”

The main threat in the region, from Iraq’s point of view is Israel:

“Zebari said Israel must allow UN inspectors in to its nuclear facilities.”

So here’s another question to Bush, Obama, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Really, Cean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin:  Should we bring our troops home this summer as was promised by Obama or should we stay in Iraq a little longer and train their Army a little more? Are they trained enough to support Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

It is not generally accepted and it is not well understood that the income tax is the greatest threat to freedom facing Americans. It’s bad enough that the income tax is stealing – after all it is a forced removal of property from an individual. The main argument for the income tax, as far as I understand, is that it is done for the good. The cost of civilization. I am vehemently opposed to the “end justifies the means” concept, but apparently the majority of Americans are not.

The inherent problem of “the End Justify the Means” is in the question “Who decides?” Who decides what kind of end justifies the means? Who decides what are the appropriate means to achieve this end? And who decide whether the means for such end are justifiable?

If you or your government steals money from a few and give it to many, does the end justify the means? Should we make a law taking all the money from Warren Buffet and giving it to “the poor,” or “the children?” I don’t think you agree even though Buffet is all for income tax.

And another, not so apparent evil of the income tax is the fact that along with laws assaulting individual freedom by forcefully taking property from people, there come laws taking individual freedoms from people receiving government handouts of pieces of such properties. Yes, people who benefit from income tax pay the price of getting in bed with the government by their freedoms. The current Obama-Wright Fight of the Titans offers one illustration for this point.

But first, in order to give some background, let’s put some light on the IRS shadow behind our election process. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Bill of Rights puts the freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the same amendment, emphasizing inseparable nature of civil liberties. The IRS finds a way to separate them. This is what the IRS said:

However, for their organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official organization functions, including official church publications and functions.

A charitable organization may invite a political candidate to speak in his or her individual
(non-candidate) capacity if the organization takes steps to ensure that:
• The candidate speaks only in a non-candidate capacity,
• Neither the candidate nor any representative of the organization makes any
mention of the election or candidacy of the individual, and
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance.

The IRS threatens:

If the IRS finds a section 501(c)(3) organization engaged in prohibited campaign
activity, the organization could lose its tax-exempt status and it could be subject to an
excise tax on the amount of money spent on that activity.
In cases of flagrant violation of the law, the IRS has specific statutory authority to make
an immediate determination and assessment of tax. Also, the IRS can ask a federal
district court to enjoin the organization from making further political expenditures.
In addition, contributions to organizations that lose their section 501(c)(3) status
because of political activities are not deductible by the donors for federal income tax
purposes.

Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright stood behind Obama, exercising his freedom of speech. He believed in certain “12 percepts and covenantal statements” of Black Ethics. The 11th of such percepts states:

11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System

Apparently Obama espoused and embraces the Black Value System, and that is why Wright risked everything he had and built by openly promoting Obama over Hillary:

“Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people,” “Hillary can never know that.”

Wright was probably instrumental in helping Obama give a speech to 10,000 people at a church conference in June ’07 in Hartford, Connecticut, in which Obama mentioned his candidacy and part of his platform. According to the Wall Street Journal,

“Trinity’s national parent, the United Church of Christ, recently disclosed that it’s being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service for this speech.”

Imagine the drama of Wright, who, because of the income tax laws, might have sacrified his church for his freedom of speech. Imagine the drama of Obama, almost the president of the United States, who is not able to defend his pastor against the IRS for speaking and allowing Obama to speak not on terms preapproved by the IRS. And imagine the drama of the American people whose election may be affected by the IRS deciding who should be talking about what and how.

I fully sympathize with Obama problem, Wright problem, and the American voter problem.

But my greatest sympathy is with the American taxpayer whose money was forcefully removed to subsidize all this drama.

It’s pretty serious. I’ll tell you what my sources are – please let me know if I am making a mistake in my numbers.

The first quote is from Harry Browne, who referred to the U.S. Census Bureau:

“Today federal, state, and local taxes consume 47% of the national income. “

In fact, it is a very conservative estimate because it is based on the year 1995, after which the government publications stopped publishing this series. I suspect the percent of the government intake did not become smaller after the nineties.

Another reference is from another Brown, Gordon Brown:

“Net debt is now … 47% in America,…”

Where do I go wrong?.

You can listen online by clicking here just before 5:30pm.

http://www.warpradio.com/player/stream.asp?id=1675

Two remarkable events happened during this presidential cycle that went underreported by big media but produced huge splashes on the internet. The first was the song sung by John McCain answering a question about the Middle East. The other was the whisper, probably coming from a hidden wire worn by Romney during a debate.

Yesterday, the Song “Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” was officially endorsed by the Whisper “He raised taxes, I am not gonna.”

“This is a man capable of leading our country at a dangerous hour,” said Mitt the Whisper about John the Song. “Senator McCain understands the war we are in, the necessity of victory, and the consequences of surrender.”

I am not going to argue that we are not in a war, but in an occupation; not in a military but in a police action; that we have already killed so many people, destroyed so many buildings, and killed or otherwise replaced so many government officials of Iraq that it would satisfy the definition of victory for any of the bloodthirsty tyrants from across the entire world military history. These are not my points.

At the last debate, Ron Paul actually told Romney and McCain that there is no difference between them, and that they have no money to continue the war anyway.

Money? During the debates, Ron Paul was essentially making the argument that the income tax brings in about one trillion dollars, which is about the amount we waste in maintaining our empire not only in Iraq, but also in Korea, Japan, and dozens of other countries, so by pulling out we could easily abolish the income tax.

The Republican candidates still talk about smaller government and smaller taxes. Their stance is similar to the Democrats’ stance on the war: they talk about stopping it, somehow, but they do nothing. The Democrats’ stance on the income tax is also similar to the Republicans’ stance on the occupation: increase it.

Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee talked about actually abolishing the IRS. Paul has his record to back it up, though Huckabee does not, but at least he talks about it. The rest of the Republican Party just uses slogans to hypnotize the masses: “smaller government, less taxes” like the mantra “four legs good, two legs bad” from Animal Farm. I doubt that anybody seriously believes that any remaining presidential candidate will do anything to abolish income tax or to even reduce taxes.

The term “tax cut” itself has even been accepted in our society to mean a government action which results in some people getting their taxes reduced. Hello Maymin’s lemma: After any zero-sum redistribution, some people will end up with more money than they had at the beginning. In other words, the redistribution, the opposite of the tax cut, is nowadays called a tax cut.

I know, I know, nobody thinks that the income tax is that bad. Fifty percent of wage earners don’t pay any income tax. And the rest of the voters who are not wage earners don’t pay income tax by definition, so income tax payers are an insignificant minority. The greedy, the wealthy. Who cares about them or about the income tax?

I wrote a novel exploring how much the government can tax before the people object. You can read the book free online here.

You think I am overreacting? Just remember: when whispers join songs, they are soon followed by war marches, patriotic chants, and funeral hymns.

Editor’s note. I read and reviewed the book, here. rob kall

DIEBOLD MISCOUNTS REPORTED ACROSS MANY CANDIDATES, WARDS, IN FIRST DAY OF ELECTION CONTEST HAND COUNTS

ACLU Sues Law Enforcement for Shielding President Bush From Protestors

Murdoch of Fox News admits manipulating the news for agenda, supporting wars, Bush policies

US prepares to sell $20 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia

Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 

US Navy misled America about boats’ incident in Iran, Ron Paul is the only candidate who did not believe it, 

Haliburton Gang Rape Victim Funds No Justice 

A Hollywood star goes on trial for refusing to pay taxes on $38 million because nobody  is “actually required to pay taxes.” 

US government plans to read all information on Internet 

FBI wants international database on iris, palm, fingerprints, DNA, and vehicle registration numbers 

Serious people in suits told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons are not allowed to talk about the way they were tortured because

those interrogation methods are now among the nation’s most sensitive national security secrets and that their release — even to the detainees’ own attorneys — “could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage.”

See the entire article from Washington Post here.

Can you find a better reason to vote for Ron Paul than that?